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

Neither of those pathetic attempts at emotive appeal change the fact that no part of the second amendment concerns itself with an alleged right to protect oneself from other people's attempts to deprive you of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, or to protect you from the government.

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.

In fact, this addresses participation in a well regulated militia. Show me where it addresses personal self-defense, or defense against government tyranny.

cjhsa wrote:

I tailor my delivery to the audience.

No, actually you tailor your deliver to the incarcerated and the institutualized.

Setanta wrote:

Neither of those pathetic attempts at emotive appeal change the fact that no part of the second amendment concerns itself with an alleged right to protect oneself from other people's attempts to deprive you of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, or to protect you from the government.

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.

In fact, this addresses participation in a well regulated militia. Show me where it addresses personal self-defense, or defense against government tyranny.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward language. It implies that the people can have guns period. My point was that one of the main founders, in fact the chairman of the Constitutional Convention, stated what he meant by it.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward language. It implies that the people can have guns period. My point was that one of the main founders, in fact the chairman of the Constitutional Convention, stated what he meant by it.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

Setanta wrote:

Neither of those pathetic attempts at emotive appeal change the fact that no part of the second amendment concerns itself with an alleged right to protect oneself from other people's attempts to deprive you of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, or to protect you from the government.

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.

In fact, this addresses participation in a well regulated militia. Show me where it addresses personal self-defense, or defense against government tyranny.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward language,

Just more reasons not to live in Mass. I went to school in Boston. I never felt safe there.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Setanta wrote:

Neither of those pathetic attempts at emotive appeal change the fact that no part of the second amendment concerns itself with an alleged right to protect oneself from other people's attempts to deprive you of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, or to protect you from the government.

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.

In fact, this addresses participation in a well regulated militia. Show me where it addresses personal self-defense, or defense against government tyranny.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward language,

whose meaning is clear if you read it with the rest of the sentence it inhabits, in particular the first or main qualifying part of the same sentence which refers to a "well-regulated militia". The author clearly intended for the gun owner to be part of a militia.

cjhsa wrote:

Just more reasons not to live in Mass. I went to school in Boston. I never felt safe there.

What part of Boston? I do know Allston/Brighton, near BU & BC has cleaned up a lot over the past 10-15 years, and a lot of parts of Boston in general. It's all yuppified now. Unless you're hanging out in the inner-cities, Boston is pretty safe. Knock on wood, never had any incidents on the streets. Where I grew up was another story.

KABUL, Afghanistan - An Army sergeant complained in a rare opinion article that the U.S. flag flew at half-staff last week at the largest U.S. base in Afghanistan for those killed at Virginia Tech but the same honor is not given to fallen U.S. troops here and in Iraq.

In the article issued Monday by the public affairs office at Bagram military base north of Kabul, Sgt. Jim Wilt lamented that his comrades' deaths have become a mere blip on the TV screen, lacking the "shock factor" to be honored by the Stars and Stripes as the deaths at Virginia Tech were.

"I find it ironic that the flags were flown at half-staff for the young men and women who were killed at VT, yet it is never lowered for the death of a U.S. service member," Wilt wrote.

He noted that Bagram obeyed President Bush's order last week that all U.S. flags at federal locations be flown at half-staff through April 22 to honor 32 people killed at Virginia Tech by a 23-year-old student gunman who then killed himself.

"I think it is sad that we do not raise the bases' flag to half-staff when a member of our own task force dies," Wilt said.

According to the Defense Department, 315 U.S. service members have died in and around Afghanistan since the U.S.-led offensive that toppled the Taliban regime in late 2001, 198 of them in combat.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force said that the flags of all its troop-contributing nations are flown at half-staff for about 72 hours after the service member's death "as a mark of respect when there is an ISAF fatality."

Sgt. 1st Class Dean Welch, who works with Wilt at the U.S.-led coalition public affairs office, said the essay is a "soldier's commentary, not the view of the coalition and not the view of the U.S. forces."

Welch added that such outspoken opinion pieces are rare.

Wilt suggested that flags should fly at half-staff on the base where the fallen service member was working and in the states where they hail from. He said some states do this, but not all of them.

He wrote that the death of a U.S. service member is just as violent as those at the university last week, but it lacks the "shock factor of the Virginia massacre."

"It is a daily occurrence these days to see X number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq or Afghanistan scrolling across the ticker at the bottom of the TV screen. People have come to expect casualty counts in the nightly news; they don't expect to see 32 students killed," he wrote.

"If the flags on our (operating bases) were lowered for just one day after the death of a service member, it would show the people who knew the person that society cared, the American people care."

nimh wrote:

Yes, I wish there was a little more pragmatism, and a little less inclination to perceive everything in those all or nothing terms, in both cases.

I agree. I only point this out because it seems to provide a bridge to the other persons mindset for both sides. I think most anti-gun people are pro-choice and most pro-gun people are anti-abortion.

Using this example gets rid of the 'How could they think that way? or How could they be so opposed to this minor change?' factor when you point out that they think the exact same way about another popular and controversial issue.

This thread has moved on to gun control and such. Which is fine. But in light of Revel's story above, I cite a story-a brief snippet of a story-I heard today on NPR. All of 60 seconds long.
A banner was hung at a school in Baghdad expressing sorrow and solidarity with the VT family.
More than 200 professors from that school have been killed.

cjhsa wrote:

Just more reasons not to live in Mass. I went to school in Boston. I never felt safe there.

What part of Boston? I do know Allston/Brighton, near BU & BC has cleaned up a lot over the past 10-15 years, and a lot of parts of Boston in general. It's all yuppified now. Unless you're hanging out in the inner-cities, Boston is pretty safe. Knock on wood, never had any incidents on the streets. Where I grew up was another story.

This thread has moved on to gun control and such. Which is fine. But in light of Revel's story above, I cite a story-a brief snippet of a story-I heard today on NPR. All of 60 seconds long.
A banner was hung at a school in Baghdad expressing sorrow and solidarity with the VT family.
More than 200 professors from that school have been killed.

Your dumbass can't feel safe. Ever. But it's not because you're a gun-fixated, paranoid coward or anything like that. It's other, more complicated stuff having to do with illegals and minorities and the 2nd amendment. Yeah.