0
   

At least 20+ dead students in Virginia Tech; shooter dead

 
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 10:58 am
Quote:
Cho's great-aunt, Kim Yang-soon, said Cho was diagnosed with autism after coming to U.S. in 1992. Speaking from her home in South Korea, she described Cho as "very cold" and said her niece was constantly worried about him.

"Every time I called and asked how he was, she would say she was worried about him," Kim said, according to a translation from the AP. "Who would have known he would cause such trouble, the idiot."


wow, if this is a correct translation, if seems as though at least part of the family is wanting to keep any association with him at a distance.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 10:58 am
You can call a move to ban handguns idiotic if you wish, O'Bill, but don't try to saddle me with a strawman argument that i call for a ban on all firearms--i don't, and i have specifically referred to handguns.

Equating handguns to drugs is a false analogy, as well. It takes a relatively sophisticated manufacturing technique to produce a handgun, even a cheap, shoddy one. It takes few resources and fewer brains to produce cocaine, or methamphetamine, and it takes nothing but a "green thumb" to produce marijuana. Additionally, smuggling of drugs only applies to cocaine and heroine, since methamphetamine can be and are produced in the United States and Canada. More than that, it is possible for a drug addict who does not draw attention to him- or herself for other reasons to walk around with a huge amount of a drug on his or her person without attracting any attention. Enough cocaine to wreck your life for a week can fit into a space much smaller than a cigarette pack. It is quite another matter to hide two handguns and lots of reloads on your person, which is one reason why i find this incident incredible.

I have at no time suggested that we can make it impossible for people to obtain handguns, and i have not even approach suggesting that all firearms ought to be banned. I have pointed out that the problem has arisen over two centuries, and that it would be unrealistic to assume that it can be solved quickly. And, once again, the inability to provide a "quick fix" is not a good reason to do nothing. Although we may never be able to create a climate in which it is impossible to obtain a handgun, we can create a climate in which it is so extremely difficult, and difficult to obtain large amounts of ammunition, that events on this scale become uncommon, or even unheard of. It's just won't happen any time soon, and nothing will be done at all as long as lobbies as powerful as the NRA are in a position to interfere.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:03 am
JPB wrote:
wow, if this is a correct translation, if seems as though at least part of the family is wanting to keep any association with him at a distance.


In my experience working with people of Korean background who required mental health interventions, not much support for them or their immediate families (unless they'd been shunned by their immediate families already) could have been expected.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:04 am
Steve 41oo wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Steve 41oo wrote:
How do you commit mass murder with rat poison?


Are you really asking that question?
Yes would you like to answer it?


Put it in food......
Inject people with it......
Poison a water supply.....
I would imagine you could make a rat posion bomb....
Laughing enough of your imaginings.


Not just imaginings - one word - Tylenol.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:08 am
Setanta wrote:
You can call a move to ban handguns idiotic if you wish, O'Bill, but don't try to saddle me with a strawman argument that i call for a ban on all firearms--i don't, and i have specifically referred to handguns.
I must not have been clear, because you misunderstood. The "idiotic ban" I referred to was drug prohibition. Perhaps my post will make more sense with that in mind. Any fire-arms/handgun confusion was incidental or sloppy on my part as well; not an attempt to alter your position.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:10 am
Yes, you are right, you were referring to drugs. As i scanned back through before replying, i picked up on it again, but failed to recall that you were referring to drugs. My mistake.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:13 am
Re: Media
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
I am so angry at the Media who are putting ratings before the common good---again.

They have repeatedly been advised by a number of experts not to show the Cho pictures and only carefully reporting on his writings and rantings. They fear the making a martyr of Cho will energize other copycat psychotic potential killers to try to beat Cho's record of 32 kills. When these experts are interviewed on TV, the talking head responds that they make a good point. Then they proceed to do exactly what the experts warned they should not do.

Is this stupidity or do ratings trump everything?

BBB


I agree completely. And also agree that the way the media protrays this sort of occurance increases the problems. Here is one quote..."Experts said the paranoid delusions evident in the messages were typical of mass murderers, and they advised people to be on the lookout for warning signs from others who could be emboldened by media coverage of Cho's messages."
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:30 am
Setanta wrote:
Yes, you are right, you were referring to drugs. As i scanned back through before replying, i picked up on it again, but failed to recall that you were referring to drugs. My mistake.
No biggie. I would be interested in your response the legislation I described.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:40 am
ehBeth wrote:
JPB wrote:
wow, if this is a correct translation, if seems as though at least part of the family is wanting to keep any association with him at a distance.


In my experience working with people of Korean background who required mental health interventions, not much support for them or their immediate families (unless they'd been shunned by their immediate families already) could have been expected.
My limited experience with South Koreans suggests a very different culture as well. A statement in Korean like "I'm older than you, you must listen to me" seems to get compliance, even from near strangers. The older of two twins has parent-like status over his minute's younger sibling. I was once severely chastised by my Korean friend/employer for smoking in front of an older Korean (we were outside, and we had just met the man incidentally) because he declined a cigarette. This, apparently, is terribly disrespectful. Overall; I have the sense that a great deal more emphasis is put on respect than openness in their culture... meaning the younger man with the dissenting opinion had best keep it to himself, or else.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:40 am
I still didn't read all the way back.

Limit ammo? Go from one shop to the next to the next and so on.
If it is computerized, then have a friend do it too. That is how you
can stock pile.

Drugs, like the ones they use to make meth. that are behind the counter at the pharmacy now? That is a joke. The person goes from one store to the next to the next and so on. If that doesn't work they get a friend. That is how you stock pile. Ever ask a pharmacist about the paperwork they have you fill out when you buy those drugs? I did. The answer is nothing.

Nothing? Yep, nothing. You fill it out, it is in a book. There is no order to it.
There are 1,000 of pages. That is suppose to limit something. Okay. That is a joke.

I understand they are attempts to do something. It doesn't work so it isn't the answer. When you can't find an answer keep looking. Don't stop.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 11:53 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I would be interested in your response the legislation I described.


Point 1.--I consider this not unreasonable, although it doesn't work as well for shotguns, which are weapons i see no reason to ban. I am also uncomfortable with "federalizing" the process. It might be more effective to pass legislation which requires the states to take these measures, and to cooperate and coordinate with one another. All states already have bureaucracies (some large, some small, depending upon their existing legislation) for tracking and controlling guns, and this would accomplish the same end without a huge expansion of ATF, and bureaucratic expansion is the almost inevitable result of any measure passed by Congress which requires "oversight." To obviate whining by the states about unfunded initiatives, the Feds could fork over cash for setting up the compliance mechanisms--and it wouldn't cost much in comparison to what we spend in Iraq, or to send Congress to look at Iraq from behind an armored window in the Green Zone.

I wouldn't, though, specify that non-compliance should be treated as conspiracy to commit first degree murder, because you'd just be creating a field day for lawyers filing appeal briefs. Just make sure that non-compliance has the same consequences.

Point 2.--Fine, but just don't call it conspiracy to commit murder; don't give the law dogs an obscure basis to argue against the measure. Many, and perhaps most, states already have such laws, by the way.

Point 3.--This already exists in many of the states, and i consider that it is part of the problem, and no part of the solution. It might be reasonable if there were a truly realistic training and re-certification regime; but i think you'd find that a lot of states would claim they already have such requirements, and find ways to avoid the requirements of which you write. In truth, for all the grief it may bring, i don't think we'll overcome the problem until such time as no one, except the police and the military, are allowed to possess handguns.

Point 4.--I assume you mean a buy-out program for current gun owners. That was a method used by the English Parliament when they outlawed slavery. However, they weren't trying to buy 230,000,000 slaves. The cost would be enormous, but i do understand your point that people should not have their pockets retroactively picked by losing something which was legal at the time they purchased it.

Point 5.--I think this one was kind of out in left field. I know of no good reason to assert that most of gun violence derives from gang activity. If you can demonstrate that this is true, i think you have a sort of a point. However, i think your terms are sufficiently vague as to be oversimplified in dealing with a complex problem. Street violence does not necessarily all derive from gang activity, and incarceration does not appear to have been effective in ending gang activity more than 50 years after law enforcement officials decided that gang activity was a major criminal problem.

Point 6.--I can only see this as a valuable measure in mitigation (negative) at the time of sentencing. I think it would be grossly unfair to have such information color jurors' views during the guilty/not guilty phase of a trial, and should only be used when determining a sentence. By "mitigation (negative)" i mean that during sentencing, knowing that the convict had a previous record of violence would be a reasonable basis to lock the sumbitch up and lose the key.

Point 7.--A laudable plan, which i don't see any reason to bring up in a discussion of gun control.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:05 pm
I don't have much of a problem with any of these as stated although I would have some concerns with the actual implementation. Let me address them one at a time.


OCCOM BILL wrote:
Hand guns in criminal and/or crazy hands are a bad thing. We all agree.
What do you do about it?
1. Pass legislation that criminalizes ownership of any weapon not registered with the ATF, complete with ballistics test firings and #engraving and establish a database not unlike the fingerprint database of the NCIC for every known weapon in existence. Said legislation should be written to assume non compliance with this measure constitutes conspiracy to commit first degree murder and stipulate that all parties to the crime of trafficking, owning, selling or otherwise knowingly handling said weapons are thereby guilty of this offense.


OK, for some follow-up questions - Who controls this database? How do individuals know what info is being kept on them? How do they appeal any inaccurate data that might be in it? How does this system deal with replacement parts and normal wear and tear? ("Ballistic fingerprints" are useless after a few hundred rounds have been fired through a gun and totally worthless if the barrel is changed.) How long is this data maintained, who gets access to it and what else can it be used for? And who pays for all of this? The person who buys/owns the firearm or the general population that is supposedly deriving some measure of protection from it?

(The conspiracy to commit 1st Degeee murder is a stretch but I'll pass on that for the moment!)

Quote:
2.Pass legislation that automatically promotes use of a firearm, be it registered or not, in commission of a crime is treated the same way.


The same way as what? We already have laws in every U.S jurisdiction against committing crimes with a firearm. It's called "Assault with a deadly weapon". Getting people charged with it is another matter of course.

Quote:
3. Pass legislation that allows a large segment of the "law abiding community" to carry weapons at will; providing they have met strict criteria and undergo periodic training to obtain and maintain a license that both allows them the continued privilege AND obligates them to use their discretion according to their training (not unlike a life-saving certificate obligates one to save the drowning man).


A "large section of the law-abiding community"? You mean like a random 80% or something? Who decides which part of the law-abiding community gets to have a gun and who doesn't? A lottery? Or is there some government flunky that gets to decide based on how they feel that day?

Quote:
4. Pass an amnesty bill that allows owners of weapons who cannot or don't want to own weapons under the new guidelines. Full appraised value should be paid for guns and ammunition by the federal government.


Full appraised value before the law is drafted or afterwards? We saw how this worked in CA. The law passed and people went to get appraisals and found out that the gun they paid $1200 for last month was suddenly "worth" $100.

Quote:
5. Pass extremely harsh mandatory penalties for all forms of Violent Crime to get and keep the A-holes off the streets, before they graduate to cold hearted killers. This kid was just a freak; but the bigger problem stems from gang violence.


No one can be reformed? Just "lock 'em up and throw away the key!"?

Quote:
6. Eliminate the idiotic legislation that seals childhood records from juries during criminal proceedings. If a 19 year old violent offender has a long history of violence; the jury needs to know about it.


I could see allowing some of records to remain in the system but I think you run into the issue of throwing out the baby with the bath water here. Is your intent that no one ever gets to escape anything in their past?

Quote:
7. Abandon the idiotic Drug War in favor of concentrating 20% of its current resources on treatment facilities and awareness campaigns, and the other 80% on Ending Violent Crime as we know it.


"Ending Violent Crime as we know it"?? OK! I'm all for that! H Laughing

How do we do that? Is it enough to put up "Stop violent crime!" signs in people's front yards? This just seems to be so vague as to be useless. If we knew how to stop violent crime we'd have done it wouldn't we?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:20 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
My limited experience with South Koreans suggests a very different culture as well. A statement in Korean like "I'm older than you, you must listen to me" seems to get compliance, even from near strangers. The older of two twins has parent-like status over his minute's younger sibling. I was once severely chastised by my Korean friend/employer for smoking in front of an older Korean (we were outside, and we had just met the man incidentally) because he declined a cigarette. This, apparently, is terribly disrespectful. Overall; I have the sense that a great deal more emphasis is put on respect than openness in their culture... meaning the younger man with the dissenting opinion had best keep it to himself, or else.


I spent more than a year in Korea during my three years in the army. That was more than 30 years ago, but i recall Korea and the Koreans fondly. I even learned to speak some Korean, and to read enough to read a bus schedule and get around a little (in the 9th Century, a Korean "King" created an alphabet for them, because otherwise a Korean had to learn Chinese in order to write--that's a godsend to Westerners who want to learn Korean).

I learned that there were three forms of address. The form of address which one uses when speaking to children and dumb animals; the form of address one uses when speaking to people of (roughly) equivalent age; the form of address one uses when speaking to elders, who are, almost without exception, to be treated with an elaborate respect. There is also a very highly developed sense of extended family. So, for example, in a small village, you would treat everyone as though a member of your own family, you simply would show more deference and consideration to those to whom you were actually related by blood or marriage. Therefore, as soon as you are even casually acquainted with a member of your own generation, you address them as "brother" or "sister" and use the speech forms common to an equal within one's own family. All elderly persons are treated with an elaborate courtesy, and treated as though they were related by blood. Even with a complete stranger, one addresses them as "grandfather" or "grandmother." With someone who is old enough to command your respect, but not old enough to be considered truly elderly, you usually address them as "uncle" or "aunt."

There are even degrees of deference within those categories. You would say "old respected grandfather" to an elderly man to whom you are related, or simply if you wished to make a point of your respect for him. To indicate close relation or respect to an older person who is not actually elderly, you might say "respected uncle" or "respected aunt."

I add the caveat that this was more than 30 years ago, and long before Korea became affluent and adopted a more urban culture (of course, there were many large cities in Korea then, but not a lot of really affluent people--most people lived on very little by our standards in the early 1970s). But, this was my experience of how they viewed public and private behavior.

It would be unbearable shame to publicly admit to being homeless, indigent, or insane. This is because such people were (long ago) considered to be afflicted by devils, and to be avoided so as not to risk contamination. Even knowing that, Koreans in the 1970s still had that kind of reaction to people--but it was tied up with "strangeness." If someone in your family were mentally ill, it would be publicly referred to as an ordinary illness which resisted the efforts of the doctors. Everyone would understand, but no one would be rude enough directly allude to it, lest one bring shame on the family, which would cause for bitter hatred. At the same time, to be so poor as to be indigent, or to be homeless, would be a condemnation of the entire family, since families would be expected to find a place for everyone, even if it were only a mat in the corner. Old relatives who had no children could still expect to get their "rice bowl," meaning they would be fed each day, and given a corner to sleep in, for which they might be expected to do some small menial tasks, such as sweeping the court yard, or sprinkling water to lay the dust. Such a person might only be addressed as "grandmother" rather than "respected grandmother" or "old respected grandmother," but the still would have a place, and modicum of respect. The rice bowl is such a sacred institution that if you decided, well i'll help the old girl out and sweep the court yard for her, she would become irate, and everyone around would agree with her, because your action would be seen as "breaking her rice bowl." (The Koreans called civil service "the iron rice bowl," because you could lazy and worthless as doggie poop, and you wouldn't get fired.)

But it definitely is a village mentality, even when applied to neighborhoods in a city. Everyone knows you don't have to show any respect to those barbaric savages from that village on the other side of the mountain (or the other side of the highway in a city), those damned heathens. They all crazy, you know. Decent folks don't go there, because you might catch a devil. The place is overrun with devils and ghosts. (When i was there, even though young Koreans laughed at the stories of old timers about devils and ghosts, Korean movies about devils and ghosts were the most popular, and a movie about a doomed love affair between a beautiful young couple who were haunted and plagued by devils would be a barn burner at the box office.)

Nothing worse could be imagined than being homeless and indigent. It meant not only were you shamed, and probably either inflicted with a devil or haunted, it meant you family was shamed, because they couldn't provide you a rice bowl. A family would likely try to drive such a person from the neighborhood so as not to shame the family. The word i learned for "lies" was "kujimara" (long time ago, i don't allege that's exactly right), which means "beggar's talk." It is automatically assumed that beggars are liars. The Koreans i knew would try to get past a beggar while pretending he or she did not exist, and if they couldn't, they'd throw money down, so that they could get away without the beggar touching them, which might give the devil that plauged the beggar, or the ghost that haunted him or her a chance to latch on to them.

Once again, this was all more than 30 years ago, and is a description of what i saw among a largely rural population--even the city dwellers were often newly arrived from the country. At that time Korean farmers earned about $100 a year (1971 statistic which i read somewhere, i forget), and concentrated on raising enough to fill everyone's rice bowl--they even paid their taxes in kind, usually rice, because only the wealthiest peasants could afford to keep livestock bigger than chickens. Things may have changed considerably since that time, and could not have been said to be universally applicable even then.
0 Replies
 
TTH
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:22 pm
I wasn't sure where to post this since our President doesn't care according to a lot of people. I think it shows he cares.

" THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

HONORING THE VICTIMS OF THE TRAGEDY AT VIRGINIA TECH
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION


Our Nation grieves with those who have lost loved ones at Virginia
Tech. We hold the victims in our hearts. We lift them up in our
prayers, and we ask a loving God to comfort those who are suffering.

As a mark of respect for the victims of the senseless acts of
violence perpetrated on Monday, April 16, 2007, by the authority vested
in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the
laws
of the United States of America, I hereby order that the flag of the
United States shall be flown at half-staff at the White House and upon
all public buildings and grounds, at all military posts and naval
stations, and on all naval vessels of the Federal Government in the
District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its
Territories and possessions until sunset, Sunday, April 22, 2007. I
also direct that the flag shall be flown at half-staff for the same
length of time at all United States embassies, legations, consular
offices, and other facilities abroad, including all military facilities
and naval vessels and stations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
seventeenth day
of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the
Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and
thirty-first.

GEORGE W. BUSH "

That is a start. Lower your flags at half-staff as directed by the President of the United States of America.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:30 pm
Thanks for the detailed response...

Setanta wrote:
Point 6.--I can only see this as a valuable measure in mitigation (negative) at the time of sentencing. I think it would be grossly unfair to have such information color jurors' views during the guilty/not guilty phase of a trial, and should only be used when determining a sentence. By "mitigation (negative)" i mean that during sentencing, knowing that the convict had a previous record of violence would be a reasonable basis to lock the sumbitch up and lose the key.
Really? Accused arsonist started 6 buildings on fire as a kid isn't relevant in determining his likelihood of guilt? Guy who beat another to death outside a bar had 12 charges of aggravated assault as a child... isn't relevant to considering his story about this one being self defense? I couldn't agree less. A history of violence, reasonably, goes along way towards eliminating reasonable doubt... just as a clean slate goes a long way towards establishing one.

Setanta wrote:
Point 7.--A laudable plan, which i don't see any reason to bring up in a discussion of gun control.
The reason was in the paragraphs below. The illegal drug trade provides an otherwise less prevalent network of outlaws for would be criminals who seek all things illegal. By legalizing drugs, gambling, prostitution etc. this network is vastly reduced. Were it removed; I wouldn't have a clue who I could trust to turn me on to a gun dealer, and said gun dealer would have no one to vouch for me. Our current system of feigned prohibition essentially opens the underground network of criminals up to everyone who smokes pot or knows someone who does which is virtually everyone. We have inadvertently created an all encompassing web of contact points to the underworld, complete with loyalty testing and a track record to boot. By taking the harmless, or nearer harmless, out of the criminal network, you cease creating channels for otherwise law abiding citizens to meet gun dealers and other dangerous people through the "I know him, he's cool" network.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:31 pm
Whoa, fast thread... I'll have to catch up later...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:42 pm
You don't need a druggie or a pimp to turn you on to an illegal handgun. I referred earlier to an incident in which a saw someone selling a handgun from his pick-up truck in the back corner of a parking lot. That man, and his intended customer, were well-trained professionals with many years of experience in a profession requiring detailed knowledge of electronics and electronic systems. Neither of them had any criminal history, and neither of them were drug users.

This nation is awash in handguns, and it isn't just vaguely defined "criminal element" who are responsible.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 12:51 pm
Set the Koreans I know best would have immigrated here about 30 years ago, but have made frequent trips back. Mom still speaks no English, and Dad never left. The incident I described happened on a trip to Costa Rica, and the meeting couldn't have been more random. The respect thing is amazing. Do you remember 'two hands to hand something to an elder, with the second one holding your sleeve out of the way, whether it was imaginary or not'? Shocked Anyway, thanks for the revelation...


Setanta wrote:
You don't need a druggie or a pimp to turn you on to an illegal handgun. I referred earlier to an incident in which a saw someone selling a handgun from his pick-up truck in the back corner of a parking lot. That man, and his intended customer, were well-trained professionals with many years of experience in a profession requiring detailed knowledge of electronics and electronic systems. Neither of them had any criminal history, and neither of them were drug users.

This nation is awash in handguns, and it isn't just vaguely defined "criminal element" who are responsible.
They may well have been within the current law, or just bending it at the time, too. If undocumented ownership of such became a serious crime; those guys probably wouldn't be doing it that way. That's when the 'criminal network' becomes even more important.


I'll get back to your post, Fishin....
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 03:15 pm
Setanta wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Guns are available to Americans so that they may defend themselves against criminals, against their own goverment, and against foreign invaders. It's unfortunate that the ability to defend one's person and family also confers the ability to attack innocent people, but it doesn't negate the first right. This stuff has been debated since the Founding Fathers first deliberately inserted recognition of this right into our constitution. Furthermore, the right cannot be repealed, unless the constitution is changed, which I hope doesn't happen.

Background checks of those attempting to purchase guns are a very good thing, but this particular shooter had no criminal record, and I doubt one could ban everyone who'd sought psychiatric help from buying guns.


Nowhere does the constitution confer on you the right to own firearms to protect yourself against criminals. That being noted, the argument that you need handguns for that purpose is one of the reasons that we are unable to do anything about this, in the face of handgun proponents and the inordinately powerful NRA lobby.

As for the contention that we need guns to repel invasions or to protect ourselves from government tyranny, that's about the most absurd of arguments advanced for gun ownership, but particularly for the ownership of handguns. If we are invaded, just how much good do you think you can do with a handgun. If the government comes for you, with officers in body armor and helmets, carrying machine pistols, tear-gas grenade launchers, and riding in armored vehicles, are you going to stop them with your Smith and Wesson? Get real.

The Constitution gives the Congress the power to arm the militia, and to prescribe their training and discipline. The 1903 Dick Act made the organized militias a part of the Federal military establishment as the National Guard, leaving all other "militia members" part of an unorganized militia. The Second Amendment applies to a well regulated militia, and there is no reason to assume that the government cannot use it's powers to regulate the firearms which members of the unorganized militia are allowed to bear. It was the First Congress, by the way, who wrote the Second Amendment, and not the "Founding Fathers." It doesn't require the repeal of the Second Amendment to regulate handguns. All claims that handguns are guaranteed by the Second Amendment, or that they could effectively be used to repel invasions or defy in arms a tyrannical government would be laughably absurd, were it not for tragedies such as this.

As a matter of fact, many states, Virginia included, do restrict gun ownership for those who have been evaluated as a psychiatric risk. Even if that were not true, it's hardly a reasonable argument against implementing such a practice.

First of all, the exact reason why the Bill of Rights includes the right to bear arms is not, as you imply, a topic on which there is agreement, but it does say that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Second, Washington said:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

Third, at the start of the American Revolution, as the British headed back to Boston from Lexington, all along the route, not only Minutemen, but also local farmers and townspeople sniped at them. By the time the British soldiers reached Boston, 73 were dead and 174 more were wounded. In general, an armed populace can produce an effect against an invader or occupier, most often by guerilla warfare rather than direct confrontation, but, at any rate, they should have the right to do what they can and not be rendered completely defenseless.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Apr, 2007 03:47 pm
McTag wrote:
People can obtain guns in this country, but the need has to be established, and the weapon registered with the Police, and kept in a gun safe.


That "need" thing is unacceptable in a free country.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.53 seconds on 01/23/2025 at 07:25:08