#65513 by Fadel Abdallah on 4/21 at 11:20 am
(10 comments total)

“. . . . that people who love guns or promote the unlimited freedom to bear them, are cowards at heart. They need these weapons to give them a false sense of security and artificial courage for their lack of a natural one. Those types are more likely to have a trigger-happy mentality of shooting others at the least provocation or when they even perceive the least possible danger to their lives.”

Several elaborations on those facts which are relevant, based upon law and reasoning therefrom:

1.  There is no unlimited right; every individual right is limited by the reality of being a member of society in which every individual has the same right.

2.  That same principle applies to the concept of “self-defense”.  The gun-nut never shows any evidence that he has ever thought beyond himself; that he lives in a society in which everyone other than he has the same right of “self-defense”.  Never think so far as the fact that every one of those others, given the same armaments and “opportunity,” could act on his “right” of “self-defense” against that gun-nut.  They only indicate the center-of-the-universe illusion that it’s all in one direction: they defending against, instead of perchance being defended against.

3.  It is incontrovertible that there are no absolute rights.  If a person is arrested for an offense, no matter how “minimal,” and he is carrying a gun, the police will not allow the arrestee to take his gun with him to his jail cell.  It only takes one exception to demolish the absoluteness of a right.

“This is precisely what happened with Cho who felt so insecure and embattled that he convinced himself that a mass massacre was the best defense and revenge at the same time.”

Unfortunately, Cho, being uncommunicative, did not get to talk to someone sufficiently competent to point out his self-intimidation based upon unexamined false assumptions.  A kind of false paranoia.  We see similar self-centeredness in gun-nuts who knowingly lie in defense of their self-centeredness by claiming an unlimited and absolute right which can not exist.  Will even endeavor to bury law and legal authority under self-serving non-law snippets which prove nothing beyond the fact that such-and-such individual happened to hold an opinion of which they approve.  They won’t soon post contrary opinions. 

Most of them don’t care about truth, or law—those who claim a false Second Amendment right to—hypocrisy alert—defend the rule of law.   

“As to those who quote Thomas Jefferson on the need to bear weapons, I would say: “What do you expect from a white marauder who wanted to annihilate the native Americans and secure America for the white Europeans?! How else can he find a mechanism to destroy the natives but by promoting armament of everyone?!”

The same Founders and Framers the gun-nuts falsely invoke in defense of their preference for the NRA’s Second Amendment lie not only disarmed Loyalists/Tories; not only often disarmed Indians; but also took—“impressment” then, “gun-grabbing” now—the guns of _anti-British_ colonists who weren’t using them to fight the “revolution” and gave them to those who would use them to that end.

The selective, out-of-context snippets of non-law opinions of this or that Founder were not found by their own research—else they would have come upon the fact that the Founders and Framers were not gun-nuts, and not about raising lawlessness to the level of law.  Their own actions demonstrated their opposition to anyone shooting at _their_ gov’ts—Shays’s Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion.  They did that with the militia because they knew what they meant by militia—and it wasn’t to “defend against” the gov’t.  No sane society leaves dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.  The Founders and Framers were sane.

Good Lord ! It’s once again obvious to see who is the Stupid One. E.J. Dionne, I took your comment as an insult, but it’s obvious who lacks the intelligence to get to the base line problem of this poor soul who took innocent lives, because all his crackers fell out of his cracker box. And the killer… he was found to have serious problems in the upstairs cavity, yet sounds like to me was ignored. He evidently was bothered by the infamous line between our social classes, he seemed distraught by the rich once again over running the poor.
So when are the “Intelligent Ones” going to figure it all out, Guns don’t kill people, bombs don’t kill people, etc. TILL SOMEONE LOADS THE GUN AND PULLS THE TRIGGER ! The bomb doesn’t kill anyone until someone arms it, and detonates it. Those that think we should ban all firearms, should be faced, as we soon may be, by those who wish to kill us, or take over our country, at all costs. This is what I think our founding fathers were trying to achieve when they gave us the 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms.
The one thing I am more concerned with at this time, that we should make sure there are some that retain their responsible gun ownership, is the latter part of the 2nd Amendment. “To protect our country from a tyranical government.”
We already have more than enough “gun laws”, just not enough judicial and executive “servants” that refuse to enforce them.
So, E.J. Dionne, who is the real “Stupid Ones?”

Respectfully yours
Nitro

#65499 by JNagarya

Golly, gosh, gee, Professor, you sure is smart.  Why you can twist words and meanings like some of those high-falutin’ New York lawyers.

Since you don’t trust the thoughts of TJ, how about the ruling of a court?

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated in 2001 that:

“there are numerous instances of the phrase ‘bear arms’ being used to describe a civilian’s carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the ‘people’ [or ‘citizen’ or ‘citizens’] “to bear arms in defense of themselves [or ‘himself’] and the state,’ or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage ‘bear arms’ was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.”

And:

Some have seen the Second Amendment as derivative of a common law right to keep and bear arms; Thomas B. McAffee & Michael J. Quinlan, writing in the North Carolina Law Review, March 1997, Page 781, have stated “... Madison did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment—the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

wait, Professor, there’s MORE:

Bet you haven’t heard this story on CNN:

In January 2002, a student at the Virginia Appalachian School of Law, Peter Odighizuwa, shot three people dead before other students were able to retrieve guns from their cars and put an end to the carnage before there was more bloodshed. Over thirty victims at VA Tech yesterday were denied that right as a result of a campus gun control law that helped the shooter pick off his targets at will.

Nags, baby, if you want to give up your right to bear arms, by all means do so.

And if guns are so terrible, then do what the Constitution says about laws that need changing:  Call a convention together and change the Bill of Rights and take away the 2nd Amendment.

Good Luck, Naggy.

But i choose to keep that right.  Now, i’ve got a life away from here and i’m going there.

People who cannot understand that people with deadly guns are more likely to use them for killing must be intellectually and morally challenged. The more we have people carrying deadly guns, the more likely we might have deadly massacres, like the one at Virginia Tech and Columbine and Iraq and Israel and ...

It is my deep conviction that people who love guns or promote the unlimited freedom to bear them, are cowards at heart. They need these weapons to give them a false sense of security and artificial courage for their lack of a natural one. Those types are more likely to have a trigger-happy mentality of shooting others at the least provocation or when they even perceive the least possible danger to their lives.
 
This is precisely what happened with Cho who felt so insecure and embattled that he convinced himself that a mass massacre was the best defense and revenge at the same time.
 
What I am saying here applies equally to individuals and nations alike. If the leaders of America did not have the weapons of mass destruction and the insecure, arrogant and trigger-happy mentality, the Holocaust in Iraq and Afghanistan would not have happened!

As to those who quote Thomas Jefferson on the need to bear weapons, I would say: “What do you expect from a white marauder who wanted to annihilate the native Americans and secure America for the white Europeans?! How else can he find a mechanism to destroy the natives but by promoting armament of everyone?!

Weapon lovers and promoters! I call upon you to rationally think about this issue, and to be intellectually honest at least once in your lifetimes.

#65467 by Greg Bacon on 4/21 at 7:01 am
(7 comments total)

“#65460 by JNagarya

“Yo, J Baby:  Here’s an article from this morning’s NYT. 

“As long as we’re dealing with facts, check out the following “facts:””

You’ll acknowledge that there’s a difference between non-law “facts” and _law_, correct?  Thank you.

“WASHINGTON, April 20 — Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.

“Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.”

Then the VA law, under which Cho _legally_ got his guns, is potentially in violation of Federal law because it lacks a background check, without which it couldn’t be determined that Cho had been involuntarily committed for observation. 

Correct?

Now, what’s your point?  That the Federal law is unconstitutional (according to the NRA’s lie), therefore Cho should have been able to buy his guns without the “impediment” of the Federally-required question/s on the purchase form which asked whether he were a criminal or mentally troubled?

Or that he should instead have bought second-hand, with cash, without any scrutiny whatsoever, so he could avoid even that “hurdle”?

Get your “thinking” straightened out: the flaw is not in the Federal law.  It is in the insanely lax VA law, both opposed because it exists at all, and defended as sufficient, by so-called “responsible gun owners,” which _enabled_ Cho to get his guns _legally_.

Quoting non-law by Jefferson, and preceeding that with the lie that he was involved with framing the Bill of Rights, is nowhere near honest, let alone _responsible_.

Greg Bacon opiningly—and openly—cheats—

“How about some quotes from one of the principal framers of the Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson?”

Jefferson had nothing to do with the framing of either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights: not only was he not a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, or a member of the First Congress under the new Constitution, which latter framed the Bill of Rights, but he also was not on this continent during that period: he was in Paris, France.

“The Right to Bear Arms

“In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. A gun was an everyday implement in early American society, and Jefferson recommended its use. “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.”—Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407”

1.  It is a basic rule of law that we distinguish between that which is law—enacted by a representative legislature elected to that purpose—and non-law, such as the above statement of individual opinion.  The name of the writer is not in itself sufficient to transform that opinion into being law.  We do not determine “intent” by means of secondary non-law—especially as we have primary legal authority which is directly on point: the debates by those who ACTUALLY WROTE the Second Amendment.

2.  As the intellectually honest readily recognize, the word “people” is _plural_—as in the first three words of the Constitution, “We the people”.  It is not, in fact or logic, “We the individual” or “We the person”.

3.  As I’ve made clear before now, with said legal authority—the debates of those who WROTE the Second Amendment, that Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything.

Continuing to repeat the NRA lie against the legal authority, and against the Constitution itself, will not transform that lie into a truth, let alone into law.  It only reflects adversely upon the credibility—and honesty—of those who repeat it based upon obvious disregard, foremost, with the fact that “people” cannot be “individual” unless one deliberately lies.

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45”

Here are are the meanings of “people” and “person”—the latter being _individual_—as shown in directly relevant context, as written by James Madison:

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

Only that last clause concerns the individual—and would inarguably be a right to NOT to bear arms.  Exactly as the included term COMPELLED means INVOLUNTARY—thus underscoring the fact that the sole topic is well regulated militia.

That was the only posited “individual right” debated as concerns the Second Amendment.  That being voted down, the Second has nothing whatsoever to do with “individual” anything.

I’m not so sure I revere the wisdom of the “Framers” as much as some people who continually quote them seem to regard them.  Those fine men were, after all, flawed humans, and they lived a couple hundred years ago at a time when they could not have imagined what life in the 21st century would be like.  What person of real wisdom would have the mindset to recommend to another to “make your gun a constant companion on your walks” and what good is a constitution if by it, half are enslaved to carrying an unwanted gun because the other half threatens them with one.  No thanks, Tom, and John and the rest of them.  There’s gotta be a better way, you constitutional high horse riders.

#65460 by JNagarya

Yo, J Baby:  Here’s an article from this morning’s NYT. 

As long as we’re dealing with facts, check out the following “facts:”

WASHINGTON, April 20 — Under federal law, the Virginia Tech gunman Seung-Hui Cho should have been prohibited from buying a gun after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment, a state official and several legal experts said Friday.

Federal law prohibits anyone who has been “adjudicated as a mental defective,” as well as those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, from buying a gun.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/21/us/21guns.html?_r=1&hp&oref;=slogin

How about some quotes from one of the principal framers of the Bill of Rights, Thomas Jefferson?

The Right to Bear Arms

In a nation governed by the people themselves, the possession of arms to defend their nation against usurpers within and without was deemed absolutely necessary. This right is protected by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. A gun was an everyday implement in early American society, and Jefferson recommended its use. “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.”—Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

“The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”—Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1500.htm#Arms

And a question from this “reading challenged” person:

Are the people designated in Article I of the Bill of Rights different from the people in Article II?

If so, please include a link that explains that and i’ll get my mommy to read it to me.

Back to you, Bubba

P.S.  If you don’t want the rights enshrined in Article II, then why not take the entire Bill of Righs?

greg bacon
ava, mo

#65435 by John F. Butterfield on 4/21 at 2:08 am
(5 comments total)

So many comments I couldn’t read them all. Maybe we can agree that the best way not to have school shootings, is not to have schools.

The Founders and Framers were for gun control, and enacted gun control laws.  Why not us?

Oh, I see: “freedom” is unlimited, therefore everybody must get out of the way, instead of even mentioning the possibility of stopping those who are intent upon running them over.

Maybe we can require that insanely lax gun “control” laws, which allow criminals and the mentally troubled to buy guns _legally_, such as those in VA, in keeping with which Cho got his guns legally, be made more strict, instead of in essence defending the criminals and mentally troubled who commit crimes with legally-obtained guns behind the disingenuous guise of saying, “tsk, tsk”.

Instead of always blaming the victim for not also being a killer.

#65453 by Greg Bacon on 4/21 at 5:37 am
(6 comments total)

“Each year, around 780,000 people die because of mistakes made by doctor’s hospitals and pharmacies.

“That’s over 15,000 people a week dying an untimely death at someone else’s hand.

“Should we outlaw doctor’s and hospitals?

“Maybe all the people that want to abolish the right to bear arms should move East of the Mississippi River and all the rest, move West of the same.”

You don’t read much, do you?  Or know the meaning of intellectual honesty.  Who would know better than those who DEBATED AND WROTE the Second Amendment what they intnded thereby?  NO ONE.  This is the first draft of that, as written by James Madison: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shll not be infringed; a well armed, well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

During debate, that went through several versions, retaining until that ratified that final cluase, which clearly concerns exemption from service in the militia—that we call “conscientious objection”.  It is the only posited “individual right” debated as concerned the Second Amendmnet.  It having been voted down means the Second has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything.

Read those debates, which unlike the NRA lie are legal authority, for yourself, readily available from such as Amazon: _Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress_ (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, paper, 1991), Ed. by Helen E. Veit, Kenneth R. Bowling, and Charlene Bangs Bickford.

“What about the gun laws already on the books that were either ignored or broken in the course of letting the VT shooter purchase his hardware?”

You aren’t too concerned with fact, eh?  Cho bought his guns _legally_: No permit needed, no waiting period—thus no background check.  Had there been the latter, his record of involuntary commitment would have been found, and he would have been denied buy the guns.

Except that, also in VA, for cash, one can buy second-hand with no scrutiny whatsoever—the perfect _guarantee_ that criminals and the mentally troubled can buy guns _legally_.

There is one severe obstacle: the “sincere’ expectation that a criminal or mentally troubled person will honestly answer the question/s on the purchase form as to whether the buyer is a criminal or mentally troubled.

Those are the laws “responsible gun owners” such as yourself are both—contradictoraly—protesting for violating your false “freedom,” and defending against a person who did not violate them.  Make up your mind: do you, or do you not, want criminals and the mentally troubled to be able to buy guns _legally_?

So long as you defend such insanely lax laws, the “responsible gun owner” will share responsibility with the criminals and Cho’s for their crimes, _enabled_ by the “responsible gun owners” who by bogus “argument” flat out oppose sanity.  And thus, by their own “arguments,” demonstrate they they, too, are mentally unqualified to _legally_ own guns—except in such as VA.

No matter how many die, the gun lovers will chant variations of their mantra, “Guns don’t kill people.  People kill people.”  When I think of the gun lobby and their enthusiasts, I think of a variation of the line by “Kyle” in “Terminator I.”  “They can’t be bargained with.  They can’t be reasoned with.  And they absolutely will not stop until all of us are dead.”

Each year, around 780,000 people die because of mistakes made by doctor’s hospitals and pharmacies.

That’s over 15,000 people a week dying an untimely death at someone else’s hand.

Should we outlaw doctor’s and hospitals?

Maybe all the people that want to abolish the right to bear arms should move East of the Mississippi River and all the rest, move West of the same.

What about the gun laws already on the books that were either ignored or broken in the course of letting the VT shooter purchase his hardware?

The ATF is in charge of enforcing gun laws.  And who’s in charge of the ATF?

USAG Alberto"I don’t recall/I don’t know” Gonzales.

So many comments I couldn’t read them all. Maybe we can agree that the best way not to have school shootings, is not to have schools.

On April 16th thirty-two people were killed at Virginia Tech and by April 17th the predictable outrage and sorrow was palpable.  The president was incensed, families were grief stricken, police were baffled, legislators were talking about investigations, and flags were flying at half staff.  By October of 2007, all of this will be forgotten and America will go back to normal, waiting for the next gun tragedy to hit us.  But we as Americans have made a decision – a decision that says that it is worth all of the thousands of people who die and are injured each year so that we can insanely hold on to the enormous stock pile of weapons we have amassed.  Yes, as sad as the Virginia Tech tragedy is, all citizens of our country are indirectly to blame because we all have agreed to pay this heavy price in return for the freedom of owning weapons.  Until we decided that it is time to regulate weapons and the people who own them, more innocent lives will be lost.  We continue to act as if these tragedies come at us out of the blue, but they don’t.  They come out of the fact that we as a society have failed to confront the fact that we have a serious problem with guns.  The rest of the world seems to understand this.  How many more must die until we do?

David had the answer in a few words.
“Money trumps human life, always has and always will.”

Until we get rid of the redneck attitude that we should just destroy whatever we don’t like, and that life is worthless unless its your own, we will not make progress toward compassion for humanity and we will not construct civility among our many classes.

I do believe it would be a mistake for the Dem’s to jump on the “ban guns” at this time. I think we should just be quiet and see how many children the blue bloods are willing to lose to assault guns in public places carried by cultivated enemies.

It’s not the guns, Moron.

It’s the isolation. 

Despite exhibiting many signs of the potential to become violent(as witnessed by students and teachers), he did not get the help he so desperately needed.

These attacks were planned over a period of time, and all the while he was exhibiting obvious signs of a seriously disturbed psyche.

I am not a fan of guns, but Gun Control will do nothing to make us care about each other.

Your essay is the rant of an unintelligent person who really believes a Lack of Law is what caused the events at Virginia Tech.  You believe that, if only you had the Power to Enforce Your Will, everything would be alright.

You are a fool.

Peace,
Bob

I see a couple of assertions in the comments to the effect that retaining the right to bear arms is in some way essential to retaining our other freedoms.  What alternative universe do you have to live in to believe this?

There is no reason a tyrannical government can’t oppress an armed populace.  Saddam Hussein, for God’s sake, distributed guns to the public shortly before the US invasion.  He didn’t seem to think his thugs would have much trouble as a result of that.

It’s hard to say exactly when it happened, maybe as long ago as whenever artillery was invented, but these days, if the government decides it’s better off without you, there’s no way you’re going to be able to hold them off.  If you have ten of every type of weapon and ten years’ worth of ammo, if you have bazookas and flamethrowers, whatever—it doesn’t matter.  If they have to take out a few of your neighbors, or even a whole city block, do you think they care?

I mean think about it: the United States government spends more money on its military than the rest of the world *put together*.  You’re going to take your Remington, your 30-0-6, your Uzi, your AK, and go up against that kind of a behemoth?  Imagine the kind of hardware budget you’d need to get into an arms race with the U.S. military.

You right-to-bear-arms folks can thump your chests all you want, but you are no threat whatsoever to the people in power.  You’re going to stop tyranny?  What have you been numbing your brain with the last six years?  The Military Commissions Act isn’t tyranny? 

Maybe with all your unregistered firearms you’ve been making secret plans to retake D.C., but so far, the results have been pretty secret, too.

Come on, guys, tyranny is here.  Just because *you* can still watch the Home Shopping Channel and don’t see troops in the streets just means that the water has been boiled slowly so the frogs don’t jump out of the pot.  Any time you step out of line, if you become a threat, the current president can decide you are an enemy combatant and you have no recourse.  Lawyer?  You don’t need no steenking lawyer!

So sure, if it makes you feel better to hug your puny little weapons like some kind of teddy bear, have at it.  Just don’t be making no trouble, or your ass goes to Gitmo.  And if you resist, your house becomes a smoking crater.

F.

#65356 by RAE on 4/20 at 3:23 pm
(19 comments total)

All the rational and irrational arguments posted here miss the fundamentally salient point that a MENTALLY ILL individual, consumed by a compulsion to kill and who has access to weapons, is not going to stop, consider the legality of his/her actions, look up the law on the subject and reflect on his/her plans before taking action.

I’m astonished that on a university campus of all places, with psychologists, social workers and other health professionals crawling all over the place, and with teachers and even other students who IDENTIFIED THE INDIVIDUAL AS A THREAT, simply could not find a way to effectively eliminate or even reduce the risk to the lives of others.

In America - a country where locking up suspected “terrorists” without access to either a lawyer or a trial is LEGAL - it is mind-boggling that the authorities haven’t seen fit to impound all the mental misfits roaming the streets. It must because there are so many “mental misfits” in the ranks of the “authorities” who are afraid of being caught up in the net.

Do you miss the point on purpose?

Cho got the guns _legally_, regardless whether he “looked up” the law or other irrlevant nonsense.

And he got them _legally_ because the law allows buying without a permit, without a waiting period, without a background check.

A background check would have found the record of his having been involuntarily committed for evaluation.  That would have prevented him getting the guns.

That law was not written by Cho.  It was written by the allegedly mentally healthy.  By the allegedly responsible.  And gun-nuts continue to defend that insanely lax law by avoiding the issue, and by writing off the lives of the 32 murdered.  All that matters is preventing the enactment of effective gun control.  Regardless who gets hurt or killed as result.

All based upon a lie against Constitution, history, and public safety.

And such sociopaths have the gall to call Cho names.

I think more and more about being an innocent victim of some crazy while I’m out in public.  So far, I’ve been lucky.  I feel real bad for those who weren’t so fortunate, but, you’ve gotta be thinking, if you’re considering bearing children, that there is an ever increasing possibility that you will have to bury your kid because our society is going more and more haywire.  If you believe in after-life and have been a good person, you’re a winner and if you believe you’re dead when you’re dead, you’re still a winner.  Just make sure your papers are in order before going out to the game or for milk. And, by the way, this pretty much describes day to day life in parts of the mid-East.  See you tomorrow—maybe.

All the rational and irrational arguments posted here miss the fundamentally salient point that a MENTALLY ILL individual, consumed by a compulsion to kill and who has access to weapons, is not going to stop, consider the legality of his/her actions, look up the law on the subject and reflect on his/her plans before taking action.

I’m astonished that on a university campus of all places, with psychologists, social workers and other health professionals crawling all over the place, and with teachers and even other students who IDENTIFIED THE INDIVIDUAL AS A THREAT, simply could not find a way to effectively eliminate or even reduce the risk to the lives of others.

In America - a country where locking up suspected “terrorists” without access to either a lawyer or a trial is LEGAL - it is mind-boggling that the authorities haven’t seen fit to impound all the mental misfits roaming the streets. It must because there are so many “mental misfits” in the ranks of the “authorities” who are afraid of being caught up in the net.

#65331 by vanjejo on 4/20 at 8:09 pm
(10 comments total)

“You can take weapons away from the citizenry under a controlled environment - you can log who has them, where to find them and pretty much every aspect of that individuals life. 

“You will never take weapons away from
1.  the more vile and determined criminals and those with underlying metal tendencies to do what they want regardless.”

Facts are such inconvenient things, aren’t?  That must be why you ignore these:

1.  In VA, handguns can be bought without permit and without waiting period.  No wiating period means no background check.  No background check means no finding the record of Cho’s having been involuntarily committed for psychological evaluation.  As result, Cho bought the guns and ammunition _legally_.

2.  And there was an alternative: In VA, for cash, one can buy second-hand with no scrutiny whatsoever—the perfect guarantee that criminals and the mentally troubled—the “vile”—can _legally_ buy guns with which to commit their crimes.

3.  The VA knowingly false expectation that criminals and the mentally troubled will honestly answer the question on the purchase form as to whether they are a criminal or mentally troubled is obviously and indefensibly irresponsible.

That means the “good,” “responsible” citizens—the non-“vile”—who enacted that insanely lax set of laws, and those who defend that insanely lax set of laws, share the responsibility for the 32 murders _enabled_ by that insanely lax set of laws.

That clearly includes _you_.

“. . . .  Those countries who claim to be “gun” free have other forms of violence and even more devastating forms of forceful attack that can be more damaging than any bullet.”

Substantiate.

“. . . . banning the publics right to arms is not a good idea”.

The Second Amendment, as I detail in another post in this thread, has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything, therefore is irrelevant to the issue of gun control.  Better you focus on the true and relevant: insanely lax gun “control” laws such as those in VA.  We cannot expect perfection; but we can certainly do better than actually _enabling_ criminals, and the Cho’s, in achieving their goals.

#65339 by Rob Coleman on 4/20 at 2:11 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

Does gasoline cause arson? Does the gasoline can?

Does alcohol cause people to die in car accidents? Does the car?

Does ammunition kill people? Does the gun?

The answer in all cases is no. Arsonists can use gasoline contained in a gasoline can to burn a building down. It is neither the gasoline nor the gasoline can that causes the fire. There must be a source of ignition.

People who consume too much alcohol and then drive a car cause accidents that kill people. It is neither the alcohol nor the car whice is responsible for the death of innocent people. There must be someone driving the car.

A crazy person can use bullets fired by way of loaded ammunition from a gun to kill people. It is neither the bullet nor the gun that kills people. It requires someone to load and fire the gun.

We don’t ban gasoline or alcohol, or gasoline cans or cars, so why ammunition and guns?

You’re the first in this thread to drag in the straw man/red herring of “banning” guns.  Why not wait until someone actually suggests “banning” before opposing it?  Doing it that way would prevent you being irrational and intellectually dishonest.

#65249 by Bill on 4/20 at 9:14 am

“I can appreciate the concerns fo many “liberal” folk that want to do something about “gun violence”. BUT please stop and think about disarming America. . . .  I’m certain our . . . elected officials . . . will always keep our First Amendment rights in the forefront . . . .”

You mean SECOND Amendment, don’t you?  Here’s a quick reminder.  The first draft of that which became the Second, as by James Madison, read:

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

The last clause underscores the fact that the Second is only about well regulated militia.  But wait—through debate that amendment evolved through several versions.  This one was later—

  {6} “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

Yep: the last clause clearly concerned that we call “conscientious objection”—the right to NOT bear arms.  And as that was the only posited “individual right” debated as concerns the Second, and it was voted down, the Second has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything. 

Those debates are legal authority.  And those debates are in print and readily available from such as Amazon: _Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress_ (Johns Hopkins, 1991), Ed. by Helen E. Veit, et al.

Let’s see what other pseudo-facts you have to offer:

“Jefferson didn’t think so, Teddy Roosevelt didn’t think so, Patrick Henry, . . . .”—etc.

None of whom had anything to do with framing the Second, thus their views are not law, and are irrelevant.

“Aside from these true Amrerican patriots, others have come to the realization that disarming is the first step towards slavery, Spartacus, Shaka Zulu, . . . .”—etc.

Um, Mr. “Historian”-“Patriot”, this is from statute enacted by MA-Bay’s “revolutionary” legislature implementing a “Resolve of the American Congress, dated March 14, 1776”:

“. . . . every Male Person above sixteen Years of Age, resident in any Town or Place in this Colony, who shall neglect or refuse to subscribe a printed or written Declaration of the Form and Tenor herein after prescribed, upon being required thereto by the Committee of Correspondence, Inspection and Safety for the Town or Place in which he dwells, or any of them, shall be disarmed, and have taken from him in Manner hereafter directed, all such Arms, Ammunition, and Warlike Implements, as by the strictest Search can be found in his Possession or belonging to him; . . . .”

Seems you don’t know so much actual history of your country after all.

“There are two reasons we still have some freedoms in this country, and they are inextricably entwined.  That is the freedom of the press, and the right to bear arms.  When one is eroded, the other will not be far behind!”

Ah! the “First Amendment was placed first because that was most important, and the Second was placed directly after in order to back up the First!” falsehood.  In fact, the Bill of Rights as submitted to the states consisted of Twelve Amendments.  The first two were rejected, thus making the Third the First, and the Fourth the Second.

“Live free or die!”

I prefer fact to the substitution of slogans for thought.  The Second has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything—the NRA lie against that fact notwithstanding.

Regarding the notion that armed students could have protected themselves in the event of a campus attack. Has anyone considered what would happen when a bunch of armed police pumped up on adrenaline move into a building filled with armed people even more pumped up on adrenaline?

I’m not 100% sure that gun control would have stopped this incident from happening, but I don’t see how we’d be worse off if handguns, and especially assault rifles, were banned.  And if reasonable checks were done before a gun permit were issued. 

But I’ve been thinking about this air-travel thing for a good while, every time I take a flight.  We are zero percent safer due to having to take off our shoes before boarding.  We are zero percent safer as a result of having to put all of our deadly gels and liquids into a plastic bag.  Whatever point you are making, these are extremely bad examples to use.

You can take weapons away from the citizenry under a controlled environment - you can log who has them, where to find them and pretty much every aspect of that individuals life. 

You will never take weapons away from
1.  the more vile and determined criminals and those with underlying metal tendencies to do what they want regardless.

2.  Our military and politicians via their control of much potentially devastating legislation that could cost america it’s idependence and democracy.

That is a crappy alternative - and just plain ignorant on the part of the average citizen. 
As far as other countries estimation of us?  That IS A LAUGH considering the muck and mire this administration has slung on our name.  Those countries who claim to be “gun” free have other forms of violence and even more devastating forms of forceful attack that can be more damaging than any bullet.  Disarm?  Disarm the police also - britians “bobbies” don’t carry weapons….. 
Maybe someday this might have been accepted - maybe a time in our past; We are already 1/2 way to a police state and banning the publics right to arms is not a good idea ...................

Until we deal with the underlying causes of the insane violence that pervades our entire society, we will continue to have tragic events like those at Columbine and Virginia Tech. Every day we see violence celebrated in the media and in our sporting events. Our government finds solutions to political problems in the most violent of acts, war, and thinks nothing of it. Yes, reasonable gun control might help, but sadly enough, it would only be at best a feeble gesture.

It’s not the guns, it’s the sick, violent culture in this country. Our answer to everything is kill it or overthrow it.

How can we be shocked about the mass murders in this country when a US Senator (McCain), who is running for President, can make fun of bombing Iran by changing and singing the words to a Beach Boys song: Bomb Bomb Iran. And when people are outraged by it, he has the bush arrogance to say:
“My response is, Lighten up and get a life.”

In “Bowling for Columbine”, Michael Moore points out that Canada has more guns than the US and the kids play the same violent video games, but they don’t have the same mass violence.

We need to figure out why.

I think it’s kind of ironic that this is mentioned in the article: “No doubt the NRA will mount a boycott of Foster’s beer” since it is now brewed in Canada for the American market, not Australia.

Just an observation.

Google video: 9/11 Press for Truth

bibisad said, “I am against guns, but
Canada has more guns in homes then us.”

You have to break that statement down by type of gun - Canada has a lot of hunting rifles and shotguns, particularly in rural or wilderness areas, but handguns are very strictly controlled and restricted.

That’s a big difference.

#65252 by truthseeker on 4/20 at 3:54 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“Almost everyone seems to have forgotten that gun control WAS in effect on the Virginia Tech campus and, plain and simply, it just didn’t work in this case.  Strict gun control advocates are not helping this issue by screaming for more gun control.  This shooter should have been dealt with way before it got to this point.  The subject of gun control or NO gun control has nothing much to do with it….”

Actually, it has everything to do with gun control, as the crime was committed with handguns _legally_ bought by a mentally troubled person.

All the gun-nuts who advance your “argument” ignore and avoid the facts—beginning with the fact that Cho didn’t buy his guns on the VA Tech campus.  He bought them from a licensed gun dealer, without needing a permit, and without waiting period.  No waiting period because no background check—which latter would have found the record of his having been involuntarily committed for psychological evaluation, and thus would have denied him the purchase of those guns.

Until, of course, he discovered that also in VA, one can, for cash, buy second-hand with no scrutiny whatsoever—the perfect guarantee that criminals and the mentally troubled can get guns with which to pursue their aims.

And the gun-nuts, by means of your “argument” and others, avoid those facts in order to put all responsiblity on the perpetrator—ignoring the fact that that responsibility also falls on all who enacted, and defend, insanely lax laws which _enable_ the criminal and mentally troubled to commit their crimes.

Ah, but all those non-criminal/“crazy” “good people” who defend such insanely lax laws are not responsible after all—

They _knowingly_ expect that a criminal or mentally troubled person will honestly answer the question on the purchase form as to whether they are criminal or mentally troubled.  And we are to believe that is what “responsibility” and the defense of “responsible gun ownership” looks like as enacted in law by the “responsible”.

Get serious: the responsibility for the deaths of those 32 innocents is properly shared by all those who defend those insanely lax gun laws, which laws _enabled_ Cho to commit those murders by allowing him to _legally_ buy the guns and ammunition with which he committed those murders.

We the people are fed up with your narcissistic, self-centered, sociopathic defense of the indefensible based upon a lie, compounded by piled-on irresponsibility and yet more lies.

#65262 by SamSnedegar on 4/20 at 9:50 am
(4 comments total)

I see that Scott wants to join Dionne . . .

Switch?

You don’t cause the crazy to switch by making one weapon or another unavailable. The crazy uses whatever he has at hand and suits his fantasy to the situation.

And by the way, heroes don’t come one to a box; see the wild eyed idiot on the subway with a k-bar and EVERYONE gives him a wide berth except perhaps another crazy.

My point, which mayhap you missed because of poor communication on my part, is that even if every single gun in the USA were melted down to make automobiles, some crazy would use his car to kill forty or fifty people before he ran out of gas or cops finally found him and filled him and his car with more holes than a Gonzalez story about firing US Attorneys.

I don’t pretend to know chicken or egg things like whether the crazy built his fantasy because he had guns or got his guns to make his fantasy come alive; all I know is that trying to keep a crazy from doing crazy things is like pushing in on a balloon or building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out. And I say again that if you stop the crazy one way, you just force him to find another, and he will.

In short: Since gun control can’t be perfect, there should be none at all.  And, as one person can kill another with a hammer, we should grant him a broader range of choices of weapons.

How about looking at the “crazy” within the real world, the social context.  Cho didn’t writethe laws which allowed him to _legally_ buy a handgun without permit, without background check—which latter would have found the record of his having been involuntarily committed by the state for psychological evaluation.  That insanely lax law was written by those you both don’t consider crazy, and absolve of responsibility for not only enacting but also defending that insanely lax law, which made Cho’s crimes possible with maximum ease.

Also in VA, cash can buy second-hand with no scrutiny whatsoever—the perfect guarantee that criminals and the metnally troubled can _legally_ buy the means by which to commit their crimes.

The core irony is that gun-nuts always jabber about “responsible” gun ownership—while invariably and irresponsibly avoiding the issue and the specific facts in order to repeat _ad nauseaum_ their nonsensical and indefensible “arguments” in defense of the clearly indefensible.

Cho got his guns _legally_ because the “good people” who are “responsible” enacted and defend a clearly irresponsible and insanely lax gun control law which in fact _enables_ the criminals and Cho’s to commit their crimes.  A law which knowingly—and irresponsibly—expects criminals and mentally troubled individuals to honestly and in good faith answer the questions on the purchase form as to whether they are criminals or mentally troubled.

And the “responsible” gun-nut makes every irresponsible effort to distract attention from those facts.

Guns or all kinds of killing weapons do not have eyes. Only human beings are blind, completely blind, so they could use weapons as toys and kill others without any remorse. But we have to review regulations when selling “these toys” especially to those who under 25 yrs. old.

Sam, your case might be more convincing if you could point to multiple copy-cat cases (Cho’s not the first to directly mention Klebold and Harris) of mass auto-mobile murders in countries where easy access to guns has been restricted.

I see that Scott wants to join Dionne . . .

Switch?

You don’t cause the crazy to switch by making one weapon or another unavailable. The crazy uses whatever he has at hand and suits his fantasy to the situation.

And by the way, heroes don’t come one to a box; see the wild eyed idiot on the subway with a k-bar and EVERYONE gives him a wide berth except perhaps another crazy.

My point, which mayhap you missed because of poor communication on my part, is that even if every single gun in the USA were melted down to make automobiles, some crazy would use his car to kill forty or fifty people before he ran out of gas or cops finally found him and filled him and his car with more holes than a Gonzalez story about firing US Attorneys.

I don’t pretend to know chicken or egg things like whether the crazy built his fantasy because he had guns or got his guns to make his fantasy come alive; all I know is that trying to keep a crazy from doing crazy things is like pushing in on a balloon or building a wall to keep illegal immigrants out. And I say again that if you stop the crazy one way, you just force him to find another, and he will.

I can appreciate the futility of more reactionary laws but I have a hard time buying the argument that without guns the psychotics characterized by people like Cho will switch to knives, garottes, or even bombs. I can’t help but feel their gunslinging rampage is central to whatever fantasy is unfolding in their minds. I just can’t see how a psychotic could kill as many people in as short a time with a knife as with a gun. In a school rampage students would just bury the person under a flurry of chairs and desks before they got very far.
 
Whatever else happens more public funding for mental health care would definitely be a good investment.

Not satire, just typical of any pundit with his head somehow planted in the nether region of his alimentary canal.

I am a VA Tech graduate, and if anyone has a heavier heart than I, then I am sad for him also, but despite the horror of what happened, I am not ready to blame it on poor gun laws or the University. Crazy people do crazy things, and admittedly guns make it easier to commit crazy murders, but I’m not ready for MORE fascist state controls to be placed on us because of the carnage at VPI.

THINK! Even if you had controlled the guns, then the crazy man would have planted bombs or poisoned the water supply or set fire to the dorms or gone around in the dark of night garroting people. And if you eliminated every neurotic, semi-psychotic person from colleges, there would be no professors to teach there. Van Zandt in all his maunderings made one point that stuck: about one per cent of the population is psychotic in some form, meaning that there are almost 500 of them dotting the VaTech campus. Just be glad they don’t all go off at once.

I’m surprised E.J. Dionne still needs a daddy to know what to do (or what not to do) and has decided “daddy” has to tell the rest of us as well.

I’m also hoping the “satire” label was mistakenly omitted.

Grow up.

IT’S NOT THE GUNS, STUPID!

Just because someone does something “way out there” doesn’t mean we should have all these supposed “standards” that will cure it.  I can’t buy enough sudafed to last me a week because some druggies are using the stuff for “whatever”.  I’m sure all the druggies aren’t having any problem getting the stuff.  Do you really believe drug users care if they have more sudafed than what’s allowed!?  Do you really believe that the gunmen wouldn’t have broken the law to get a gun?  It’s stupid reasoning and a false sense of security.

We’ve raised the age for buying alcohol and it’s DONE NOTHING TO STOP ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION BY YOUNG PEOPLE!  If guns scare you that much maybe it’s because you don’t know enough about them. As for the NRA they’re a hooky nut-case group who proposes to speak for ALL gun owners. BUT THEY DO NOT!

Yes, gun ownership has become a hot-button issue.  This just goes to show that extreme liberal or conservative “your with us or against us” attitude that divides and polarizes the voting public.  In reality the serious issues of the day are discarded and voting records aren’t even assessed because of the firestorm over ONE issue.  IT’S STUPIDITY, PURE STUPIDITY!

As for our “culture of violence”, how is it you reason that guns cause this?  Isn’t that a little self-serving and unfounded.  Since our nation began people have owned guns, was it a “culture of violence” back 100 years ago too?  People who commit criminal or heinous crimes using guns could give “two shits” where they get them!

When you indulge in the ignorant rant that “it’s because of the guns” that these things happen.  You’re really missing the boat.  You are allowing those who commit these atrocities to whine “Yeah, if it wouldn’t have been so easy to get, I wouldn’t have done it!”  That’s HOGWASH!  All they are doing is shifting the blame from themselves and their actions to something THEY know will be swallowed by supposed “peace lovers”.

There are reasons for having a gun.  That’s why we give them to cops.  Do you think that if we “make a law” banning guns, cops won’t need guns anymore?  That’s not the way it works!  We don’t frisk everyone coming out of Wal-Mart because “SOME” people steal!

Yes, I’m a peace loving person.  I’m against this illegal war!  But I’m damn glad we went into Nazi Germany, freed those victims AND USED OUR GUNS TO DO IT!

It’s a good article, makes good points, major and minor.

But this statement is absurd:

“In almost all other spheres, we act reasonably when faced with new problems.”

See health care, education, international relations, economy, etc and so on.

Universal health care in America? Far better to harvest the ill. 

Stan D. Garde’s idea: compassionate consumption—compassionate cannibalism. Maybe a corporation could get a charter to run a business that identifies the weakest among us, beginning at, say, age thirty or forty — or, hell, any age — and then harvest these ill, or maimed, or mere weaklings for amputation or termination and processing into food, or a broad abundance of other commercial products. 

The pharmaceutical companies may scream that this will cut into their stupendous profits, but it seems to me that they, like anyone, could use a little more competition in the cutthroat, so to speak, free market.

I mean, we have to have standards. 

The alternative is to just let people suffer, and force them into the agonizing decisions of trying to decide whether or not to buy medicine or food or electricity or heat or fuel or shelter or transportation or education, and so on. And that’s not a very nice thing to do to our families and neighbors, now is it? 

http://apragmaticpolicy.wordpress.com/2007/04/09/tropetopia-xvi-–-health-care-for-all-no-way-eat-the-ill-compassionate-cannibalism/

And while we’re at it, why not deputize everyone, militarize us all?—surely a great way to reduce violence and improve conditions of life for all:

http://apragmaticpolicy.wordpress.com/2007/04/17/militarize-us-all/

I’m sorry, was the ‘satire’ label left off of this one?

Using airport screening measures since 9/11 to support this line of reasoning isn’t really helpful, since all it does is give examples how we overreact and implement ridiculous “security” measures. Rather than acting “pragmatically” in the skies, it’s an example of our knee-jerk hysteria.

Turning this into a gun control issue is essentially changing the subject, looking for somewhere to lay blame, when the blame belongs on a society that glorifies violence, war, aggression. Simply taking guns out of the equation (or trying to at least) is not going to change that. Our problem is a cultural one, not a legislative one.

And after guns have been banned, who/what will the scapegoat be after the first mass shooting occurs?