Equal access to some in Austin not all

As the capitol city of Texas, Austin should set the example for other cities to follow. The seat of the state government is here, laws are made and the constitution amended, it should therefore be an idea city where laws are followed. The fact is that the city is ineffective in providing enforcement of laws that give the basic rights of an individual. If you are disabled the act of trying to access buildings, park, or even go down the sidewalk is difficult.

The number of disabled is on the rise in the state as the baby boomers get older. Currently the number of people over 65 who are disabled is 47.7 % and people 18-65 are 11.9%. That is one out of two senior citizens and one out of ten of adults. With this amount of people requiring special access the city should do more to make sure they get it.

Downtown parking is a nightmare in itself imagine trying to find a handicap place, it is next to impossible. The places you do find are most often a distance from your destination. The sidewalk to get there is full of its own obstacles. Some sidewalks end with no cut in the curb to get up or down others have poles in the middle of them impossible to get around. Many buildings have ramps to steep to get up and bathrooms that cannot be used due to the size. These public buildings should have equal access to all. The ACC Northridge campus has only one wheelchair accessible bathroom out of all the buildings. Is that fair for anybody trying to get an education?

The cost to redo some of the buildings and construct new ramps is something that should be budgeted into the state spending. It is not that difficult to do these projects and if Austin wants to be a progressive city that is copied by others, they should give an individual the basic rights to get around and use the buildings it provides.

reply to constitutional requirement of government courses

To understand the history of the United States and the construction and function of its government is an essential knowledge that every person needs to know. I agree with the above poster when it comes to Texas having it written in the state constitution that it is required that all college student need to take a certain amount of course hours is a waste.
The fact is that a student may have a residence out of state and plan to move back when they receive their degree. What good does it do a person from Vermont going to UT on a science scholarship to learn about Texas history and politics? The point that it is written in the state constitution makes it much more idiotic and shows the flaws of the document.
Having requirement in learning government and history on a national level does make sense as part of a college curriculum as this knowledge will be needed regardless on where a person lives after graduation. It seems clear that the reason it is forced on students is purely for funding from the state on the university side but as the poster stated, the constitution has no description on why it is included. The Texas constitution is one of the worst written ones n the country and second most amended as well. It is due to frivolous subjects such as this that makes it so bad. It should be left to the individual university and the degree plan a student is working for as the amount and type of government courses required.

College Students Allowed to Carry Guns to Class

A Texas State University student is argueing to be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to school. The group called Concealed Campus, which this student is a memeber of, claims that if students were armed that the university would be more secure. In San Marcos many students are stating that this will in no way make it any safer.
To carry a concealed weapon a person must first pass a criminal background check along with proper training to use the sidearm. Although it is true that having the knowlege to use a weapon is a positive, there is no way of measuring the emotional or intellectual response that a person might have if prevoked.
Even the cheif of the San Marcos police is for this stating "It doesn't make sense to me that you can take weapons to Luby's or the library, but you can't take it to the classroom. This statement makes many of the students question if it is really safer to have armed student and will it reduce criminal activity.
I find this idea to be incredibly irresponsible and in no way should be followed through. I believe that a person does have the right to bear arms as stated in the Constitution. People do not have the right to put others in danger for what they consider is a solution to a much bigger problem. To stop gun violence by adding more guns is one of the most asinine ideas I have heard in awhile and this should concern all parents, students and Luby patrons in San Marcos. The group is next planning to take this to the Texas legeslation which in this state there is no telling how it will be accepted.