Posted on May 2 at 12:24 a.m.Suggest removal

I saw people out on the North Oval waving flags and cheering. I drove by with a flag honking more horn in celebration!

On

Posted on April 11 at 11:23 a.m.Suggest removal

Sean,

Thank you for getting my name right in your column. I would like to start out by saying that in my article the issue that I brought up was your committee's unprofessional behavior, not my funding or why my funding was being denied. I brought it to the paper because I doubted that it would be taken care of, and I felt like other RSOs should know about this and say something should it happen to them during one of your meetings. Since you brought it up, I was not informed about your decision being based on the improper paperwork until 2 days after our meeting and after I sent you an email, which also went to my UOSA reps. After that email I did in fact send you a reply at 12:32 PM on 5 April that went unanswered and has to this day rotted in my 'sent' box. I also contacted Brett Stidham and have not heard back from him either.

My article was not meant as a personal attack on you. I do not know you, so I can not make judgments about you. My article was written to point out the flaws that I saw with this process. My funding is a separate issue. As I have said both on this site as well as in my emails, had we been told that the paperwork was the issue, I would have kicked myself and walked back to try another day. However that was not what we were told and that is why I am bringing this up.

If you so choose, please respond to my email when you get the chance.

On

Posted on April 7 at 7:27 p.m.Suggest removal

Jsnodg,

I would like to clarify something for you. There is no state or federal law that forbids the purchase of ammunition using state funds. Period. If you can find one then you truly are a better man than I am. The code that you are referring to also does not apply in this instance because we are not trying to bring any kind of weapons or ammunition on campus. We have publicly stated that we do not want to change any laws or policies regarding firearms on campus. We are a social organization. What we were trying to get was funding to purchase ammunition and rent guns at a range off campus, owned by an NRA Certified instructor and who holds a Federal Firearms Licence, and to use said ammunition and rented handguns at that range during club sanctioned events.

As far as the fact that we are a new organization, I fail to see how this has any bearing on this argument. The purpose of this column is to show how UOSA is underfunding groups just like yours. Quite frankly I think that your reaction to this reflects poorly on yourself and by association your Club. I respect your right to exist and I would appreciate the same courtesy from you. Threatening me when I have not done anything wrong and using derogatory language directed at me is uncalled for. We are an RSO with sponsors not affiliated with OU, and have gained support from organizations and departments within the University. If you would like to discuss this matter further with me, please visit my Facebook page and look up my email address. I would be more than happy to speak with you in private, or if you prefer you can continue this rant in public and show everyone that not only do you not respect me as an individual, but you do not recognize my clubs right to exist and will stoop to name calling and empty threats as an attempt to somehow make me doubt my beliefs.

facebook.com/ousfa

On

Posted on April 7 at 11:47 a.m.Suggest removal

ConcernedReader,

We are a registered student organization on campus, and as such we are entitled to funding just like any other RSO. If you would like, I welcome you to come to our next event. We are much more then a group of people that enjoy shooting. We focus on safety, training for the proper and safe use of firearms, and enjoying the shooting sports.

Having said that, the issue I wanted to bring up is the lack of professionalism displayed by this committee. We were lied to, then given excuses, we were ignored during our meeting by several members of the committee, and we were unable to get answers. Having had our proposal and knowing when our meeting is, the budget committee failed to do any research on the subject and simply came up with vague reasons to deny our funding. I find it hard to believe that this is the first time this has happened and wanted to bring it to everybody's attention.

On

Posted on March 24 at 9:55 a.m.Suggest removal

Here is the Facebook for more info:

facebook.com/ousfa

On

Posted on March 24 at 9:47 a.m.Suggest removal

Actually, The range we are shooting at will be providing firearms to rent provided the students buy ammo for it.

On

Posted on February 21 at 12:11 a.m.Suggest removal

Ah, the old 'What if they pull their gun on someone cause they get mad!' argument. Let me ask you something, how many times have you run over someone in your car when they made you mad? Most rational people dont do this because they know the consequences and have been taught not to do so. Why would someone who has had training with a firearm and have passed background checks and tests allowing them to carry act any differently? Statistically people who carry are more prone to help diffuse a situation or avoid it entirely than to shoot someone who makes them mad. I honestly have never been able to understand why having a CHL would make anyone more violent, if anything they do not want to cause a problem because the penalties are much more severe.

Also, having a handgun does not obligate you to use it. It gives you the choice to defend yourself if no one else can. Most people who carry never have to use their weapon, but they have been trained to if necessary. In the case of the recent Arizona shooting, a CHL holder tackled the gunman, not shot him. This kind of action shows that just like with police, the use of deadly force is a last resort, not the go to action.

Yes, police have more training and are able to read situations better, but like I said a misunderstanding on the south Oval isnt going to turn into a gun battle if we allow Concealed Carry. I can guarantee that if you have walked through almost any town in Oklahoma you have walked by a person carrying a concealed handgun, I certainly do where the law allows me to. How many gun battles have you seen as a result? How many people have shot anyone who was being rude while legally carrying a concealed weapon? See what I'm getting at?

As far as people shooting up the campus just because they have a weapon...really? Do you think allowing people to carry is going to mean that bloodthirsty gunmen are now legally allowed to shoot people? No! 'Gun free zones' have never stopped anyone from shooting them up before. Thats why they are criminals, meanwhile I leave my gun at my house where I am legally allowed to store it. Allowing legally purchased firearms to be carried by license holders is no more likely to cause a shooting then allowing people to legally carry a lighter in a building is going to cause people to light them on fire just for the hell of it. Of any argument against this so far I would have to say this is the most ridiculous one yet. If someone is going to shoot up a school they arent going to wait until they are legally allowed to carry a firearms on campus to do it.

On

Posted on April 27 at 9:46 p.m.Suggest removal

I have to agree with Mustafa on this one. I talked to a couple of the people at this 'memorial' and they seemed more interested in telling me how meaningless these lost lives were than showing that they died fighting for a cause they believed in. I have a lot of family in the military, and I happen to know one of the soldier's whose name is one those boots, as well as several that aren't. The men who are being represented by those boots would be ashamed to know that their deaths are being used in propaganda against the cause they died fighting for. Whether you agree with the war or not I think the most important thing to remember is to honor these brave Americans, not use them when they no longer have a voice

On

Posted on April 20 at 10:15 p.m.Suggest removal

Once again the daily must fill its pages with poorly written and poorly researched bias writing. Guess what, cars scare me when they run the red lights on Campus. Are those illegal? Hell, the cops dont even seem like they make an effort to crack down on it either. You cant label something as bad because you are scared of it. I mean, what are we 7? Oh, that dog scares me, it must be bad!

Also, why does the daily once again believe that allowing concealed carry on campus will result in mass hysteria and random killings because of mistaken identity? When was the last time you heard the headline "Dozens killed in downtown after citizens mistake each other for criminals" ? As I recall this was the logic the last time we had a debate about this after the incident in Kaufmann Hall. I mean, lets use some common sense, if it doesnt happen in the real world, why are you so certain it will happen here?

On

Posted on April 1 at 2:23 p.m.Suggest removal

How about we stop them from harassing us when we are trying to go to class? I for one would love to be able to walk down the south oval without being accosted by candidates. I walked down Asp around to Price Hall just to go to class because they are driving me crazy.

On