Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Tom
An honest, level-headed approach to debating this issue. Thank you.

IMO, it is the fear that somebody might do something like this, which makes people push to get rid of our 2nd Amendment right.
It really is no different than the fear that terrorists might attack tactic that allows people to give up some of their privacy rights.
I don’t think we should allow our govt to use fear to take our rights away.

“The founders did not count on their progeny developing such efficient ways of killing people”

They also did not count on us being able to log-in or call up people hundreds or thousands of miles away and executing a mass event such as 9-11. And there is absolutely no way they could have thought about being able to make a phone call to detonate a bomb either.
There are many ways for the “nut cases” to get their point across. Do we take away the rights of the majority so that our govt can “protect” us from the few nuts? A 7 day wait before we buy a phone or get internet service and have that usage monitored?
I wouldn’t want that.

Of course I disagree with what you think the 2nd means, but you are entitled to your beliefs.
But, the state militias of then, were made up of all able men and they represented the state. Today, it is made up of a few men who really work for the federal govt in the long run.
It is the duty of all of us to keep our govt in check.

Again, good approach to this issue Tom.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 03:35 PM

Tom,

One thing kctim failed to mention was that the “state militias” were made up of men that supplied their own guns.

Posted by: Rocky at April 16, 2007 03:40 PM

The state militias of then, were made up of all able men and they represented the state. Today, it is made up of a few men who really work for the federal govt in the long run.

Then kctim, perhaps it is time to change the militia requirements. I start with requiring every person who wants to bear an arm be part of the state’s well regulated militia. If that happens I’ll join the NRA.

Posted by: bobo at April 16, 2007 03:41 PM

Good call Rocky, thanks.

Other than joining the NRA bobo, I can’t say that I disagree with that.

The sad part wouldn’t be with everyone being armed.
It would be having to require people to make up their militia, when it should be somthing each of us would willingly do out of love of country.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 03:47 PM

kctim,
Well, that was me saying I’d join the NRA. I feel the NRA has utterly failed to to play any role in the responsibility factor in guns. Sure, they talk about gun safety and harsh penalties for crimes, but talk like that has absolutely no bearing on what happened today at VT.

IMO, the “well regulated militia” part of the second amendment clearly gives the government the authority to require a gun owner to check in and drill on a regular basis.

Posted by: bobo at April 16, 2007 04:01 PM

bobo - You’re right about the NRA - they refuse to take part in any level-headed debate and the “you can pry my gun out of my cold, dead, hands” statement is about all they offer. There has got to be some room for debate on this issue.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 16, 2007 04:11 PM

bobo
What kind of “responsibility factor” role do you think the NRA should play?

I think you misunderstood my gun owner being part of the militia statement.
I believe every American should feel honored and compelled to be a part of their state militia. I think it is sad that it would have to be a govt requirement.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 04:16 PM

Tom,

I read that about the delay between shootings and was wondering why the campus wasn’t in lock down, too.

Last night I was doing some reading about the Indian trails in Kentucky and Ohio and Daniel Boone. My ancestors settled in Kentucky and were friends of Daniel.

I doubt at the time State militias were what this was entirely meant by the 2nd admendment.

Daniel was captured by Indians four times and lost a brother and 2 children to Indian attacks. The settlers in Kentucky, while on a land grab from the Shawnee and Cherokee ancestral lands there, could not rely on the State, Feds, or anyone to protect them.

In 1791 the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania began (the same year of the ratification of the 2nd admendment).

The tax on whiskey was bitterly and fiercely opposed on the frontier from the day it was passed. Western farmers considered it to be both unfair and discriminatory, since they had traditionally converted their excess grain into liquor. The whiskey thus produced could easily be transported and sold while the grain itself could not. Since the nature of the tax affected those who sold the whiskey, it directly affected many farmers. Many protest meetings were held, and a situation arose which was reminiscent of the opposition to the Stamp Act of 1765 before the American Revolution.

From Pennsylvania to Georgia, the western counties engaged in a campaign of harassment of the federal tax collectors. “Whiskey Boys” also made violent protests in Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina, and Georgia.

By the summer of 1794, tensions reached a fevered pitch all along the western frontier as the pioneer/settlers’ primary marketable commodity was threatened by the federal taxation measures. Finally the civil protests became an armed rebellion. The first shots were fired at the Oliver Miller Homestead in present day South Park Township Pennsylvania — about ten miles south of Pittsburgh. As word of the rebellion spread across the frontier, a whole series of loosely organized resistance measures were taken, including robbing the mail, stopping court proceedings, and the threat of an assault on Pittsburgh. One group disguised as women, assaulted a tax collector, cropped his hair, coated him with tar and feathers, and stole his horse. Though this did not kill the collector, it physically scarred him for life.

George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, remembering Shays’ Rebellion from just eight years before, decided to make Pennsylvania a testing ground for federal authority. Washington ordered federal marshals to serve court orders requiring the tax protesters to appear in federal district court. On August 7, 1794, Washington invoked Martial Law to summon the militias of Pennsylvania, Virginia and several states. The rebel force they sought was likewise composed of Pennsylvanians, Virginians, and possibly men from other states.
A militia force of 13,000 men was organized, roughly the size of the entire army in the Revolutionary War. Under the personal command of Washington, Hamilton and Revolutionary War hero General Henry “Lighthorse Harry” Lee,(Robert E. Lee’s dad) the army assembled in Harrisburg and marched into Western Pennsylvania (to what is now Monongahela, Pennsylvania) in October of 1794. The rebels “could never be found,” according to Jefferson, but the militia expended considerable effort rounding up 20 prisoners, clearly demonstrating Federalist authority in the national government. The men were imprisoned, where one died, while two were convicted of treason and sentenced to death by hanging. Washington, however, pardoned them on the grounds that one was a “simpleton,” and the other, “insane.”, after widespread public outrage.

This established the power of the federal government the authority to keep the peace and supress insurrection.

Unreported and untaxed Moonshine Whiskey began to be produced in Kentucky as a result.

The tax was repealed in 1803.

While I doubt the admendments intent was to allow armed rebellion, the western frontier was a place where arms were a part of everyday life.

I was never taught about these stories in my history classes, and I find this period of U.S. history fascinating and telling of how far we have moved from our Constitutional underpinnings, even as early as 1794.

Posted by: gergle at April 16, 2007 04:22 PM

What the? I have to take driver’s ed, take a road test, get a license to drive a car. I have to get a credit check and address check done before I can change my cellphone company. I can’t kill anyone with my cellphone, I can only run over a few people with my car if I’m a real psycho, but if you stop me from buying a gun today so that tonight I can shoot down my neighbor, his wife and kids, I’ll start yelling about how your depriving me of my rights!

Posted by: g at April 16, 2007 04:26 PM

As an outsider to your country, It is incomprehensible as to why people should need to bear arms in a civilised society. In my country, which is not immune to gun crime, guns are very tightly regulated. However, we have never had a slaughter like today in VA, nor Columbine and all of the others.

It’s as if the US has never moved past its frontier days, as if the distant apparent romance of that period in your history holds you in thrall. I don’t know of any advanced society that has similar ease of access to weapons to that of the US, and their citizens don’t seem to feel deprived. Is it that guns lend a feeling of virility to people who feel insecure? Is it that people have so embedded the frontier legend so deeply in their psyches, that they cannot distinguish between then and now?

Whatever the 2nd amendment was actually intended to mean, that does not imply that such meaning needs to be still relevant today. The US constitution is a flexible one, intended to be amenable to change over time, as circumstances demand. Nothing is written in stone, and times and circumstances change. It’s bad enough having out and out criminals having weapons, but when anyone can have them, be they totally insecure, immature, inadequate, or just someone at a crisis point in their lives feeling a need to lash out, then you must factor in the cost of the Columbines and the Va’s and so on in that right to bear arms. Is it worth it? If if was your child, parent, lover, sibling, whatever, who paid the price, would it be worth it?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 16, 2007 04:31 PM

g
First, big difference between priviledges and rights.
Second, you can kill with a cellphone.
Third, you wouldn’t start yelling about being deprived of your rights because if its not your right to free speech or privacy, you really don’t care.
Fourth, you shouldn’t let fear be the determining factor in giving up your rights.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 04:37 PM

I was going to agree that only citizens who were prepared to serve in a militia should be allowed guns, but unfortunately the definition seems to suggest that anyone and everyone deserves the right to purchase and keep one.

MILITIA:
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

Dammit. Was really hoping I could find some flaw there that would support my argument that people should not have guns.

BTW, Wisconsin recently passed a law allowing 11 year olds the right to bear arms. Not sure how that fits with the body of civilians as defined above.

Posted by: Jon Rice at April 16, 2007 04:42 PM

People have the right to own guns to overthrough their government. Does that mean that wacko like the guy in VA are going to show up. Yes it does.
You are not allowed under federal law to have a firearm at a university. That is why Oregon State University has to have the State Police patrol campus (Their is a federal law that says if you have a Nuclear Reactor you have to have Armed security). So how is another law to keep someone from having a gun on school property going to stop this type of crime?

Posted by: timesend at April 16, 2007 04:46 PM

No Paul, you’ve never had a slaughter like we have had today. Europe had the holocaust.

“If if was your child, parent, lover, sibling, whatever, who paid the price,”

My father.

“would it be worth it?”

It hurts everyday, but it is worth it.
I believe as my father believed: without our rights, we are no longer Americans.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 04:46 PM

“You are not allowed under federal law to have a firearm at a university.”

Maybe if you were, someone would have taken this SOB out before he could do so much damage.

Posted by: tomd at April 16, 2007 05:01 PM

These acts of suicide, mass homicide, and revenge in America are not that dissimilar from what some in Iraq are engaged in. There’s something intellectually pregnant about that, but, the gestation period has not come to term, yet.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2007 05:04 PM

The 2nd amendment states:
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 does this mean?

Even with this little quote, we run into another problem involved in figuring out what the Second Amendment means: punctuation. Although what is quoted here was the most common version of the text that the states considered, the final version officially approved actually is 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.

Do those two little commas matter? Maybe, maybe not. They do mean that the official text of the 2nd Amendment cannot really be parsed using modern rules of English punctuation and usage. The closest we can come to is that the full statement is “A well regulated militia shall not be infringed,” with the missing part being an explanatory appositive, but even that’s a stretch given the bad grammar.

So, in order to even debate the meaning of the terms “arms” and “militia” and “regulated” and “infringed” in the proper context, we have to figure out what the proper context is. According to the NRA, those commas essentially don’t exist, making the Amendment about individual rights. According to gun control advocates, the commas both exist and are grammatically meaningful, so the Amendment is about the rights of militias.

If we decide to be strict interpreters of the Constitution, what matters? Is it the original intent (not to have the commas)? Or is it the original text (to have the commas)?

It’s horribly confusing. All because of a couple commas.

Posted by: LawnBoy at April 16, 2007 05:04 PM

Self defense is an unalienable human right. Police do not defend the innocent, they apprehend the guilty. Self-defense is an unalienable human right. Police do not defend the innocent, they apprehend the guilty. Self defense …

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2007 05:07 PM

Lawnboy, for me, the argument is not over punctuation but the word ‘militia’.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

An army, but not like a conventional army which only functions when amassed. Hence, a loose and dispersed armed citizenry whose purpose is to insure peace and and social order could also fit that definition.

But, then one runs into the word ‘vigilantism’. And, it is doubtful, given the care our founders took to establish our judiciary system, that vigilantism is what they contemplated in 2nd Amendment.

But all this is moot. America has a serious crime problem and people have the right to defend themselves in the midst of it. It is not a right any law can take away from people who insist on their right.

The only viable solution in modern times is to devise means and ways of recognizing and intervening to help individuals who are prone to depression, violence, or suicide/homicide. In other words, “All you need is love, dah ta dah, ta dah!”

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 16, 2007 05:21 PM

Perhaps we need some sort of compromise. Right now just about anyone can purchase a gun - whether they know how to use the thing or not.

What if instead of simply requiring a 7 day holding period, that the buyer be required during that time, or prior, to pass a gun safety test before purchasing a fire arm? It would not of course have helped the situation that occurred today at Virginia Tech - and as I know students there, I am anxiously awaiting news, but it might help prevent some of the accidents that happened.

I had to pass a driver’s tests to get my license, go through some type of training\probation period in order to get\hold my job, have my house inspected at purchase\sale, have car insurance in order to own a car\buy\rent, pass my exams before graduating from High School, etc., and etc.

I am not suggesting that the course cost anything, although, frankly I had to pay for my graduation gown, my insurance, and drivers license.I also pay taxes for the food I buy.

As far as the time period before Va. Tech was Locked down, on the news right now, they are saying that there was no way to reach all of the students other than e-mail and those already walking too, or in class would not of course be reading their e-mail.

I can appreciate the concern about issuing an alarming e-mail. Would the students have stayed calm, or panicked and run form the dorms upon hearing that shots had been fired in a dorm, thereby increasing the possible risks of running into the gunman before he arrived at the classrooms.

There apparently are no sirens, or speakers in or around the dorms and classrooms.

Instead of jumping the “gun” if you’ll pardon my bad pun, perhaps we need to try to come up with ideas to prevent the next one. Va. Tech has already faced such an assault, what do we do to stop the next one?

Posted by: Linda H. at April 16, 2007 05:27 PM

I am not advocating taking anyone’s gun away; I was trying to make sense of the second amendment. Like I said, we have mostly accepted that it doesn’t give me the right to get an ICBM at Wal-Mart (though I’m sure they could get a Chinese one made of cheap plastic for 1/10 the cost of an American made one), or a RPG, or bazooka. So where is the line? timesend mentioned. “People have the right to own guns to overthrough(sic) their own government.” Are you planning on doing it with your Smith and Wesson? If we can’t have the same weapons as the government we can’t compete agaist them. Therefore, if that is your argument you have already lost that right.

I just would like a discussion of where exactly this line should be drawn. I don’t want anyone taking away my rights to free speech, rights to assemble, and rights to a speedy trial that the Bush administration has been assaulting for the last 6 years. It would be hippocritical to say that all the amendments should be protected except this one.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 16, 2007 05:40 PM

“Perhaps we need some sort of compromise.”

I won’t conpromise this right.

Posted by: tomd at April 16, 2007 05:43 PM

Tom
The line has already been drawn. Innocent, average Americans must now get govt permission to “legally” exercise their 2nd Amendment right.
We are guilty until proven innocent.

And if you look at what tomd just posted, you will see that most people who still believe in the 2nd, feel they have already given enough up.
Compromise now consists of only hearing what anti 2nd people demand and then try to lessen the severity of their demands.

Other than outright confiscation, there really isn’t too much else that can be done.

Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 05:53 PM

kctim,
I think the NRA should have tests for membership, mandatory training programs, and a means to expel members to fail to keep certified.

Posted by: bobo at April 16, 2007 06:07 PM

Maybe if you were, someone would have taken this SOB out before he could do so much damage.

tomd,
The fallacy of this logic is that the person who wants to do the killing always fires first. And one murder already “much damage.”

Posted by: bobo at April 16, 2007 06:10 PM

America has a serious crime problem and people have the right to defend themselves in the midst of it. It is not a right any law can take away from people who insist on their right.

AFAIK, it doesn’t work that fine.
How many of these 31 victims could or actually have an arm? Does it protect their lives?

Nope. The argument that every citizen have the right to self defense with a gun fall flat. US *is the country where having a gun for every citizen is the most easier in the world. But it doesn’t give you the lowest crime level. Far from it.
Your country have the highest death by gun.
If having a gun were actually protecting citizens from crime, WHERE IS THE DAMN PROOF???

That’s ironic that from the worst weapons ever invented by human the only one that have actually protect lives and peace so far is the worst one ever imagined by brain human, nuclear weapon.

All these others weapons never accomplish this level of deterrence. Having a gun doesn’t protect your life one bit. Having no gun protect you to kill someone with a gun.

Wake up guys, if it doesn’t work, it’s time to reconsider your choice? Or what, what’s cool in the USA is driving an huge SUV while wearing a cowboy hat and a gun?

Oh, please, your kids deserve better than 200+ old nostalgia. They deserves campuses that wont turn one day into shoot them up. Having more guns everywhere don’t work since, well, start. Dare to try the *other* solution, no gun?
You can’t tell until you actually try it…

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 16, 2007 06:16 PM

Now, we see the 2nd amendement freaks (aka, NRA) at work… thank you NRA. Will the NRA be providing financial assistance to the families of the dead? No, they will be putting their money to furthering the availability of machine guns to other freaky Americans.

Posted by: Paul at April 16, 2007 06:20 PM

“well regulated militia”

Obviously we need a lot more regulation if our militia is to be considered a well regulated one. The real trouble with the NRA and other gun nuts is that they are saying there should be NO regulation at all. And look at where that has us brought us — an age where people who are insane are allowed to own as many guns and as much ammo as they can afford to buy.

Euro Paul and Philippe, the majority of Americans have no desire to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Most of us believe the founders were very wise to believe that it was dangerous to allow only our army and our police units to have the right to own and use guns.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2007 06:44 PM

If having a gun were actually protecting citizens from crime, WHERE IS THE DAMN PROOF???

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2007 06:55 PM

No Paul, you’ve never had a slaughter like we have had today. Europe had the holocaust.

“If if was your child, parent, lover, sibling, whatever, who paid the price,‎

My father.

“would it be worth it?‎

It hurts everyday, but it is worth it.
I believe as my father believed: without our rights, we are no longer Americans.
Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 04:46 PM

Just two things about that kctim. First, what the hell does the Holocaust have to do with the issue under discussion? And secondly, is not the primary right of any person the right to life? We all know that guns do not give life, but they most surely take them away.

The second amendment was a creature of its time. With the panoply of law enforcement agencies of the modern state, the general arming of the people is not only unnecessary, it is I believe, profoundly unwise. If other civilised societies with serious restrictions on gun ownership and lower levels of gun deaths than the US, can manage to maintain their liberties and at the same time a relatively sober attitude to their personal safety, why is the US so different?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 16, 2007 07:03 PM

Every 13 seconds an American firearm owner uses a gun in defense against a criminal.

Sorry Paul in Euroland, the numbers do not match up to your assertion that guns are not an effective means of defense.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2007 07:07 PM

Adrienne, I understand very well that the majority of Americans don’t want gun control, I just can’t understand why. Especially when so many applaud the depredations on your rights by the Bush regime, including the plundering of other countries to build and maintain American hegemony.

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm

Now if they can do all of this without prompting revolution, they need have no fear of a duped, if armed citizenry.

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 16, 2007 07:08 PM

Every time something like this happens, you can count on the Europeans to come out of the woodwork and lecture us about firearms. So many of them are so obsessed with America that they don’t even know what’s happening around them.

Fact is however, that there is still a WHOLE lot of firearm violence in Europe, but Europe being Europe, there could be gunfire next door but they’d rather turn on the tv and hear about an incident in America.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 16, 2007 07:10 PM

If other civilised societies with serious restrictions on gun ownership and lower levels of gun deaths than the US, can manage to maintain their liberties and at the same time a relatively sober attitude to their personal safety, why is the US so different?

1) Your first assertion that other countries maintain the same level of liberty as the US is not a given, I think we could have some debates about that.

2) The US is different for a variety of reasons that other countries do not experience. Why do countries with much more LAX gun laws than the US have fewer gun incidents? Why do areas of the US with the most lenient gun laws are the ones with the lowest levels of crime? Why are the areas with the highest levels of crime also the ones with the most pervasive gun laws?

The fact is the US has many issues that it needs to address before crime will go down. The fact that someone may or may not have a gun is *NOT* the main factor. If we did eliminate guns, as the study I pointed to shows, we could have millions of more violent crimes committed, or more, each year.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2007 07:11 PM

The US constitution is a flexible one, intended to be amenable to change over time, as circumstances demand. Nothing is written in stone, and times and circumstances change

True, but I have not heard one politician suggesting an amendment to the constitution to amend it in this regard. When they do they we can discuss it as an option. But simply IGNORING the constition because we don’t like part of it means we can ignore all of it. Like that pesky search and seizure part, or the freedom of speech part…

Either it is to be followed or not. Amend if you like, but do it right, don’t invalidate it to fill a pet peeve.

Oh, and finally, self defense being an unalienable right, as David pointed out, means that the right to own a gun is actually covered by the 9th amendment as well, so the argument about the 2nd amendment in this country is a moronic smokescreen.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 16, 2007 07:17 PM

“tomd,
The fallacy of this logic is that the person who wants to do the killing always fires first. And one murder already “much damage.‎

Posted by: bobo at April 16, 2007 06:10 PM”

One murder is terrible. It’s better than 32.

I remember a story of a deranged person in a mall in Florida I believe who held a woman hostage with a knife. A nearby woman saw what was happening and pulled a pistol from her purse, put the gun to the bad guy’s head and demanded he drop the knife. An “eye witness” interview revievled another shopper saying something to the fact that she couldn’t believe that woman was allowed to carry a gun in her purse.

Posted by: tomd at April 16, 2007 07:20 PM

Tomd,
Did you read the rest of the post I wrote?
I do not advocate the removal or even the compromise of the 2nd Amendment. Just better education for those who buy one.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 16, 2007 07:27 PM

Paul in Euroland, and Philippe Houdoin,
I apologize for Kctim’s rather flippant remark to you, Paul.

While both of you have raised some of the very issues, that almost seem to to divide the US, I don’t believe either of you are seeing the entire picture. I think you might be forgetting several very important items in you posts.

I. The US is still very young in comparison to any country on the European Continent. If you could remember back when France or England were only 200 years old, things were every different then - and no, I’m not talking about the historical events - more the cultural philosophies. The fear of losing one’s family, friends, loved ones. With the exception of the holocaust. (and no I’m not making light of it)when was the last time you had a great-father tell you about being held up in a bank robbery by masked bandits?

My husband remembers sitting on his great-father’s lap and being told stories of the Wild West! Have either of you ridden a horse in a round-up, or even in matter in a rodeo? In this country while we are not by any means all cowboys or cowgirls, the memories are still very strong.

2. The United States is much larger than all of Europe. What works well in one culture does not work well in another. As an example, Miami, or New York City could probably do with guns, but Wyoming or New Mexico need them, if for no other reason than physical safety - if only from the wild life that roams the area.

3. The United States is based on a Democratically based Republic. This is not the same as a total Republic, or a Parliamentary based government.

You would be appalled if every one were considered equal, be it Kings, Queens, Lords, Presidents, or other governmental leaders. Here in the U.S. all people are supposed to equal (I know it doesn’t always work this way) but the fear of losing this equality is a primary force in our culture. The Right to Protect ourselves and our government, or even against our government is as ingrained in US citizens as the right to breathe.

These are only partly some of the differences between our countries and yours.

I hope this explains some of reactions and strong feeling being posted today.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 16, 2007 07:31 PM

“Tomd,
Did you read the rest of the post I wrote?
I do not advocate the removal or even the compromise of the 2nd Amendment. Just better education for those who buy one.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 16, 2007 07:27 PM”

Yeah I read all of your post Linda and we can agree that we don’t want people running around carrying guns who are untrained. What you are proposing with better education sounds great but that means there is a record of everyone who has a gun. That is a compromise in my opinion. I realize there are records of purchases now, but I’m unwilling to let this right slip any further.

Posted by: tomd at April 16, 2007 07:37 PM

Well,
The victims in Blacksburg are in my prayers.

Time to clean my guns and go to bed. I’ll catch up on this thread in the morning.

Posted by: tomd at April 16, 2007 07:46 PM

Linda H, you seem to be under the misapprehension that I am a citizen of the UK. In fact, I am a citizen of Ireland, a full democracy, where, at least in theory, every citizen is equal to our president. So I am not at all appalled that all of our citizens are considered equals. As for what you say of fear of losing equality with your fellow citizens? Well, I’m not trying to be smart or nasty, but equality between citizens in the US, and indeed to some extent also in my country, is more observed in the breach than in the main. The bed you are born into is a much greater indicator of your future than anything else. Such is humanity.

I also remember the tales my father told me of his experiences during our war of independence, when he was a child and British irregular forces were causing murder and mayem in his part of Ireland, the west. Of course our history of cruel and imperial government is a long one, yet we somehow manage to live life without a need for guns to feel secure.

Rhinehold, I never said that guns were not an effective means of self defence. However, perhaps if guns were not so prevalent, criminals would not feel the need so strongly to arm themselves with guns? The fact remains that any hothead with a gun with a sense of grievance against whoever, has a very powerful and immediate means of salving their sense of self pity. And that is the kind of thing that leads to the kind of savagery we saw today.

You say that we could have a debate about the relative levels of liberty in our respective democracies? Bring it on. For some reason Americans often seem to think that theirs is the only free and liberal country on the globe, or at least the most free, and it seems to me they are mostly the ones who know least about the reality of countries outside the US. As to the right to self defence? I can tell you that such a right is clearly recognised in Irish and British law, although there is a debate ongoing in the Britain about the extent of this following the imprisonment of a man who shot and killed an intruded to his home some years ago. I believe it is also firmly rooted in most if not all continental european countrys laws, and yet none of these countries or peoples feel the need for the proliferation of firearms among the citzenry.

LO, a lot of vague generalities there. Care to back them up with some facts?

Posted by: Paul in Euroland at April 16, 2007 08:01 PM

The problem with gun laws is that there are to many of them. The tragedy today at Virginia Tech proves once again that the problem is not enough people are armed. One whacko kills 32 people and injures 26 more because no one could return fire and the police could not be at the scene to stop the whacko from killing the innocent people.
In the best of all possible worlds we would not need guns , unfortunately we done live in the best of all possible worlds. Until such time as we do more people should train for and carry side arms. The laws should allow for this and as much as we may not like it the laws shoul allow us to protect pourselves as the police have shown they cannot be there to do it for us.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 16, 2007 08:29 PM

Paul,

“However, perhaps if guns were not so prevalent, criminals would not feel the need so strongly to arm themselves with guns? The fact remains that any hothead with a gun with a sense of grievance against whoever, has a very powerful and immediate means of salving their sense of self pity. And that is the kind of thing that leads to the kind of savagery we saw today.”

A fact you may not be aware of is that most of the guns used in crimes in the US aren’t bought by the criminals in stores where the sale can be regulated.
There is a “black market” in guns in America that taking away the rights of the lawful isn’t going to stop.
Oh, BTW, you’re not trying to convince us that the IRA fought the British with rocks and Molotov cocktails are you?

Posted by: Rocky at April 16, 2007 08:43 PM

“Paul in Euroland”

“Just two things about that kctim. First, what the hell does the Holocaust have to do with the issue under discussion?”

maybe not much other than the jews were slaughtered by the the nazis after first being disarmed under the gun bans implemented by the third reich.

it’s typical that incidents such as these bring out the typical emotional knee jerk reactions. BTW the media is reporting the shooter may have been a chineese national here on a student visa. last i checked he wasn’t legally allowed to own a gun. ya more gun control thats the answer.

Posted by: dbs at April 16, 2007 09:21 PM

Paul:
“Adrienne, I understand very well that the majority of Americans don’t want gun control, I just can’t understand why.”

Because it was written into right into our Constitution from the beginning. For that reason, we’ll never get rid of them, yet I believe we can and should make laws that ensure that the people who own them are responsible, and sane individuals.

“Especially when so many applaud the depredations on your rights by the Bush regime, including the plundering of other countries to build and maintain American hegemony.”

Well, I’m not one of those applauding anything this administration has done — and there are a hell of a lot of us who feel this way.

Re: War is a Racket

Truer words were never written.

“Now if they can do all of this without prompting revolution, they need have no fear of a duped, if armed citizenry.”

Paul, there is always a tipping point in all revolutions. Bushco is likely the worst and most hated administration in all of American history. But we know that despite all the rights they’ve violated, and all damage they’ve tried to do to our Constitution, Bush is going to go away soon, and legislation can be put in place to protect against a repeat of their unconstitutional actions. If, on the other hand, Bushco suddenly declared that elections were no longer going to be held, and that he and his Neocon thugs were now the official rulers of America, you’d see another revolution begin immediately.
Indeed, I know quite a few liberals and Democrats who decided to buy guns due to the actions of this utterly lawless administration. Too many similarities to the Nazi’s with Bushco — and a certainty that what happened then might have turned out very differently had all of the Jews in Germany owned guns and had trained themselves to be able to use them.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 16, 2007 09:29 PM

Paul, the enormous size, cultural and geographical diversity of the United States gives outsiders a very false picture of violence in the United States. And no small part of this has to do with the sort of media attention those in the rest of the world focus on us.

If you want to compare what happens here to what happens in your part of the world, lay a map of the US over a map of Europe (a map of the same scale, of course), and just think about all the things that have occured in a comparable area of Europe while America has endured the occasional school shooting and inner city violence.

I’m not just talking about stories like this. Or Bosnia. Or Kosovo. Or the armed conflicts of Ireland.

Or stories like this.

Linda points out our nation’s frontier background, but despite that, there is actually not a comparable geographical area of the entire world, even during the shoot-em up days of the Wild West, which has actually been as safe and peaceful as the United States.

We’ve had plenty of gun violence in our country over the last 100 years, and the world is supposedly shocked by the “wild west” behavior of the United States, but we’ve never killed each other by the tens of millions as has happened in Europe and Asia over the same time frame.

If you aked them, the people of Chechnya, Ireland, or Bosnia probably think that life in America is violent, based on what they see in the media. The irony is pretty thick.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 16, 2007 10:01 PM

This was a terrorist attack!

We don’t know who the terrorist is yet, but we might as well use this as an excuse to bomb Iran.

Or maybe this was domestic terrorism and we can never be sure where and when it will strike. Well, more guns will probably fix the problem!

More guns and bombs always make us safer.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 16, 2007 10:25 PM

Sorry my first post was short but I only had 5 minuites left on my break at work.
1. Linda has a very valid point in that Europeans do not understand our great love of the firearm.
A German forign exchange student is staying with my wifes Aunt and Uncle. This young man is going to have a completly different understanding of gun ownership and why Americans are so addicted to them. The son-in-law of this exchange students host family has at least 15-20 guns (this may seem excessive but he HUNTS with every single one of them). This exchange student got to go shot a couple of these guns. Owning and being responsible with a firearm is something that everyone should do. Should their be classes, Yes. How do we set these classes up so that the government doesn’t track them? This is a huge ligistical nightmare how to educate people on guns in a non-bias manor and also not violate our rights of privacy.
2. The number of ALL gun deaths in the US is at about the same as ALL deaths associated with DRUNK DRIVING. These gun deaths include but are not limited to, military accidents, justified police shooting, Suicide, Self-defence. The fact is if you are to die by a hand gun most likely you are the person pulling the trigger.
3. After I moved into the appartment I now live in the crime rate in the complex droped. I have been seen coming and going with numerous differnt weapons including a bow and arrow. Family members of mine have also been seen with these weapons here. This is at verious times of the day and year. A criminal isn’t going to knowingly go after someones stuff if they know they may get shot trying to get it, their is just too much that ins’t protected to risk their lives.
4. What I am most upset about is the 2-3 hours between the first and second shootings and why were the cops not their? This screams to me that we can not trust the Police to protect us.
5. please forgive all the spelling errors due to the help of my young children in posting.

Posted by: timesend at April 16, 2007 10:36 PM

Timesend, I agree that there are a LOT of unanswered questions about this particular case which go far beyond the mere question of guns.

The police and university response to the first two killings, which occured several hours earlier is just one. Putting myself in their shoes, however, I can definitely see how you wouldn’t assume that a double-murder in a dorm room which by all appearances was a crime of passion would indicate that there was about to be cold-blooded random shooting spree.

A much bigger issue is that of screening for student visas. Apparently, according to some reports, the culprit was an exchange student from China who had been in the US for less than a year.

Considering that the 9-11 terrorists were also on student-visas, it looks to me like there is something seriously wrong with our student visa program. And I’m sure that many people will soon be saying the same thing.

Also, there are a lot of things that look very strange about how this went down. The shooter apparently chained exit doors to the building, and was amazingly adept at his handling of firearms. Adding the killed to the wounded, he managed to single-handedly shoot 50-60 people. The planning and skill here is incredible for a lone gunman who supposedly doesn’t have military training or accomplices and who had supposedly just decided that day to go on a rampage.

Also, sadly, I can’t figure out why there were apparently around 20 fatalities in a single classroom where he reportedly lined up students and shot them one-by-one execution style. While we can never really imagine what we would do ourselves in such a situation, the idea of standing there waiting your turn to be shot staggers the imagination.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 16, 2007 11:04 PM

FYI
“well regulated” meant in parlance “well armed”.

The National Gard is not a militia. They can and have been federalized. They are an adjunct to the standing army.

As to whether or not the weapons used today in this apalling crime were obtained legally is unknown as yet. There are plenty of guns on the black market,enough that restrictions are largely meaningless.

Also apalling is that out of all those victums not even one was properly armed and trained to stop the perpetrator.

Instead of blaming guns,or video games,or bad parenting,or any of the other “causes” we will no doubt be subjected too in the next few days as America tries to make sense out of a occurance that makes no sense,why don’t we just blame the shithead that did it?

Posted by: BillS at April 16, 2007 11:20 PM

BillS, since the shooter here was apparently not even an American but an exchange student who’d only been in the country for 8 months, the usual stuff about American culture—video games, music, etc—isn’t going to wash.

If anything, this is yet another reason to reevaluate our immigration practices and our student visas. The 9-11 hijackers, remember, were also here on student visas.

We don’t want any backlash against foreigners here, and this behavior is way outside the norm—especially for Chinese exchange students. I’ve known several, and they were some of the most law-abiding, hard-working and decent people I’ve ever met. The ones I knew wouldn’t even drink because they were not of legal age, and studied harder than most American students. I’m just saying that we need to take a very hard look at our screening practices before handing out so many visas to crazy people.

I’m not up on Virginia’s firearms laws, but it would greatly surprise me if these weapons were legally obtained, considering that this individual was not even a citizen.

If they were, however, I’d have no problem though an NRA member and stauch defender of the Second Amendment with ammending the laws to prevent non-citizens from buying firearms. It’s not that such a measure would actually prevent a determined and crazed lunatic like this one, but if we’re going to fool around with the laws, I’d have no problem with that one measure.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 16, 2007 11:44 PM

It is the duty of all of us to keep our govt in check…Posted by: kctim at April 16, 2007 03:35 PM

Absolutely! It’s too bad that so many think it’s through firearms rather than through the checks and balances built into the Constitution. Posted by: Dave1-20-2009 at April 17, 2007 12:24 AM

And it’s even worse that so many don’t realize that firearms *ARE* one of the check and balances built into the constitution.

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2007 12:43 AM

Paul,
I had no idea you were in Ireland. I apologize for my ignorance.

However I stand by my explanation of the differing cultures. Your great country has been in existence far longer that ours. Therefore the fear of war within our own country, corrupt governmental take-overs, as well as our very present past history, causes many of us to feel somewhat insecure.

Perhaps you might understand it better in this type of comparison. You know a great deal about, and I little, about the conflict in Ireland. Just as we here do not understand the religious problems in Ireland, perhaps you do not fully understand many of the cultural problems we have here in the States.

I do have to admit I was rather amused by your statement:

The bed you are born into is a much greater indicator of your future than anything else. Such is humanity.

However fortunately for many, including myself it doesn’t always apply.

As Rocky pointed out, we have a large number of criminals buying and using illegal guns.

We also have a much larger population that Ireland, France, England, Germany, etc. I can’t help but wonder what our percentage of death by guns would be compared to other countries.

I also find this statement a little hard to swallow considering how the media has portrayed the War in Ireland.

I also remember the tales my father told me of his experiences during our war of independence, when he was a child and British irregular forces were causing murder and mayhem in his part of Ireland, the west. Of course our history of cruel and imperial government is a long one, yet we somehow manage to live life without a need for guns to feel secure.

You see the media can make almost anything appear better or worst that it really is.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 17, 2007 01:10 AM

The saddest thing about today has not changed. There are 32 know deaths at a wonderful college, located in the beautiful rural setting of Virginia. There are families, friends, neighbors, and regular community citizens who will never sleep in quite the same manner as they did last night.

We may never truly understand the why - we may never even get close to a reason.

Right now there is not a lot we can do except hope there will be a thorough investigation.

Even here the rumors are flying high, especially regarding this post, so I ask that we all try to breathe for a minute, and attempt to actually learn the real facts before we start hanging people out to dry. Regardless whether it the police, the school, the students, the gunman.

Several examples of the rumors floating around here in some of the above posts. “He was Chinese, Asia, on a student visa, a terrorist, why didn’t someone shoot him first, the students were cowards, they were lined up and shot, the police screwed up, the school screwed up, and on and on” it will go , so that once the truth comes out, it will probably come up lacking because it won’t be as nearly as interesting as our imaginations would like it to be.

What does matter is how we conduct ourselves while this investigation moves a long. I hope that we can show these students, both the living ones, and the ones who have died, that they died honorably, I’ll be it, needlessly, and we as a country will wait patiently until we receive all the facts. Then react calmly to what is discovered, and hopefully learn from it.

In the meantime, I pray that whatever Higher Power ones believes in be with these people, not only tonight, but for the rest of their lives. tonight.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 17, 2007 01:31 AM

Rhinehold,

Thanks to provide a link to pro-gun book ad.
But, again, where is the proof having massively gun carried by every citizen actually reduce death by gun?
Or should I buy this book to access these data? Is the pro-gun lobby so strong that even data proving its case has to be a business too?

Loyal Opposition,

Fact is however, that there is still a WHOLE lot of firearm violence in Europe, but Europe being Europe, there could be gunfire next door but they’d rather turn on the tv and hear about an incident in America.

Maybe because what you call a WHOLE lot of firearm violence in Europe (link, BTW?) in its western part, where I happened to live, is among 30 death by gun PER YEAR. So, yeah, when one “incident” alone does the same in America, we indeed are shocked.

Shock that is quickly replaced by disgust, seeing that *your* solution to death by gun seems to be having more gun. Sure, the victims didn’t die because of a gun but because they didn’t exercise their self-defense right. In fact, there aren’t victims but stupid people that didn’t carry a gun to fire back during their scholarship.

Damn stupid dead students.
Yeah, more deadly metal *is* the solution, that’s *so* obvious.

Not.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 02:22 AM

*sigh*

But, again, where is the proof having massively gun carried by every citizen actually reduce death by gun?

From the Link I Provided:

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year — one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds. Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone “almost certainly” would have died had the gun not been used for protection — a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone “probably” would have died if the gun hadn’t been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first — disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn’t make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn’t be called “newsworthy” by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare — well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers — and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm — martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns — gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender’s home.

Source: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun,” by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

And

Relationship between type of gun owned and percent committing street, drug and gun crimes.

Illegal gun:
Street crimes = 74%
Drug use = 41%
Gun crimes = 21%

No gun:
Street crimes = 24%
Drug use = 15%
Gun crimes = 1%

Legal Gun:
Street crimes = 14%
Drug use = 13%
Gun crimes = 0%

“The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place ‘on the street.’”
“Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns.”

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, “Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse,” August 1995.

Further

Making it legally possible for civilians to carry concealed weapons does not make society more violent or result in shootouts at traffic accidents. The rate of criminal misuse of firearms by the hundreds of thousands of persons licensed to carry concealed firearms in Florida is so low as to be statistically zero. In fact, homicide, assault, rape, and robbery are dramatically lower in areas of the United States where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms in public.

Sources: Florida Department of State, Concealed Weapons/ Firearms License Statistical Report and “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” by John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard, graduate student, Department of Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, January 1997.

I’m sorry that I didn’t directly link to that page,

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

I thought people would understand that the front page was changed and click on the link to the internal page… *shrug*

Posted by: Rhinehold at April 17, 2007 03:30 AM

Linda,

The fear of losing one’s family, friends, loved ones.

And that fear can’t be related that the level of violence, gun violence, is higher in the US than it is in Europe? Countries ages differences doesn’t explain all. Every country live in the same today, and in worldwide communication space that we have now, nobody could ignore the cultural difference about violence.

Europe, after so many attempt to resolve crisis by violence during centuries, which culminated indeed by the two world wars, as since move away from violence as the first response to every crisis.
Yeah, soft power is weak. Yeah, it doesn’t work as great as everybody hope it will.
But violence, guns, bullets doesn’t either. Some people die, but the crisis remains.

when was the last time you had a great-father tell you about being held up in a bank robbery by masked bandits?

Never. But I remember well my great-father crying while he told me about his first christmas during World War I.

Have either of you ridden a horse in a round-up, or even in matter in a rodeo?

Well, I do ride horse each week. But never did or watch a rodeo.

In this country while we are not by any means all cowboys or cowgirls, the memories are still very strong.

Our memories of violence and hatred in Europe are very strong too.

The United States is much larger than all of Europe.

Wild, yes, larger, no:
USA: 9,631,420 km²
Europe: 10,180,000 km²

If you want to consider only the EU part of the Europe continent, then yes EU is about half smaller than US. But have 4 times inhabittant density, which means europeans lives in 4 times more promisciously. But still less crime rate.

Wyoming or New Mexico need them, if for no other reason than physical safety - if only from the wild life that roams the area.

Here you got a point. Except that handgun and assault rifle are not the best weapon against wild life, right?

You would be appalled if every one were considered equal, be it Kings, Queens, Lords, Presidents, or other governmental leaders.

Uh?
I’m appalled that you could think europeans could actually consider that their leaders have no equal rights than themselves.

Please, wake up, “Old Europe” only exists in Rumshelf speeches.

The Right to Protect ourselves and our government, or even against our government is as ingrained in US citizens as the right to breathe.

The 2nd amendment of US constitution was written 2 years before the french revolution. But not having the right to protect themselves or against their government didn’t stop french to stand up against it, taking arms (which they got no rights for) and taking control of their collective destiny.

You don’t need a law or a constitution right to take arm against your own government. You only needs enough people with enough reason to do it.

I hope this explains some of reactions and strong feeling being posted today.

I understand that many historical and cultural reasons are behind some of these strong opinions.
What I just don’t get is how lack of gun control actually fixed US huge death by gun problem and that a majority of people between choosing another policy and keep the current one and tolerate the death choose the second.

I guess that why it’s a conservative value.
“Don’t ever think taking my gun”, forever.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 05:17 AM

tomd,

The fallacy of this logic is that the person who wants to do the killing always fires first. And one murder already “much damage.”

One murder is terrible. It’s better than 32.

So true. So one person wants to do the killing, he fires the first each 32 times and your solution is to allow more people to fire in self-defense, aka each time the second one to fire.

That’s a good day for logic, it seems.

I remember a story of a deranged person in a mall in Florida I believe who held a woman hostage with a knife. A nearby woman saw what was happening and pulled a pistol from her purse, put the gun to the bad guy’s head and demanded he drop the knife. An “eye witness‎ interview revievled another shopper saying something to the fact that she couldn’t believe that woman was allowed to carry a gun in her purse.
Posted by: tomd

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 05:24 AM

Rhinehold,

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/noframedex.html

I thought people would understand that the front page was changed and click on the link to the internal page… *shrug*

You can’t expect people to actually click on a link at the top-bottom of a childish presented web page leading at its bottom to a book cover officially acclaimed by the NRA president as anything other than pro-gun link. Which moot the unbiased point a bit, sorry.

Anyway, thank for the fixed link.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 05:57 AM

I don’t think that the solution to this is to arm everyone. That will only cause more death and more hurt to people who do not deserve it. When people have easy access to guns they are more likely to get them out and use them. More guns is not the solution. I don’t want to take anyone’s gun away who feels that they must have one. But you go walking around armed and afraid of everything around you will cause more accidents than it will save people in situations like we had here in Blacksburg yesterday.

Other news, Tech is still not saying that the two shootings were related. Our campus police have not looked terribly competent through this whole episode. The news media have already taken over my little town there seem to be hundreds of satelite trucks crowding campus parking lots to make sure they are not left out of the media circus and I’m sure the hand wringing politicians will be here soon for some fake compassion as will the NRA and gun control advocates using this event as their platform. What I would say to all of them is not to forget that these were human beings that were senselessly murdered who have family and friends here and that want to grieve for their lost loved ones and that your story, your sound bite, your rally is not as important as these people who have actually been affected by this sad episode.

They are also beginning to release names of the dead including Ryan Clark the RA in the dorm that was killed trying to stop the shooter who my wife knew from work.

Maxine Turner
Vienna, Va.
Senior, Chemical Engineering

Henry Lee
Roanoke, Va.
Freshman, Computer Engineering

Matt La Porte
Dumont, N.J.
Freshman, University Studies

Jamie Bishop
Instructor, Foreign Languages and Literatures (German)

G.V. Loganathan
Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering

Juan Ortiz
Graduate Student, Civil Engineering

Jarrett Lane
Narrows, Va.
Senior, Civil Engineering

Ryan Clark
Columbia County, Ga.
Senior, Biology, English, Psychology

Leslie Sherman
Sophomore, History and International Studies

Caitlin Hammaren
Sophomore, International Studies and French

Liviu Librescu
Professor, Engineering Science & Mechanics

Kevin Granata
Professor, Engineering Science & Mechanics

Reema Samaha
Centreville, Va.
Freshman

Emily Hilscher
Woodville, Va.
Freshman, Animal and Poultry Sciences, Equine Science

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 17, 2007 07:44 AM

-…we all have a right to bear arms - Back when the constitution was written, it was an equal fight for the militias to overthrow the government. Aka, fighting a government (with guns), with guns. Now, if an armed militia were to try to overthrow the government, with only guns, they would fail miserably. The government has more power than the whole country, each person armed with a big fully automatic weapon, could ever have.

-…finally, after countless posts, someone had the sense to state the real deal:
“Instead of blaming guns,or video games,or bad parenting,or any of the other “causes‎ we will no doubt be subjected too in the next few days as America tries to make sense out of a occurance that makes no sense,why don’t we just blame the shithead that did it?
Posted by: BillS at April 16, 2007 11:20 PM”
Thank you BillS!!!

- I am a coward, I would rather run from a fight, and save my life, than fight. - But, given a choice, I would rather be pummeled to death, than shot to death. This is my sole arguement for gun control of some sort. Cowards use guns to kill people who are brave enough not to own a gun (but what about defense against bears? [that is sarcasm for all those NRA members out there]) If guns were controlled, or did not exist, this guy would not have killed as many people. The folks (sadly) waiting in line to be killed, would have easily, with numbers reported killed at that scene, overthrown this guy had he NOT had guns. If he was skilled to use a sword, the same amount of people still would NOT have likely died. I’d rather lose my arm than life. Going back to 9-11, the plane that went down in Penn. was stopped due to numbers, this happened because the hijackers didn’t have guns.

Guns simply possess too much “potential energy” that can be utilized quicker than can be defended against under normal circumstances.

- Guns in the Netherlands - at the lunch table, my colleagues and I often discuss guns. Though, I don’t have evidence, everyone adamantly says that the number of deaths by guns per year, in the Netherlands, can be “counted on one hand”. It is not legal to own a gun, they must be kept at a gun club, and strictly used for hunting. (this is one weak example FOR gun control)

You want try to kill me, beat me to death, instead of cowardly shooting me in the back as I run for my life!

-Dutch_expat

Posted by: Dutch_expat at April 17, 2007 08:03 AM

”- I am a coward, I would rather run from a fight, and save my life, than fight. - But, given a choice, I would rather be pummeled to death, than shot to death. This is my sole arguement for gun control of some sort.”

I don’t consider myself a coward, but I too would rather leave a situation than fight if possible. Given the choice, I would much rather face the quick death of a bullet to the head than a slow, painful death by beating.

Let me be sure to understand your next statement. Your sole argument for some sort of gun control is your preference to being beaten to death rather than shot? What about knives? Should we control kitchen cutlry or do you prefer being stabbed to being beaten up?

If preference has anything to do with it, I’ll give you this quote from someone unknown “When I die I want to go peacefully in my sleep like my Grandfather. Not screaming and yelling in fear like his passengers.”

Posted by: tomd at April 17, 2007 09:24 AM

Tomd,

Sorry, I was a bit vague. But, I would rather have the opportunity to defend myself (aka getting beaten to death), than shot in the head point blank, or in the back while running away.

After my post, I thought about the folks who get beat and torn apart alive by angry militias. In that case, sure, I’d rather the bullet.

Regardless, bullets offer less a chance to live versus “fighting like a man”.

Being beaten instead of shot is not my sole argument for gun control. Another good argument would be the accidental deaths that could have been prevented by simply not having the accidentally fired gun around in the first place.

I would much rather face a knife than a gun, any day! A knife takes some sort of skill to kill with, hence my statement that guns “possess too much “potential energy‎ ” that is too easily used. I can run away from a knife, and someone can only throw a knife so far, but bullets go much further, much faster, and when bullets make a hit, will do damage, versus the 50 percent chance of getting hit with the blunt end of a knife.

I agree that we have the right to bear arms. I agree that it would be nearly impossible to remove guns from society without a major change in paradigm. I disagree with how easy it is to get a gun, and the penalties of wrongdoing that result. If, for instance, we made the penalty death if found with a gun, I bet there would be less of them. Would you agree?

It’s like specifically banning cell phones while driving. It was already illegal to use a cell phone while driving, but the penalties were lame, and the enforcement was practically non-existant. Same goes for gun control. Enact logical laws with steep penalties, and enforce them. The issue will never go away, but more lives could be saved.

-Dutch_expat

Posted by: Dutch_expat at April 17, 2007 09:45 AM

Paul
“Just two things about that kctim. First, what the hell does the Holocaust have to do with the issue under discussion?”

You said you have never had a slaughter such as VT because of your strict gun control. Your govt makes strict gun laws to keep its people in check.
I say we have never had a holocaust due largely because of our 2nd Amendment. Our founders made it a right so that “We the People” could keep OUR govt in check.

“And secondly, is not the primary right of any person the right to life? We all know that guns do not give life, but they most surely take them away”

Guns do not give life nor do they take life Paul.

bobo
“I think the NRA should have tests for membership, mandatory training programs, and a means to expel members to fail to keep certified”

The NRA is no different than the NEA. It is there to represent its members, which consist of average day to day people. You also do not have to be a member of the NRA to own a gun. I do not agree with the NRA so I am not a member, but I have a couple bb guns.

Adrienne
“The real trouble with the NRA and other gun nuts is that they are saying there should be NO regulation at all”

That is not what the NRA does ma’am. In fact, they are more into brokering deals than protecting that right as it should be.
The NRA has a bad reputation from the left because of politics. Many Dems are members of the NRA (at least in my area) and they just don’t get why you guys on the far left gave up on them.

And to be honest, I am one of those gun “nuts” who do not believe in sacrificing the 2nd Amendment because of our fears. But, I do realize society as a whole has been taught to fear them and there really is no turning back.
We must all work together to preserve this right.

“the majority of Americans have no desire to abolish the 2nd Amendment. Most of us believe the founders were very wise to believe that it was dangerous to allow only our army and our police units to have the right to own and use guns”

VERY well said. I know its hard for others to understand our freedoms and I certainly don’t look down on Paul and PH for their opinions either. In fact, I always look forward to see their input.
But, keeping on the difference angle here, I need to ask you a question.
Do you think the founders realized that there would be a huge difference in lifestyles, such as urban and rural, and that is why they originally designed our states to have more power than they do now? There is no way the federal govt can effectivly make gun laws that apply to both BFE Mizzou and NYC you know.
Anyway, just a thought I’ve had a few times.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 09:51 AM

I say we have never had a holocaust due largely because of our 2nd Amendment. Our founders made it a right so that “We the People‎ could keep OUR govt in check.

You can claim as you want, but it doesn’t make anymore true that the only thing that prevent your country to commit an holocaust is your 2nd amendment and nothing else, as well as what allowed the nazi’s holocaust to happen was the lack of similar amendment for germans.

Germans elected Hitler. Many germans were just passive regarding nazism, even in its worst aspect. What having the right to a gun will change for them?

Once again, the french revolutioners didn’t have the right to take arms against the king. They did it anyway. In Iraq, militias doesn’t care about having the right by law or not to carry firearms. They does, that all.

Plus, I found the logic that what protect US democracy being each people have right to have a gun and use it quite… dystopian.

Guns do not give life nor do they take life Paul.

Indeed. Bullets does.
But everybody knows that bullets and guns are totally unrelated things.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 10:12 AM

good god - is that where this argument has come to how people would rather die? beaten or shot? that is not what this is about. The NRA folks can say what they want but if there were fewer people owning guns there would be fewer people killed in incidents like these and in domestic violence and other killings. That is a fact guns make in very easy and impersonal to kill another human being. So stop all the arguments that legal gun owners don’t commit crimes. This kid bought the 9mm he used to kill 32 people at a gun store in Charlottesville on the 13th. A one-week waiting period would have meant that this kid would not have this gun at this time. Not that this would have prevented him from doing it but it wouldn’t have happened yesterday.

It would be nice for all of the NRA folks to remember that there are 9 other rights in our Bill of Rights and you guys have been pretty silent while the Bush admin has stripped most of those away in a pretense to make us safe from terrorism (habeas corpus, speedy trial, cruel punishment). I, someone who has been very critical of civil rights abuses of this administration, has always included the 2nd amendment with the rest. Even though I have issues with the amendment, it is in our Constitution and should be respected.

I was hoping to engage people in a reasoned discussion on the issue of where the line should be drawn not in how it is better to be killed.

Posted by: Tom Snediker at April 17, 2007 10:31 AM

Phillipe,

“Indeed. Bullets does.
But everybody knows that bullets and guns are totally unrelated things.”

Bullets have no conscience. If I threw a bullet at you, it would most likely bounce off.

Guns rarely go off by themselves.

Humans are the wild card here, and they can be less predictable than guns or bullets.

It would make more sense to ban humans than it would to ban guns.

Posted by: Rocky at April 17, 2007 10:35 AM

Philippe Houdoin,

Never. But I remember well my great-father crying while he told me about his first Christmas during World War I.

Funny I remember that to. Oddly enough he was in France.

Have either of you ridden a horse in a round-up, or even in matter in a rodeo?

Here I was actually teasing you - sorry you missed the joke. My point was simple, life here is vastly different than it is there.

Well, I do ride horse each week. But never did or watch a rodeo.

I never said a thing about assault rifles. To my knowledge they’re intended use is to kill people. I spoke of guns, thinking of hand guns. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear.

You don’t need a law or a constitution right to take arm against your own government. You only needs enough people with enough reason to do it.

And enough people with some type of weapon.

Actually you’ve hit on one of the major issues those who don’t support gun control have. One problem is simply they fear a major part of gun control would involve gun registration. That simply means allowing your name to be put on a Governmental list. I believe you can see the problems arising from this.

Many fear that should such a list exists, it could be used as a way for the government to restrict ownership, or remove arms from the people.
Sort of like Hitler did with the Jewish population, in the thirties and forties. We simply don’t want to be put in that position.

I’m appalled that you could think europeans could actually consider that their leaders have no equal rights than themselves.

I didn’t mean that Europeans leaders didn’t have equal rights. What I said was that no one in our country is more equal or less equal to anyone else. Our President is not necessarily a better person, (heaven help us)or higher individual in regard to his life than I am. He simply works for me, and the rest of this country, and he can be terminated from his post.

It may well be a mis-conception, however, my understanding is the Europeans leaders, particularly the Kings and Queens are somehow ‘above’ the rest of the citizens.

Please, wake up, “Old Europe‎ only exists in Rumshelf speeches.

I have no idea whom you are referring to. I’m sorry.

What I just don’t get is how lack of gun control actually fixed US huge death by gun problem and that a majority of people between choosing another policy and keep the current one and tolerate the death choose the second.

What I don’t get is this last comment. I’ve re-read it, and re-read it, and it simply does not make sense to me. Perhaps you’d like to re-write it?

BTW - I happen to support some type of gun control - I’m just not sure what. I don’t think it is necessary for regular people to have assault rifles, machine type guns, etc. Regular rifles, shotguns for hunting,handguns for themselves, I see no problem with.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 17, 2007 10:51 AM

PH
“but it doesn’t make anymore true that the only thing that prevent your country to commit an holocaust is your 2nd amendment and nothing else,”

Which is why I said “due largely to,” and not only because we have it.

“as well as what allowed the nazi’s holocaust to happen was the lack of similar amendment for germans”

I can’t say it would have helped and you can’t say it would not have helped.
But I’m betting many Jews were wishing they had a right to own guns and would not have allowed their guns to be taken so that they could have fought back rather than be put in those camps.

“I found the logic that what protect US democracy being each people have right to have a gun and use it quite… dystopian”

Its worked so far.
200+ years without an overthrow of our govt. How many other countries who have disarmed their people have accomplished that?

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 10:52 AM

200+ years without an overthrow of our govt. How many other countries who have disarmed their people have accomplished that?

Middle Age europeans? Egyptians? Romans?
And… what about the British?

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at April 17, 2007 12:04 PM

Tom,

In my original response, I made a point, basically saying: militias simply ain’t what they used to be.

For some reason, we don’t know what the exact intent was in those words written into the Constitution.

Regarding the argument that the right to bear arms empowers the citizen to “protect the states against the federal government”. MY issue with this is that the playing field is not level. So, our right to bear arms (own a gun), is somewhat moot at this point because there aren’t enough guns (or people with guns) in the US that would empower us to do so.

If Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc… came to the knowledge (which, in this day and age, would almost definately be covered by the media, so everyone in the country/world would know immediately), then that group, correct or not, would not likely succeed in overthrowing the government. Back in 1794, this may have been possible, cause the only weapons were guns. Now, the power and advantage is in the govenments hands, and nothing the comman man can do with any “arm” is going to make a difference (unless he can afford a nuke, right?) The “militia” will only be seen as a terrorist or enemy, unless the general public were behind them, in which case they wouldn’t need guns!

I don’t think it’s a matter of where to draw the line anymore, since the common man’s only power, now, is his vote (and probably even more powerful, his leverage on the media). Therefore, guns should simply be removed from the general public so they can stop causing the pointless deaths they currently do. Leading to my death by the punch argument…

-Dutch_expat

Posted by: Dutch_expat at April 17, 2007 12:14 PM

“Middle Age europeans? Egyptians? Romans?”

You might as well include the Garden of Eden in with that group.

“And… what about the British?”

Good answer. I don’t really know much about them so I will have to read up on that one.
First question would be how long has the British populace been disarmed though.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 12:21 PM

Dutch
Its not about overthrowing the govt, its about protecting the people from govt tyranny.
Believing the people can just “vote” out a dictator or other oppressive form of govt is a little silly isn’t it?
Sometimes, an armed action is the only way left to gain ones freedom.

You are right about there being nowhere else to draw the line though.
We are basically to the point where we get rid of guns or honor our Constitution.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 12:34 PM

BillS:
“FYI
“well regulated‎ meant in parlance “well armed‎.”

Bill, I disagree. I’ve never seen the word regulated used to mean armed in any of the writings or letters of that era. According to my Colonial Lexicon, at that time the word Regulate or Regulated would have been used to mean:

1. To control or direct by rules, principles, or methods.
2. To arrange or conform to a standard, or to a requirement.
3. To adjust or put into order, to ensure the accuracy of an operation (as in the drilling and training of soldiers)

Interestingly enough, any of these three definitions could apply to the concept of an armed citizenry.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2007 12:39 PM

Tom:

I can’t imagine what you folks must be going through. You have my heartfelt sympathy that such a tragedy should happen. I believe we need to blame the shooter and the root cause when this happens.

exchange students host family has at least 15-20 guns (this may seem excessive but he HUNTS with every single one of them

I find it interesting, and somewhat telling that this statement called for a justification. Hunts with 15-20 guns? Must hunt all the time. There are gun collectors, and they shouldn’t need a justification.

I would love to see the NRA, or anybody for that matter, fight for things like more mental health care and screening, advocate for responsible gun ownership, and not just gun ownership.

I’m torn between thinking guns should be registered and hard to obtain to wondering why folks are so afraid of a government knowing they have guns? I admit I’m finding some of this hard to understand.

I’ll also piss some folks off when I say that the gun arguments always smell a little of excess testosterone to me. No offense to the women gun owners, myself included. The arguments get a little too much into protectionism (protection of my right to do what I want, to hell with the rest).

I sincerely believe that we need to seriously address the causes of this kind of behavior, not just gun ownership. If that includes gun ownership and accessibility, so be it. There should be major consequences when children and teenagers can access guns and do what they have done. Rights come with responsibility.

JMHO

Posted by: womanmarine at April 17, 2007 12:44 PM

“Believing the people can just “vote‎ out a dictator or other oppressive form of govt is a little silly isn’t it?”

Totally.

But you missed my concept. Even if it were the government tyranny, the tyranny obviously believes they are correct. Though, it may happen quicker, and folks likely would die, guns don’t solve the problem.

It would end up looking like an old wagon circle defending against the indians, with the citizens being the indians. But, in this circumstance, we’d have BB guns, and they’d have tanks, nukes, etc… no match. We all know that whoever has the nuke, has the power, period. If everyone had one, we’d disappear because of what womanmarine mentioned:

“…gun arguments always smell a little of excess testosterone…”

If the problem were large enough, it would not need guns, just voting or public opinion through mediums such as the internet and TV.

The playing field is not level enough to warrant the existing laws. Does anyone suggest that, in 1000 years, the laws we live by will still apply? In general, yes, but where things change (for instance, lasers become smaller and more powerful than guns, and thus rediculously more deadly) over time, rules and laws will have to adapt.

-Dutch_expat

Posted by: Dutch_expat at April 17, 2007 01:17 PM

“The President stated at the October 10th White House Conference on School Safety that he believes that funding education is a local responsibility. Initial reports suggest Congress is also not moving to restore or expand funding for school safety. Congress must view school safety as a public safety issue, not an education funding issue. Violence and crime in and around our schools is a matter of protecting the safety of our children and teachers. Federal grants cuts made in school drug and violence prevention programming, school security, and school emergency planning funding for the past five years should be restored and incrementally expanded in the manner we have built upon funding to protect the rest of our national infrastructure.”

http://www.schoolsecurity.org/trends/white_house_school_safety.html

How many of these recommendations fell on deaf ears?

Posted by: KansasDem at April 17, 2007 01:28 PM

KansasDem,
You are very correct.
I would add, that just as under-funding these programs, our illustrious president has not seen fit to ask for funding for his NCLB program, which schools in his home state of Texas are now taking to court.

Posted by: Linda H. at April 17, 2007 01:50 PM

Bravo Tom and womanmarine! Great posts!

womanmarine:
“I would love to see the NRA, or anybody for that matter, fight for things like more mental health care and screening, advocate for responsible gun ownership, and not just gun ownership.”

That is exactly how I feel also. This is why the NRA and the nut-job militia types have earned such a bad, yet well deserved reputation. In their zeal to promote and protect gun ownership, their message has become synonymous with an insane amount of irresponsibility and simplemindedness. This country desperately needs gun laws that make sense, and promote real responsibility. We also need a serious crackdown on the entire illegal gun trade, and stiff fines and penalties for breaking the law.

kctim:
“The NRA has a bad reputation from the left because of politics. Many Dems are members of the NRA (at least in my area) and they just don’t get why you guys on the far left gave up on them.”

See above comments.

“Do you think the founders realized that there would be a huge difference in lifestyles, such as urban and rural,”

Yes, and those differences between urban and rural areas and lifestyles already existed at that time.

“and that is why they originally designed our states to have more power than they do now?”

I think it had more to do with communications and traveling distances during that era. They knew that America was going to have one seat of power for the federal government, and seats of state power since communications between the fed and the states would consist of a guy on a horse or riding in a coach, sometimes traveling for days at a time to deliver news and messages.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2007 01:50 PM

womanmarine,
Beautifully put!!!

Posted by: Linda H. at April 17, 2007 01:54 PM

Wow Dutch. I could not just lay down like that. My freedoms, rights and love of this country would not allow me too.

Adrienne
Its not the NRA’s duty to fight for more screening. They “say” they’re intention is to fight for our 2nd Amendment right. And while I don’t agree with the NRA and am not a member, they do have a very good safety (responsibility) program.
As I said, the NRA’s “bad” reputation is mainly believed only by those of the far left. The majority of Democrats that I know, are members of the NRA. Comparing them to militias is no different than lumping anarchists in with all anti-war demostrators.

“I think it had more to do with communications and traveling distances during that era”

Ah, good call.
Do you think the federal govt should be the end all be all when it comes to this issue or do you think it should recognize the differences between urban and rural life and grant that option to the individual states?

womanmarine
“why folks are so afraid of a government knowing they have guns? I admit I’m finding some of this hard to understand”

So, if people don’t have anything to hide, they should not be afraid of being on a govt list? Isn’t that one of the things some on the right have said recently about their freedom of speech and privacy? Why should people be afraid if govt knows they talk to terrorists or not, right?
Sorry, but I think its wrong for all three of those rights.

And, btw, testosterone isn’t what its really about at all for most gun owners. Contrary to what is said, we do not sit around stroking our guns 24 hours a day waiting to use it.
Its no more about testosterone than privacy is about being a pervert or free speech is about being gossip.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 02:15 PM

Kctim:

Thanks. I’m having a hard time trying to figure out a balance, or if there can even be a balance. And I’ve never been an advocate of the “if you have nothing to hide” group think. I am for freedoms, but I also believe in responsibility. I do think we need some kind of balance, moderation in all things. The testosterone I speak of is of the “not over my dead body” extreme that seems to come out when gun issues are discussed.

Frankly, I don’t want to take away yours or anyone elses gun. But I am hoping you would agree that it is not best for everyone to own or have access to a gun. Just as some folks shouldn’t drive and some folks shouldn’t drink, I don’t believe everyone should own or be able to own a gun. What to do about it, I don’t know. But I think we should be discussing it together, not assuming that those of us concerned are just trying to take everyone’s gun away, or invade their privacy.

Do I know how to do this? No. But I would like to see a discussion based on what we would like the outcome to be. Perhaps more attention to mental health is the answer, perhaps not. I think all aspects and possibilities should be discussed rationally.

Posted by: womanmarine at April 17, 2007 02:25 PM

Kctim, lay down like what?

Tom asked where the line was, or should be. I argue, that given the situation at hand, the line should be - no guns.

Is this realistic, nah, not anytime soon. Do I advocate it, nah, I agree that guns have their place. But given all that, like Tom originally said, what do we do with the RPG’s? Why can’t I own one of them???

The whole point of this is to preserve life, correct? We aren’t in 1794, where the only way to be heard was have a gun. It works. But, ultimately, it costs lives, in this case, 33.

If this guy went around killing people by boxing with them, or throwing hatchets, this wouldn’t be news. Cause it happened with a gun, it’s the hugest thing in the world. Doesn’t this tell us there is a problem.

-Dutch_expat

Posted by: Dutch_expat at April 17, 2007 03:08 PM

womanmarine
I understand where you are coming from, I just don’t think there is much more that we can do other than outright confiscation.
We already have laws to try and prevent the nuts, criminals and kids from getting them. We already have laws saying where we can take them. Neither are very effective when somebody is dead set on doing bad though.

Dutch
Lay down and let the govt do whatever it wanted just because the “majority” says its ok for them too. I would not lay down and accept that.

Other than the timeline of events, this guy is no different than a serial killer. How many people did Gacy murder? Do we ban clowns and offering to help people down on their luck? Do we ban homosexuality because of what Dahmer and Berdella did? Of course not.
Taking away rights because of what a few psycos do is not the way to stop it.

Fear is why this is huge news. People allow their fears to justify the taking of their rights. It happened with gun control and it happened with the Patriot Act.
It is wrong.

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 03:29 PM

Philippe
“what about the British?”

Actually, the British once set a very good example for why people should always hold fast to their right to keep and bear arms. After the Jacobite (Highland Scottish) uprising of 1745 and Culloden, when the British wanted to control the Highland people and destroy their traditions and way of life (and prevent the future risk of another uprising against the Hanoverian King), the first thing they did was to proclaim the Disarming Act, which consisted of severe penalties (sometimes death) for carrying and possessing any arms, wearing any kilt, plaid, or tartan garment, and even the bagpipes were prohibited for being an ‘instrument of war’. British rule (tyranny) in America is obviously also another good example of why we should not wish to abolish the 2nd amendment.

kctim:
“Its not the NRA’s duty to fight for more screening.”

I strongly disagree. I think they should make it their duty to advocate in a much more responsible way. They should support the idea of mental health screening, and waiting periods when purchasing guns, and should take up the discussion of exactly what constitutes reasonable and rational guns and ammo. To give but one example, I don’t think they should continue to vociferously defend those “cop killer” bullets.

“Do you think the federal govt should be the end all be all when it comes to this issue”

No, I think all Americans should be discussing what we think is rational and reasonable and pass these thoughts on to our Congressional representatives — that way, when and if they ever do take up this issue the way they should, they’ll actually know their constituents think.

“or do you think it should recognize the differences between urban and rural life and grant that option to the individual states?”

Yes, I think the differences between urban and rural life should definitely be taken into account.

Posted by: Adrienne at April 17, 2007 03:42 PM

Kctim:

Thanks. I really believe this isn’t a gun issue. It’s a social issue which we will never solve. Sounds defeatist maybe, and I don’t think we should quit trying to solve it, but society being what it is…..

Just like terrorism, this kind of thing will continue to happen and I don’t believe it can be predicted with any certainty. We can only do our best in trying to perceive and prevent things, but it will never be eradicated.

Sad, isn’t it?

Posted by: womanmarine at April 17, 2007 03:55 PM

Thanks Adrienne. I love when your posts are informative and not political.
A history lesson [thank you very much :) ] and an honest point of view.

The only thing I could add is that the NRA will start preaching about ammo such as that when its members start speaking up about it.

Womanmarine
Yet another thing we agree on ma’am.
Sounds defeatist? Life of the party aren’t we :)

Posted by: kctim at April 17, 2007 04:06 PM

As usual, whenever something tragic happens like this, all the “anti’s”, and by that I mean, those who are against guns, don’t like guns, prefer that no citizen be allowed to own guns, those who are AFRAID of guns—-you get the picture, all those anti’s start screaming “WAAAH! WE NEED MORE GUN CONTROL!” etc. etc.

Enough already.

“Gun control” is obviously a failed policy, because it prevented 30-some innocent students from making it to final exams. Fact is, if one, just one student had been armed, this might not have gone to such tragic proportions.

Whomever, a while back, said something idiotic to the point that if such armed student had shot the assassin, then someone else would have pulle