#66339 by Gloria Picchetti on 4/25 at 12:35 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“If every person on the VA Tech campus had had a loaded gun there probably would have still been the initial murders in the dorm. After that, it’s all on the VA Tech administration. The campus should have immediated been locked down. The SWAT teams should have been everywhere. “Domestic” or not it’s a college campus full of young people sent there to learn, meet people, enjoy life, and be safe.”

From the facts we learned after the murders, it is clear the VA Tech. administration has much to answer for.  And it will deservedly be sued six ways from Sunday for its negligences.

But Cho got his guns, so it also falls on all those who made that possible, those who defend those laws as “sufficient,” and those who struggle to avoid and change the subject away from these facts altogether.  It is they who invoke the myth of the “responsible gun owner” in dishonest effort to hide their ongoing irresponsibility.

#64932 by vanjejo on 4/19 at 9:29 am
(11 comments total)

“Gun laws are cutting edge - a non partisan issue.”

In reality and law; not in politics to those who don’t recognize the necessary distinction between law, and such as politics.

“Instinctively I would say gun controls are good as I neither have the desire to use one or to have one used on me.”

A reasoned statement.  But then --

“I already have to pass an intinery of process’ to obtain a gun but absolutely NO LAW on the books will stop me from having one used on me… the bad guy will always find a weapon despite any actions.”

Underlying that irrationality is the presumption of perfection: “absolutely”; “always”.

Even bad guys are not perfect, so cannot “always” anything.  The choices are not limited to extremes indicative of perfection, which does not and cannot exist: “absolutely”; “always”; “never”.  A law may not prevent all instances of bad guys getting guns illegally.  But in the vast majority of instances it does exactly that.  (And, as bad guys are likely liars, what prevents them claiming to be “responsible gun owners”?)

Neither NRA nor gun-nuts ever give statistics on how often such laws—allegedly “thousands”— actually do as intended. 

“With the major loss of democracy in this country and the push and potential for a total government police state - I would NOT consider giving up my right to bear arms.”

All I point out to you, Mr. Hysterical False Propaganda-Spewing Gun-Nut, is that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything.  It is a constitutional provision, linked to the two Militia Clauses in the body of the Constitution, which applies solely to a public institution—well regulated militia.  It is irrelevant to the issue of private, individual gun ownership. 

Private, individual gun ownership is an entirely separate issue, and area of law—because not a public institution subject to laws governing public institutions—which the Framers left, as an issue, to the states.  In VT’s first constitution (7/8/1777)are these several separate—and separated—clauses in its “Declaration of Rights” (Chap. I):

IX.  . . . ; nor can any man who is conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms, be justly compelled thereto, if he will pay such equivalent; . . . .

XV.  That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves AND [my emphasis] the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

In their second constitution (3/1787), Chap. II., “Plan or Frame of Government” --

XIX.  The inhabitants of this Commonwealth shall be trained and armed for its defence, under such regulations, restrictions, and exceptions, as the General Assembly shall by law direct. . . .

XXXVII.  The inhabitants of this State shall have liberty, in seasonable times, to hunt and fowl on the lands they hold, and on other lands not inclosed; and in like manner to fish in all boatable and other waters, not private property, under proper regulations, to be hereafter made and provided by the General Court.

The latter obviously both establishes private, individual right—entirely separate from “right of the people”—_plural_—“to keep and bear arms” --to own guns for hunting, and at the same time limits that right—first to hunting.

“I would not put it past this current administration to impose a police state - demanding the records of “registered owners”, confiscating the weapons under the already implemented guise of “national security” - imprisoning those who fail to turn over their arms (under national security) - it HAS been done before . . . .”

As I’ve substantiated, was done by the Founders and Framers; _ergo_, they were not opposed to gun control, even to actively “grabbing,” and prohibition.

#66105 by Skruff on 4/24 at 7:02 pm
(Unregistered commenter)

“Please be aware that there IS a waiting period for handgun ownership in Virginia.  One must fill out a form at the store where the weapon is purchased and wait 7 days to two weeks for “clearence”

“The glitch in Cho’s case was the State never sent the mental health report to the national data base at time of commitment, therefore after two weeks past, Cho was permitted to pick up his guns.”

I thought he wasn’t “committed”.  Which is it?

If not so serious as to consequences, it would be laughable how long it took—is is always the fact—for a gun-nut to drop the dishonest denial of and try to confront the central fact: Cho got the guns _legally_.  And that that was made possible either because the law is insanely lax, or because someone else—outside Cho’’s responsibility—didn’t do as the law required.

“The advance planning of his “event” should be enough to derail any attempt at a temporary insanity plea.”

Not under law.  But gun-nuts don’t bother themselves with technicalities, such as rule of law, especially that of the adjudication of mental competency, and the legal distinctions made in and between the several jurisdictions.  Easier to simply avoid the effort to correctly inform oneself by borrowing at second- hand resort to—copping plea of—“divine right”.  And expect that invocation of religiosmut/gibberish will be the end of the discussion.

For those and the following reasons I’ll doubt your statement of the VA law until you provide the language in the law which supports your assertions --

Among the questions asked you don’t answer is whether the VA law accounts for Internet sales—if that is how Cho got one/both of his guns—and particularly, whether it is legal to sell guns to individuals sight-unseen (regardless means), and if so, what requirements and restrictions apply, if any.

What remains certain, if your statement of the law is correct, is that Cho got the guns _legally_.  Whether he was ravingly insane, or to lesser degree mentally troubled or incompetent, is irrelevant, intent also notwithstanding: It was not his mental in/competency, regardless relative degree, which effectuated the murder of his 32 classmates: those deaths were effectuated by means of the gun, and directly caused by the bullets shot from it into their bodies.

Cho - hand - gun - bullets are inseparably linked: guns kill.  And he got those guns _legally_.  But even were the guns obtained illegally, the moral—at minimum—responsibility for the murders embraces all those who made it possible.  We are a society, not a society of one individual who falsely claims to be the plural “people”.

#65442 by vanjejo on 4/21 at 9:58 am
(11 comments total)

“Our founding fathers would be ROLLING in their graves.  Never would they have thought their offspring would be so subliminally ignorant. 
When we allow our government to pit our own military against it’s citizens we are at the lowest level intelligence.”

When did that happen?  Kent State was the National Guard—the militia.

“The right to carry a gun is essential to democracy - no question,no debate.”

So you reject the fact that the Framers of the Second Amendment DEBATED the Second Amendment—discussion and debate being essential to democracy?

And reject the fact that it does not support your view?  The Framers left individual gun rights and control to the states.

Before you get yourself into trouble, realize the fact that every right is inextricably entwined with a responsibility.  Every right has limits, in reality, and as stipulated in law.

“We are very close to using our forefathers graves as latrines.”

And you and those who refuse to accept the rule of law over your favored out-of-context non-law snippets are doing the pissing on those graves.

It’s a basic principle of law that we do not determine the law by means of secondary non-law materials.  None of the _opinions_ you quote are law, therefore are irrelevant.

By contrast, the debates of those who actually WROTE the Second Amendment, being legislative history, are both primary material and legal authority.  The question is whether you truly care what they intended, or instead prefer the NRA lie against the Constitution, that legislative history, and sanity. 

If you do care, those debates are 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.

If you don’t care, you’ll continue to piss on the graves of the Founders and Framers.

#65470 by Scott on 4/21 at 2:05 pm
(7 comments total)

“By the way, it begs the question...What are the conditions that will trigger Americans to excersize their 2nd amendment rights anyway?

“I would have thought the mass shooting at Kent State would qualify myself.”

The “conditions” about which you ask are stipulated in your state’s constitution, and the statute/s—“Militia Acts”—implementing same.  (That fact applies to the constitutions of all 50 states.)

Foremost, the commander-in-chief of your state’s militia is your state’s governor; and the top officers are, variously, nominated by the governor, and or one of the legislative chambers, and or approved (or not) by one or both chambers of the legislature. 

Those being the fact, it is obvious that the purpose of the state’s militia is not that you falsely assume.  Unless your state’s governor is looney, or suicidal, he is not, as commander-in-chief of the militia, by history or law, intended or allowed to “defend against” the gov’t of which he is simultaneously head.

There are also two comparable “Militia Clauses” in the US Constitution, the first of which—Art. I., Sec. 8., Cl. 15.—stipulates the purposes of the militia: “The Congress shall have Power . . . .  To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”.

All the Second Amendment has ever done is ensure the states—gov’ts—that they could keep their militia.  But that remains linked to Federal control, as stipulated in the second “Militia Clause” in the Constitution—Art. I., Sec. 8., Cl. 16.: “The Congress shall have Power . . . .  To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

The Founders and Framers often expressed their fear of standing armies; thus their alternative thereto was well regulated militia—as per the Second Amendment.  In addition, they continued the tradition, begun with the founding of the earlist colonies, of keeping the military under civilian control—“The military power is always to be in exact subordination to the Civil Power.” (MA-Bay constitution; Sam Adams).  Or as expressed as complaint in the “Declaration of Independence: “[King George III] has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.”

In sum: the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything.  See _Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress_ (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins,, 1991), Ed. by Helen E. Veit, et al., readily available from such as Amazon.

Quote Scott: “...I would have thought the mass shooting at Kent State would qualify....”

Video: Kent State University, May 4, 1970- http://soapbox.msn.com/video.aspx?vid=a5b43862-9c4e-40 4a-b09b-f46a0db350c3

By the way, it begs the question...What are the conditions that will trigger Americans to excersize their 2nd amendment rights anyway?

I would have thought the mass shooting at Kent State would qualify myself.

If the founding fathers really are rolling in their graves its because the main reason for maintaining this amendment has long since been ignored.

Lead, follow or get out of the way.

Our founding fathers would be ROLLING in their graves.  Never would they have thought their offspring would be so subliminally ignorant. 
When we allow our government to pit our own military against it’s citizens we are at the lowest level intelligence .  The right to carry a gun is essential to democracy - no question,no debate.  We are very close to using our forefathers graves as latrines.

“Cherish therefore the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention ... If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you & I, & Congress & Assemblies, judges & governors shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions; and experience declares that man is the only animal which devours his own kind, for I can apply no milder term to the governments of Europe, and to the general prey of the rich on the poor. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, Jan. 16, 1787.

“Whenever a people are so enervated by luxury as to intrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction and influence of the most wealthy citizens.” Signed “A Farmer,” in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, Letter XIV, January 29, 1791.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops…” Noah Webster, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution” (1787) in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888)

“To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them …” George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380 (June 14, 1788).

“to preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them …” Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788. See a discussion on who wrote these letters is available on the Constitution.org website HERE!

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,… in the several kingdoms of Europe,… the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” James Madison, The Federalist Papers # 46.

“Whoever considers the unprincipled enemy we have to to cope with, will not hesitate to declare that nothing but arms or miracles can reduce them to reason and moderation.” Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775.

“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?” Patrick Henry, “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” speech delivered on March 23, 1775.

“The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.” Patrick Henry, “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” speech delivered on March 23, 1775.

“The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable--and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.” Patrick Henry, “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” speech delivered on March 23, 1775.

“… it matters that he had NO REGARD for human life or the law....”

No, vernfitz, Cho did have regard for human life enough to be aware that he was performing an extreme action. He was not insane but deluded ....and under pressure, imaginary or otherwise.

He stated that he was being “forced” into it. That was honestly the way he felt after assuming, correctly or not, that others had already had little or no regard for him and his life.

He valued human life well enough to be unhappy about his own existence but his view of the way others treated him and how he was to solve those issues was negatively influenced and he succumbed to those influences.

As such, he was neither a coward nor a fool so much as simply naive. Sadly, it cost so much to have it all end in folly instead of resolution. Everybody eventually pays the price for each other’s unhappiness and misery.

Are you kidding? Murder is ALWAYS illegal. Look it up. I can’t believe you wrote that. Was Cho a murderer before 7 am on Monday? That, we don’t know but for the sake of your argument lets assume not, but we really don’t know.

Thus, your next statement displays your ignorance.

Irrelevant? Are you sure? I know a bunch of people who own guns that don’t kill people. Follow along if you can. Mr. Cho displayed a complete lack of respect for the law. That law being, DO NOT KILL PEOPLE. And though he disregarded the law, you believe he would have obeyed a law that prohibited him from owning a gun. Had there been tighter gun laws. If he had been required to wait one year for a gun. If he had been denied a gun from the dealer. He would have waited a year, or found another source for a gun. Where? I don’t know, maybe some drug dealer who ignores the drug laws, a dirty cop, a meth head. People steal guns all the time there are, millions of places to get a gun. All a person needs is the desire.

Pay attention to reality? That’s rich. My whole argument is relevant. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean its wrong. Yes, yes, and yes, Cho was a criminal. It just takes 32 dead for you to acknowledge it, 32 dead; can you wrap your head around that?

Now the heart of the matter, to you the crime is the gun, not the murder. You are more outraged by the gun storeowner than you are by Cho. It is pathetic that you focus on the gun and marginalize 32 lives that ended at the hands of this criminal. It doesn’t matter that he wasn’t a criminal when he bought the guns, it matters that he had NO REGARD for human life or the law.

You are the one claiming he wasn’t a criminal before Monday. So what would have prevented him from buying a gun if there had been a year waiting period? I’m not following. Mental illness? Maybe, but that is a different issue and you know it. The issue is this. In your scenario, Cho would have just been peachy keen, happy go lucky but those damn guns ruined him. It’s their fault. To you Cho is blameless. He was mentally ill. Let me explain it, as you seem unable to grasp this subject. You are like all the news organizations. They are all running around trying to “understand” what made Cho do this. The bottom line is this. What Cho did is unexplainable to rational people. So if you or one of the news organizations does come to an understanding of what “made Cho tick”, then I think you are just as screwed in the head as he was. It is impossible for sane people to grasp random acts of violence. There was nothing, nothing anyone could have done, besides having prior knowledge of his plan that could have completely averted his rampage.

So by your estimation, passed laws would have prevented the massacre at Virginia Tech. If this weren’t so sad it would almost be funny. One day this week I would like you to do us all a favor. Go to your local courthouse. Find a court in session and see how the obedience thing is going. Our courts are full, our prisons bulging, and our police overworked because people are so adept at not following instructions. It is impossible to legislate morals. And murder is inherently a moral problem.

To summarize, you haven’t in your response to me, stated one fact. You have stated opinions. And while I believe you are entitled to your opinion, it doesn’t help with the facts of this tragedy. The humorous part of all of this is I don’t own any guns. I don’t need rationalization, I need results, and my kids need results. As long as there are people there will be murderers. As long as there is prey, there will be predators. So, back to my original question; if murder is illegal and someone chooses to ignore the law. What difference does it make what the weapon is?  So again is it guns that are the problem, or people who ignore laws. Including gun laws, or fork laws, or brick laws, or rope laws, or baseball bat laws.

#65360 by vernfitz on 4/20 at 10:15 pm
(2 comments total)

“I am going to ask one more time.  Is murder illegal in this country?”

Not before it is committed.  And before it was committed by Cho, he was not a murderer.  So that question question apply to him before he committed the murders.

“Did Mr. Cho obey that law?”

Irrelevant, as he wasn’t a murder before he committed murder, therefore he had not vilated that law.  In addition, he did not violate the law in order to get guns.

“But I’m sure he would have obeyed one that prohibited him from owning a gun.  Criminals don’t obey laws they don’t want to.”

Except none of that is relevant, as he wasn’t a criminal when he bought the guns, and he didn’t violate the law in order to buy the guns.

Are you saying Cho was a criminal?  Yes, I believe you are.  PAY ATTENTION TO REALITY:

Did he violate the law in order to get his guns?  No, he did not.  Was he a criminal at the time he bought those guns?  No, he was not. 

“Gun control is not the issue.”

Gun control is precisely the issue.  Cho was not a criminal when he bought his guns.  He did not violate the law in getting his guns.  The law was/is that he didn’t need a permit, didn’t have to endure a waiting period, didn’t have to undergo a background check.

Had the law required a background check, he would not have been able to buy the guns.  That obviously means the law which allowed him to buy the guns is at fault. 

“The issue is and will be people control.  What do we do to prevent people with no conscience from preying on those with a conscience?  Answer that and you have the answer to many problems.”

Wholly irrelevant, as Cho was not a criminal at the time he bought the guns.  Nor did he buy the guns illegally.  The law: no permit needed, no waiting period, no background check, the expectation that a criminal or mentally troubled person will honestly answer the question on the purchase form as to whether one is a criminal or mentally troubled person.

And then there’s the other legal alternative: cash will buy second-hand, without any scrutiny whatsoever—the perfect _gaurantee_ the criminals and mentally rroubled persons can buy guns _LEGALLY_, even though criminals or mentally troubled before-the-fact of such buying.

Sane laws would have prevented Cho getting guns _legally_—instead of _enabling_ him by allowing him to buy _legally_, with no obstacles or effort. 

If you don’t get thoe facts, then you are insufficiently responsible to own guns, because your rationalizations of the issue are as irresponsible as those of any criminal who also wishes to ignore and avoid the law.

I am going to ask one more time.  Is murder illegal in this country?  Did Mr. Cho obey that law?  But I’m sure he would have obeyed one that prohibited him from owning a gun.  Criminals don’t obey laws they don’t want to.  Gun control is not the issue.  The issue is and will be people control.  What do we do to prevent people with no conscience from preying on those with a conscience?  Answer that and you have the answer to many problems.

If the ‘rugged individualists’ were truly serious about rescuing the US from tyranny, they would have done so a long time ago.

#65114 by DennisD on 4/20 at 1:35 am
(Unregistered commenter)

“Long before guns were invented people killed each other with rocks, clubs, spears, arrows and anything else that was handy.”

So the cure is to increase the number of ways to kill.  Is that reasonable, if we are in truth opposed to all the killing?  No, it is not. 

Why do you pretend to give a damn about all the killing, when all you actually care about is your self-centered fetish, and being “free” of concerns with consequences?

“If you want more recent really large numbers think of bombs.”

See above.

“Guns have saved more lives and preserved what shred of democracy we have left in this country.”

Substantiate.  (I demand you substantiate that unevidenced assumption because we all know that you cannot.  Admit it—at least to yourself: you’re grasping at straws, and being intellectually dishonest, any straw will do.)

“If anybody thinks that words are going stop a lunatic or criminal from killing you if they think it’s necessary then you go ahead and try talking them to death.”

You’re the first to suggest that straw man/red herring—which you do in hopes you can convincingly refute it, and thus persuade us all that your inability or dishonest unwillingness to directly confront the actual facts is actually reasonable.  It is not. 

Again the the facts: In VA, one can buy handguns without a permit and without a waiting period.  No waiting period means no background check.  Cho was involuntarily committed for psychological observation—of which there must by law be a record.  A background check would have found that record, thus prevented him getting the guns with which to commit the murders.

You defend that insanity agsinst your fake concern for those murdered.  You care about the latter about as much as Cho did.  You only care about yourself, and your fetish—and everyone else and reason be damned.

“I own guns and support the ownership of guns for every responsible citizen of this country that wants to own them.”

In VA, cash will buy second-hand with no scrutiny whatsoever—the perfect means by which to _guarantee_ that criminals and the mentally troubled can get guns, even while gun-nuts both defend that reality, and claim to be opposed to criminals and the “irresponsible” getting guns.

“I’m a veteran”

You’re a veteran at BSing—only.  You haven’t even begun to learn the meaning of reason, let alone of _responsibility_.

“and a PROUD member of the NRA.”

And proud of its lie against Constitution, history, and public safety. 

“The bottom line is this - look to yourself to defend you and yours.”

Wake up, fool: where self-defense is allowed in law, it is also limited in law by the fact that those agsinst whom you would “defend” yourself _also_ have rights—including that of not being “defended against” by fools.

“Sanity can’t be regulated.”

We see that in your defense of insanity.  If only we could legislate against the use of slogans as substitutes for thought.

“Criminals and lunatics don’t obey the law that’s why they’re criminals and lunatics.”

Cho didn’t violate the law: he got the guns and ammunition _legally_.  But because those laws are insanely lax, there are now 32 innocent people dead, while you irresponsibly lie against those known facts.  Thus you defend the rights of the criminals and Cho’s who buy guns legally thanks to the opposition of fools such as you to sane gun laws.

Let’s face it: you _want_ criminals and the mentally troubled to be able to get guns _legally_ so you then have the excuse to “need” arsenals of guns.

“All you gun haters out there - grow the f**k up.”

I don’t hate guns.  I “hate” mindless, hypocritical fools, such as you present as being, who are incapable of the most basic of reasoning, the most basic of acknowledgement and admission of fact, and who willingly sacrifice the lives of others in order to indulge their anti-social/sociopathic fetish.

#65186 by Douglas Chalmers on 4/20 at 4:30 am
(74 comments total)

Quote: JNagarya - “...Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and make prey of its subjects....”

I want to make absolutely clear that the above is NOT a quote of anything I’ve said, and does NOT represent my position in any sense whatsoever.  Rather, I have been posting facts and law which illustrate the fact that the Founders/Framers were as much for gun control, confiscation/"gun-grabbing," and prohibiton, as anyone else is said to be.

That includes the fact that the disarmed Loyalists/Tories, and others who were “disaffected with the revolution”.

“The USA already has the worst of both worlds - the citizens have lost their freedom but are still too blind to see their predicament. Meanwhile, they are pre-occupied with killing each other.”

There’s truth in that.  Meanwhile, the gun-nuts gibber-jabber, based upon unreality and lie, that they “right to bear arms” is about the “right” to “defend against” a “tyrannical gov’t”. 

Apparently it goes wholly over their head—or they know their claim is, even were it true, without merit as to efficacity—that the gov’t couldn’t care less about, isn’t concerned with or afraid of, their popguns, as it has tanks, bazookas, airplanes and bombs, and even more than those.

What it comes down to is that the most of them are stubborn, illiterate, anti-intellectual jerks who are obsessed with their “toys” and will tell any lie, against the insecurity that arises from their awareness that they are full of sh*t in their claims, in effort to convince that they are in the right.  Thus they will defend the looniest of notions, the most impossible of scenarios, as being essential to their proclaimed “right”.  And to hell with reality, fact, law, and truth.  Any lie will do so long as it delays the eventual, inevitable visit of reality to their neighborhood.

“Guns do NOT bring FREEDOM.”

Especially when the untethered greed for such objects springs from fear, and reinforces and increases that fear to a false paranoia.

“Americans are now the “prey” of each other as well as being the world’s worst “predators”!!! Having an abundance of guns is their license to kill.”

Yes.  Having guns is the excuse for having guns—all the rest of their fulminations being horsesh*t excuses, rationalizations, and incoherent, ahistorical self-serving nonsense actually irrelevant to the issue.

Gun-nuts blowing bogus smoke.

Quote: JNagarya - “...Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and make prey of its subjects....”

The USA already has the worst of both worlds - the citizens have lost their freedom but are still too blind to see their predicament. Meanwhile, they are pre-occupied with killing each other.

Guns do NOT bring FREEDOM. Americans are now the “prey” of each other as well as being the world’s worst “predators”!!! Having an abundance of guns is their license to kill.

In 1941, U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson called on Congress to enact national registration of all firearms.9 Given events in Europe, Congress recoiled, and legislation was introduced to protect the Second Amendment. Rep. Edwin Arthur Hall explained: “Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the OGPU, and the Cheka."10

Rep. John W. Patman added: “The people have a right to keep arms; therefore, if we should have some Executive who attempted to set himself up as dictator or king, the people can organize themselves together and, with the arms and ammunition they have, they can properly protect themselves ."11

And the source/s of that is? 

And I note there is no source indicated for the assertion that, “. . . legislation was introduced to protect the second amendment.” Or assertion that that alleged legislation was more than “introduced”.

By contrast, I’ve posted statutes which show the Founders “thrusting” the disarming of citizens onto the citizenry.  Smarten up: the Founders were not Nazis, or in WW II Germany, and not Stalin, yet they too engaged in “gun-grabbing”.  Do you really believe posturing politicians (which includes no few of the Founders) are acting in good faith when they insist that insanity is freedom and to be preferred to protecting public safety from criminals and the mentally troubled?

Let’s be clear: no one—except the NRA as straw man/red herring, and the NRA-invented figment to which the NRA attributes same—ever said there isn’t a private, individual right to bear arms. 

What has been said—and shown—is that the Second Amendment has nothing whatever to do with “individual” anything.  Which means that the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the issue of regulating the private, individual right to bear arms.  And which further means that there is no Federal bar to regulation in that area.

And, that guns have been regulated since their advent, as—obviously—no sane society leaves dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.  Contrary to the assertions of irresponsible gun-nuts, the Founders/Framers sane.

Now let’s deal with the instant facts, instead of bloviating about the irrelevant in effort to avoid those facts:

In VA, one can buy a handgun without permit, and without waiting period—which means, without background check.  It is not Cho who enacted such laws.  It is not Cho who “failed” to require or conduct a background check.  It is the “good” “law abiding” people who enacted those insanely lax laws, rejecting in so doing background checks; thus those “good” “law abiding” people thereby made it _legal_ for a Cho to get handguns, even though there was a record of his being mentally troubled.

Thus the responsiblity for his crimes also falls on those who could have prevented his easy, _legal_ access to handguns, but refused to do so in favor of a “right” which has never existed outside the anti-Constitutional and public safety sewerage spewed by the NRA.

In VA, for cash, one can buy second-hand with no scrutiny whatsoever—the perfect set-up by means of which to ensure criminals, and the mentally troubled, can buy guns for use to their criminal and other ends.  Is that wise?  Yes, to those who on one hand claim criminals shouldn’t have guns, yet on the other refuse to prevent them getting them with maximum ease.

Yes: A “right” which never existed, even under the Founders and Framers who are disingenuously invoked in effort to justify the lie, and the irresponsible lunacy which flows from that lie.

It would be instructive at this time to recall why the American citizenry and Congress have historically opposed the registration of firearms. The reason is plain. Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people

What’s your source for that false claim?  The Internet, and or your unfounded assumption?  The NRA sewer?

I have at my elbow a “Broadside” issued by the last Royal governor of MA-Bay, Gen. Gage, dated June 19, 1775, which in relevant part reads:

“. . . .  I have thought fit to issue this Proclamation, to require of all Persons who have yet Fire-Arms in their Possession, immediately to surrender them at the Court-House, . . . .”

I also have at hand “The Tory Act,” published by the anti-British Continental Congress dated Jan. 2, 1776, the same Congress which published the “Declaration of Independence,” in which they wrote: “. . . .  [I]t is the opinion of this Congress that they [Tories] ought to be disarmed, . . . .”

Further, I have at hand statutes by the anti-British legislatures of such as MA-Bay, NH, and PA to the same effect.  That for MA-Bay, referencing, and quoting in full, “one Resolve of the American Congress, dated March 14, 1776,” stipulates in relevant part:

“. . . .  That 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 or Tenor hereein 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 one of them, shall be disarmed, and have taken from him in Manner hereafter directed, such Arms, Ammunition and Warlike Implements, as by the strictest Search can be found in his Possession or belonging to him; . . . .”

I also have a statute enacted by MA-Bay’s “revolutionary” legislature which made criticism of the “Declaration of Independence,” even in private, just short of “Misprision of Treason”.

One should endeavor to know the actual history of one’s country, rather than risk lying against liars, and thus make oneself no different than the liars.

Today - under THIS administration?
I would say that is lunacy considering the massive privatization of arms being developed against protestors, the PRESENT contracts in america that are building massive detention centers, contracts for railroad cars w/ shackles (yes we have them) -
eavesdropping,spying on citizens,putting military on the streets of america to contain citizens etc…
Control and contain laws that protect the public from mental insanity - don’t control the public, THAT is just plain ignorance of our current situation and the catostrophic effects for our grandkids.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

It would be instructive at this time to recall why the American citizenry and Congress have historically opposed the registration of firearms. The reason is plain. Registration makes it easy for a tyrannical government to confiscate firearms and make prey of its subjects. Denying this historical fact is no more justified than denying that the Holocaust occurred or that the Nazis murdered millions of unarmed people

XXXX

A Swiss manual on armed resistance stated with such experiences in mind:

“Should you be so trusting and turn over your weapons you will be put on a ‘black list’ in spite of everything. The enemy will always need hostages or forced laborers later on (read: ‘work slaves’) and will gladly make use of the ‘black lists.’ You see once again that you cannot escape his net and had better die fighting. After the deadline, raids coupled with house searches and street checks will be conducted."7

Commented The New York Times about the interrelated rights that the Nazis destroyed wherever they went:

“Military orders now forbid the French to do things which the German people have not been allowed to do since Hitler came to power. To own radio senders or to listen to foreign broadcasts, to organize public meetings and distribute pamphlets, to disseminate anti-German news in any form, to retain possession of firearms - all these things are prohibited for the subjugated people of France ."8

While the Nazis made good on the threat to execute persons in possession of firearms, the gun control decree was not entirely successful. Partisans launched armed attacks. But resistance was hampered by the lack of civilian arms possession.

In 1941, U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson called on Congress to enact national registration of all firearms.9 Given events in Europe, Congress recoiled, and legislation was introduced to protect the Second Amendment. Rep. Edwin Arthur Hall explained: “Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the OGPU, and the Cheka."10

Rep. John W. Patman added: “The people have a right to keep arms; therefore, if we should have some Executive who attempted to set himself up as dictator or king, the people can organize themselves together and, with the arms and ammunition they have, they can properly protect themselves ."11

#65144 by RobertBennett on 4/19 at 10:01 pm
(10 comments total)

“. . . gun control would not have saved lives in Virginia. Only people could have done that.”

I’ll try to make it real simple for the comprehension-impaired fact-avoidant rationalizers:

1.  As we’ve learned after the fact, Cho was involuntarily committed by a magistrate—a judge --for psychological evaluation.  By law, there has got to be a record of that somewhere.  That is evidence of responsible legislation concerned with safety, including both that of the troubled individual, and of the public.

2.  In VA, one can buy a handgun without a permit, and without a waiting period.  No waiting period means no background check, therefore no effort to find such a record.  That is obviously “lax”—irresponsible to those who engage in only a moment’s thought.

3.  In VA, it is expected that a criminal, or mentally troubled person, will honestly answer the questions on the purchase form as to whether they are criminals or mentally troubled; thus no need for background check.  That has got to be knowingly irresponsible.

3.  In VA, with cash, one can buy second-hand with no scrutiny whatsoever.  Is there any question that that perfectly serves the criminal, and the mentally disturbed, who want guns with which to commit crimes and mayhem?  Is that your notion of protecting a purported “right,” and also “responsible,” in view of the fact that every right is inextricably intertwined with a responsibility? 

4.  The ammunition clips bought by Cho had been banned under the Assault Weapons Ban.  But the fault, the responsibility, for his being able to obtain those clips lies only with Cho, not also with those who opposed, and allowed to lapse, the Assault Weapons Ban?

Instead of repeating the NRA’s lie against Constitution, reason, and public safety, using that as a substitute for thought, _think_ about the facts—and the fact that they exist not in isolation but within a social context: Cho bought those guns, and that ammunition, _legally_ because society, and law-makers, made it expressly possible for him to do so, by buying into the NRA’s lie.  That means they share, as his enablers, a substantial portion of the responsibility for his crimes.

As do those who defend such an indefensible set of irresponibly, insanely lax gun control laws by false rationalization that Cho alone is responsible for his crimes.  When you not only allow a criminal or mentally troubled person to get guns legally—not even a background check!?—and defend the loopholes which allow that, you become morally complicit in and share responsibility for the crimes they commit with those guns.

Or will you continue to insist that the way to extinguish a fire is to pour gasoline onto it?

#65083 by vernfitz on 4/19 at 4:42 pm
(1 comments total)

I am not trying to make light of a tragedy, but please bear with me.  Is not murder against the law?  This country has laws dictating the speed in which you can drive in a school zone.  Yet every year some idiot ignores that law and kills some kid on their way to school.  So my question is this.  If Cho didn’t obey a law that said, “Don’t kill”, then what makes anyone think that he would have obeyed one that said he couldn’t have a gun?  I know the argument is that we should at least try to make it harder for these people to GET a gun, but does anyone think that is feasible?  I don’t think that everyone should carry a gun and just go back to the “Old West” tactics.  I do think we have done this to ourselves as a culture though.  It is a social taboo to fight.  Our kids are suspended or expelled for fighting.  Get in a fight with a bully at a bar, you will probably face assault charges.  Yet, everyone knows, and I mean knows, that sometimes you have to stand up for your self and make a stand.  This country has attached a stigma for having principles and a willingness to FIGHT for them.  We think that discussing things should settle them.  All conflict cannot be settled with a peace pipe or a moderator.  If one kid from Cho’s blind side had shoved a couple of fingers so far in his eyeballs, this would have been a much smaller tragedy.  I can give an imperfect example.  February, Salt Lake City.  Sulejman Talović entered a mall with a shotgun a handgun and a backpack full of ammunition.  After killing a man in the parking lot he entered the mall.  As terrified people ran away, an off duty police officer at dinner with his wife, went to see what he could do.  His direct actions resulted in the entire episode ending in approximately 6 minutes.  5 casualties, horrible, their stories are tragic also.  The action of one man helped prevent what easily could have been much worse.  I think as a country, we have to stop living scared and be prepared to step up and fight when needed.  Words are wonderful, just not all the time effective.

How about addressing the immediate instance: VA Tech.  Cho was involuntarily committed by a magistrate—a court, for the dense—for observation.  That means there has to be a record of that somewhere.  At the same time, in VA, one can buy a handgun without permit and without waiting period.  How much “background check”—which could have found that record—occurs with NO WAITING PERIOD?  ZERO.  Do we instead expect criminals, or a Cho, to honestly answer the questions on the purchase form about whether the buyer has mental problems, or has been convicted of a serious crime?  Only if we are deliberately dense, and stupid.

Also, in VA, with cash one can buy second-hand with no scrutiny whatsoever.  Is that sane?  Only with fools who want criminals or other dangerous persons getting guns by that means as excuse to stockpile weapons for “self defense” against those same criminals and dngerous persons.

Is it “feasible” to increase gun control in order to eliminate, as much as humanly possible, all those loopholes—which are tantamount to _invitations_?  Of course it is.  The only question is whether the mindless dupes of the NRA are able and willing to think and see straight, therefore recognize that there is more to the equation than only those who commit the crime after the fact of being _enabled_ to do so by the “law abiding” who refuse to close those loopholes.  Refuse to require all—not only the Cho’s—be sane.

Clearly, obviously, such laws are insanely, irresponsibly lax.  They are nothing more than a means to allow murders as excuse to sell and buy more and more guns, which only and obviously makes matters worse.  Unless, that is, we insanely believe the way to extinguish fires is to pour gasoline on them.

#65144 by RobertBennett on 4/19 at 10:01 pm
(10 comments total)

I’m not a fan of guns, but gun control isn’t the answer.  Millions of Americans are passionate about the right to keep and bear arms.  They consider gun control an attempt to subvert The Constitution.

And, strictly speaking, they are correct.  Again, I’m not a fan of guns (I don’t own one), but the right to keep and bear arms is very clearly spelled out.  If you want gun control on a broad scale, you will have to amend The Constitution.

No, they are not correct.  The claim that the Second Amendment protects an “individual right” is a flat out lie.  Ask yourself: Who would know better than those who actually DEBATED AND WROTE the Second Amendment what they intended by it?  The answer is obvious: NO ONE.

That which became the Second began with this draft from James Madison (my clarifying emphases in brackets): “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 be compelled [involuntary] to render military service in person.”

That last clause obviously underscores the fact that the Second is only and exclusively about WELL REGULATED MILITIA.  And that last clause OBVIOUSLY concerns that we call “conscientious objection”—the right NOT to bear arms.  This is a later formulation of that which became the Second: “{6} “A well regulated militia [not an individual], composed of the body of the people [plural], being the best security of a free State [gov’t—not “area of land"], the right of the people [plural] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person [individual] religiously scrupulous shall be compelled [involuntary] to bear arms.”

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

And needn’t take my word for it: those debates, unlike the NRA’s lie, have legal authority, and are readily available from such as Amazon: _Creating the Bill of Rights: The Documentary Record from the First Federal Congress_ (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1991), Ed. by Helen E. Veit, et al.

Educate yourself, and stop perpetuating the gun industry-front NRA’s lie against the Constitution, and public safety.  Face it: No sane society leaves dangerous substances and objects lying around unregulated.  Let’s hold Tim McVeigh responsible for his crime, instead of blaming his victims for not having counter-bombs.  Let’s prevent criminals and other dangerous persons from _getting_ guns, instead of allowing them to continue to get guns so we can continue to be sold the lunacy that the way to extinguish fires is to pour gasoline on them.

I’m not a fan of guns, but gun control isn’t the answer.  Millions of Americans are passionate about the right to keep and bear arms.  They consider gun control an attempt to subvert The Constitution.

And, strictly speaking, they are correct.  Again, I’m not a fan of guns (I don’t own one), but the right to keep and bear arms is very clearly spelled out.  If you want gun control on a broad scale, you will have to amend The Constitution.

All that aside, gun control would not have saved lives in Virginia. Only people could have done that.

From the BBC:
“In the aftermath of the shootings, teachers and fellow students have spoken of Cho’s extreme moods, violent writings and unpredictable behaviour.”

Did they speak of these things before the shooting? Did they reach out to an obviously and seriously troubled young man?

While they weren’t trying to help, he was planning the attacks.  In helping him, they could have helped themselves.

This is in no way intended as a slight to the Virginia Tech community.  It would have happened the same way anywhere in America.

Peace,
Bob Bennett
Lick Skillet,AL

This comment is addressed to Frankenberry:  In your comment that it’s not just guns that kill people, you have adopted the argument of the National Rifle Association.  With all due respect, I do not think that you should want to be associated with them.  With people like the NRA pointing to the second amendment and asking for more guns to be provided - yes, believe it or not, politicians have tried to do this- it’s no wonder that youth are purchasing arms and killing each other. And while an incident like this stands out in terms of the number of people killed, African Americans are dying by gunfire every day in urban areas due to gang warfare, and no one has taken the necessary steps to properly address that issue.  With gang violence, and incidents such as Columbine and V. Tech, you would think that people would want to solve the problem, right?  I think that we should hold the politicians accountable for their repeated inaction on this issue.  I know that the NRA is a big lobbyist w/ money coming out of its ears, but the government should be of/by/for the people, NOT the NRA.

I am not trying to make light of a tragedy, but please bear with me.  Is not murder against the law?  This country has laws dictating the speed in which you can drive in a school zone.  Yet every year some idiot ignores that law and kills some kid on their way to school.  So my question is this.  If Cho didn’t obey a law that said, “Don’t kill”, then what makes anyone think that he would have obeyed one that said he couldn’t have a gun?  I know the argument is that we should at least try to make it harder for these people to GET a gun, but does anyone think that is feasible?  I don’t think that everyone should carry a gun and just go back to the “Old West” tactics.  I do think we have done this to ourselves as a culture though.  It is a social taboo to fight.  Our kids are suspended or expelled for fighting.  Get in a fight with a bully at a bar, you will probably face assault charges.  Yet, everyone knows, and I mean knows, that sometimes you have to stand up for your self and make a stand.  This country has attached a stigma for having principles and a willingness to FIGHT for them.  We think that discussing things should settle them.  All conflict cannot be settled with a peace pipe or a moderator.  If one kid from Cho’s blind side had shoved a couple of fingers so far in his eyeballs, this would have been a much smaller tragedy.  I can give an imperfect example.  February, Salt Lake City.  Sulejman Talović entered a mall with a shotgun a handgun and a backpack full of ammunition.  After killing a man in the parking lot he entered the mall.  As terrified people ran away, an off duty police officer at dinner with his wife, went to see what he could do.  His direct actions resulted in the entire episode ending in approximately 6 minutes.  5 casualties, horrible, their stories are tragic also.  The action of one man helped prevent what easily could have been much worse.  I think as a country, we have to stop living scared and be prepared to step up and fight when needed.  Words are wonderful, just not all the time effective.

#64998 by RAE on 4/19 at 10:23 am - “...Canada blew millions on attempting to just register handguns and rifles on the assumption that, in some twisted kind of logic, this would give the police the upperhand....”
 
Australia did the same with a government-funded gun buy-back scheme - and then they found the police in country towns selling the retrieved guns to anyone who wanted to pay!
 
“...I mean, if I were going to venture into the jungle where tigers were known to live, I would take a weapon with which to defend myself. But what if the tigers also had guns...?”

There is an old Chinese tale about a village which was in fear of roaming tigers. They tried everything without success. One day, an artist arrived and he painted a sign in Chinese characters saying “TIGERS NOT WANTED!” and posted copies up around the village. From then on, the village was free of its problems.........