Virginia Tech shooting and gun control

[bosco]

Perinova:

Just so you know, the courts have prettymuch ruled otherwise

so how come the political right doesn't demand a "strict interpretation" of the constitution in this instance?

 

[perinova]

Judging from this thread and the one about abortion, we just entered the presidential campaign.

IMHO a little bit of regulation would not be a bad idea and if anything it could save the life of some kids. There seem to be other countries with high level of freedom and a much lower gun death rate so I am hopeful that this is possible.
http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html

 

[Martha]

The Second amendment:

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.

Now isn't that awkward language.

The Supreme Court of the United States has the final say on the meaning of the Constitution, of just what right the Second Amendment protects. But the Supreme Court has given no definitive answer. It did say in a 1930s case that possession or use of a sawed off shotgun did not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia and thus it could not hold that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to such a gun.

It has not said that this right is an individual right. It also has not said that the right is only a "state" or "militia" right. So we have a lot of arguing with no final answer.

It is also possible that a state could bar gun ownership; it would argue that the second amendment only prohibits the federal government and not the states from restricting gun ownership.

 

[TromboneAl]

Is there general agreement on why that amendment was written? Were they saying "The government might need a bunch of well-behaved guys with guns, in case there's a war or something, so we shouldn't prevent people from having guns"?

If so, that reasoning is totally outdated in this tank/submarine/nuclear weapons age, yes? It's not like the govment's gonna say "Hey, Putin's acting up, everyone with a gun report to D.C. tomorrow morning at 8 AM."

The amendment definitely does not say

Since people should be able to defend themselves from burglars, and to have fun shooting at targets, and hunting, and collecting guns, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Martha]

Is there general agreement on why that amendment was written? Were they saying "The government might need a bunch of well-behaved guys with guns, in case there's a war or something, so we shouldn't prevent people from having guns"?

If so, that reasoning is totally outdated in this tank/submarine/nuclear weapons age, yes? It's not like the govment's gonna say "Hey, Putin's acting up, everyone with a gun report to D.C. tomorrow morning at 8 AM."

The amendment definitely does not say

Since people should be able to defend themselves from burglars, and to have fun shooting at targets, and hunting, and collecting guns, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The history is pretty muddy. But one of the big concerns was a big evil federal government. How much power was this new federal government going to have? How much would the states retain? I don't think there was a huge concern about individuals.

 

[bpp]

Is there general agreement on why that amendment was written? Were they saying "The government might need a bunch of well-behaved guys with guns, in case there's a war or something, so we shouldn't prevent people from having guns"?

My assumption has been that that was basically the reason.

If so, that reasoning is totally outdated in this tank/submarine/nuclear weapons age, yes? It's not like the govment's gonna say "Hey, Putin's acting up, everyone with a gun report to D.C. tomorrow morning at 8 AM."

No, but if the country were invaded, the armed populace could form guerilla resistance groups, which are by no means obsolete in this day and age.

The amendment definitely does not say

Since people should be able to defend themselves from burglars, and to have fun shooting at targets, and hunting, and collecting guns, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

No, clearly the intent is for people to own militarily-useful weapons, not merely for sporting purposes.

Hey, I didn't write it, but that is my interpretation.

 

[dex]

The amendment definitely does not say

One of the things that makes it a great document is that it is written in format of what the government can not do. Therefore there are a lot of other things or freedoms a citizen has.

The Bill of Rights

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

 

[bright eyed]

props to martha and tbn al for attempting to wrangle an insane thread!

shouldn't this episode of violence at least give us pause to consider what we have done and what we could be doing to better protect ourselves and especially our young people and children...

wasn't that the whole impetus behind the brady bill (now expired, not renewed)? instead everyone is just digging in their heels even deeper and no progress is made.

australia similarly had a string of shootings like this (perhaps not in scale) - guy from harvard on abc said about every 18 months, then after new laws they haven't had any for years...isn't that something to look at? maybe futile to try to dialogue on this given peoples passionate views....

 

[dumpster56]

We should be banging down the doors of our worthless political hacks demanding they rebuild the mental hospitals in the country and take these sick people off the streets. If we are going to keep guns around the sick humans need to be locked up. The idea that a shizophrenic will continue to take his medication when he feels better living alone is just dumb! They need to be put away safe and to keep society safe.

Again that said the video sure has a look of al jezzera and the rant of a suicide bomber! Look carefully!

 

[lets-retire]

Is there general agreement on why that amendment was written? Were they saying "The government might need a bunch of well-behaved guys with guns, in case there's a war or something, so we shouldn't prevent people from having guns"?

If so, that reasoning is totally outdated in this tank/submarine/nuclear weapons age, yes? It's not like the govment's gonna say "Hey, Putin's acting up, everyone with a gun report to D.C. tomorrow morning at 8 AM."

The local nut cases with a gun and a few small bombs is causing the liberal side of our government to want to leave Iraq. I think your argument about the small guy being unimportant/ineffective is a little off base. I do think a strong force would be able to defeat them, eventually, but it takes a lot of will. Something this country seems to have none left.

I don't remember which of the founding fathers said it, but I remember one saying the government must fear the population not the population fear the government. By allowing the population to posses firearms it keeps the possibility of a revolt on the table. Several groups, like the Michigan Militia and Republic of Texas (the group not the state), consider themselves in an active state of revolt. While these groups are on the fringe right now, if the government goes too far they will start to collect more mainstream members and grow.

 

[HFWR]

In memorium:

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.

Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead,
Put crêpe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.

He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last for ever: I was wrong.

The stars are not wanted now: put out every one;
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood.
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

W. H. Auden

 

[MasterBlaster]

Is there general agreement on why that amendment was written? Were they saying "The government might need a bunch of well-behaved guys with guns, in case there's a war or something, so we shouldn't prevent people from having guns"?

If so, that reasoning is totally outdated in this tank/submarine/nuclear weapons age, yes? It's not like the govment's gonna say "Hey, Putin's acting up, everyone with a gun report to D.C. tomorrow morning at 8 AM."

The amendment definitely does not say

Since people should be able to defend themselves from burglars, and to have fun shooting at targets, and hunting, and collecting guns, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well back in the day, the British had all of the guns and abused all of the people, mostly of which had no guns. So what the 2nd amendment is all about is letting some people outside of the government have some arms.

looking around the world both currently and historically, you are more likely to be killed by your own govenment than from burglers.

So the second amendment is all about keeping the government in line, it's not about hunting or personal protection from burglers.

 

[saluki9]

The amendment definitely does not say

Since people should be able to defend themselves from burglars, and to have fun shooting at targets, and hunting, and collecting guns, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As it has been said many times before, the 2nd amendment was about hunting politicians, not animals.

 

[TromboneAl]

So the second amendment is all about keeping the government in line

That's what I always thought, and was taught. But, it's hard to interpret 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.

as meaning this:

People should have the right to bear arms so that they can use violence to overthrow the government if the need arises.

The founding fathers sure screwed up. Not only is the second amendment not clear, it isn't even a properly formed sentence.

 

[saluki9]

The founding fathers sure screwed up. Not only is the second amendment not clear, it isn't even a properly formed sentence.

Well, if I remember correctly it was very hot during the Philadelphia convention and there was nothing to drink but hard cider and beer. Are you suprised the writing wasn't perfect?

 

[Joss]

Here is just an observation; not even a hint of which constitutes a stated personal committment: 

Every time there is a large and horrific gun related crime, there is a portion of our population that uses it as the "final straw" for stricter gun control.  And, it should be understood that the most notable previous knee-jerk measures have both been removed once it was shown they had no beneficial effect (the "Brady" and "Assault Weapon" measures).  They were made law.  They were shown to be worthless.  They quit being law. 

In thinking this through to an implementation, therefore, one must see that, to avoid looking silly and simply repeating previous ineffective measures, it must mean designing deeper and harsher restrictions.  This would almost certainlty have to result in disarming SOME amount of the US population to not be ridiculed. 

Keep in mind that there is a very significant number of this population that believes the 2nd Amendment applies to individuals, and they don't give a diddly-dam that Sarah Brady and her cheerleaders think otherwise.  Keep in mind also that these people have a very strong sense of what our Nation's history is, were raised on quotes of Thomas Jefferson, think of themselves as patriots and are generally very strong Constitutionalists. 

They are also... uh... well armed.  Yet the people that want all guns to go away so we can all just "get along" somehow think that 100% of the above mentioned group will simply line up, single-file, for the gun turn-in, as soon as someone writes the law.  To me, this is the BIG question:  Would disarming all these folks be peaceful? 

My guess is it would probably not be peaceful.  This begs the next question:  If not ... would it be worth it?  How could this NOT result in pitting the Nation's law enforcement folks, violently against its armed citizens, folks who, moments before the law changed, were just as law-abiding as anyone else in this country. 

So, we might very well find ourselves cost accounting on a balance sheet of life-for-life.  If that is a possiblity, maybe we need to at least compare the cost to the cause.  For all around perspective, it might even be useful to see where mass killings by lunatics with firearms rates as a rather uncommon cause of death in our nation. 

If you step back from Virgina Tech, tragic as it is, and take all the media hype out of it, the loss of life there was a tiny fraction of the folks we lose every year to highway accidents.  It is even a smaller fraction in comparison to deaths from medical mistakes.  But all these multitudes of sad people made the mistake of dying just as individuals, without the media fanfare and of causes that seem to lack the "feel-good" solution of just banning the implements of their deaths... scalples?  cars?  cell phones? 

How's this for irony:

Dateline Baltimore, 2015: A major pocket of resistance in Baltimore, to the 2008 repeal of the 2nd Amendment and firearm ban, was overrun in a dawn raid this morning.  This standoff took six more lives.  Two were federal officers.  The total dead, nation-wide now amounts to well over 4,600 since the disarming operation began in late 2009.  There is now talk among senior Administration officials that several western states have ceased enforcing the law. 

 

[Culture]

Goonie, that Illinois law is a great example for the rest of the country. Unfortunately, as you said, the loonies would not apply for the FOID, and they could get guns from other places with lax or no laws. As a test, I just went into Froogle and put in 9mm gun. I clicked on the first vendor that came up so as not to bias the results. and ordered the gun. They have all kinds of statements to make sure the address is correct and the credit card info is correct to make sure there are no mailing errors, but nothing about license, background, anything. By the way, I put in a Virginia address, but it would probably take an Illinois address as well. Maybe they do some screening after you insert your credit card info but I didn't want to go that far.

SoonToRetire,

As a holder of a federal firearms license, I happen to know that it is not possible to purchase a firearm of any type through the mail unless you want to go to prison for a long time or unless you also hold a federal firearms license (typically dealer to dealer sales). Would you please provide that website to I can turn them in to the AFT for breaking federal law?

 

[lets-retire]

SoonToRetire,

As a holder of a federal firearms license, I happen to know that it is not possible to purchase a firearm of any type through the mail unless you want to go to prison for a long time or unless you also hold a federal firearms license (typically dealer to dealer sales). Would you please provide that website to I can turn them in to the AFT for breaking federal law?

Failure to do so would be aiding a criminal enterprise.

 

[haha]

The amendment definitely does not say

Since people should be able to defend themselves from burglars, and to have fun shooting at targets, and hunting, and collecting guns, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

True enough. But if you are victim of a home invasion burglary don't count on much help from the police, except CIS to process your carcass.

So Amendment or no, a very good case can be made for the lawful possession of weapons. To make it even more clear, say the government managed to come up with a giant selective magnet which could suck up every gun in America, and keep them sucked up. Police would somehow get to hang onto theirs.

Now there would be lots of easily identified prey, and lots of able predators- guys who have been lifting weights and making shivs all day long in prison where they somehow got sent for their past murders and rapes and assaults.

Now Mr. and Mrs. ER, out on your Shangri-La in the woods, try to protect yourselves from these guys. Or Ms. single woman wherever you live don't be nervous when you go to bed at night.

In the UK where gun control is very strict, violent home invasions are much more common than they are here in the USA. Here a criminal just might pick the door hiding the lion instead of the lady, and bang-bang lights out for one more deserving creep.

ha

 

[donheff]

The recent court decision knocking down DC's gun law is fascinating. It goes into a lot of detail about the history of gun rights in common law and the general duty to be available to serve as militia in the early days of the US. The DC Circuit concluded (among other things) that the amendment did not create a new right but ratified that an existing right of the people (the right to keep and bear arms) shall not be infringed going forward. Lots of interesting discussion about what militias were at the time as well - everybody was expected to own a gun.

 

[justin]

I don't own a firearm but I'd like to reserve my right to own one in the future.

How common is it for a homeowner to actually repel a burglary/home invasion with their firearm? I hear about burglaries, break-ins, and home invasions pretty frequently around here, but I hardly ever hear about a homeowner actually stopping the burglary in progress by shooting the perp or scaring him off.

Is the argument that the big unknown of gun ownership scattered throughout our neighborhoods is a significant deterrent to home invasions and burglaries when the homeowner is home? As an analogy, does random gun ownership work against crime like vaccinations work against contagious diseases/illnesses? If 90% of a population is vaccinated against a certain illness, then the illness might be essentially eradicated. If 30% of homes have a gun in them, then burlaries and home invasions (when the homeowner is home) have been severely reduced as a result? In other words, do I, as a non-gun owner get protection from burglaries and home invasions because criminals are scared of the 30% chance that I may have a gun?

 

[haha]

In other words, do I, as a non-gun owner get protection from burglaries and home invasions because criminals are scared of the 30% chance that I may have a gun?

Better appoint a panel of scientists to study this.

Ha

 

[mathjak107]

it was once said by a high level russion general that it wasnt the american army they feared as much as the thought of invading a country with over 75 million armed citizens

 

[tryan]

Justin,

You'ld be better off with a dog ... buut if you find yourself in an event like New Orleans looting or LA rioting, Fido probably won't carry enough of a bite.

 

[justin]

Better appoint a panel of scientists to study this.

Well, there are so many other things preventing someone from breaking into my house. Morals. Fear of arrest/imprisonment. Fear of getting hurt by non-firearm weapons. Fear of the starving rotties I've been training to pit-fight that I leave inside my house. Fear of an alarm system. Fear of getting shot by the police if they are caught in the act. Fear of shame when their face is on the 5 o clock news.

How significant is the fact that I might have a gun? What marginal deterrent benefit does random gun ownership convey on me?