“By Conservative Yankee, June 16 at 4:08 am #

“The person with whom you are attempting a rational discussion is not a rational being.”

As I noted before, this is an easily verified set of facts:

“1.  The Bill of Rights was debated and framed by the first Congress—populated by Founders and Framers—under the newly-ratified Constitution.

“2.  Completion of ratification of the Bill of Rights occurred on December 15, 1791.

“3.  Subsequently, on May 8, 1792, Congress—populated by Founders and Framers—enacted ‘The Militia Act,’ thereby implementing the Constitutional stipulation that the militia shall be regulated by Congress.

“Thus, OBVIOUSLY, the militia, which is expressly within the scope of the Second Amendment, is NOT ‘protected’ FROM regulation by means of law. 

“OBVIOUSLY, therefore, IF the Second ‘protected’ an ‘individual right’—which it OBVIOUSLY does NOT do—then it would NOT ‘protect’ such right FROM the rule of law.”

There is also this directly-relevant tie-in from a famous founder concerning the enactment by Congress of “The Militia Act” of 1792:
_____

“SPEECHES of His Excellency the Governor, and Messages Transmitted by His Excellency to the
General Court During the Legislative Year

“[May Session, 1792.]

“Wednesday, June 6.

. . . .

“GENTLEMEN,
“I have directed the Secretary to lay before you such Acts & proceedings of the Congress of the United States, as have been forwarded to me: Among them, is an Act for regulating the Militia of the States.  That Act appears to me to be quite consonant to the Constitution of the General Government, & I shall, as commander in Chief of the Militia of this State take every measure within my power to render the Militia respectable under it. . . .

“JOHN HANCOCK.

“Council Chamber, June 6th, 1792.
_____

That included, of course, conforming the state’s current Militia Act to the Federal, in keeping with the supremacy clause.  The legitimate militia, as also stipulated in US Constitution and Second Amendment, has never been an unregulated armed gang “defending against” the gov’t/rule of law.

“[King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”—Declaration of Independence

“The military power is always in exact subordination to the Civil Power.”—Governor Sam Adams.

“By Conservative Yankee, June 16 at 4:08 am #

“The person with whom you are attempting a rational discussion is not a rational being.”

In other words, your ad hominem is intended as a “rational” substitute for such things as facts, evidence, and proofs—correct?

“Long ago I have assessed my efforts with him as “Useless””.

You learned that the only facts, evidence, and proofs which exist concerning the NRA’s Second Amendment lie is that they are OPPOSITE that lie.

“He continually refuses to address that the other amendments concerning the “Bill of rights” are all addressing “rights” of the people.”

I have addressed it: the first three words of the Constitution are “We the people,” not “We the individual,” or “I the people”.  Even the barely-literate recognize that the word “people” is plural; your refusal to accept that OBVIOUS fact is result of knowing intellectual dishonesty.

“Not one word about the “rights” of government.”

In the Bill of Rights are several Amendments, one being the Second, which include the word “State”.  “State” is GOV’T.  The Second Amendment is a state right.

“He additionally refuses to accept or believe that in 1789 the act of taking away the family rifle was the equivelent to a death sentence as many citizens of this new Nation lived far from the local supermarket.”

In reality guns have been regulated—the word “regulated” is not spelled “confiscated”—since their advent, routinely, along with such dangerous substances and objects as alcohol and tobacco, none of that controversial until the gun industry-front NRA made up its lie against the Second Amendment.  But such laws were enacted by the Founders/Framers leading into and during the “revolution”.  In MA-Bay, as example, they enacted what was termed a “Test”—a “loyalty oath”—which begins as follows:

[31] “C H A P.  VII.

“. . . .  Whereas on the fourteenth of March One Thousand feven Hundred and Seventy-fix, a certain Refolve was made and paffed by the American Congrefs, [32] of the following Tenor, viz. : 
“Refolved, That it be recommended to the feveral Affemblies, Conventions and Councils, or Committees of Safety of the United Colonies, immediately to caufe all Perfons to be difarmed within their refpective Colonies, who are notoriously difaffected to the Caufe of America, or who have not affociated and refufe to affociate to defend by Arms thefe United Colonies, againft the hoftile Attempts of the Britifh Fleets and Armies ; and to apply the Arms taken from fuch Prfons in each refpective Colony, in the firft Place, to the arming of the Continental Troops raifed in faid Colony ; in the next, to the arming fuch Troops as are raifed by the Colony for it’s own Defense, and the Refidue to be applied to the arming the Affociators ; that their Arms when taken, be appraised by indifferent Perfons, and fuch as are applied to the arming Continental Troops, be paid for by Congrefs ; and the Refidue by the refpective Affemblies, Conventions or Councils, or Committees of Safety ;
“Be it therefore enacted by the Council, and Houfe of Reprefentatives in General Court affembled, . . . That every Male Perfon above fixteen Years of Age, refident in any Town or Place in this Colony, who fhall neglect or refufe to fubfcribe a printed or written Declaration of the Form and Tenor herein after prefcribed, upon being required thereto by the Committee of Correfpondence, Infpection and Safety for the Town or Place in which he dwells, or any one of them, fhall be difarmed, and have taken from him in Manner herafter directed, all fuch Arms, Ammunition and Warlike Implements, as by the ftricteft Search can be found in his Possession or belonging to him ; which Declaration fhall be in the Form and Words following, viz. . . .”

As obvious, that action was promulgated by the Continental Congress; and each of the “United Colonies” implemented such as LAW.

The person with whom you are attempting a rational discussion is not a rational being.

Long ago I have assessed my efforts with him as “Useless”

He continually refuses to address that the other amendments concerning the “Bill of rights” are all addressing “rights” of the people. Not one word about the “rights” of government. He additionally refuses to accept or believe that in 1789 the act of taking away the family rifle was the equivelent to a death sentence as many citizens of this new Nation lived far from the local supermarket.

“By Cobra Doc, June 15 at 2:11 am #

“You use Virginia Tech, which had the strictest gun control possible in place, a total ban, as proof that MORE gun control will work.”

Idjit: I simply detailed the fact that the Second Amendment is IRRELEVANT to the issue of gun control.  I didn’t say anything about my views on gun control.

Instead I point to OBJECTIVE REALITY:

1.  There has been gun control as long as there have been guns.

2.  The Founders/Framers engaged in the ROUTINE social practice of gun control—and they disarmed, and prohibited the possession of guns by, those who were “disaffected with the revolution,” and the Tories, which is why there was no counter-"revolution".

OBVIOUSLY, therefore, the Founders/Framers did not consider gun control contrary to freedom.  Rather, they were wisely concerned with preserving stability of laws and gov’t, and public safety.

3.  No sane, non-suicidal society leaves dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.  The issue is PUBLIC SAFETY.

Your position, by contrast, is INsane.

“If you were to complain about your milk being spoiled at a restaurant, would you say, “This milk is spoiled, give me more” when you complained?”

Idjits can always be counted on to come up with inapt “analogies”.  In place of that nonsense, try these FACTS—which EVEN YOU can verify:

1.  The first Congress under the newly-ratified Constitution—populated by Founders and Framers—debated and framed the Bill of Rights.  The first draft of that which became the Second Amendment, collated by James Madison, read, in full, as follows—and note the final clause, in bold:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person [INDIVIDUAL] religiously scrupulous of [AGAINST] bearing arms, shall be compelled [INVOLUNTARY] to render military service [IN THE MILITIA] in person.”

The last clause is the ONLY posited “individual right” debated as concerns that which became the Second Amendment—and it was VOTED DOWN.  Therefore, the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” ANYTHING.

Note that I’ve so far said NOTHING about “gun control” except to point out that I’ve said NOTHING about “gun control”.  Now here’s another set of easily verified facts:

1.  The Bill of Rights was debated and framed by the first Congress—populated by Founders and Framers—under the newly-ratified Constitution.

2.  Completion of ratification of the Bill of Rights occurred on December 15, 1791.

3.  Subsequently, on May 8, 1792, Congress—populated by Founders and Framers—enacted “The Militia Act,” thereby implementing the Constitutional stipulation that the militia shall be regulated by Congress.

Thus, OBVIOUSLY, the militia, which is expressly within the scope of the Second Amendment, is NOT “protected” FROM regulation by means of law. 

OBVIOUSLY, therefore, IF the Second “protected” an “individual right”—which it OBVIOUSLY does NOT do—then it would NOT “protect” such right FROM the rule of law.

That means, ONBVIOUSLY, not only that the Second Amendment is wholly irrelevant to private, individual gun ownership; but also that if the Second DID “protect” an “individual right,” it would NOT “protect” it FROM regulation.

You use Virginia Tech, which had the strictest gun control possible in place, a total ban, as proof that MORE gun control will work.

If you were to complain about your milk being spoiled at a restaurant, would you say, “This milk is spoiled, give me more” when you complained?

“By Norman Taylor, January 1 at 3:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

“The law breakers would keep
The law breakers would keep theirs. That’s why they are criminals, stoopid! So now you have your solution in full effect. All law abiding citizens are unarmed and now only the criminals have guns.”

When will gun-nuts learn to reason, instead of unquestioningly swallowing, and repeating, hypocritical nonsense fed them by the gun industry-front politics-of-paranoia NRA?

When will they learn to read what is said, instead of projecting their irrational fantasies onto what is said in effort to ignore reality?

First, stoopid, the facts are as I’ve detailed: the Second Amendment, having nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything, is IRRELEVANT to the issue of gun control/regulation, etc.  That’s all there is to it.

Second, at present we have—and we’ve had it since guns were invented—gun control of various degrees, and yet it is a blatantly false claim that “only criminals have guns”—unless we consider the irrational nonsense fed you by the anti-Constitutional NRA: that opposing the Constitution and laws with the threat of violence is the very thing criminals do; and that is exactly what the NRA is saying “non-criminal” gun-nuts have the “right” to do: ignore and oppose the law, exactly as do criminals, based upon the nonsense that “only criminals”—other than the gun-nut criminals—“will have guns”.

Third, stoopid: that the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of gun control does nothing whatever to “disarm” anyone; it simply removes a false justification for the gun-nut criminal rationale: the the law is “in the way” of the law-abiding—a claim which is obvious BS on its face.  In short, gun-nut or not, you don’t have the right UNDER LAW to act as jury, judge, and executioner; that is a non-existent “right” claimed by CRIMINALS.

“OK, you say, lets register the guns so that we know who has which weapon. That would be a great list to have if you were a career burgler, now wouldn’t it.”

And from whence would the “career burglar”—the penalty IN LAW for which is NOT the death penalty—get that imaginary list?  From another CRIMINAL?

“So let’s say that you do manage to remove all weapons from non military citizens ... we’ll skip the prospect of rogue military elements and go directly to where the burgler enters your house with a running chain saw. Now whatcha gonna do bucky? Got a gun? Oh yeah, you don’t got a chainsaw?? Gee maybe we should outlaw them”.

There should be a test of the mental health of gun-nuts so it can be determined whether they are competent to own dangerous weapos—including motor vehicles, which, though not intended to kill, must be REGISTERED.  The blatant sorts of nonsense you fools imagine into being in defense of your “right” to kill—for that is wshat you are defending here—are clearly the rationalizations of the common mentally defective CRIMINAL.

Last but not least, STOOPID: I said nothing about “disarming” anyone; I simply pointed to the fact that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with INDIVDIAUL anything—which is as the law has all along said.  And yet, despite those facts, the allegedly law-abiding gun-nuts have NOT been disarmed.

The biggest word in the language is I-F: IF.  And that is all the gun-nut nonsense rests on: What IF—FANTASY which denies reason, fact, knowledge, and history, in order to get its way, against the rule of law; and that is exactly as CRIMINALS “think”.

The law breakers would keep theirs. That’s why they are criminals, stoopid! So now you have your solution in full effect. All law abiding citizens are unarmed and now only the criminals have guns.

OK, you say, lets register the guns so that we know who has which weapon. That would be a great list to have if you were a career burgler, now wouldn’t it.

So let’s say that you do manage to remove all weapons from non military citizens ... we’ll skip the prospect of rogue military elements and go directly to where the burgler enters your house with a running chain saw. Now whatcha gonna do bucky? Got a gun? Oh yeah, you don’t got a chainsaw?? Gee maybe we should outlaw them

And now we see the fake “conservative“‘s hypocrisy increasingly exposed:

“#114274 by Conservative Yankee on 11/18 at 5:21 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“As usual when the person attempting to make a point finds his “jumping off point” crumbling beneath his feet, the personal attacks and name calling begin. 

“Dear Mr. N I seriously hope you are under care of a doctor who can help you with that anger issue.”

And there we have it: the fake “conservative” “Yankee"--actually an extremist reactionary who substitutes borrowed slogans for thought--his “‘jumping off point’ crumbling beneath his feet,” engages in personal attack.  Even though there is no question that he is not qualified to “diagnose” even his own irrationality, let alone those who expose him to himself as that which he is.

“AND you win part of the argument. I have come to believe gun laws should exclude you from owning a weapon or for that matter any sharp or heavy objects, or rope.”

In fact, I don’t “win” the “argument”; the rule of law does.  It is you who necessarily and irrationally manufactures the personalist excuses by means of which to irresponsibly avoid the issue and facts.  Guns have been regulated since the advent of guns--as a matter of public safety, and stability of law/gov’t.  If you had the least compunction to know what you are dealing with and talking about, you’d research the law for yourself.  And you’d follow it back to at least the founding era, at which point you’d begin to learn that the Founders/Framers themselves engaged not only in gun control--as does any sane non-suicidal society--but also in prohibition and “gun-grabbing"/confiscation. 

For one, they prohibited those “disaffected with the ‘revolution’” from possessing guns.  That’s why there wasn’t a counter-"revolution".  For another, they required the swearing and signing of an oath of loyalty to the “cause"--or the guns, etc., of those who refused to do so were confiscated.  First dibs on those guns went to the Continental Army.

“I attempted a rational discussion with an irrational being, my bad, I’m done here.”

You did no such thing, as your position, from the outset, has been uninformed, contrary to the actual legal history and law, and proudly and boastfully irrational.  Let’s be absolutely clear as to the nature of that position:

You reject the rule of law--exactly as does the outlaw--based upon resort to a false “instinct” claim, and “defend” that stupidity by choosing an irrationalist anti-Constitutional slogan as substitute for thought.  And your irresponsibility-authored excuse for doing so is that a paranoid’s imaginary “outlaw” might break into your house.

Further, you reject the fact that you aren’t the only one with rights.  As a proudly irrational anti-intellectual, you reject the fact that those you would “defend against” also have rights--which latter reality the law recognizes, but which reality you reject out of hand. 

And, irrationally, you ignore presumption of innocence (what if the person breaking into your house were seeking protection from someone intent on killing them?), and equal rights in law, in favor of the lunatic extreme of already-rendered judgment upon a paranoid’s fantasy which has yet to even materialize.

More pointedly: You irrationally base your “real-world” position on a politics-of-fear/paranoid fantasy--wholly overlooking the fact--this being typical of fake “conservatives"--that you are doing exactly that which you claim to object and to oppose.  You are rejecting the rule of law because--here’s your excuse for doing so--your imaginary “outlaw” rejects the rule of law.  And by that means you become exactly that you claim to be against being.

And the word for that?  Hypocrisy.

As usual when the person attempting to make a point finds his “jumping off point” crumbling beneath his feet, the personal attacks and name calling begin. 

Dear Mr. N I seriously hope you are under care of a doctor who can help you with that anger issue.

AND you win part of the argument. I have come to believe gun laws should exclude you from owning a weapon or for that matter any sharp or heavy objects, or rope.

I attempted a rational discussion with an irrational being, my bad, I’m done here.

“#114128 by Conservative Yankee on 11/17 at 5:19 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“114039 by JNagarya on 11/16 at 3:17 pm

“There has never been, and is not now, an unregulated/unlimited ‘right of self-defense’.”

“Keep saying that say it over and over

““American people you have no right to defend yourself”

“NOTHING better illustrates my point.”

READ what I SAID, ass--not the extremist oversimplification you PROJECT.  I DID NOT say there is NO right of self-defense, ass.  I said there has never been, and is not now, an UNREGULATED/UNLIMITED right of self-defense.  Everyone you would “defend against” ALSO HAS RIGHTS, ass, including the very same “right to life” as you.

You needn’t take my word for it, jerk: research the LAW--one function of which is to R-E-G-U-L-A-T-E--on the topics I suggested: “spring-guns” and “self-defense”.

Nor is there is anything new in the fact that others also have the same “right to life” as you; that means, ass, you don’t “defend” yourself against others based upon the illusion that they have NO rights.  What is the penalty, IN LAW, for burglary, or breaking-and-entering?  It ISN’T the death penalty.  RESEARCH case law on “spring-guns” and what happens to those who set them.

“Oh BTW my RIGHT to defend myself comes NOT from the US government, but from the nature of the human beast. It is called the “survival instinct” AND if you for a moment believe that little pink hairless creatures who are not the strongest nor the fastest evolved and prospered on a hostile planet without building tools for defense, you my poor ignorant fellow human are some ole deluded.”

In contrast to that sociopathic view is the rule of law.  Being a chest-pounding ass doesn’t alter that fact a whit.  Everyone else also has rights THAT ARE NOT TO BE INFRINGED _BY YOU_.  That “law of the jungle” religionutist self-justification is NOT the view of the Founders/Framers.  If it were, there wouldn’t be Constitution and rule of law.

If you had the least clue of what our system of laws is, you’d know that “the government” is WE THE PEOPLE; it isn’t a separate, alien entity--Ronnie Reagan’s bullshit on the point notwithstanding.

Meanwhile, ass: the topic of this thread is the VT shooting--not yet another forum for gun-nuts to spew their anti-Constitutional sociopathy.

“You will pry it from my cold dead hand!”

I’ll bet you believe the hogwash that the purpose of the militia is to “oppose” or “defend against” the gov’t.  Tip: look up the clause/s in your state’s constitution that govern the militia.  Note the public official who is commander in chief of the militia: your state’s governor.  In view of those facts, only an ineducable fool--a nut--would insist that the militia’s purpose is to “defend against” the gov’t.

READ Art. I, Sec. 8 of the US Constitution.  In that you’ll find the purposes of the militia expressly stipulated: one of those purposes is to SUPPRESS INSURRECTION.

As for any other notion that a “right to bear arms” has some cockamamy anti-gov’t intent by the Founders/Framers must sooner or later confront the law, which is contrary to that OUTLAW view, and the reality that the gov’t ain’t afeared of your pop-gun, as the gov’t has bombers and tanks and bazookas--enough arsenal to take care of your law-illiterate chest-thumping “Libertarian” hogwash.

114039 by JNagarya on 11/16 at 3:17 pm

“There has never been, and is not now, an unregulated/unlimited ‘right of self-defense’.”

Keep saying that say it over and over

“American people you have no right to defend yourself”

NOTHING better illustrates my point.

Oh BTW my RIGHT to defend myself comes NOT from the US government, but from the nature of the human beast. It is called the “survival instinct” AND if you for a moment believe that little pink hairless creatures who are not the strongest nor the fastest evolved and prospered on a hostile planet without building tools for defense, you my poor ignorant fellow human are some ole deluded.

You will pry it from my cold dead hand!

More mindless reactionary irrationalities --

“#113932 by Conservative Yankee on 11/16 at 6:02 am
(Unregistered commenter)

113879 by JNagarya on 11/15 at 9:13 pm

“The police power is given by the Constitution--as a monopoly--to the gov’t.  The gov’t establishes the means by which the law will be enforced.  By and large that is done by police--who are armed.  Are they ‘outlaws,’”

“I ass-u-me that your lack of a question mark makes this a rhetorical question, but yes, “law enforcement officers ARE occasionally “outlaws!””

You complaint is that gov’t and rule of law--being made by imperfect humans--are imperfect; and that the solution to that is to be: an outlaw.

“Let me tell you the story of the Wisconsin Sheriff’s deputy who shot and killed six unarmed civilians.  Had only one of those people been armed, the death toll might have been far lower.... maybe only one!”

As “conservative” reactionary “Libertarians” preach when someone else’s ox is gored: “Shit happens.” Ignorance of the law is common, but not an excuse: there is no unregulated/unlimited “right of self-defense”: people commit murder, then lie about it.  Everyone else also has rights--a fact only outlaws ignore. 

“Had any of the “good guys” at VT been armed, maybe that death toll would have been lower. Had one teacher at Columbine been armed.... well, you get my point.”

Because gun-nuts swallow the nonsense that “they” are “out to get” your guns, we must go to the opposite--lunatic--extreme: FORCE EVERYONE to have guns.  AGAIN: in the VT case the person who bought the guns was not an “outlaw,” and got the guns LEGALLY--because the law was DEFICIENT.  And it was DEFICIENT precisely because the gun-nut lobby MADE it deficient.  (The NRA has since conceded that point.)

“I have NO PROBLEM with shooting people breaking in to my house, and in a county just chocked full of drug addicts, that scenario is far more likely than you may imagine.”

I won’t join your paranoid fantasy of BIG BLACK GORILLAS breaking into your house.  There has never been, and is not now, an unregulated/unlimited “right of self-defense”.

“I have (however) been advised by local police to “post a warning” which I have done.  Funny, I haven’t seen any solicitors around here lately…”

You’d be wiser--responsible--to learn the actual law/s on self-defense in your jurisdiction.  Research “spring-guns” to get some “larnin’” in reality.

The bottom line, AGAIN: the person in VT was not an “outlaw,” and got his guns LEGALLY because the law was DEFICIENT. 

How did the non-outlaw Columbine killers get their guns?  “Gun show loophole"--again, because that’s exactly as the NRA/gun-nuts want/ed it.  The result: yet another predictable excuse for claiming everyone should have guns--for “self-defense”.

Gung-ho gun-nuts have so much to blather about the issue--all of it paranoid, law-illiterate hypothetical nonsense CONTRARY to reality and law--

No sane non-suicidal society leaves dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.  _Ergo_, there has NEVER been a time when guns were not regulated in the interests of public safety, and stability of gov’t/system of laws.  Like it or not, everyone else ALSO has rights.  Research the laws about which you are wholly ignorant--so as to avoid finding yourself an outlaw as result of being drunk on someone else’s cork.  Research “spring-guns”; your state’s laws on “self-defense”.  If you’re going to jabber about “self-defense,” then KNOW in advance what you’re talking about so as to eliminate the paranoid, irrational--sociopathic--NRA/gun-nut nonsense.  So as to eliminate the preachments borrowed wholesale from: outlaws.

113879 by JNagarya on 11/15 at 9:13 pm

“The police power is given by the Constitution--as a monopoly--to the gov’t.  The gov’t establishes the means by which the law will be enforced.  By and large that is done by police--who are armed.  Are they ‘outlaws,’”

I ass-u-me that your lack of a question mark makes this a rhetorical question, but yes, “law enforcement officers ARE occasionally “outlaws!”

Let me tell you the story of the Wisconsin Sheriff’s deputy who shot and killed six unarmed civilians.  Had only one of those people been armed, the death toll might have been far lower.... maybe only one!  Had any of the “good guys” at VT been armed, maybe that death toll would have been lower. Had one teacher at Columbine been armed.... well, you get my point.

I have NO PROBLEM with shooting people breaking in to my house, and in a county just chocked full of drug addicts, that scenario is far more likely than you may imagine.

I have (however) been advised by local police to “post a warning” which I have done.  Funny, I haven’t seen any solicitors around here lately…

Sort of a positive by-product!

Let’s compare and contrast your comment, Gracie, with reason--and with the comments--and facts--I posted:

“#113744 by gracie935 on 11/15 at 8:30 am
(Unregistered commenter)

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

A self-serving fantasy which doesn’t square with reality or the rule of law--you are for the rule of law, correct--being agianst “outlaws,” correct?

The police power is given by the Constitution--as a monopoly--to the gov’t.  The gov’t establishes the means by which the law will be enforced.  By and large that is done by police--who are armed.  Are they “outlaws,” Gracie?  I thought not.

Do you have an argument against the Constitution, and the rule of law?

“Doesn’t seem too bright a concept.”

That “If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” doesn’t seem “too bright a concept”?  You’re correct--a point I made above.  Aside from that point, it is a mindless slogan for those who pride themselves in not thinking, based upon the erronious assumption that thought = education.  For those who pride themselves in being anti-intellectual, thus pride themselves in having others do the “thinking” up of clever, mindless slogans which can be adopted as substitute for thought.

“If someone is breaking into my house I am going to assume that they are armed and will try to do me harm, and I will defend myself and my family by means of a firearm.”

“I-F"--the biggest word inn the language, often confused for “I-S”.  The chances of someone breaking into your house are mighty, mighty slim.  And you’re going to assume--when you “assume” you make an ASS of “U” and “ME"--that you are above the law; that ther is a “right of self-defense” wholly unregulated by the rule of law--oops, I got to that issue of rule of law v. “outlaw” again.  No such pseudo-macho wishful thinking, child: the “right of self-defense” is regulated in law, based upon a balancing of interests: you aren’t the only person on the planet with rights; the person you propose to shoot also has rights.

“If an individual gets it in his or her head that they want to kill they will do it regardless if they have access to guns or not.”

For on, I’ve said nothing whatsoever about “outlaw"ing guns--which you’d know if you could read what is in front of your face instead of projecting your self-intimidating fanasties onto reality.  I simply point to the fact that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything--therefore is irrelevant to the issue of gun control.  For another: if there were no gun control, nothing would prevent “outlaw"s from getting guns; and they couldn’t be arrested or prosecuted for having them.

But then you point to an alternative:

“If an individual gets it in his or her head that they want to kill they will do it regardless if they have access to guns or not.”

Then they wouldn’t need a gun?  Correct.  Your “solution” is also otherwise way off the mark as concerns thought and reason: in view of the fact we have, say, 10 ways to kill people, let’s make it 11?  Yeah, that’s the ticket: We haven’t enough ways to kill people; let’s increase the number.

Or simply stick to the issue: in the instance case, the person who committed the murders was not an “outlaw” until he began shooting people; until then, he was a law-abiding citizen who got his guns LEGALLY because the laws were insufficient to prevent it.  Again, in the instant case: the problem was not the non-outlaw; and the problem was not the dead for not being paranoid gun-totin’ assholes; the problem was the inadequacies in the law; a lack, if you will, of rule of law.

In short: you “argument,” aside from the fact that it is mindless gun-industry propaganda based upon politics of fear and anti-Constitutional lie, is entirely irrelevant to the facts of the instant case.

If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Doesn’t seem too bright a concept. If someone is breaking into my house I am going to assume that they are armed and will try to do me harm, and I will defend myself and my family by means of a firearm. If an individual gets it in his or her head that they want to kill they will do it regardless if they have access to guns or not.

I knew your momma and I should have drown your idiot ass.

I hate the broken-record, vague argument of supporters of guns, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.”

Even if there is even 1% of logic in this argument, the conclusion of the matter would be this: Well, we have to get rid of one of the culprits, and we certainly can’t stop people, so the only thing left is the guns...”

“Atom bombs don’t launch themselves, people launch ‘em...” <- Just as pathetic an argument.

#66839 by Dirk Voetberg on 4/27 at 3:49 pm

Dispite the loud din from folks who “know what is best for everyone else” assault deaths and accidental deaths from guns are in the catagory of statistically insignifficant. in a society of 300,000,000 fewer than 13,ooo assault and accidental deaths do not make 1/10 of one precent. cars 44,000, and bathroom 25,000 and Hospital infections, the fourth leading cause of death in the United States, behind heart disease, cancer and strokes, all rate attention first.

BUT I’ll tell you how you could convince this ancient gun-owner to happilly relinquish his rifle…

two things;

1 everyone else gives up all their weapons.  No more guns, bombs, WMD’s hunting knives, stun-guns, etc.  this includes government personnel based in the US, or on leave here and “law enforcement” personnel.  They stand down, so do I.

2. my local supermarket gives me, for the price of one bullet and a hunting license, 200 pounds of fresh raw meat equivelent to my fall take.

Deal?

Simply put, these 32 people would not have died at this point in their lives if Cho couldn’t get these guns, whether he’s a maniac or not. And arguments like “Well, someone could smash an airplane into a building,” or “Well, die in a car accident,” etc. as evidence that we shouldn’t bother trying to prevent an event like this just lend themselves to the idea that we shouldn’t try to prevent anything. Gun violence could be easily prevented. It works. Japan and England, for example, do not have gun control violence like this. They outlaw guns and enforce that. So why not work harder to get guns controlled? Yes, I admit, it would take decades to eventually ween guns out of this culture, but the time is worth it. And, by the way, gun control advocates aren’t just about adding laws to the books; they are also about improving enforcement.

#66753 by Dirk Voetberg on 4/27 at 9:38 am States:

“he probably actually would not have been able to kill even close to 32 people with a car or a knife or whatever else.”

Or box-cutters and four airplanes(2,897 dead)or cow manure and a Ryder Truck (169 dead)

Actually, there were laws on the books to keep Cho from obtaining guns, it was just no one enforced them… So now a call for just what the U.S of A needs ... more laws. How about a call for someone’s head for not submitting the required paperwork to the national data base?

Cars kill more than three times the number of folks killed by gun assaults, and TV kills even more folks by making them couch potato, pretzel-munching heart attack victims Where’s the call to outlaw Whoopie-pies?

And the thing is, Robert Scheer, who I usually agree with, said on the weekly NPR/KCRW show “Left, Right, and Center” that the Virginia Tech incident was being exploited by both sides of the gun control issue, who were using the incident to cynically push their political agenda. And he said something about how this killer was just the rare maniac who, if he didn’t have guns, would have killed with a car or something else. Therefore, we need to just mark this incident as a tragedy and not use it in our arguments for or against gun control.

I really do not understand this stance. The point of standing for gun control is so that maniacs, as rare as they may be, can’t get guns. If Cho was unable to buy his guns, no, he probably actually would not have been able to kill even close to 32 people with a car or a knife or whatever else. If we are to hold our political beliefs as more than hobbies to be put aside when something “real” happens, there is no reason we cannot use valid data points to support those beliefs.

This temptation to leave this incident out of the gun control argument is possibly a case-in-point of why liberals often find themselves losing elections: how can you prove you’re right if you’re not willing to support your beliefs with evidence?

The self proclaimed right about all things JNagarya proclaims:

“You’re a Bush*t voter.”

Aside from voting for Ronald Reagan in 1980, and Bob Dole on 1996, I have NEVER voted for another Republican at the national level, including our two Maine (alledgedly liberal) Repub Senators. I guess this puts an end to any belief I may have harbored that the poster might know what he is talking about. If the Libertarians had a viable party, I would join them.  Although I am registered Republican (so I can vote in the State primary) I only vote R at the local level where the opposition are attempting to make us a socialist state.  Being an Athiest,I do not share the “God” adgenda of the R party, nor am I enthralled by their massive spending programs.  Yankee Republicans are a bit different.

I have disliked the scum emminating from the Bush family since learning that Prescott Bush (former Senator from Connecticut) did business with the Nazis (Out of his Union Bank Company) during WW II. GHW Bush was behind the Salvatore Allende murders, the East Timor genocide, and was a personal friend of Manual Noriegia before politics of this friendship began impeding his ambition.

I own a gun, I belong to NRA. Do not mistake that for a political idology. It is part of my life, not the focus of it.

When the Nazis came to power in Germany, when the Roundheads took power in England, when the Bolsheviks ate Russia, they did so by loudly shouting everyone (the majority” down and reiterating their “beliefs” over and over till they wore the sane folks down.

That’s not gonna happen here!

To get my gun, “...you will have to pry it from my cold dead hand.”

Unlike all of you in Australia, firearm ownership in the U.S. is guaranteed by law. The Second Amendment of our Constitution guarantees that individuals can own any kind of firearm they choose. Unwisely, you Aussies gave up that right, and let the criminal element in your society turn all of you into “victims”. Felons have no trouble obtaining firearms in every country in the world. The police cannot be everywhere, so it is up to you to protect yourself and your family. When faced by a gun carrying felon, what are you going to do? Tell them “wait a minute while I call the police”? That’s when you become the “victim”. Communities in the U.S. that have concealed carry permits, and allow citizens to own firearms in their homes have substantially lower gun crimes than communities that ban gun ownership. Government statistics prove that this is true. If you do not believe me, use the internet, and look up the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives statistics on legal ownership of firearms and gun crime. Its an eye opener for sure, especially for you.
Also, why is the District of Columbia known as the “murder capitol of the U.S.”? Could it be its 30+ years of banning gun ownership by private citizens, thus allowing felons to gun down their victims without fear of reprisal? I sincerely hope that you never face an armed felon who has rape or murder on his/her mind, because you ARE defenseless, and you will be that “victim”. The police aren’t there to protect you, unless you are extremely lucky.
I have had a concealed carry permit since I was 19 years old (my job required it), and I’ve only had to use it once to deter a knife wielding mugger. I held him until the police arrived and took over. Had I not been armed, I may not have been here to post this comment. I protected my family from him. That is still a man’s responsibility - would you take that away? I won’t stand still for any government action that would do that. Had one of the students or faculty at Virginia Tech been armed, the outcome may well have been very different. I’m sure of it.

It is a shame that so many UNARMED people were killed at V.Tech.

MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO LEGALLY OWN GUNS NEVER COMMIT AN ILLEGAL CRIME. STATISTICS SHOW THAT IN COMMUNITIES WITH NO GUN LAWS LIKE KENSAW GEORGIA AND MONTANA, THOSE HOUSEHOLDS WHO ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE GUNS (KENESAW) , THE CRIME RATE IS DECREASED SIGNIFICANTLY AND IN MONTANA (NO GUN REGISTRATION LAWS), THERE ARE LARGE PERCENTAGE OF COMMUNITIES WHERE VIOLENT CRIME IS NON-EXISTENT AND /OR DECRESED BY 40%. WHEN WILL EVERYONE REALIZE THAT THERE IS, THERE IS A CONSTANT STREAM OF A CRIMINAL ELEMENT IN SOCIETY THAT MOVES IN WHENEVER THEY KNOW THAT THE POPULATION IN GENERAL, IS DISARMED?