Va. Tech Shooting

[69Strat]

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.

Because of privacy issues, very few doctors are going to release mental health records; so unless there's a psychological evaluation linked to the actual firearm point-of-sale, more crazies like Cho will continue to purchase them.

 

[Marvels]

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.

Then you should die near election season.

Anyway, here's some news from yahoo if you haven't read it already. Apparently, apart from being a loser, Cho also doesn't take good pictures. You can read some of his ramblings inside.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070418/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting

I'm pretty sure that this idiot doesn't know how school hierarchies work.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

True enough.

The real problem is identifying them. A fair number of shooters such as this one have shown no signs of instability at all, until they "snapped". Others brood over it and give warning signs that go missed.
Then there are the people who temporarily go through "mental instability" and stay at mental hospitals, and settle down quite fine afterwards. Depending on where the line is drawn, half the population could be barred from owning firearms.
So making a simplified categorization would be problematic, and when dealing with an intrinsic human right, problematic lines must be avoided. Listing mental maladies from the DSM would be a politician's way to go; it makes things easy -- but it doesn't treat people as individuals.

OTOH, it shouldn't be too hard to put together a law requiring medical or counseling personnel to notify some central list, such as is used for the instant background check, when someone comes along who is as unstable as this guy was.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, I think what the sentence means 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."

The great thing about the Constitution is that they limited it to about 6,000 words. Pretty simple. If they wanted to say because, they would have put it in there.

You are even more wrong than you realize. The founding fathers thought that the militia would be larger than the army. They never imagined the army would be so massive. So, they would probably insist that every person own a gun. Your last sentence is one of the scariest things I've read in a long time.

"Because" isn't far off; that's an explanatory/purpose clause. Today we'd say, "Since a well-regulated militia....", or "Whereas a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right...."

But it isn't an exclusive clause; it doesn't claim to be the only reason that the right is not to be infringed.

It's also based on wisdom reaching back to Chinese Emperors, with philosophers and political figures all along the way -- even Machiavelli, the last person a lot of people would expect. So those who claim "things are different now" have a lot of work to do to show that the nature of a free state has changed, and that people are different enough now that threats have changed, and that no one will ever need to defend himself again.


That last sentence is extremely scary. If the Founding Fathers had foreseen the size and power of our military, they would have gone with Patrick Henry's version -- requiring under law that every person be armed, and train regularly. "The people" are meant to be so well-armed that if the government gets tyrannical, just picking up their weapons will scare the army into standing aside and letting the people hang the bastards.

 

[skroobal]

Kulindhar,

I'm just curious what prior Court opinions or scholarly legal interpretations or treatises you base your analysis on? You seem to be asserting an original intent of the framers/historical argument here, I'm also curious what you base these on?

I'm not an expert on Second Amendment law, but there have been a number prior decisions that have interpreted it a lot more narrowly than many would like to make it seem. This is also why the ruling by the D.C. Circuit in March to invalidate Washington's gun ban was significant, it's really a departure from the dominant view by legal scholars and court precedent that the second amendment represents more of a collective right rather than an individual right. It will be very interesting to see how it is handled by the Supreme Court especially given today's ruling that really establishes this Court as moving in a new and more conservative direction.

Thanks.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindhar,

I'm just curious what prior Court opinions or scholarly legal interpretations or treatises you base your analysis on? You seem to be asserting an original intent of the framers/historical argument here, I'm also curious what you base these on?

I'm not an expert on Second Amendment law, but there have been a number prior decisions that have interpreted it a lot more narrowly than many would like to make it seem. This is also why the ruling by the D.C. Circuit in March to invalidate Washington's gun ban was significant, it's really a departure from the dominant view by legal scholars and court precedent that the second amendment represents more of a collective right rather than an individual right. It will be very interesting to see how it is handled by the Supreme Court especially given today's ruling that really establishes this Court as moving in a new and more conservative direction.

Thanks.

I rely heavily on the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, plus a book called The Second Amendment Primer (I'll see if I can track down a source).

And of course I argue intent -- what the writers intended is what it means, and nothing else! To argue that the words change with time is to make us just like Soviet Russia was, where the constitution applied only when the government felt like letting it -- except in this case, they'd just change the meaning....

The "collective right" interpretation is a recent invention. It isn't actually "the dominant view", either; it's just the one that gets the most fanfare from the major media, because it's the one they like. A number of anti-gun scholars who seriously delved into it came out asserting that it does, after all, mean individuals.

An extremely important point is the grammar itself, in the context of the Constitution: every other place in the Constitution where the term "the people" appears, it means the individuals. Courts have recognized this and commented on it, and have regularly -- even the Supreme Court -- listed the Second Amendment as one of those listing individual rights.

 

[69Strat]

You seem unable to post without introducing fantasies and falsehoods and accusing people of things that were never said.

The lunatic fringe has once again spoken.

You've already shown your military incompetence, because you don't even know what is and isn't an assault weapon.

My reference to assault weapons is in reference to the Assault Weapons Ban, which you are in denial about. You have no respect for the law, so it's not surprising. In any event, in the military, we used the designation of "battle rifles" and "assault rifles". Two different things.

Now, rather than fixating on my military background, I suggest you take a hard look at your own failure of being rejected by the military and get on with YOUR life.

 

[69Strat]

True enough.

A fair number of shooters such as this one have shown no signs of instability at all, until they "snapped".

Cho did show signs that he was unstable: he was suicidal, he was stalking people, and the campus police were alerted to these facts.

OTOH, it shouldn't be too hard to put together a law requiring medical or counseling personnel to notify some central list, such as is used for the instant background check, when someone comes along who is as unstable as this guy was.

You just said that he showed no such signs of instability, which is it?

 

[Homoaffectional]

 

[NickCole]

Details? Is that what you call the Constitution? Okay.

Clearly the details I referred to were the fact that a lot has changed since the 18th Century in the size and density of our population, the mileu of our culture and individual lives, and in the design of firearms. When the Constitution was written, it was written within the context of the circumstances of the time. Amending elements of the Constitution to incorporate cultural change is normal and reasonable, it's been done all along.

Today's environment and weapons, and for that matter today's US Government, are totally alien to what was considered when the Second Amendment was written.

The idea that keeping the Second Amendment sancrosanct as if the People of today could prevail against the United States Government in an uprising is absurd. I don't care how many semi-automatics you have, if Uncle Sam wants to take out you and your militia, brother you're toast.

There are already laws that prevent certain people from buying guns. But, even if he had been prevented from buying a gun due to mental defect, he could have gotten ahold of a gun if he really wanted.

Because some people get around laws is not a reason not to have laws.

 

[NickCole]

Yes, things are different from 220 years ago. Firearms are different and our population is different. No doubt. And our military is different. But, if you go back and look at the writings of our founding fathers you will see that they saw the people, and their right to keep and bear arms, as a check on the military.

You may think it sounds absurd, but it's how they saw it. Just because times and technology has changed doesn't make it any less valid.

The concern may be valid but the cultural/weapons changes make the Second Amendment as a solution impractical to the point of ridiculous.

You think you could keep a check on the United States Military with .22 or even a semi-automatic? They'll nuke your ass.

Time to find a new solution.

 

[69Strat]

But, even if he had been prevented from buying a gun due to mental defect, he could have gotten ahold of a gun if he really wanted.

While that may be true, it doesn't change the fact that Cho, who was determined to be mentally ill in 2005, was still able to purchase a firearm legally. At the very least, it demonstrates a serious problem with the regulation and sales of firearms to those who are unstable, a problem unlikely to be resolved on its own accord.

 

[Lostlover]

While that may be true, it doesn't change the fact that Cho, who was determined to be mentally ill in 2005, was still able to purchase a firearm legally. At the very least, it demonstrates a serious problem with the regulation and sales of firearms to those who are unstable, a problem unlikely to be resolved on its own accord.

You know what... the fact that a mentally ill person can buy and access a firearm doesn't bother right wingers. Just as long as they can still have as many guns as they want, they'll keep allowing situations like this to happen.

 

[brettea79]

You know what... the fact that a mentally ill person can buy and access a firearm doesn't bother right wingers. Just as long as they can still have as many guns as they want, they'll keep allowing situations like this to happen.

I think Lover is Lost. Looks like this thread is outta your scope, check out the fantasy forum.

 

[NickCole]

^^ Well LostLover has a point.

If right wingers are concerned that mentally ill people can buy and access firearms why don't they, or the most powerful lobby in Washington, the NRA, push for legislation that addresses that? It would take about two seconds to get something like that passed if the right wing were behind it. If the right wing cares about it why hasn't that happened?

 

[skroobal]

Am I the only that can't take a political discussion seriously when there are pictures of some guy's dick in not so flattering looking underwear?

Sorry to be a hater, but c'mon.

My law professors certainly would never have permitted such dress.

 

[JayHawk]

The right to bear nukes........good idea nick we can have our own cold war with our govt.

 

[JayHawk]

Because of privacy issues, very few doctors are going to release mental health records; so unless there's a psychological evaluation linked to the actual firearm point-of-sale, more crazies like Cho will continue to purchase them.

The state of Virginia allows a judge to remove the ability for a mentally disturbed person to obtain a firearm legally. The judge did not decide it was prudent even though the mental health evaluation reccommended such action. The judge failed to do his duty. Plain. Simple.

 

[iman]

In the end, as regards to gun control. it really depends on what kind of a society one wants to live in. Do you want to live in Dodge City with continual shoot outs among gun toting fools (until Wyatt Earp started making them check their guns before entering town) or do you want to live in a society where guns and shootings are rare and unusual like Australia or some European countries?

Do gun proponents really believe that 75 or 100 years from now people will still be allowed to carry firearms around? Conservatives just can't get it through their heads that this country is slowly developing and becoming more civilized. We no longer live on the frontier.

 

[JayHawk]

In the end, as regards to gun control. it really depends on what kind of a society one wants to live in. Do you want to live in Dodge City with continual shoot outs among gun toting fools (until Wyatt Earp started making them check their guns before entering town) or do you want to live in a society where guns and shootings are rare and unusual like Australia or some European countries?

Do gun proponents really believe that 75 or 100 years from now people will still be allowed to carry firearms around? Conservatives just can't get it through their heads that this country is slowly developing and becoming more civilized. We no longer live on the frontier.

I can guarantee we will be toting arms or have allegiance to another nation