Right of gun ownership necessary for security
There is an often purported idea that gun regulations and bans will solve gun violence in the United States, and then there will be peace. But there is a naivete in saying that stopping legal commercial selling of guns stops illegal use (“Gun ban should be future goal of US,” April 21).
Do we believe that as soon as it is illegal to own a gun there won’t be black markets that rise up to compensate? The writer of the column already said that the men involved in the Virginia Tech, Columbine and the Oakland shootings obtained their guns illegally, breaking existing gun regulations that the writer is fighting for more of. A total gun ban wouldn’t stop or even hinder them. They would’ve found a way because they are malicious and determined people. Laws are not powerful when people are set on breaking them. The truth is that regulations did a terrible job of keeping these men from getting guns.
The whole idea of, as the writer words it, “the eventual disarmament of the public” is in itself an extremely drastic and scary idea. It is in exact opposition to our founding fathers’ ideas.
The Second Amendment was set up to protect us, and it is meant to stay that way. We should have the right to be armed to defend our homes, our families and the people we love. We are not immune to the ills that have befallen other countries and people, and we shouldn’t be so naive to suppose that we are.
Dustin Martin
Second-year, electrical engineering
Students shouldn’t pay fees to support USAC vacations
The Daily Bruin recently included an article about the need to raise fees for students to help pay for the External Vice President office’s Travel Grants (“Travel Grant program needs PLEDGE funds,” April 24). While I had thought that these funds were used to help students attend conferences, lobby local, state and national officials, and work to make UCLA better, I was clearly mistaken.
As the article points out, the EVP travel grants can be used for any sort of travel such as those used by the Students First! candidate for president, Cinthia Flores. Earlier this year, she visited El Salvador to attend the announcement of the presidential election and said that she “would not have been able to travel across the world if it wasn’t for the Travel Grant.” Although I am sure her trip to El Salvador was a meaningful experience for her personally, it does not serve the needs of students in any way. It worries me that someone who claims to want to serve all students would use student fees to go on vacation for herself.
I also don’t see the need to levy a tax on all students in order to finance the vacations of our elected officials or student leaders. They already receive large stipends for their work and should not be asking all of us to pay more for their involvement in politics.
Erik Pena
First-year, political science