Va. Tech Shooting

[Kulindahr]

That's very sad... but sounds pretty damn accurate...

We whine about security, but the Constitution gives a definition of security that would put an end to all this:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

The "security of a free state doesn't mean just from foreign powers -- it means from every threat, "foreign and domestic." That includes criminals. Who has the job of doing this? The "militia". Who's the militia? Everyone able to handle a firearm.
In a free country, fighting crime is the duty of every citizen. That isn't "taking the law into their own hands", as some spinners would have us believe, it's doing your duty.
There are complaints about lack of training. Well, then the university -- as was the case back in the early times of the Republic -- should recruit students into a "well-regulated" (i.e. organized and trained) university militia.
That's the Constitution's prescription.

Actually, the only legal automatic weapons are those domestically manufactured prior to 1986 or imported prior to 1968 and must be registered with the BATF and a tax stamp purchased and these weapons are still subject to state and local law.

There must be something else in there, because out shooting at a local quarry, I've seen far more recent arms present -- and looked over by a sheriff's deputy, and handed back. Personally I've never looked it up, because I don't have a real interest in a fully automatic weapon -- maybe a three-round burst, but not fully auto.

Maybe if we regulated all firearms as rigorously as automatics we wouldn't have the present slaughter going on in the US. Maybe all gun owners should have to buy a $200 tax stamp to help pay for the carnage.

If you're willing to extend that principle across all rights, I'll go for it. A $200 stamp for going to church, a $200 stamp to subscribe to and read a newspaper, a $200 stamp (per person!) for public assembly, a $200 stamp to write for a magazine, a $200 stamp so you're safe from illegal search and seizure, a $200 stamp so you don't have to testify against yourself.....

Am I right in believing that the argument being made on these boards is that if we allowed and encouraged all college students at all colleges to carry firearms that our campuses would safer? Do you make this argument with a straight face?

Since people who come from families with firearms are significantly less likely to commit crimes than those who do not, yes, I make this argument with a straight face.
I make it with a straight face also because I own myself -- you don't, the police don't, the government doesn't. Because I own myself, the responsibility to take care of myself is mine. That applies to every person.
Not wishing to take care of yourself, to be ready to defend yourself, is weakness or cowardice. If you wish to delegate your responsibility, then be willing to accept the consequences: if you ever get shot by such a madman as this, you will be able to die happy, because you are the one who decided to be a sheep in the face of wolves.

A more likely scenario would have been additional casualties, including armed faculty members being shot at by police tactical units who mistook them for the shooter.

In which case the police should be tried for murder, and hanged.
Oh -- I forgot; we don't actually punish people for murder any more, we store them in a warehouse like animals.

Gun regulation cannot be fully discussed without acknowledging the change that happened when Republicans controlled Congress and that immediately after taking over, Democrats took action to bring back the assault weapon ban.

It is not, and was not, an assault weapons ban. That's a lie that even Goebbels would approve. It's almost as good as the lie that it is legitimate under the Constitution to even have gun regulations -- "infringe" means no laws or regulations at all that even come close to dealing with the right to keep and bear arms.

If I die in a massacre like this I hope those who mourn and remember me use their grief to try to fix what's made these killings a part of American life.

If you die in a massacre I will continue to work to restore full exercise of this right to Americans, so that the next time, someone will calmly shoot the slimeball and end the threat.

 

[iman]

Kulindahr, you are neither a militia nor well regulated.

There is no right to own or carry a firearm, if there was such a "right" automatic weapons would be legal and it would not be possible to regulate firearms.

I have always thought the "own myself" crap is just a delusional fantasy. Anyone that is part of a society makes constant concessions to the larger group. Some concessions may be voluntary and others compelled by the society. The mere fact that you are posting on an internet forum and adhering to the rules of the forum indicates that you recognize and want to be a part of a larger society. Humans aren't Wolverines.

 

[NickCole]

It is not, and was not, an assault weapons ban. That's a lie that even Goebbels would approve. It's almost as good as the lie that it is legitimate under the Constitution to even have gun regulations -- "infringe" means no laws or regulations at all that even come close to dealing with the right to keep and bear arms.

Well you slipped a Nazi in there anyway.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law of the United States that included a prohibition on the sale of semi-automatic "assault weapons" manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment. ... During the period in which the AWB was in effect, it was illegal to manufacture any firearm that met the law's definition of an "assault weapon" or "large capacity ammunition feeding device", except for export or for sale to a government or law enforcement agency.

 

[NickCole]

The Second Amendment doesn't say that only the militia has the right to bear arms. What is says is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say that the people have to be in a militia, be it regulated or not. It is pretty clear what the intent of the amendment was, and I have bolded it. It has already been infringed way more than the Constitution allows.

Yep that's what it says.

It was the 18th Century, the United States was a very different place and firearms were very different in design.

And students weren't shooting each other by the dozen.

But don't let details get in the way of protecting the right of mentally unstable people to buy and own weapons.

 

[jackoroe]

Yep that's what it says.

It was the 18th Century, the United States was a very different place and firearms were very different in design.

And students weren't shooting each other by the dozen.

But don't let details get in the way of protecting the right of mentally unstable people to buy and own weapons.

It makes no difference what century it is. The Amendment is as it was. It reads exactly the same now as it did in 1787. Liberal losers hate that. But if you want to change it write your legislators. Fact is, the dems won't even touch gun control any more. They get their asses handed to them by the electorate when they do. They have no heart.

 

[brettea79]

Yep that's what it says.

It was the 18th Century, the United States was a very different place and firearms were very different in design.

And students weren't shooting each other by the dozen.

But don't let details get in the way of protecting the right of mentally unstable people to buy and own weapons.

The Amendment exists in order for the people to protect themselves from a tyranny gov. or when the government was unable to protect the people. During the LA riots business owners had to protect themselves (successfully I might add) and their business' as police and aid were unable to respond. Gun ownership is an individual right, not a state right.

This isn't rocket science people. Stick to the facts and don't let emotions interfere. Why do you think these crazies pick campuses and the such? Because everyone is unarmed. Why doesn't anyone ever shoot up a police station?

 

[JayHawk]

Hmm it seems if someone would have done their job and made his mental instability and stay at the mental hospital a matter of record then he would have been prohibited from purchasing a weapon. It would have been at least an obstacle. This guy was a whacko. It takes no changes to our constitution to strengthen whacko laws.

 

[JayHawk]

This isn't rocket science people. Stick to the facts and don't let emotions interfere. Why do you think these crazies pick campuses and the such? Because everyone is unarmed. Why doesn't anyone ever shoot up a police station?

Nice fact. Especially when you consider the legislation that was defeated that would allow "TRAINED" campus offcials to carry a side arm. Liviu might have had a better chance in his heroic endeavor had he been armed.

 

[jackoroe]

Those that believe an environment where people are armed is dangerous are delusional. Point in fact.How many shootings have there ever been at an NRA convention? Thousands of people and guns. No problems, ever! How about gun shows? I've been to dozens of them. All kinds of folks with guns, never a problem. Places that ban guns are among the least safe places. Witness, Washington DC. Gun ban, high crime. How much more proof do the gun grabbing lunatics need?

 

[chance1]

Why is our culture so fixated on blame?

It's ridiculous - articles everywhere, posts here

placing blame

as if we really understand the situation

as if we have studied this situation

it happened when?

We are officially the blame society

 

[iman]

The Second Amendment doesn't say that only the militia has the right to bear arms. What is says is:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say that the people have to be in a militia, be it regulated or not. It is pretty clear what the intent of the amendment was, and I have bolded it. It has already been infringed way more than the Constitution allows.

What that sentence means is: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

A well regulated Militia is no longer needed, we have a military, therefore; the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer necessary.

 

[JayHawk]

A well regulated Militia is no longer needed, we have a military, therefore; the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer necessary.

The form a militia has taken is being deployed to Iraq everyday. The National Guard is that militia. To assert that the founding principle of this nation is uneccessary is misplaced blame.

 

[brettea79]

What that sentence means is: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

A well regulated Militia is no longer needed, we have a military, therefore; the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer necessary.

You know who had a military and didn't allow their citizens to bear arms? Hitler, Stalin, & Napolean.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, you are neither a militia nor well regulated.

There is no right to own or carry a firearm, if there was such a "right" automatic weapons would be legal and it would not be possible to regulate firearms.

I have always thought the "own myself" crap is just a delusional fantasy. Anyone that is part of a society makes constant concessions to the larger group. Some concessions may be voluntary and others compelled by the society. The mere fact that you are posting on an internet forum and adhering to the rules of the forum indicates that you recognize and want to be a part of a larger society. Humans aren't Wolverines.

There certainly is a right to both own and carry a firearm.
The right has been recognized as inherent to man farther back than Cicero. All that the framers of the Constitution did was lift that right from their heritage as Englishmen and codify it so people wouldn't dare put any sort of restraint on it (that's what "shall not be infringed" means).
If we interpreted the Second Amendment as strictly as the First, I could have my own RPG weapon -- what I'd do with it, I don't know, but it might look interesting on the wall when I had pizza with 'shrooms... oh, I forgot -- this isn't a free country; the government claims the authority to decide what sort of private entertainment I can enjoy.

Any concession compelled by society is no longer a concession; it is either slavery or tyranny. "I own myself", "You own yourself", are absolute -- the alternative is a victim mentality that cries for someone else to take care of me, or slavery, and constant blaming everyone else. Without that basic principle, individually responsibility goes out the window -- it's the root of mental health, and of justice.

In fact the "You own yourself" principle is what liberty is all about. It was the foundation of every work the Founding Fathers relied on, and is the basic theme of what America was about.

I participate in a broader society because I choose to do so -- that comes from ownership of myself. I do not join out of any "obligation" or to be "a good citizen", but because I feel like it.

Wolverines? No, humans aren't wolverines; wolverines have built-in weapons, as does every carnivore or omnivore -- except humans. That's why we have the right to keep and bear arms, so that we are not defenseless like cattle and sheep, whose only "defense" is to cluster together and cry in terror.

Humans also have a thing called trust -- except that those who don't want others to be armed do not trust them, only themselves; they want to own those others, enslave them to their principles and views.

 

[Kulindahr]

Yep that's what it says.

It was the 18th Century, the United States was a very different place and firearms were very different in design.

And students weren't shooting each other by the dozen.

But don't let details get in the way of protecting the right of mentally unstable people to buy and own weapons.

The difference in firearms design merely means that the intent of the amendment should be followed: the best military weapons in existence should be available to every citizen -- that was the whole point!

Students weren't shooting each other, because if any had thought of it, he knew that others might -- likely would -- shoot back. That went for students as young as 14 -- or aren't you aware that in the Revolution, kids that young, and even younger, were part of the local defense forces? Unless your argument is that today we are more immature, or less intelligent, if they could be trusted with weapons then, why not now?

Now I see you've been infected by the "let's make up lies in order to slander when we find the facts aren't behind us" virus..... sad, Nick.

 

[Kulindahr]

What that sentence means is: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

A well regulated Militia is no longer needed, we have a military, therefore; the right of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer necessary.

That second line of yours is exactly what the Founding Fathers feared, and why the amendment was put in. Most of them couldn't believe that any American would ever think guns should be restricted, but they put it in anyway, just in case.

Remember that they did not want a standing army, because they knew what happened with standing armies: leaders started wars, whether in foreign countries or against their own people. But they knew there would be a standing army, no matter what, and that's one of the reasons the Amendment is there.

Besides that, a right does not go away just because it is delegated. The mere existence of the military arises out of the Second Amendment; it is the result of the militia delegating a portion of its responsibility to a subset of itself. There's nothing the government can legitimately do that does not derive from the rights of the citizens -- unless you believe in a "divine right".

Maybe getting yourself educated about the subject would be useful, iman. If you have any idea of what the Second Amendment is about, you should be able to answer these questions:

Who is the militia?
What is the difference between "the militia" and "a militia"?
What is the "select militia"?
What does "well-regulated" mean"?
What is "the security of a free state"?

 

[69Strat]

Liviu might have had a better chance in his heroic endeavor had he been armed.

The campus police are supposed to be trained in threat assessment and were alerted on more than one occassion about Cho's troubled behavior. How come they did not manage his case or conduct follow-ups based on his potential for targeted violence? My only explanation is that they are overwhelmed and need more staff to manage cases like Cho, who posed a serious risk to other students.

 

[Kulindahr]

The form a militia has taken is being deployed to Iraq everyday. The National Guard is that militia. To assert that the founding principle of this nation is uneccessary is misplaced blame.

The National Guard is a form of militia; it is not "the militia".
The standing army is also a form of militia, but it isn't "the militia", either.

"The militia" is the source of both of those, and the place from which they derive their authority to bear arms. That principle is key to the founding of the nation -- the military's authority to bear arms is derived from the people's right to keep and bear arms -- and is utterly necessary.

 

[69Strat]

Why is our culture so fixated on blame?

It's ridiculous - articles everywhere, posts here

placing blame

as if we really understand the situation

as if we have studied this situation

it happened when?

We are officially the blame society

I hear what you're saying, but aren't you also participating by blaming, the blamers?

 

[Kulindahr]

I find it sad, especially as we learn how much time the campus administration had to deploy someone after the first shooting, that authoritarians are using the opportunity to call for more restrictions on the very instruments which could have saved those students' lives, the instruments promised in the Constitution but denied them by politicians with their heads in the sand, operating on emotion instead of facts.

As a number of great Americans have held, it is the greatest honor and privilege for a person to bear arms and place his or her own person between danger and those endangered. I stand with them, and am saddened that no one stepped forth to take up that honor and privilege.

Any here who, had they been there and armed, would have moved to stop the shooter, honor the dead by their dedication to the preservation of life. Any here who would not have stood forth to stop the shooter are cowards, and disgrace not only the memory of those students, but America; they are believers in death, not life.