Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Shooting Rampage at VT

Shooting Rampage at VT (Page 11)
Thread Tools
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 01:22 AM
 
Will this post make 11 pages?
( Last edited by Gossamer; Apr 20, 2007 at 12:09 PM. Reason: Hahahahahaha. Yes.)
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 05:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Gossamer View Post
Will this post make 11 pages?
I seriously doubt it.

I disarmed a ******** once who was going after his girlfriend with a carving knife. He ran past me so I just reached out and grabbed the knife (by the blade and cut my hand).

The bloke hung himself a few years later.

Now, if he'd had a gun...
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 08:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
A nuclear weapon is not at all comparable to a firearm. A firearm is a mechanical device that's usually about as complex as a can opener.
Yes, but the 2nd Amendment (which the NRA loves to talk about) only says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

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 limit it to muskets, handguns, knives, etc. It says ARMS. A nuclear weapon is armament. If gun freaks want to broadly interpret the 2nd Amendment to justify their individual "right" to keep and bear any and all handguns, rifles, etc., then show me where in the 2nd Amendment the right to "keep and bear arms" excludes nuclear weapons, missles, grenades, rocket launchers, etc.

Selective interpretation to suit your position is convenient, no?
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
G Barnett
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 09:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Yes, but the 2nd Amendment (which the NRA loves to talk about) only says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

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.
What I always enjoy is how much focus is put on the latter half of the amendment and the first part is all but ignored. My personal reading of it would be that in order to bear arms, one must be part of a well-regulated militia in the first place.

The only thing we really have currently that even sort-of fits that criteria is the National Guard, but even that is too closely tied to the Federal Armed Forces. A truly state-level militia that would ONLY be called up in times of extreme national crisis and ONLY for defense within our own borders would be more in the lines of what I think is implied.

Having one of those (well, 50, one for each state), and then requiring any private citizen who wants a firearm to join it would fully satisfy the entirety of the 2nd Amendment, as well as providing a natural screening process to weed out the nutcases.

'Course, that sorta thing would NEVER fly with the NRA.
Life is like a clay pigeon -- sooner or later, someone is going to shoot you down and even if they miss you'll still wind up shattered and broken in the end.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 10:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by G Barnett View Post
What I always enjoy is how much focus is put on the latter half of the amendment and the first part is all but ignored. My personal reading of it would be that in order to bear arms, one must be part of a well-regulated militia in the first place.

The only thing we really have currently that even sort-of fits that criteria is the National Guard, but even that is too closely tied to the Federal Armed Forces. A truly state-level militia that would ONLY be called up in times of extreme national crisis and ONLY for defense within our own borders would be more in the lines of what I think is implied.

Having one of those (well, 50, one for each state), and then requiring any private citizen who wants a firearm to join it would fully satisfy the entirety of the 2nd Amendment, as well as providing a natural screening process to weed out the nutcases.

'Course, that sorta thing would NEVER fly with the NRA.


That's exactly how the majority of legal scholars interpret the 2nd Amendment and VERY likely what the founding fathers intended. It's absolutely ridiculous to think that they (the founding fathers) meant for anyone and everyone to have the right to keep and bear arms. This is especially true given the fact that at the time the 2nd Amendment was written, it took them 30 seconds to load a gun. They could never have imagined guns carrying 15+ rounds that could be fired in rapid succession. They could never have imagined nuclear weapons, rocket propelled grenades, etc. The 2nd Amendment should be read and interpreted in the context (time and place) it was written. Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE WITH GUNS kill people.

How many murders, accidental deaths, shootings, armed robberies, massacres, etc. will it take for people to wake up? Also note that 99% of the time, HANDGUNS are used in these crimes, not rifles. And it's the NRA(National RIFLE Association) that thinks the right to keep a handgun is needed to protect their right to hunt. When was the last time anyone shot a deer with a 9mm?

95% of these catastrophes could be avoided if HANDGUNS were illegal, but rifles and shotguns were regulated and registered. You can protect your home and hunt perfectly well with a rifle or shotgun.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by G Barnett View Post
What I always enjoy is how much focus is put on the latter half of the amendment and the first part is all but ignored. My personal reading of it would be that in order to bear arms, one must be part of a well-regulated militia in the first place.
Nope. You must be ready and able to serve on a militia.

If, at times of war, the general population is called into action and they're already capable of using a weapon (because they've been trotting off down to the firing range for a hobby) they're a militia. If they have to be trained when they join up then they're regulars.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Powerbook
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: München, Deutschland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 11:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by G Barnett View Post

The only thing we really have currently that even sort-of fits that criteria is the National Guard, but even that is too closely tied to the Federal Armed Forces. A truly state-level militia that would ONLY be called up in times of extreme national crisis and ONLY for defense within our own borders would be more in the lines of what I think is implied.
Yes. You got it.

Regards
PB
Aut Caesar aut nihil.
     
jbartone
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 12:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
Virginia seems to recognise the inherent danger of cars which is perhaps why you need a licence to drive a car in Virginia. You don't need a licence to buy or use a handgun.
You *do* need a license to carry a handgun in public...just like you do to drive a car on public roads.

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
The 2nd Amendment should be read and interpreted in the context (time and place) it was written. Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE WITH GUNS kill people.
You would have to do the same thing with the 1st then, no?
     
G Barnett
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 12:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Nope. You must be ready and able to serve on a militia.

If, at times of war, the general population is called into action and they're already capable of using a weapon (because they've been trotting off down to the firing range for a hobby) they're a militia. If they have to be trained when they join up then they're regulars.
The sort of thing I have in mind is a state-licensed and run militia organization that would provide and/or require:

1) A state-run licensing agency
2) Yearly licence renewals
3) State-run and/or licensed practice facilities
4) Basic competency requirements and yearly testing as part of the licence renewal process.
5) A method to contact the militia members in case of extreme national crisis that would require citizen defense of the country.

That's it. No formalized military training, no "mimimum yearly service requirement" as in the national guard would be needed. During most of the year, the shooting facilites would serve the same purpose as the gun clubs around the country; in fact existing gun clubs would be the ideal places to set up as the practice facilities. The states could set up reasonable requirements for them to become licensed militia centers and they'd still be able to perform the same sort of social gathering spots they do now.

In fact, in case of the sort of emergency situation that would require a militia call-up, the centers could act as distribution hubs for more combat-appropriate firearms and ensure everyone has the same quality gear.

This is the sort of thing that I envision when I read the entirety of the 2nd Amendment and not just the "right to bear arms" portion.
Life is like a clay pigeon -- sooner or later, someone is going to shoot you down and even if they miss you'll still wind up shattered and broken in the end.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by jbartone View Post
You *do* need a license to carry a handgun in public...just like you do to drive a car on public roads.
There are no limits on carrying a concealed weapon in Virginia. You need a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public. However, Virginia state law forces police chiefs and state sheriffs to give concealed carry permits to anyone who can buy a handgun. Police may not even require safety training in the legal or safe use of weapons for CCW applicants. So I guess the equivalent would be to say that you need a licence to drive a car on a public road but we will give a licence to anyone who has bought a car legally. Which is not what happens with cars.
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 12:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by G Barnett View Post
The sort of thing I have in mind is a state-licensed and run militia organization that would provide and/or require:

<snip for bevity>
Yep, seems like common sense. I'd have no problem with that at all.
Been inclined to wander... off the beaten track.
That's where there's thunder... and the wind shouts back.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 12:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by jbartone View Post
You would have to do the same thing with the 1st then, no?
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion (the "Establishment Clause") or prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause"), laws that infringe the freedom of speech, infringe the freedom of the press, limit the right to assemble peaceably, or limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
--- Wikipedia

And how are the rights protected by the 1st Amendment any different now than they were then? The protection afforded by the 1st Amendment is "timeless" because the rights being protected haven't changed. However, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, the scope of the "right" being protected (i.e. to keep and bear "arms") is drastically different now than it was then.

Again, I ask (anyone), where in the 2nd Amendment does it EXCLUDE the right to keep and bear rocket launchers, nukes, intercontinental ballistic missiles, grenades etc.??? If you argue that those weren't known and not in the scope of the "arms" protected in the 2nd Amendment, I argue that neither were handguns with 15 round clips that could be fired in rapid succession. If you argue that those ARE protected in the 2nd Amendment, I ask then, why doesn't the NRA fight to protect your right to buy rocket launchers, grenades, and nukes?

You cannot selectively interpret the 2nd Amendment to suit your needs or wants. It's either ALL arms or only those arms that people had back then (e.g., single shot rifles).
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 12:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
Police may not even require safety training in the legal or safe use of weapons for CCW applicants.
May? Do you have additional information on this? In the gun happiest of places here in the deep south, CCW applicants are always required to take and pass safety training and marksmanship classes. In fact, every instructor that I have encountered over the last 5 years have always been active State Troopers. Not only that, but I personally found the course far more difficult than anything I have experienced when it comes driving (and no jokes. I'm equally proficient with both my beretta and my bimmer).

Oh, and did I mention the part where you have to be fingerprinted?

Instead of focusing on guns, video games or knives, perhaps we should focus on some sort of registration and licensing of parents.

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
Y3a
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern VA - Just outside DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 12:59 PM
 
It was NEVER the weapons that cause the problems but ALWAYS the nutcases USING THOSE WEAPONS. So why not far more strict requirements for owning one? Filter out the nutcases.

The other problem is the patient privacy issue. Why should a single nutcase-who doesn't want everybody to KNOW he's a nutcase- be given these protections over the safety of veryone else???????
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 03:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by jbartone View Post
You would have to do the same thing with the 1st then, no?
That's a lost point on most people. If you said that free speech didn't apply to PA Systems (electronics, not around in 1789) or typewritten documents, or the Internet, or the recorded voice, or TV because they weren't around back then, you'd be laughed out of town.

So... gun rights only apply to those guns that existed when the Constitution was written. Right.

The idea that I have to be part of a militia to defend myself & others is similarly ludicrous, and elitist, and "most legal scholars" evidently haven't done their homework on the matter. The founders intended for individuals to have guns. Jefferson, in particular, referenced writings about the advantage of individual arms in many different contexts. So appealing to "most legal scholars" doesn't really help here if they don't know what they're talking about.

Regardless of what the founders intended, we either have a legal right to self-defense in an effective manner, or we do not. The officials at VTech decided, a couple years ago, that the only folks who would have guns on campus were cops and lawbreakers. We can see who won this round.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 03:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
You cannot selectively interpret the 2nd Amendment to suit your needs or wants. It's either ALL arms or only those arms that people had back then (e.g., single shot rifles).
I agree. I want my RPG.

As for the idea that we need annual licensing, lists of owners, etc. -- when they do that with journalists, bloggers, political cartoonists, and TV personalities, too, then I'll go along with it for law-abiding gun owners.

Before you say "those folks can't get people killed," think real hard about it.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 03:27 PM
 
I think we should bring back pistol and sword duels... aren't those still legal in some states?

"Use of a swhat?"
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
So... gun rights only apply to those guns that existed when the Constitution was written. Right.
I didn't say that. Go back and re-read my post after taking a Reading Comprehension Course.

I said you cannot selectively interpret the 2nd Amendment to suit your needs. If you think the 2nd Amendment applies to any armament, then why don't you argue and fight for your right to carry grenades and rocket launchers? What about M-16s? Do you think people should be able to have those? Bazookas? Is it your contention that people should be able to legally own ANY armament they want? Why is the protection afforded by the 2nd Amendment limited to GUNS? It says "arms". See the problem?

Look at any country that has strict gun control laws (UK, Australia, Japan). Violent crime is LOW. Murder rate is LOW. When was the last time 30+ people were mass murdered in England? Japan? Australia? Do you ever stop to realize that guns make it EASIER to kill someone? There is NOTHING to support the idea that violent crime would not go down if guns were stricitly controlled. For example, in 1989, Japan reported 1.1 murder per 100,000 population, compared with 3.9 for West Germany, 1.03 for England and Wales, and 8.7 for the United States that same year. Notice how the U.S. had the highest rate. In Australia, murder rates from July 1, 1989-June 30, 1998 fluctuated between 1.7 and 2.0 per 100,000 population. Again, about 4x lower than the US. In 2005, the murder rate per 100,000 in the US was 5.6.

NationMaster - Statistics > Murders (per capita) by country

Look at that. US is #24. Now look at the countries with higher rates than us...

Again, guns make it EASIER to kill someone. Control the guns, control the murder and violent crime rates. Columbia is #1 is murder rate. How are their gun control laws? Hmmm, Japan is pretty low on that list (60/62). How are their gun control laws?
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
G Barnett
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Minnesota
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 05:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Yep, seems like common sense. I'd have no problem with that at all.
And yet, it seems that folks like Finboy think that even that sort of minimal requirement and regulation is "elitist," whatever the blazes he means by that. What's wrong with tying gun ownership to a responsibility that -- in the extraordinarily unlikely case we were actually invaded by a real army -- you'd be expected to report and form an organized defense of your own community so that the regular army can deal with the major threat?

I'm not even going to touch his freakish non-sequitur about bloggers, journalists, et al -- there's absurdity within absurdity piled up within that contention -- aside from commenting that nowhere in the First Amendment does the phrase "well-regulated" appear, while it leads off the Second. Not inconsequential, that.
Life is like a clay pigeon -- sooner or later, someone is going to shoot you down and even if they miss you'll still wind up shattered and broken in the end.
     
goMac
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Portland, OR
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 06:20 PM
 
Mrjingles has a point. At the time the Constitution was written, guns weren't advanced enough to be used for self defense really. Took too long to load them, and they were far too big.

Many people like to say the Constitution allows people to have guns for self defense, when this isn't the case at all. The second amendment was for allowing local militias to keep guns on hand without the federal government seizing them. This way local militias could engage in conventional warfare.

The founding fathers really didn't intend for the 2nd amendment to apply to concealed weapons, hand guns, etc. None of those things existed when the second amendment was written.
8 Core 2.8 ghz Mac Pro/GF8800/2 23" Cinema Displays, 3.06 ghz Macbook Pro
Once you wanted revolution, now you're the institution, how's it feel to be the man?
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post


NationMaster - Statistics > Murders (per capita) by country

Look at that. US is #24. Now look at the countries with higher rates than us...

Again, guns make it EASIER to kill someone. Control the guns, control the murder and violent crime rates. Columbia is #1 is murder rate. How are their gun control laws? Hmmm, Japan is pretty low on that list (60/62). How are their gun control laws?
Blah, blah, blah...

Nice try. It's 8th. NationMaster - Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) by country

Damn, just heard some freak at NASA flipped.
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 08:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
Damn, just heard some freak at NASA flipped.
They should have done a background check on him. Made sure he wasn't a nutter, like diaper-woman.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 20, 2007, 10:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster View Post
Blah, blah, blah...

Nice try. It's 8th. NationMaster - Statistics > Murders with firearms (per capita) by country

Damn, just heard some freak at NASA flipped.

Thanks, that's even better. Again, the US is near the top and countries with strict gun control laws are at the bottom.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
wolfen
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 12:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by Face Ache View Post
They should have done a background check on him. Made sure he wasn't a nutter, like diaper-woman.
Oh they did a thorough background check. For the question: "Are you homicidal" he checked the "no" box. What more do you want?

THE MAN CHECKED "NO" DAMMUT!
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
wolfen
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On this side of there
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 12:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac View Post
Mrjingles has a point. At the time the Constitution was written, guns weren't advanced enough to be used for self defense really. Took too long to load them, and they were far too big.

Many people like to say the Constitution allows people to have guns for self defense, when this isn't the case at all. The second amendment was for allowing local militias to keep guns on hand without the federal government seizing them. This way local militias could engage in conventional warfare.

The founding fathers really didn't intend for the 2nd amendment to apply to concealed weapons, hand guns, etc. None of those things existed when the second amendment was written.
Bah, it could just as easily be argued that the right to bear arms was given for the express purpose of ensuring that government was led by the will of the people -- or else. Remember they had just come off the whole Kingdom/Dictatorship thing and clearly supported the right to rebel with force as necessary.

In this case, modern arms fit the bill quite nicely. It's the will of the people that's impotent.
Do you want forgiveness or respect?
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 06:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by goMac
The second amendment was for allowing local militias to keep guns on hand without the federal government seizing them.
Damn straight.

All the people who've posted to the effect that the federal government should have some kind of control over the establishment or nature of local militias are missing the point that the danger which the populace needs to arm itself against is not some external enemy.

It is the State itself, violating the principles upon which it was founded.
     
Mrjinglesusa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 09:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by red rocket View Post
Damn straight.

All the people who've posted to the effect that the federal government should have some kind of control over the establishment or nature of local militias are missing the point that the danger which the populace needs to arm itself against is not some external enemy.

It is the State itself, violating the principles upon which it was founded.

"...being necessary to the security of a free State"

The "well-regulated" militia is for protecting THE STATE against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. That was the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Anti-Federalists feared creation of a standing army could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened recently in the American Colonies and Europe (1787).

James Madison wrote:

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 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.
Noah Webster wrote:

Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in 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 band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.
It's pretty clear that the founding fathers intent was to allow the states to form "well-regulated" militias to protect the states from the federal goverment. The debate is whether such protection of a "well-regulated militia" extends to an individual's right to keep and bear arms or should be limited to a state-run militia (e.g., National Guard). Either way, how is a rag-tag group of individuals with 9mm hand guns going to repel a standing army with M-16s, grenades, tanks, etc.? You don't NEED handguns for protection. Rifles and shotguns would work just as well and cannot be easily concealed and transported across a school campus for use in a mass-murder. If all this guy had access to were rifles and shotguns, I doubt this massacre would have happened (at least to the extent that it did).

At any rate, I'm afraid it's too late for our Country to enact legislation that will have any impact on this issue. There are simply way too many guns out there, both legal and illegal.
2.3GHz i7 15" Retina Macbook Pro (Late 2013)
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 09:26 AM
 
In the common usage of the late 1770s, "regulated" meant "trained." For some reason, a whole lot of people think that the Constitution was written in MODERN, colloquial American English. What "the founding fathers meant" is pretty easy to figure out if you read their words with WHAT THEY MEANT THEN in mind.

I think the biggest issue with the VT tragedy is that a person whom a judge declared a danger to himself and others was not IMMEDIATELY listed in the national database as being disqualified for buying a firearm. The system-whether it's with the court or the database-failed here with tragic results. This is on the same level, though not the same scope, with a person who is killed by a person she has a restraining order against because the local police do not enforce that order for whatever reason. Stupid, senseless, but not a reason to change one of the foundation blocks of the Republic. This situation can be fixed with better integration of court and law enforcement data, not an infringement on the rights of millions of honest, law abiding citizens.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
ThinkInsane
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Night's Plutonian shore...
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 12:03 PM
 
In order for me to own a pistol here in New York, I had to file an application for a permit, provide four written (signed and notarized) character references, send a release of records form to the New York State Office of Mental Health, provide fingerprints to both the FBI and State Police, provide two passport sized photos (one for the permit, one to go on file) and after your background check is completed the whole thing has to be signed off on by the state Supreme Court judge for your county. The whole process took about for months from start to finish (this was 1990). You are also now required to take a safety course as part of the application process. And none of that guarantees you will get a concealed carry permit, even if you apply for one (NY has several permit options- on premises (home or business), hunting and target shooting, job related, concealed carry).

The application process is an inconvenience, no doubt, and I hear it's become rather expensive to apply, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I don't feel like my rights were violated having to go through the process, it's just an inconvenience.

And I think it's high time to move this to its new home in the political lounge.
Nemo me impune lacesset
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2007, 10:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post

I think the biggest issue with the VT tragedy is that a person whom a judge declared a danger to himself and others was not IMMEDIATELY listed in the national database as being disqualified for buying a firearm.
We have to be careful with this one, too. Too many of the same folks that are (in Congress, for example) talking now about "linking the databases" are the same ones that would like to start confiscating next week.
     
tie
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 01:01 AM
 
Exactly. Any sort of gun regulation is a slippery slope and even "sensible" regulations must be opposed without fail. A little collateral damage is a small price to pay to keep those in Congress from linking their databases.
The 4 o'clock train will be a bus.
It will depart at 20 minutes to 5.
     
moodymonster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: London
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 05:48 AM
 
Thing is with screening people for mental illness, it can develop later.

Maybe there should be some system whereby people have to qualify (as in proficiency, mental fitness) to have a gun - and this is renewed every few years. You can't just drive a car, maybe the same should apply to guns, regulate ownership.

I don't know precisely the gun laws in Switzerland, but they have a lot of guns. And they don't seem to have the same problems as the US.
     
red rocket
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 06:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa
"...being necessary to the security of a free State"

The "well-regulated" militia is for protecting THE STATE against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. That was the intended purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Anti-Federalists feared creation of a standing army could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened recently in the American Colonies and Europe (1787).
When I wrote The State, I meant State in the sense of federal government.

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa
It's pretty clear that the founding fathers intent was to allow the states to form "well-regulated" militias to protect the states from the federal goverment. The debate is whether such protection of a "well-regulated militia" extends to an individual's right to keep and bear arms or should be limited to a state-run militia (e.g., National Guard).
The National Guard is part of the United States armed forces. Its duty is to the Federal Government. Therefore, citizens cannot expect the National Guard to protect individual states, nor individuals, against the Federal Government.

Fact of the matter is, the Federal Government doesn't want individual militias, or even individual states, to challenge the existing order.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The U.S. Constitution, coupled with several statutory and case laws, details the relationship of the State Defense Forces to the federal government. Outside 32 USC 109, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled: "It is true that the state defense forces 'may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces.' 32 U.S.C. 109(c). It is nonetheless possible that they are subject to call under 10 U.S.C. 331-333, which distinguish the 'militia' from the 'armed forces,' and which appear to subject all portions of the 'militia' - organized or not - to call if needed for the purposes specified in the Militia Clauses" Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990). The following is an extract of the laws which the U.S. Supreme Court cited giving the federal government authority to activate the State Defense Forces.
10 USC 331 - “Federal aid for State governments”
Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, the President may, upon the request of its legislature or of its governor if the legislature cannot be convened, call into Federal service such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.

10 USC 332 – “Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority”
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

10 USC 333 – “Interference with State and Federal law”
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it -

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.
In the eyes of the Federal Government, individual State Defence Forces are no longer allowed to serve the purpose the name suggests. The government would call that insurrection.

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa
Either way, how is a rag-tag group of individuals with 9mm hand guns going to repel a standing army with M-16s, grenades, tanks, etc.?
As I pointed out before: If the people want to wrest back their freedom from the Federal Government, it will need to arm itself to the teeth. As it stands, Washington can basically do anything it likes, and if you're going to dare exercise your constitutionally enshrined rights to rise up against a wayward federal government, there is no recourse left other than mounting a serious challenge to its military rule, and be prepared to be labelled terrorists in the process.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 12:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
Nope. You must be ready and able to serve on a militia.

If, at times of war, the general population is called into action and they're already capable of using a weapon (because they've been trotting off down to the firing range for a hobby) they're a militia. If they have to be trained when they join up then they're regulars.
Those are pretty odd usages of "militia" and "regular." In the real world, regulars are full-time soldiers and militia are part-time soldiers. If you're not trained, you're not militia.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by moodymonster View Post
I don't know precisely the gun laws in Switzerland, but they have a lot of guns. And they don't seem to have the same problems as the US.
Switzerland is the exact opposite of the US in terms of "gun culture." The Swiss have mandatory militia indoctrination. Private misuse of firearms could incur military penalties (like a court marshal).

Switzerland is an excellent example of what a "well-regulated militia" actually means.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by ThinkInsane View Post
In order for me to own a pistol here in New York, I had to file an application for a permit, provide four written (signed and notarized) character references, send a release of records form to the New York State Office of Mental Health, provide fingerprints to both the FBI and State Police, provide two passport sized photos (one for the permit, one to go on file) and after your background check is completed the whole thing has to be signed off on by the state Supreme Court judge for your county. The whole process took about for months from start to finish (this was 1990). You are also now required to take a safety course as part of the application process. And none of that guarantees you will get a concealed carry permit, even if you apply for one (NY has several permit options- on premises (home or business), hunting and target shooting, job related, concealed carry).

The application process is an inconvenience, no doubt, and I hear it's become rather expensive to apply, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I don't feel like my rights were violated having to go through the process, it's just an inconvenience.

And I think it's high time to move this to its new home in the political lounge.
As I said, 'elitist'. What if I don't have the time/money to do all of this? Then I don't get to protect my family. That's elitist -- there are two groups of people in this country that will always have guns: the folks at the top of the economic ladder, and those that choose to be criminals. That's elitist, and creates de facto discrimination in the interpretation of "rights." Again, either we have the right to self-defense, or we don't. With that right, as with all others, comes the responsibility to use guns safely, keep them away from kids and looneys, and use them in the defense of others when necessary.

The fact that gun ownership prevents crimes from occurring to folks that DON'T bear the direct costs of gun ownership is called a "spillover" and is usually overlooked when people start bitching about the indirect costs of having guns in the hands of private citizens. That "spillover" or externality results in criminals who are dissuaded from their otherwise activities because the probability of confrontation by a gun owner is high. On a campus which has signs declaring it a "Gun-Free Zone" that probability is close to zero, isn't it?

If guns in 1776 were "too big" for self-defense, then the manufacture of handguns should be seen as step in the right direction. God Bless Sam Colt.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 12:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by tie View Post
Exactly. Any sort of gun regulation is a slippery slope and even "sensible" regulations must be opposed without fail. A little collateral damage is a small price to pay to keep those in Congress from linking their databases.
That's what the pro-abortion folks were saying about the ruling from the Supremes this week. This is the first step in a slippery slope.

That's what free-speechers were saying about regulations that might prevent NBC from showing a killer's "media manifesto" in the future.

It's all a slippery-slope, isn't it?
     
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 02:16 PM
 
Holy crap, this **** is cracking me up. The nutters from both sides make this all so painfully amusing.

"I'll give up my guns when you commies stop grinding up unborn babies for taco meat."

No matter what you folks from outside this country think, this is the greatest nation on earth. I giggle everyday.

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 05:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Either way, how is a rag-tag group of individuals with 9mm hand guns going to repel a standing army with M-16s, grenades, tanks, etc.? You don't NEED handguns for protection. Rifles and shotguns would work just as well and cannot be easily concealed and transported across a school campus for use in a mass-murder. If all this guy had access to were rifles and shotguns, I doubt this massacre would have happened (at least to the extent that it did).
Seems to me the media keeps telling us how effective a "rag-tag" bunch is being in Iraq.

A sawed-off shotgun is more effective -- thank God the shooter at VT didn't have one. Of course, sawed-off shotguns are illegal, so he wouldn't have had access to it, right?
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 05:54 PM
 


finboy are you planning a revolt? They'll just nuke you from orbit you know. You wouldn't have time time to target them with your shotgun.
     
finboy
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2007, 08:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by Nicko View Post


They'll just nuke you from orbit you know.
They have to. It's the only way to be sure.
     
Atomic Rooster
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 12:33 AM
 
Just heard on a discussion round table on TV that statistically speaking Canada has had more school shootings than the U.S.

Of the 41 incidents in N. America in the last 30 years 13 have been Canadian.

So with a 10 to 1 population the U.S. should have around 130 school shootings.

My numbers may be a bit off, senility, but close enough to hit a Korean with a gun.

So we Canucks shouldn't be so smug.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 02:04 AM
 
All I have to say is this:

Number one, anyone who thinks that the founding fathers only wished for the armed people to be part of an organized militia have never bothered to read any of their other writings.

Number two, it's pretty silly to use countries like Japan as an example of the success of gun bans. Guns are prohibited in Japan because the culture has always been and still is very anti-gun, NOT the other way around.

A gun ban won't work in a pro-gun culture. You must change the hearts and minds of the people first. Good luck with that.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 08:00 AM
 
Originally Posted by pooka View Post
May? Do you have additional information on this?
Here you go: State Gun Laws :: Virginia

CCW LIMITS
May police limit carrying concealed handguns? No

State law forces police chiefs and state sheriffs to give concealed carry permits (CCW) to anyone who can buy a handgun, allowing them to carry loaded, concealed handguns in public (known as "shall issue"). Police may not even require safety training in the legal or safe use of weapons for CCW applicants. State law allows residents of some other states to carry concealed weapons in this state without informing local police.
Virginia is a paradise for gun lovers. The only restriction is that you can only buy one gun a month.

( Last edited by Troll; Apr 23, 2007 at 08:14 AM. )
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 08:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
A gun ban won't work in a pro-gun culture.
That explains why marijuana is so prevalent as well...
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 08:46 AM
 
Came back here to reply, only to find what I expected.

Shilling.

I wont bother.
     
Dakarʒ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: A House of Ill-Repute in the Sky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 08:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
I wont bother.
To use apostrophes!
     
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 09:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
Virginia is a paradise for gun lovers. The only restriction is that you can only buy one gun a month.
Thanks for clearing that up. I can buy 300 a month here, so I'd say Louisiana is more of a paradise. Oh, and most states in the south east are Shall Issue.

That said, I'm not sure how this fits into anything. So, it's easy to get a permit in Virginia. Ok. With a little effort, you can get a CCW permit in just about any state (with the exception of DC or Cali... where you're 300x more likely to be shot than on a college campus). Stricter CCW regulations wouldn't have deterred this douche from doing what he did. I'm willing to bet percentage of persons issued a CCW permit involved in gun related crimes is below that of normal joe ********.

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 04:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by pooka View Post
That said, I'm not sure how this fits into anything. So, it's easy to get a permit in Virginia. Ok. With a little effort, you can get a CCW permit in just about any state (with the exception of DC or Cali... where you're 300x more likely to be shot than on a college campus). Stricter CCW regulations wouldn't have deterred this douche from doing what he did. I'm willing to bet percentage of persons issued a CCW permit involved in gun related crimes is below that of normal joe ********.
You asked about the CCW Permit but that was just a minor part of my post. The point is that there is no regulation of gun ownership in Virginia at all. Anyone can buy a gun - even a crazy person can go into a shop and buy a gun no problem. In fact he can even perfectly legally carry a gun around all day no questions asked. Which is fine. If Americans think they need easy access to guns, great. But then don't act so shocked when they wind up in the hands of nutters like this guy. The "freedom" to have easy, unhindered and unlicensed access to guns come at a price which includes 2 school killings a year. That cartoon explains perfectly the view from outside the US. It's so obvious why this happens.
     
pooka
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: type 13 planet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2007, 05:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Troll View Post
That cartoon explains perfectly the view from outside the US. It's so obvious why this happens.
Well, you and I aren't discussing them there facts. I was just trying to understand how easily a person can obtain a CCW factored into this discussion. As for your other points about how easily a nutter can obtain a firearm, well, I dunno what to say. We've got guns. We've got crazies. We also have this fancy dancy federal database of assholes who can't buy guns (felons, mentals, women, etc). Sounds like this prick should have been in there.

And aside from the typical media hysterics, I don't think many people (not me anyway) are terribly shocked by what happened. I'm not happy about it, but in the grand scheme of things, I'd say it's low on the tragedy scale. Personally, I'm more frightened of college kids with beer. They seem to cause greater damage on a recurring basis than the occasional loon who writes bad poetry.

New, Improved and Legal in 50 States
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:44 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,