| OCR Text |
Show THE DAILY CHRONICLE UTAH T" T K 1 CHRONICLE'S VIEW Thelites Hake the Eecruitment Cake though ihe Unhwrsuy of football team didn't Even to the field two days ago, the Ute? won a major battle fiver rivals Brigham Young University and Uiah State University. On National letter of tnten Pay, the Utes inked several key h?gn school recruits, and also wme blue chips from Oregon, proving that the program is continuing to head iii e light dirsctioa. The Cougars heavily recruited the best prospects, fiom Utah which include linemen Steve Dabi of Skyline High School aad Paul Fisher of Dixie High School, and defensive back Bo Naahi of Skyline. But, for some reason, BYU isn't winning the recruiting baitf they dominated for so lone. One of those reason is Utah's domination over the BYU the past seven years. The Utes have beat the Cougars five of those seven, ard would have won another had Utah had a decent fieid-gokicker on its squad. Utah head coach Ran McBride has likely been reminding his recruits of this, and they appear to ' : ; te listening The other thing thar is ama?ing about this year's crop of recruits is Utah's ability to steal the two best in-sta- te m-sta- tjs al - players from Oregon quarter-bac- k Brett Elliott and Tommy Hacken-bruef- -r- -r.f C Csv ilJCP 1 c. Elliott, who wtnt tc Oswego Lake High School (the same of former Ute quarterback Jonathon Crofswhite), was the 1999 Oregon Gatantde Player of the Year. Hdckenbrtjck, from Mountain View High School of Bend, Ore., was the 1999 Oregon State Offensive Player of The Year. Uiah stole thee two offensive stefs right nJt fiom underneath the noses ol ihz PAC-:- o schools including the University of Oregon and Oregon State University. Utah's success in Oregon isn't oniy good for the unive rsity, the fans and the team, but it bodes well for the Mountain West Conference. If the MWC is going to grow into the best conference in tbr Wast, which is the hope of the conference's member schools and its commissioner, the MWC schools must pilfer players such as Elliott and Hackenbruck. Congratulations to Ron McBride and the rest of the Utah recruiting team. AU indicators point to a program th.it is on the upswing and seems to bz getting better every month even when the team doesn't take the field. - 0 LETTER TO THE EDITOR Lapdance Equals Bad Taste Editor: In the past, have always been proud that a portion of d student fees went to support a forum rny for students' voices, but as I read The Daily Utah Chronicle on Thursday, Feb. 3, I felt like asking for I hard-earne- .... - Unsigned editorials reflect the majority opinion of Te Daily Utah Chronide Editorial Board. Editorial columns and letters to the editor are strictly the opinions of the author. 1 he forum created on the Opinion Page is one based on vigor- ous debate, while at the same time demanding tolerance and respect. Material defamatory to an individual or group because of race, ethnic background, gender, appearance or sexual orientation will be edited or will not be published. Red magazine is a Thursday supplementary publication of The Chronicle dealing with art, culture and events, and while Lapdance 2000 may be an event, it certainly has nothing to do with art or culture. As" far as I can gather, this festival is simply an excuse for people to get drunk and see some pornography. I find it offensive that two whole pages of my student newspaper were dedicated to covering this story, "Red Visits Lapdance 2000," and not only that, but a large portion of the pages consisted of blurry photos. I would rather not know what these photos depicted. As I attempted to read the article in search of some redeeming quality (I say attempted because the entire piece was nearly impossible to decipher the print was completely misaligned), I became more and more disappointed. Matt Thurber, the writer, was disappointed in the festival because the films were far beneath the quality of last year's films, and those in charge of the festival talked about advancements in the industry rather than what? What would he have rather heard about? Wait, don't tell me, I really don't want to hear what he was see RED, page 6 Firearm Restriction Means Safer Society However, these opponents were presumably not solely fighting for their right to carry a concealed weapon at the U, but for their right to own a firearm at all in the future. The legacy of all discourse in this country has done nothing to truly change policy because any attempted action has been ASHLEY WAT KIN'S Chronicle gun-contr- Opinion Columnist redictably, the initiative to ban concealed 'weapons in all public schools and churches, favored by several community groups and the Associated Students of the University of Utah (especially President Ben McAdams) last semester, met its adversaries and failed. The usual opposing arguments of gun control surfaced and quickly silenced the few intelligent arguments supporting the ban; and before we knew it, the controversy was over. I find the lack of intelligent discourse about an issue so pertinent to our society as a whole to be troubling in a university community. For that very reason, I would like to address this issue further. Just who were these powerful adversaries? I suspect they were primarily comprised of fear, fanatical Libcrfarianism and lack of social consciousness. Those who claimed the ban would have done nothing to combat crime and would have only infringed upon the rights of students were clearly missing the point. This ban probably wouldn't have made a miraculous change in the everyday lives of University of Utah students. Why? Because most of us don't believe it is necessary to carry a weapon to class. . CHRONICLE ol crushed by its opponents. Gun lobbyists have always been adamantly against any serious gun control because if the government were to start placing significant restrictions on guns, there is no telling how far it would go. While this local initiative wasn't intended to be a magical elixir to cure all gun problems in the community, it would have been one step closer to a society free of gun violence, and this obviously frightened gun lovers. There are two elements to consider when discussing gun control: the question of constitutional justification and the actual philosophical basis behind private gun ownership. Generally, most arguments tend to get hung up on the Constitution, as there is no logical philosophy to bolster the right to bear arms. Furthermore, the inherent flaws in taking a dogmatic, rather than pragmatic, approach to the Constitution sre many. What was the actual intention of the Second Amendment? The words read, "a militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," By abusing this curious syntax, modern analysts persistently misread the amendment, imposing assumptions on well-regulat- ed twenty-first-centur- y OPINION EDITOR an eighteenth-centur- y text. citizens of the United States, we have always been taught that this amendment clearly advocates the right of private citizens to own guns, and perhaps that was the reason for the lack of discussion at the U, but that may not have been its true meaning. In a broad, formalist, Libertarian way, one might assume that the modern implication of the "right to bear arms" is that, as American n citizens, we all have the right to As God-give- own guns. However, the true intention has less Fanatical Interpretations of the Second Amendment make no sense In a modern setting. to do with personal weaponry and more to do with a citizenry trained with military skills, such as the National Guard. Private citizens who choose to own guns are not 0 militia. Unfortunately, this abuse of ambiguous language by Libertarians dominates modern discourse and continues to hinder any progress in the realm of gun control. Even if we were to assume that the framers of the Constitution did aim to protect the right to private gun ownership at the founding, the legal and social structure on which the Second Amendment was built no longer exists. In 1787, single-fir- e muskets were the avail KATHRYN COWLES well-regulat- ed LETTERSCHRONICLE.UTAH.EDU able weapon, and virtually all male citizens were trained in the use of firearms. This was necessary in the midst of revolution, Lexington and Concord, and Bunker Hill, but it is clearly not necessary today. Fanatical interpretations of the Second Amendment make no sense in a modern setting. There is absolutely no need for an armed populace in a society with professional military and police forces. Citizens of the U.S. no longer need to resist British tyranny, and any claim that we need guns to resist our own tyrannical federal government can be considered delusional conspiracy theory, and should not be used in policy making. Nevertheless, the U.S. maintains its reputation as the "gun culture," because of its danlaws. The U.S. has gerously lax more guns than people because of this formalist approach to the Constitution, and firearm violence continues to dwarf the rates of other countries. The rest of the world has virtually rid itself of privately-owne- d lethal weapons, and stare in disbelief as the y world's only superpower continues to treasure the private arsenal that will ultimately lead to its downfall. Without relying on our forefathers, there is no logical argument for private gun ownership. Think critically, and you will realize that the only people who need to own guns arc the military, iaw enforcement and murderers. gun-contr- ol igno-rantl- see GUNS, page 6 581-704- 1 |
