Va. Tech Shooting

[69Strat]

The legal availability of guns to adults and the components to make home-made bombs are not the cause.

The "legal availability" of firearms which Cho used on his shooting rampage caused the deaths of students at VA Tech. They sure as hell didn't originate from illegal sources.

 

[opinterph]

The "legal availability" of firearms which Cho used on his shooting rampage caused the deaths of students at VA Tech.

Yeah – just like it was the “legal availability” of commercial aircraft that caused the deaths on 9/11. (“They sure as hell didn't originate from illegal sources.”)

 

[69Strat]

Like it or not, US law protects the rights of individuals.

Only to the extent that such rights don't infringe on society and the greater good of the community.

With respect to the use of firearms (or other weapons) as a means of causing lethal injury to other persons, the legal basis for doing so (within the context of a normally functioning society,) is generally limited to the protection of life itself – not property, (such as a laptop or tv.)

Incorrect, the use of lethal force is not generally limited to the protection of life itself, and also extends to armed guards who transport money and other valuables, such as jewelry. Consequently, they would be within the law to use deadly force to protect such money or valuable from a heist or armed attack.

For somebody who's quick to criticise somebody for their use of a slang term like fringer, you seem pretty ignorant.

 

[69Strat]

Yeah – just like it was the “legal availability” of commercial aircraft that caused the deaths on 9/11. (“They sure as hell didn't originate from illegal sources.”)

A foolish example that has no relation to Cho acquiring firearms that were "legally available" to him and used to gun down students at VA Tech.

 

[opinterph]

… the use of lethal force … extends to armed guards who transport money and other valuables, such as jewelry. Consequently, they would be within the law to use deadly force to protect such money or valuable from a heist or armed attack.

Umm~ theft [heist] by “armed attack” represents a direct mortal threat to the personal safety of the guards (in your example.)

 

[opinterph]

The "legal availability" of firearms which Cho used on his shooting rampage caused the deaths of students at VA Tech. They sure as hell didn't originate from illegal sources.

A foolish example that has no relation to the cause of the deaths at VA Tech.

 

[69Strat]

Umm~ theft [heist] by “armed attack” represents a direct mortal threat to the personal safety of the guards (in your example.)

An armed guard working for Brinks or another carrier is tasked with protecting the money and valuables they transport. It follows that such an armed guard would be within the law to use deadly force to protect that money and valuables, since it's their job, and goes with the turf.

Your assertion that deadly force is generally limited to protecting life itself and not property, is an erroneous conclusion. It does not apply to armed guards, as stated.

 

[69Strat]

A foolish example that has no relation to the cause of the deaths at VA Tech.

My argument is not an example, yours was.

The "legally available" firearms used in the VA Tech shootings were purchased by Cho and used to shoot the students. Those firearms caused the deaths of those students. The result was proximate. It wasn't a stolen firearm that resulted in the shootings or some other mysterious weapon. The only firearms found at the crime scene were those that were made "legally available" to Cho.

 

[opinterph]

An armed guard working for Brinks or another carrier is tasked with protecting the money and valuables they transport. It follows that such an armed guard would be within the law to use deadly force to protect that money and valuables, since it's their job, and goes with the turf.

Your assertion that deadly force is generally limited to protecting life itself and not property, is an erroneous conclusion. It does not apply to armed guards, as stated.

Having personally completed the formal training required to qualify as an “armed guard,” I must respectfully disagree. The use of deadly force is restricted to situations involving life-threatening circumstances. Either ante-up with some proof-positive or stop spreading falsehoods.

 

[69Strat]

What are you trying to say?

You have already argued that the Native American Indians and slaves had no rights within the context of "the whole people". Continuing along those lines it would appear that any right to bear arms were exclusive to whites, since they excluded these groups, and also owned slaves. Is it your position that whites should be the only ones to own firearms?

 

[69Strat]

Having personally completed the formal training required to qualify as an “armed guard,” I must respectfully disagree. The use of deadly force is restricted to situations involving life-threatening circumstances. Either ante-up with some proof-positive or stop spreading falsehoods.

Are you working for a carrier like Brinks that will be transporting money and valuables? Or will you be working in a static security slot as an armed guard?

Is it your view that an armed guard working for Brinks is prohibitted from using deadly force to protect the money and valuable under his custody and control?

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm familiar with the Federalist Papers, which is what I assume you're referring to. I know of nothing in them that would support what you're saying. Why don't you post a direct quote to support your point.

What you seem to be referring to addresses the concern that the federal government could become a corrupt regime and build an army so large to squash the people. You seem not to have noticed that today the President of the United States is already Commander in Chief of an army that could squash the people. James Madison, nor any other Founding Father, imagined the technology the Commander in Chief has today at his fingertips. Not remotely. Arm every gun nut citizen with a semi automatic and the President still could blanket their territory with missiles that would wipe them out. The Founding Fathers didn't imagine the US federal government would have an army with anywhere near the military know-how and the weaponry and equipment it's had since WWII, and they certainly never envisioned a federal government with the power to wage war on the citizenry without having to send in ground troops.


Take Federalist 46 for instance. It addresses the concern of the people losing control of the federal government to a corrupt regime. Here's part of it and a link to the entire paper:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

The citation you give contradicts your view.
Clearly the intent was that the people should have access to arms such that they would be able to defeat the central government even in such a situation as the writer doubted could occur, according especially to what you emphasized.
Did they envision such a military as the U.S. has today? Yes -- that's what the discussion in your citation is about, an army that seems overwhelming and invincible. What was their provision against such a thing? The militia -- which is the people in military mode. The very word "militia" informs us that the intent is for the people to have up-to-date military weapons, because it is on the militia that the security of a free state is meant to depend.

 

[Kulindahr]

the fifth ammendment was designed to empower the states against the tyrany of the federal government

the idea that it should be used as a reason to allow people to have semi automatic weapons is ludicrous and laughable

it indicates a fringe perspective that is found in the homes of tim mcveys and his ilk

its terrifying, to be honest, and not a joke at all

there are people dying in this nation everyday for NO GOOD REASON.

it needs to stop and it WILL stop when access to guns is more restricted, ownership of guns is made responsible, and manufacturers of guns are held liable.

untilo then we are going to get paranoid whackos and loonies that think george washington and thomas jefferson said it was OK to take a gun to school to kill people that made fun of him in class the day before

and that?

thats what you call unnaceptable

Andreus, I was going to respond to this, but since you're not even close to ,living up to your own standards recently espoused in a thread where you maintained we should discuss things like gentlemen, there's no point.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is the statistic that springs to my mind: you are 35% more likely to have your gun stolen or shoot someone else by accident than defend yourself from an intruder in your home. That to me is quite telling.

It's also quite false. For it to be true, there would have to be roughly 675,000 to
2,700,000 guns stolen annually in the U.S. (taking generally used numbers for defense with a firearm), or a comparable number of firearms injuries.

hold on there. there is no point bandying around imprecisely defined phrases. What do you consider to be "self-defence"?

Do you mean, for example, the right to defend yourself (assuming you've done nothing wrong) from an attacker who's probably gonna kill you? Or do you mean you mean that you've the right to shoot dead ('defend') say, a burgalar who enters your home and has the intention of 'unlawfully' taking away things that you 'own'. It's important to note that this person, by definition, has no intention of killing you.

If someone is illegally on my property, and has already used violence to gain entry, then by definition he is a threat to my life and that of anyone else present. By consensus as broad as Cicero, Machiavelli, and the traditional rights of British subjects, this person, by definition, is to be assumed to be willing to and intent on doing me, at the least, sufficient bodily harm to prevent me from interfering with his unlawful plunder of my property. He is thus to be dealt with in the same fashion as an invading soldier caught in the act of invasion of a country: if he will not surrender, he is to be killed.

I note the use of the word "evil" (the concept invented by religious zealots). This in itself says a lot about Americans' misantropic world view, one which perpetuates an irrational suspicion and fear of others. needing a gun to 'defend' yourself against some imagined 'evil' is the ultimate act of cowardice.

The actions of the murderer at V. Tech were evil -- plain and simple.
If you really believe your statement about needing a gun for defense, then I presume you favor the abolition of firearms completely? None for police, none for the military? In fact, no weapons at all?

Cowardice is when you agree to become a victim -- that's what the people who have invented this business of "the people" meaning "the government" in this one instance have in mind, that we should all be victims. Standing up for yourself is not cowardice.

This is where we probably differ: I think that the 'right to bear arms' actually masquerades as the 'right to defend your property' in the context of current legislation. The converse of your statement that:

implies that, and this is the crux, that you put the value of human life below some object like a laptop or tv (which happens to be secured through a morally fallable system in the first place)

It has generally been the assumption throughout history that a violent entry onto my property indicates a threat to me. It is not the material on my property, but the fact that it is my property. "A man's home is his castle" is a principle that goes back farther than its formulation in the English language; at its heart is the truth that as the boundaries of a nation are to its people, so the boundaries of a home are to its inhabitants -- and, thus, any invasion is to be met with whatever force the sovereign of the "castle" deems suitable.

You are right, but your argument is circular. The lack of enforcement is because of the ever powerful gun lobby influencing politics and the judiciary. BUT the existence of this gun lobby arises from the misantropic formulation of the 2nd Amendment in the first place.

All you have to do is read the discussions about ratification of the Second Amendment to know that it was meant as an individual right which could be exercised either individually or collectively. Its intent was to make certain that the people would be able to maintain the security of a free state against any threat, from home invaders to invaders of the nation to tyrants running the central government. The quote above from the Federalist Papers shows that to be true, that the people being able to defeat whatever standing army the central government might accumulate was the goal.
And the only reason that there is a "gun lobby" is that there are people who would define this away by twisting the words and intent in ways they would never do to any other right. But here it is excessively dangerous, for this is the right which protects all others: only weapons will suffice if the government decides to shut down your newspaper, or require a license to have a church, etc.
I have made the challenge before, and it has not been faced: would you so eagerly impose on free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom from unwarranted search and seizure, and others, the same restrictions as are sought to be imposed on this most basic of rights?

The "lack of enforcement" I spoke of has nothing to do with any "gun lobby"; it is systemic. Parents, schools, and the legal system fail over and again to enforce rules, to enforce consequences. Thus we end up with a society where many people have no respect for either private property or private lives. As a result of this invasion from within, this influx of barbarians into our midst, the right enshrined in the Second Amendment becomes once again needed.

 

[Kulindahr]

Just an item of information, since some people here are misrepresenting things:

The "militia" in the Colonies was all adult, able-bodied male citizens.
While it wasn't common, there were Africans, Native Americans, and others in the Colonies who, as subjects of the Crown, counted as citizens.
Under the rights of British subjects, every citizen, as a member of the militia, had the right to keep and bear arms.
Thus the right to keep and bear arms was not restricted to white male landowners.

This is the framework for the Second Amendment; the Framers were merely setting down the right they had enjoyed as subjects of the Crown -- an individual right, BTW, as proven by the fact that the original intent was to place the words of the Second Amendment in the First Article, along with habeus corpus and other individual rights meant to protect citizens from the government.

 

[69Strat]

i think it's rellevant in that the founders did not want the non whites to own guns

they had conditions on who they thought ought to be armed

that is very important to this discussion

I think this is one of your better posts and indeed relevant to the discussion.

It is rather apparent that the right to bear arms was exclusive to whites, at the expense of other races (which enjoyed no such rights). At best, the right to bear arms is like eating fruit of a poisonous tree. At the heart of that fruit lies the seeds of racism and division where: "the people", only represents a select group of white members.

Thus, to argue the relevance of the 2nd Amendment as it applies to our modern multicultural society is the equivalent of asserting that only whites have the right to bear arms, since the original doctrine makes no exception for any race outside of itself to exercise such rights.

It is in this context that the right to bear arms must be amended to better reflect individual interests against those interests of society in regulating and controlling the purchase and ownership of firearms, for the benefit, peace and general good of the community.

 

[NickCole]

The citation you give contradicts your view.
Clearly the intent was that the people should have access to arms such that they would be able to defeat the central government even in such a situation as the writer doubted could occur, according especially to what you emphasized.
Did they envision such a military as the U.S. has today? Yes -- that's what the discussion in your citation is about, an army that seems overwhelming and invincible. What was their provision against such a thing? The militia -- which is the people in military mode. The very word "militia" informs us that the intent is for the people to have up-to-date military weapons, because it is on the militia that the security of a free state is meant to depend.

No our Founding Fathers did not anticipate the current power of the US military. For that to be true, one has to believe they'd have been approving of citizens having Air Force weapons:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/afweapons/Air_Force_Weapons.htm

In fact one would have to believe they not only would approve it but would have thought it a necessity.

There is nothing in the Federalist Papers that indicates that's what Madison and Jefferson, et al, envisioned for the United States. And, for that matter, even the NRA doesn't argue that. All they want are their guns -- but guns could not prevail against the US military today. So clearly the Second Amendment, if its purpose is as you say, needs to be amended for today's world.

 

[NickCole]

Yeah – just like it was the “legal availability” of commercial aircraft that caused the deaths on 9/11. (“They sure as hell didn't originate from illegal sources.”)

Well that argument won't go far.

Commercial aircraft is not designed for the purpose of killing. Guns are.

 

[NickCole]

What about knives? They are often considered weapons, but do have a purpose of cutting things like vegetables.

Exactly.

Knives are designed and manufactured, bought and owned for a variety of purposes.

You can outlaw any so-called weapon, but if someone has the intentions of doing you harm, or even killing you, they can do so with whatever is at their disposal.

Of course. Nobody is arguing that human beings will ever stop killing each other. That, unfortunately, is part of the human condition.

The discussion is about guns, and that's because they are designed for the use of killing and they make it very easy to kill.

Has anyone eve watched the show Body Of Evidence on Court TV? It features Criminal Profiler Dayle Hinman of Florida. There have several cases in which she has been involved where the murderer did not have a gun but used something at the scene as the weapon.

You don't have to see that TV show to know about that.

If you've somehow missed learning about that some other way, you can play the board game Clue and figure it out.

So what?

Owning a gun would help level the playing field for whatever the would-be killer tries to use as a weapon.

We should all go around with handguns in holsters on our hips all the time in case someone grabs a candlestick or a hammer against us?

 

[Kulindahr]

No our Founding Fathers did not anticipate the current power of the US military. For that to be true, one has to believe they'd have been approving of citizens having Air Force weapons:

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/afweapons/Air_Force_Weapons.htm

In fact one would have to believe they not only would approve it but would have thought it a necessity.

There is nothing in the Federalist Papers that indicates that's what Madison and Jefferson, et al, envisioned for the United States. And, for that matter, even the NRA doesn't argue that. All they want are their guns -- but guns could not prevail against the US military today. So clearly the Second Amendment, if its purpose is as you say, needs to be amended for today's world.

Air forces do not win wars. To win a war, it takes people on the ground, standing on a piece of ground and holding it.
Though it intrigues me that you think that any U.S. leader could get away with indiscriminate bombing of U.S. territory. At that point, probably two-thirds of the population would decide that the NRA was too wimpy and mild all along. Your arguments, sir, only point up the need for the Second Amendment in its intent to have a citizenry capable of defeating whatever the government might throw at it.

But you've crossed a line here. The Second Amendment was never meant to support aggression, so it does not mean that anyone should have air force weapons -- weapons to defend against an air force, such as SAMs, perhaps.

Again, if "guns could not prevail against the U.S. military today", why is there still an insurrection going on in Iraq?