Another Tragically Predictable Tragedy?

vtech.jpg

It lessens the horror not one iota and I take no pride in a prescience borne of long experience, but I will not be surprised in the least that the wacko who gunned down 32 people on the Virginia Tech campus this morning before killing himself was a white male armed with street legal weapons who was not part of a well-regulated militia but had a head full of problems.

It is probable that no gun law would have prevented the rampage at the Blacksburg, Virginia, university, so let’s dispose with the It Could Have Been Prevented fiction right away.

Although it’s a piece of cake to buy every weapon used in recent mass shootings in Virginia and most other states — including the .9mm handgun and .22-caliber pistol the Virginia Tech shooter apparently used — he probably had no criminal record that might have alerted authorities to him. And as experience shows, head cases have a way of getting weapons no matter how tough local laws are.

Face it, after years of head banging by gun-control advocates on the federal, state and municipal levels, the U.S. remains pretty much one big Wild West town when it comes to the sale, possession and use of guns.

Pro-gun advocates use the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as their fig leaf. What the Constitution doesn’t say is that the rights of gun owners trump the rights of everyone else, currently those dead and wounded Virginia Tech students.

It is my view that for all intents and purposes, gun control is dead (pun intended) in America.

Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House.

For breaking news on the massacre, click here and here. For Virginia Tech’s response, including a statement from its president, click here.

Photograph by Alan Kim/The Roanoke Times via Associated Press

Auf Stumbleupon zeigen
Auf tumblr zeigen

  • Rudi

    It is my view that for all intents and purposes, gun control is dead (pun intended) in America.
    I doubt the Democrats would go for any gun control, may of their victories were by BlueDog Democrats like Webb and Schuler.

  • Idiosyncrat

    Shaun, Instapundit is actually arguing that if it was legal to carry guns on the VA Tech campus (apparently it’s a gun-free zone) someone may have been able to take this shooter out immediately.

    I’m not advocating any particular position — just pointing out the counter-argument.

    Right now I’m just mortified… Brace yourself, folks. However the details emerge in the coming hours and days, it ain’t gonna be a pretty picture.

  • http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/ Shaun Mullen

    Idiosyncrat:

    Glenn probably was referring to a proposed law that would have permitted Virginia college students to pack heat on campus.

    Miracle of miracles, the law was defeated.

    Didn’t get to pledge that fraternity. Bam, bam you brothers!

    Got an F in anatomy? Bam, bam Mr. Chips!

  • SnarkyShark

    Anybody who wants to understand Iraq, imagine something like this two or three times a day, every day.

    Republicans are excused as they don’t do empathy.

    Oh, and please tell me how giving King Bush unfettered powers to spy on us would have prevented this?

    Won’t be long till American cities start getting vbieds and ieds. Probably right after the 08 elections.

    Get ready.

  • domajot

    It’s kind of obscene, in my eyes that this nations keeps on talking and talking amid the carnage.
    I agree that it’s very difficult to find a solution. The NRA looks like a cult with lots of money to me, with no sense of the responsibility that poiticos love to tout.
    One would think that a common sense solution could be found. Owning a gun to hunt is not the same as owning a private arsenal, after all, and we should be able to accomodate a number of varied conditions.

    But what am I hinking? This would require common sense!

  • casualobserver

    Given the relative limited amount of facts of the crime(s) and the perp(s), I’m impressed we have been able to formulate solutions already.

    Some sources are identifying one William Morva….a prison escapee by way of overpowering some guards. Likely guess as to where he obtained his gun. Not sure the gun control debate is going to prove exeptionally relevant here…….unless we disarm the guards.

  • mikkel

    Er William Morva was this guy:

    Last August, the opening day of classes was canceled and the campus closed when an escaped jail inmate allegedly killed a hospital guard off campus and fled to the Tech area. A sheriff’s deputy involved in the manhunt was killed on a trail just off campus. The accused gunman, William Morva, faces capital murder charges.

    But yeah it’s too early to know anything why even speculate?

  • Lynx

    As to “this could have been prevented” fiction. Now, you’re right, it couldn’t have been prevented…in the US. Strict gun laws still allow people to buy guns, and therefore use them. No amount of excuses are going to convince me that the fact that Europe doesn’t allow gun ownership and the fact that it has far, far fewer gun related deaths are unrelated.

    Oh and Europeans DO hunt, by the way.

  • kritter

    Don’t worry Shaun- we now know that even though unlimited gun ownership and liberal rights of use are prevalent in Virginia, the DOJ wants its USA’s to pursue firearms crimes as a top priority. It only gets fouled up when the perp offs himself first.

  • Sam

    Please, gun laws are by and large the stupidest thing ever. Now, I’m not saying people need to have access to full auto .50 machine guns, but people should be allowed to own firearms. In case of extreme emergencies where law enforcement is unlikely to be able to help(think Katrina), it helps keep the peace. This guy could have obtained a gun through illegal means too. He could also have made explosives from any number of combinations of store bought items.

    If crazy people want to engage in mayhem they are just going to do so. Pray you aren’t in the area when they do. We seriously need to stop making laws for the general population based on the actions of certifiable nutjobs.

  • White Agent

    The Second Amendment is Redundant. We clearly satisfy a right to bare arms with out military, National Guard and extensive, (though under funded), police forces.

    I think its time to make ALL GUNS illegal for private use, start kicking down doors and searching property and immediate and mandatory death sentences for those whom are caught harboring firearms of any sort after the ban.

    There is just far to many very innocent young people dead because of the Nazi NRA to even think about continuing this madness.

  • Greg

    This is a tragic occurance no doubt but let’s not forget that criminals will always get their hands on guns no matter what laws are inacted. It just so happens that Va tech just recently banned guns on their campus. Had this not been the case it is most probable that a law abiding gun owner with a carry permit could have taken this scumbag out long before the cops who were hidding behind trees could have!

  • C Stanley

    Maybe it’s just me but the rapid political analysis of this event is a bit sickening. This was a tragedy, a personal loss for a lot of families and a loss of a sense of security for thousands of others whose kids are away at college. A heinous crime was commited here, not a political statement for one side or the other; can’t we just express our outrage over the act and our sympathy for the families without playing political football? Is there nothing that happens these days that will force us to take off our partisan glasses?

  • http://griftdrift.blogspot.com griftdrift

    Very much agreed C Stanley.

  • White Agent

    Greg- No they won’t Greg. because they won’t be manufactured in mass anymore. Banning guns on a campus is absolutely irrelevant. It has to be done nation wide.

  • kritter

    Yes, its a tragedy- but that is just what is so frustrating to proponents of gun legislation. We have more requirements for people to drive or fish than we do for them to own and bear deadly weapons. Tragic events sometimes propel political change.

  • DLS

    The Usual Suspects clamor for gun control but not one of them is honest — not one of them demands that the Second Amendment be repealed. You clowns are once again hopeless so long as you avoid the reality of our Constitution. There is a large amount of support for unconstitutional gun control already — why don’t you harness it (and yes, exploit tragedies like this, which you routinely do) and try to outdo the efforts in the past for the ERA?

    As to what may happen next, who knows. The “gun show loophole” may be closed. Hopefully the POS Dims won’t play gun-control games as they have in the past, such as seeking gun control through ammo control — the Democrats’ 10,000% tax on ammunition. Some reasonable controls on ammo (aimed not at possession but at excess or likely harmful use) might be sought, such as limits on how much ammunition (how many cartridges) one might possess at any time (there would have to be separate rules for sporting events, such as organized shooting competitions). The key is to distinguish between legitimate self-defense needs or sporting uses and overkill. There are precedents, though they are well into illegitimacy. I believe the Thompson sub-machine gun, for example, can have 10- or 20-round containers attached but the 50-round drum is now illegal. The point here is to distinguish between what is reasonable and what is excessive, as well as personal (civilian) versus military (greater-firepower) equipment.

  • White Agent

    C Stanley- Its called problem solving. We are no longer shocked anymore because there is far to much slaughter in the media everyday. Its like the new millennium is an American slaughter fest. Cumbaya if you want to, but don’t condemn others trying to get to the root of the problems killing so many people. Time is a wasting. I suggest you get to work.

  • http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/ Shaun Mullen

    CStanley and griftdrift:

    Gun violence is not a partisan issue. It is a societal issue for which Democrats and Republicans share blame for their fawning cowardace in the face of the gun lobby.

  • Sam

    Well the tragedy is over, the perpetrator is dead. I understand where you’re coming from Cstan, but Shauns article hits a cord with me. Why am I getting screwed because some whackjob went nuts? The situation itself highlights the rediculousness of his solution. It was a gun free campus, yet the guys decided to break the ban anyways and gun down a bunch of folks that were obeying the rules.

    Yea, 21 kids dead is beyond sad. But lets put the blame where it belongs, with the insane person who instigated the situation.

  • White Agent

    Shaun Mullen- I agree.

  • White Agent

    DLS-It don’t have to be repealed dummy. It just has to be interpreted as it’s written….as in “English Interpretation”.

  • Rudi

    Will the Righties go along with FISA data mining to track or forecast these type of incidents? Will the gun lovers accept a ban on large magazines or clips like the ones used today?

    My guess is NO to both. Multiple large clips in semi-automatic 9mm aren’t for plinking.

  • http://griftdrift.blogspot.com griftdrift

    Shawn I agree but would add depending on your position it would include the anti-gun lobby. It’s a highly relevant issue down in my parts where the N.R.A. is pushing to prevent employers from banning handguns from the workplace. It’s so around the bend that even the local N.R.A. affiliate is calling the national organization nuts. And I have no doubt that shortly I will hear this being used to prop up their near dead efforts. ALl I ask is everybody take a breath and step back before jumping into the political maelstrom.

  • vwcat

    Our pentant for violence is only trumped by our stupidity. The gun obsessed freaks who feel guns should be everywhere as their right, are irresponsible and equate guns with their manhood. They think you take away their guns you lop off the manhood. If someone feels they need a gun to feel big, then their insecurities are right now killing the innocent everyday.
    What a price to pay for people to feel big and tough.

  • Greg

    Hitler took away the guns as one of his first acts of tyranny and then all were left defensless. Banning guns is not the answer. Wake up America!
    The founding fathers made gun ownership second only to free speech.

  • http://griftdrift.blogspot.com griftdrift

    Ah Shawn, I may now see how you could have misinterpreted my original comment. I wasn’t calling you out per se. Just reacting to the speed of the rhetoric flying around the sphere and even in the presidential briefing. It was like people just couldn’t wait to gnaw on the bone.

  • http://griftdrift.blogspot.com griftdrift

    The founding fathers also included the word “regulated” in the second amendment. The only time any mention of the word appears in the bill of rights. A point some would ignore.

  • Greg

    See you in the death camps

  • http://griftdrift.blogspot.com griftdrift

    Nice

  • C Stanley

    White Agent,
    How do we get to the root of this problem without knowing who committed the act, how he obtained a weapon, whether or not any gun control measures might have prevented that, whether or not anyone on the premises being armed might have prevented him from carrying out or completing the murders, or, most importantly of all, WHY he did this (in other words, the real root of the problem is the motive for the crime, was he mentally ill, was he enraged by something, or what.)

    I’m sure that many people here do want to problem solve, but I’m of the opinion that you don’t draw conclusions without facts (unless of course you’ve already predetermined the conclusion and decide that the facts can be sorted to fit your conclusion).

  • White Agent

    The Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution.

    [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.]

    Notice the Introductory Clause….”A well regulated militia…”

    Sounds pretty clear to me.

    Furthermore the National Guard IS the meaning of Militia in modern terms. Just in case you neocons need to look up the meaning of “is” again.

  • DLS

    > fawning cowardace in the face
    > of the gun lobby

    How about some remaining deference to, and marginal remaining respect of, the Constitution? Yes, that’s what’s actually happening if you were to cast aside your immaturity for a moment.

    > It don’t have to be repealed[,] dummy.
    > It just has to be interpreted as it’s written

    That would make all gun control illegal. You lose.

    Of course, liberals love creative “interpretation” and legislation from the bench. I’m sure you’d like a nice 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that effectively invalidates the Second Amendment altogether and lets any government impose whatever gun controls they want over private individuals outside government facilities.

    Then there’s the “public health” gimmick — but sorry, K. Ritter:

    > We have more requirements for people
    > to drive or fish than we do for them to
    > own and bear deadly weapons.

    The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Government may not interfere. That’s what is written. Yes, “we are no longer a wilderness or frontier society.” (Wasn’t the frontier claimed to have been closed in 1890?) But unfortunately, the law is the law. Rather than try to get illegal gun controls put into effect, rather than try seeking more illegitimate judicial activism, rather than just stage emotional, childish marches in Washington, why not work actively to get the Second Amendment repealed once Hillary Clinton is elected President?

    And no matter how much public funds are used to provide emergency care for victims of gun violence, that’s not a legitimate excuse for gun control legislation (using the same rationale often given for not only licensing of drivers but requiring use of safety equipment on the road). You are prevented currently from doing this by the U.S. Constitution, specifically the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

    If it’s obsolescent and harmful, then do the right thing: Repeal it.

  • http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/ Shaun Mullen

    griftdrift:

    No offense taken.

  • White Agent

    Greg- You have nothing to fear but fear itself. So run away little coward.

  • DLS

    > ….�A well regulated militia…�

    That is the “why.” The second part is the “what.”

    “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    This prohibits all or nearly all gun control. If you don’t like it, repeal it. Go for it. Let’s see how serious you really are.

  • Gunther

    I am in favor of the second amendment and this is why:
    Criminals by definition are people who do not follow the law. Therefore you can pass any law you want, and they will still break it. In that scenario you then have law abiding citizens who are unable to defend themselves, and the criminals have all the guns.

  • kritter

    The Hitler references are so over the top, especially with the loss we have recently had here to our other civil rights. Germans allowed Hitler to access power because they liked his message of nationalism and German pride. Maybe some of the America Firsters need to remember that along with his trumped up justifications for invading the sovereign nations of Europe, and persecuting any group that did not represent racial purity.

  • stephen

    although this is an incredible tradegy we must take pause and look at the facts. approximatly 16,500 people are murdered by guns every year. only 12% of those crimes commited with leagaly puchased weapons. 80% of murders committed are committed by people illegaly acquiring the guns, either a street buy ot through realitives and friends. gun control will only drive up the cost of illegal weapons it will not stop someone from commiting a pre-meditaded act such as what happened today. it is a sad day when the irisponsibility of one or the few, infringes upon the responsible majority. i think the issue here is a moral one dealing with reality vs. fantasy, and the consequences of confusing the two.

  • Greg

    White Agent Why don’t you go live in Russia or China if you like police states, then we’ll see who is a coward. I lck the boots of no man or woman, and I wouldn’t have had to hide under my desk and wait for the POLICE to come and saaave me!

  • White Agent

    C Stanley- Your defense of your comment failed. I believe in “keep it simple stupid” when it comes to gun slaughter.

    “No guns, no gun slaughter”. Work toward the former and the later will take care of itself. Wishy washy around, and you let more people die.

    Ban all private guns now.

  • C Stanley

    Kim,
    If Hitler references are so over the top, how come it’s OK for you to make them?

  • http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/ Shaun Mullen

    Stephen:

    Let’s burst another bubble. People killed with illegal weapons are just as dead as people killed with legal ones.

  • Greg

    Now there’s 32 dead, Guess the police didn’t do such a good job did they?
    by the way this week is the anniversary of columbine, what a coincidence!

  • White Agent

    Greg- You are a big brave dumbarse that wants to shoot it out with “the bad guys”…..well…without guns you can play with swords, or sticks or whatever. Then people could watch and laugh at a safe distance.

  • C Stanley

    Yeah, White Agent, because when you outlaw something it goes away, right? Look how well the drug war is going, huh?

  • Greg

    And you can get down on your knees and beg them not to kill you

  • Rick Moran

    People who try to make political hay out of tragedy are beyond the pale. This tragedy proves nothing for or against gun control. But your piece proves that you have no decency – not even letting the bodies get cold before piling on with your tired, political tripe.

  • C Stanley

    Uh, my last comment to White Agent was in response to this:

    Ban all private guns now.

  • kritter

    CS- because I think if you are going to bring him up, at least look at the total picture-not just a cherry-picked reference. I see more danger in an authoritarian executive who thumbs his nose at Congress, limits citizens’ rights and believes in unilateralist foreign policy when he decides its in American interests, than I do in limiting the right to own and bear arms.

  • http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/ Shaun Mullen

    Rick Moran:

    Your comment is especially loathesome because I have come to understand through reading your own blog that at heart you are a right-wing sycophant who happens to have fine writing skills and drapes himself in self-righteous preachery.

    The world will not stop for even a moment to pay its respects to today’s dead and I would not be doing my job if I didn’t provide the best “instant analysis” that experience has provided me. As is obvious, where I went was the very important issue of guns in American society.

    I can only presume from the pious preachery in your comment that you will not be writing one single word at your blog about this until the funerals for the victims are over? Correct?

  • stephen

    shaun: you are correct dead is dead. how ever here is a correction on the numbers = 10,650 in gun related murders. 43,000 in auto accident 550,000 cancer, 650,000 heart disease these are the statictics i feel that if we are supposed to curb the number of deaths in this country lets get our priorities in order and tackle that which kills the greatest number.

  • White Agent

    C Stanley- At some point I would agree with you, except that the gun culture must be eliminated also. Boy would that make TV and movies boring, but hey money must be made….right….righty?

  • Greg

    Don’t forget Viox , i think that killed 50,000. By the way it was legal.

  • Lynx

    I’m going to ask again since I really haven’t seen any good answer. If the arguments that “any bad guy will get a gun, even if you make them illegal” or “if they didn’t have a gun they’d use something else” or “if you don’t have guns you get taken over by a dicator!” are true then:

    1. Why does Europe have far, FAR less gun violence than the US. Can anyone keep a straight face and tell me that it has NOTHING to do with the fact people can’t own guns freely here?

    2. A psycho can attempt a slaughter with a weapon that isn’t a firearm, but can you honestly say that if this bastard had had a knife the result would have been the same?

    3. People just love pointing to Germany…I say look at other places, like Iraq, where a majority of families had and have even automatic weapons and…gasp!….were under the boot of a vicious dictator. What’s you’re colt gonna do for you when the Black Hawk helicopter lands, honey?

    Finally, I’m not a moderator so I may well be stepping over the line here but…to Greg and White Agent, I don’t really think insults like “Go to Russia” or “You are a big brave dumbarse” contribute anything at all to the conversation. You can have extreme differences of opinion without resorting to that, and we’d all be the better for it.

  • superdestroyer

    Even though in these kinds of situation, it is usual for those report to think of the political implications, I usual look at the operational implications of which there are several.

    It looks like the police had a plan ready to go and the officers in the line of fire managed to carried it out. Law enforcement appears to have flooded the area to limit the movements of the any shooter and limit the damage.

    It looks like the university had a disaster plan ready to go. The media was reported on e-mail notification and loud speaker capabilities. This is something all large organizations need. The University also had a lock down plan. This may be an effect of the incident in 2005.

    It looks like the EMS system work in that the injured were spreadout among difference hospitals. I would like to know if the nearest hospitals was initially overwhelmed (it usually happens when there are many non-serious injuries).

    It also looks like the University had a communication plan read to go to include switching its homepage to low band width and the campus newspaper switching to near real time updates.

  • Nobody

    Many would curtail the ownership of guns. Pass legislation etc. claiming that this will make America a better and safer place.

    Yet those same people decry the government passing legislation to curb drug use, pornography etc. screaming it infringes their constitutional rights. Claiming the government cannot determine what is best for its citizens.

    One thing about it. There is no lack of Hypocrisy on either side of the Isle.

  • http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/ Shaun Mullen

    Rick Moran:

    My bad! I already see that you’re pontificating at your blog.

  • White Agent

    The Democratic Daily- Buy her a gun with a hip hugger quick draw holster. Have the gunsmith level the drigger “very light to hair”. Mix the magazine with hollow points and hard points. Then buy her a bullet proof vest, (French fashion design of course).

    or

    Work hard for the elimination of private gun ownership.

  • C Stanley

    Lynx,
    Comparing Europe to the US with regard to this issue is apples to oranges. When you already have millions of guns owned legally and illegally by the population, it’s too late to argue that they should all be made illegal. It’s not hard to figure out who would keep their guns in that situation.

  • kritter

    CS- I guess you got over your aversion to playing political football.

  • Jeff

    As others on here have said, if a wacko wants to kill he dosen’t need a gun. There are many ways to cause chaos and death.

    You just can’t ban all the ways nut jobs or terrorists can kill. Even if all guns were destroyed, it wouldn’t stop the hard core wackos from manufacturing their own, or using somehing else.

    Let’s just pray for the families left behind at this point.

  • Lynx

    stephen great idea!! So, how many people did terrorism in the US kill last year? Is that a zero I see? So I suppose we should put anti-terrorism funding behind car accident prevention, healthcare (especially funding for chemo and heart medicines, as well as funding towards scientific investigation in that field) and naturally crime fighting, since obviously guns kill WAY more people than terrorists in the US.

    Mind you, I think you do have a point, in part, but there is something to be said about the difference between accidental deaths, no matter how tragic, and deaths do to the evil in others.

  • White Agent

    Greg- lol…. thanks for helping make the gun control argument with your childish analogies and oh so witty quips.

    Side splitting.

  • egrubs

    When you already have millions of guns owned legally and illegally by the population, it’s too late to argue that they should all be made illegal.

    Whether for or against gun control, the above argument is pointless. Whether or not something is “hard” has no bearing on whether or not something is “right.”

  • DLS

    > Hitler took away the guns as
    > one of his first acts of tyranny
    > and then all were left [defenseless].

    Absolutely — that was no cheap shot.

    Note that the Nazis didn’t want to experience “regime change.” The same is true in other nations today, such as in Malaysia, where even possession of unlicensed ammunition alone is, I believe, still a capital offense even with Muthahir Muhammad (sp?) no longer in power and fearing a coup.

    “Trafficking in dangerous drugs … Discharging a firearm in the Commission of a scheduled offence … Accomplices in case of discharge of firearm … Offences in Security Areas for possession of fire-arms, ammunition and explosives … Offences against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong’s person … Murder”

    http://www.aliran.com/oldsite/monthly/2003/6k.html

    > Banning guns is not the answer.

    It can be defended in the way the Drug War can be defended, and for that matter, Prohibition. It did reduce some problems. It deters those with a conscience and a future orientation (understand cause and effect of the actions they choose to make) and makes things more difficult for the rest.

    In this country it won’t be viewed much more positively than our drug laws and drug policy, though somewhat more positively, because there is a huge desire for gun control among many (not by me, but by many Americans) and the guns are associated with violence whereas drug use is viewed more like pornography, a victimless crime (though that is not true). You’ll find more respect and desire for gun control in many cities than you will for, say, the 55 mph federal speed limit (the most disrespected and disregarded thing since Prohibition). As K. Ritter was alluding to earlier, there is a lot of interest in at least making sure those who have weapons are competent. (It’s like the old-fashioned hunting permit test I read of in Canada: a pie plate set 100 meters from the shooter. If you can’t hit something that big at 100 meters, you have no business trying to hunt or otherwise attempt to hit anything with that weapon!) There are already precedents for gun controls that are limited — typically they are banned from public (government) facilities. There are also many typical laws controlling gun use — discharge of firearms is often prohibited. An example is in Maricopa County, Arizona (Phoenix) where if the laws are still the same as they were when I was there, discharge was prohibited within 1/4 mile of any occupied building. (By the way, regarding discharge, did you know that some cities have discharge or gunshot sound-wave identifier-detectors to immediately learn of gunshots and where they are occurring? These will still be needed if we have gun control.)

    http://www.nyc.gov/portal/site/nycgov/menuitem.c0935b9a57bb4ef3daf2f1c701c789a0/index.jsp?pageID=mayor_press_release&catID=1194&doc_name=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nyc.gov%2Fhtml%2Fom%2Fhtml%2F2006b%2Fpr349-06.html&cc=unused1978&rc=1194&ndi=1

    > The founding fathers made gun ownership second only to free speech.

    True — disarmament was a hot issue and there had to be no disarmament as a condition of many to join the Republic.

  • GHT

    “regulated”, as the founding fathers meant it, means well maintained, not government regulated.

    “militia”, as the founding fathers meant it, means every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 45.

    “People”, as the supreme court verifies it in the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th ammendments to the constitution means individual people.

    So,
    A well maintained body of individuals composed of all male citizens between 16 and 45 years of age being necessary for the necessary to the security of a free State, the right of individual people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    Wow…when you put in the actual definitions of the words in question, as they have been defined by either the founding fathers or the supreme court, the second ammendment makes a whole lot of sense!

    Also, the supreme court ruled that the bill of rights does not give anyone rights, it just protects rights that were already in existance before the government ever formed from governmental abuse. Even if the second ammendment is repealed we still have that pesky 10th ammendment which states that the bill of rights protects all rights even if they are not enumerated within the bill of rights.

    It should also be noted that the prefactory clause does not limit the scope of the declarative clause. In other words, that preface part of the ammendment does not limit the right to just members of state or federal militias. It just states WHY the ammendment exists. The part of the ammendment that counts is the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

    Also, since the right already exists, the only thing left up to the courts to interperit is what “shall not be infringed” means in practical terms.

    Parker VS DC is the most likely court case to finally settle the indifidual VS collective rights issue. All isses after that just bear on the “shall not be infringed” clause.

    Also, remember, a collective right is a right that nobody has, and that if you can say that the second ammendment word “people” means something different from “people” in all the other ammendments, then you have essentially killed the bill of rights.

    That’s right. You can only speak your mind if your part of a political party, you can only protest as part of a government regulated group, your property cannot be searched and siezed without a warrent only if it’s owned by a group of people, etc.

    This is a scary road to go down.

  • C Stanley

    superdestroyer: Those are the kinds of analyses that do make sense at this stage, to look at how the response was handled.

    White Agent: You are mistaken if you consider me a person who isn’t opposed to violence in our entertainment media.

    Kim: It’s the combination of all of those things that Hitler did that would worry me the most, but that still doesn’t mean that either side should use this analogy to make their case.

  • White Agent

    Jeff- Yeah but you can reduce the casualty count by dozens a pop. That tired old generalization simply don’t work anymore.

  • Jeff

    In response to Lynx:

    2. A psycho can attempt a slaughter with a weapon that isn’t a firearm, but can you honestly say that if this bastard had had a knife the result would have been the same?

    A knife, no. Some people also mention bombs and stuff that requires some limited intelligence.

    However, something like an idiot with two gallon milkjugs of gasoline could just as easily cause a catastrophe in a high occupancy building setting. You just can’t stop suicidal wackos by any means. Iraq is the prime example.

  • White Agent

    BANNING GUNS IS THE ANSWER!

    Don’t ya just get tired of the cowardly vacillation of the right on this issue? Constant deflect and defer tactics just simply don’t work anymore. People are DIEING FOR GODS SAKE!

  • C Stanley

    CS- I guess you got over your aversion to playing political football.

    No, Kim, actually I haven’t made a single comment that in any way used this incident to promote my ideas about gun ownership, nor will I.

  • stephen

    lynx your are correct, it is the evil in the hearts of others that causes this. an old websters dictionary of mine defines evil as “That which causes pain sorrow and suffering” people and thier actions cause evil not an inanimat object. everything i listed is either a direct or indirect evil. The cases i pointed out all cause evil, the issue is a moral one, and abiding by the fundemental judea -christian laws which are gods laws (92% in this country consider them selves christian) we as a people must keep them not thumb our noses at them.

  • White Agent

    Jeff Says: April 16th, 2007 at 12:05 pm —Oh please. Pull on some more thin straws will ya?! Don’t forget choking on a mentos….good grief.

  • Nobody

    I’ve never seen this discussed before.

    Let em own all the guns they want. Just outlaw Bullets and ammunition loading equiptment and gun powder etc. No slugs, casings, powder and firing caps.

    Seems reasonable to me. The second amendment didnt say nothing about Bullets.

  • DLS

    K. Ritter said:

    > The Hitler references are so over
    > the top, especially with the loss
    > we have recently had here to our
    > other civil rights.

    They’re in no way over the top. Here we have seen immature people demonize guns and want to get rid of them all (by passing a law — poof! The icky guns will then go away. Instant panacea). There are people who are truly totalitarian as well as immature when it comes to gun ownership. They aren’t satisfied with a permit or license (and testing) system.

    C. Stanley said:

    > Comparing Europe to the US
    > with regard to this issue is apples
    > to oranges.

    The same is so with comparisons of the USA to Canada.

    It’s not just guns. Canada and Europe are much more collectivist and accepting of authoritarianism and bureaucracy.

    (Europe, remember, had a feudal system for centuries.)

    (real) Americans [TM] inherit England’s libertarianism; they are individualistic and mistrustful of government. (Ask Marcia Angell and the other far-left doctors pushing for government health care; “it’s such a cowboy country.”)

  • http://mirroronamerica.blogspot.com/ The Angry Independent

    This is an incredible story to wake up to.

    But I can’t say that it is surprising to me.

    College campuses are notoriously open to this kind of event. This is one of the biggest holes in U.S. “homeland security”. The country has not learned from Columbine, and other similar events.

    It is easy for a suspect to walk into one of these campuses to do a mass shooting attack.

    And if a domestic suspect can so easily attack one of our college campues…. then it would be extremely easy for Al Qaeda to do it.

    This is part of the big hole in security that the Bush Administration has left open. It has been due to a complete lack of leadership at the top.

  • DaveA

    Hmm, a few points.

    A militia historically means any able bodied man afaik. ‘Well regulated’ is a certainly a question however.

    Banning guns will just result in bombs, knives, running people down and so on. You do remove a convenience factor, but would that be counted by criminals being emboldened? Would it even stop someone from getting one? I mean exactly how hard is it to get illegal drugs again? Trival? Thought so. Better weigh the possibility of giving up a right, and indeed a protection, for no benefit.

    Countries with gun possession can be all over the place as far as violence goes. Think the swiss, heck of a lot of guns, almost no issues. its the culture an the people that make the difference…

    Anyway lets wait and see what is discovered before we start drawing too many conclusions

  • Rick Moran

    Mr. Mullen:

    Syncophant?

    I suggest you attend a remedial reading class. Afterwards, you can re-visit my site and tell me if what you say is true, why many if not most “right wing syncophants” skewer me in my own comments on a regular basis.

    And if expressing an opinion makes me “preachy” so be it. And Amen brother!

  • Jeff

    White Agent:

    I like you .

    You make me laugh!

    Thanks

  • stevesh

    Eyewitness, who was shot, “shooter was…Asian, with a maroon hat.”

    Just hit the radio, not verified.

    Which, darn-it, is immaterial. Evil is neutral as to category.

    Prayers for VT, prayers for the country.

  • PAULA ALEX

    SOUNDS LIKE YOU SHOULD KNOW IF GUNS ARE OUT LAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS…. THINK LONG AND HARD ABOUT THIS THIS ANIMAL SHOULDN’T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OWN A CAR EITHER , THINK WHAT KINDA DAMAGE HE MIGHT HAVE DONE WITH THAT… WHO WRITE THIS STUFF SHOULD THINK HARD BEFORE PRINTING.. PAULA ALEX

  • http://flickr.com/photos/carpeicthus carpeicthus

    What a tragically predictable thread.

  • White Agent

    GHT- Lets not try to re-interpret the English Language please. Oh Brother what lengths these neocns will go to just to camouflage the obvious.

    English is English…..But we may have a problem with “is” again….so please republicans, buy a dictionary that includes the meaning of “is” this time.

  • Nobody

    The Democrats have a solution to all the violence in our world. I’m still laughing at this one.

    “Department of Peace and Nonviolence.�

    1st Session

    H. R. 808

    To establish a Department of Peace and Nonviolence.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    February 5, 2007

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-808

  • DLS

    It was said:

    > I’ve never seen this discussed before.

    When you get to my postings, you will. I already addressed the issue of ammo.

    > Let em own all the guns they want.
    > Just outlaw Bullets and ammunition
    > loading equiptment and gun powder
    > etc. No slugs, casings, powder and
    > firing caps.

    That is obviously an attempt at gun control and it is illegitimate.

    The Democrats have tried games like this in the past, including a 10,000% (ten thousand per cent) tax on ammunition.

    There’s nothing wrong with handloading (home manufacturing of ammunition) other than you shouldn’t puff contentedly on a pipe while doing it.

    Lynx said:

    >1 . Why does Europe have far,
    > FAR less gun violence than the US.
    > Can anyone keep a straight face
    > and tell me that it has NOTHING
    > to do with the fact people can’t
    > own guns freely here?

    Europe and Canada are more collectivist and accepting of government authoritarianism and bureaucracy. What’s the proportion of retirement income provided by government as opposed to individual savings and investment in Europe? It is next to nothing. (And they’re going to face huge problems, worse than ours soon, with population aging.)

    Europe and Canada do not have the gun culture that the USA has (and other nations, such as Brasil, which has a huge gun violence problem of its own).

    I have also addressed the effect of gun control laws themselves already — it is similar to drug laws, Prohibition, or even the 55 mph speed limit of yore. Of course some people, who are law-abiding, will refrain from that which is proscribed.

    > 2. A psycho can attempt a slaughter
    > with a weapon that isn’t a firearm,
    > but can you honestly say that if this
    > bastard had had a knife the result
    > would have been the same?

    It would not have been the same. I’ve even come across hard-core right-wing folks who know this and have contempt for our lack of gun controls, seen as primitive or stupid. “A knife takes courage, while poison takes time. A gun requires neither.”

    > 3. People just love pointing to Germany…
    > I say look at other places, like Iraq, where
    > a majority of families had and have even
    > automatic weapons and…gasp!….were
    > under the boot of a vicious dictator.
    > What’s you’re colt gonna do for you when
    > the Black Hawk helicopter lands, honey?

    Fire on the occupants as they emerge?

    The Hitler references are valid. And we have other authoritarian and totalitarian examples, such as Malaysia, where firearm or ammunition possession without a permit, or their “misuse,” is a capital offense.

  • DLS

    > The gun obsessed freaks who
    > feel guns should be everywhere
    > as their right, are irresponsible
    > and equate guns with their
    > manhood.

    Yes, so goes the myth by the Left, using at best a feeble straw man argument.

    Meanwhile, they are vastly outnumbered and dwarfed by the freaks who actually demonize guns.

  • http://ninthstage.com/ Ninth Stage

    “It is probable that no gun law would have prevented the rampage at the Blacksburg, Virginia, university.”

    Except the gun law allowing these poor victims to be armed. There was an effort to allow the adults who attend Virginia Tech to carry the means to protect themselves. Tragically, the short sighted in that state killed it ensuring that all law abiding students would be unable to effectively protect themselves from this kind of attack.

    It’s not like this kind of thing has never happened before, it happens again and again mostly in what I like to call “victim disarmament zones”.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    I think its time to make ALL GUNS illegal for private use, start kicking down doors and searching property and immediate and mandatory death sentences for those whom are caught harboring firearms of any sort after the ban.

    There is just far to many very innocent young people dead because of the Nazi NRA to even think about continuing this madness.

    White Agent,

    Do you not see the hypocrisy of your comment? In one sentence, you urge using police-state tactics to disarm your fellow Americans of firearms that you don’t like. In the next sentence, you compare the NRA to Nazis.

    On what basis are you liekining the NRA to Nazis? They’re the ones advocating police-state tactics. You are.

  • DLS

    > “Department of Peace and Nonviolence.�

    It’s true, laughable as it is.

    So many clowns also demonize nukes. Yet, they are anti-USA-and-West (predictably) and say that we’re no better than nations like Iran who are governed evilly. They want us, Israel, and would in 1939 demand Poland disarm and the UK to sue Hitler for peace and stop threatening and harming the man who wanted peace for Europe so much.

    With nukes and guns, too, the issue is a problem of proliferation. But what these people miss is that the real problem isn’t the presence of the weapons per se, but who possesses and is likely to misuse them.

  • KeenEdge

    sigh… it’s hard to look past all the whatifs when something like this happens. If guns were illegal, would this guy have still killed a bunch of students? no one knows. Shaun, to respond to your hypothetical, the kind of people who would plug mr. chips for an F (or a bunch of students seemingly randomly) probably aren’t the kind who care if guns are illegal on campus or illegal period. So to say that making guns illegal would have prevented this is foolish at best. Afterall, they long ago made killing people illegal, and he still did that 30+ times.
    I am personally a gun owner and most of the time my guns are only tasked with taking out suspicious looking water bottles and tennis balls. But I am not going to fool myself into believing that the police or my school are going to protect me. Yes, VT had an emergency plan. Yes, the police acted as quickly as they could manage. 30+ young people are still dead… some of them killed nearly 2 hours after the first shots were fired. I have all the respect in the world for the police and the service they provide, but I also understand that a lot can happen in the time it takes for them to respond, and if i have to choose who’s going to be lying on the floor while they are filling out the reports, I’ll choose the bad guy any day. I will not say that if one of the victims had been armed they could have saved themselves, but we all now know their chances of surviving without one.
    white agent suggests we ban all private guns. If that were to happen, I would begrudgingly comply. Criminals would not. So you will take a gun out of a well-trained, responsible hand while one remains in the hands of the badguys. Seems to be the wrong direction to me.

  • White Agent

    The Angry Independent- The Bush policies are the most effective Terrorist Recruiting Tools ever invented.

    However closer to your point; I doubt that any republican would such an idea. They don’t believe in funding non-profit enterprises. ow if you were to suggest Blackwater or Haliburton as a contractors…..well thats another story.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    On what basis are you liekining the NRA to Nazis? They’re the ones advocating police-state tactics. You are.

    should read:

    On what basis are you likening the NRA to Nazis? They’re not the ones advocating police-state tactics. You are.

  • Orson Buggeigh

    Mr. Mullen, White Agent, others – This is a tragedy, but your suggestion that outlawing guns will prevent this from happening again does not hold up to examination. Consider the butchery in Rwanda was largely done with machetes – simple edged agricultural implements, perfectly legal. Outlawing firearms didn’t end the sectarian violence in Norther Ireland either.

    Stephen is correct this is not a problem that can be ‘solved’ by outlawing guns. Prohibition seldom works, and I doubt outlawing guns will be any more effective than outlawing drugs has ended the drug trade.

  • White Agent

    nicrivera- No hypocrisy at all. Police work is police work, not gun tote’n bubba play cowboy antics.

    If you have a gun you are a potential threat to life. Last I checked the right to life was a civil liberty. The state can use whatever it needs to protect civil liberties and I applaud deadly force against resisters. But bubba no discipline with a gun and a low IQ.

  • White Agent

    Orson Buggeigh- Another dumb right wing deflect and defer comment. Rwanda no less!

    Rwanda was done by machete to save bullets. But the guns where there…and plenty of them I can tell you.

  • White Agent

    stevesh- Maroon hat? Well that explains it all. Forget it folks it was another marron case.

  • Sam

    White Agent, folks like you give the Left a bad name. Stripping guns from everyone is not the answer. Guys like you would seek to childproof the world, protect us all from the crazies and ourselves at the same time. Who cares if people like to hunt, or would like a firearm in case the police are unable to provide assistance? You know best, thanks for thinking of me.

  • http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/ Shaun Mullen

    Orosn Buggeigh:

    I in fact did not suggest that outlawing guns would have prevented this tragedy:

    It is probable that no gun law would have prevented the rampage at the Blacksburg, Virginia, university, so let’s dispose with the It Could Have Been Prevented fiction right away.

    I also did not suggest that guns be outlawed. I have several myself.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    nicrivera- No hypocrisy at all. Police work is police work, not gun tote’n bubba play cowboy antics.

    If there’s hypocrisy here, it’s not on my part. It’s progressive and conservatives who want to pick and chose which of the Bill of Rights we should enforce who are the true hypocrites. I demand that my government protect ALL of the Bill of Rights.

    If you have a gun you are a potential threat to life.

    Uh, so is someone who has a knife or a baseball bat. Should we ban those too?

    Last I checked the right to life was a civil liberty. The state can use whatever it needs to protect civil liberties and I applaud deadly force against resisters. But bubba no discipline with a gun and a low IQ.

    That’s just silly. The right to bear arms is a civil liberty that is explicitly protected by the Constitution. You can’t go banning guns based upon the actions of the minority of Americans who abuse those rights. That would be saying that we should ban knives just because some people use knives to murder other people.

  • KeenEdge

    white agent, so because the Rwandans had limited access to bullets, they used machetes?
    how is that any different from someone saying they couldn’t have bullets? or guns for that matter?

  • White Agent

    Sam- The left does not have a “bad name”. The right does.

    The American neocon Conservative republican Right Wing ideologies you defend, are not found world wide because the world is not stupid. However they are becoming redundant domestically as they become more discredited. Its Shake and Bake and I helped.

    Come on, lets go make a better world.

  • White Agent

    nicrivera- I posted the exact words of the Constitution above…..and it makes my point perfectly.

  • Orson Buggeigh

    White Agent,

    You are engaged in wishful thinking. The same foolish logic gave us the Kellog-Briand Pact and the Washington Naval Conferences, and did not do much to disarm the world, did it?. Regardless of the reasons for it, Rwanda is a good example of the point. You cannot prevent evil people from finding ways to kill people, and, even to kill them wholesale. Knives, machetes, bombs, fire, etc. Men with box cutters took over commercial planes and made fire bombs out of them. Firearms are not the problem. Human nature is the problem. We are always going to have to confront the few who do not work and play well with others.

    I prefer to take my chances in a society where firearms may be legally owned and used by all except persons engaging in the commission of crimes against another person’s person or property.

  • White Agent

    Nutcase-Well I want to kill people with the most shock effect I can come up with. What do I have available….?

    Lets see now:
    1. Old lawnmower blade.
    2. Steak knife.
    3. 3 inch blade pocket knife.
    4. Ballpeen hammer.
    5. Display broadsword from mail order catalog
    6. Glock 9mm and 50 rounds with 5 magazines.

    I rest my case.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    It is an undisputable fact that there are not enough police officers to protect every single person in America. Even if we hired ten times as many police officers and gave them an unlimited budget, we would not be able to prevent every single buglary, rape, or murder.

    Not every American lives in a city or suburb in which the local police station is only ten minutes away. Many Americans live a good distance from their nearest police station, and if they had to rely upon the police when their homes were broken into, they’d be dead by the time the police arrived.

    That’s why American’s have to take responsibility for their own safety. Some Americans choose to defend their homes with security systems. Some choose to defend their homes with firearms. Frankly, it’s not up to you or me to decide how Americans are to defend their homes. The right to self-defense is an inalienable right. The right to bear arms is one of our most basic civil liberties explicitly protected by the Constitution.

    It is unfortunate that we chose to focus on guns as the cause of crime rather than focusing on the underlying culture of violence. Guns don’t make people kill people. A disregard for human life is what causes people to kill people, and guns just happen to be their weapon of choice.

    Murderers have no respect for the rule of law. It’s inlikely that a murderer who wouldn’t think twice about killing another person is suddenly going to be hindered by gun laws.

  • egrubs

    To those who think posting the wording of the Second Amendment will change anything, it won’t. Those words have been parsed and reinterpreted many-a-time to advanced opposing agendas.

    Simply, look to 1776 itself. We feared totalitarian government far more than we feared an armed populace.

  • White Agent

    nicrivera- No No No…the right places the blame on the “Individuals responsibility” far to much. Pretty soon we will have to grind our corn again. We have banded together as a tribe, community and a nation for a reason: Mutual protection and Mutual prosperity.

    Not Community shootouts.

  • Sam

    The American neocon Conservative republican Right Wing ideologies you defend, are not found world wide because the world is not stupid.

    Um, I’m hardly a neocon. I’m a moderate that leans pretty left if anything. And you are representative of the hysterical far left that people like Coulter like to lump me in with. I like the left, its often thinking way farther ahead than the right is and usually tells me what to do less often.

    You think we need a law in response to the acts of a madman, when there is already laws against what he did. But thats not good enough for you and the other political soccer moms. You want the world baby proofed so that tragedy itself is outlawed, even if that means ordinary non insane citizens live in a straightjacket just in case.

  • Nobody

    5. Display broadsword from mail order catalog

    bad choice. They show up with a blunt end and no edge at all. They are for show.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    nicrivera- I posted the exact words of the Constitution above…..and it makes my point perfectly.

    No it doesn’t.

    When the Second Amendment says

    the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

    it means

    the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

    The fact that it’s preceded by an introductory clause doesn’t change anything. The introductory clause

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

    wasn’t intended to restrict the right to bear arms. It was intended justify the most important reason in the eyes of the Founding Fathers that this right should be protected.

    To argue that the right to bear arms is a collective right restrict to state militias and not an individual right for all Americans is a gross distortion of the Second Amendment.

  • Nobody

    You want the world baby proofed so that tragedy itself is outlawed, even if that means ordinary non insane citizens live in a straightjacket just in case.

    Sound like an angry conservative to me Sam. But this is what the right continually finds frustrating and amusing and disheartening. We feel the left wants to live in a fairy tale world run by Hollywood where each ending is a happy one.

    It doesn’t happen like that so we base our philosophy in reality. The reality is the world is not baby proofed and life is tough and go from there.

  • White Agent

    Sam- Right, and pigs fly.

  • KeenEdge

    nicriviera,
    while i agree with you on nearly every point, i would like to point out a difference between defense and deterrence.

    the police station a block from my house is a deterrent to criminals, if the police officers from that station would be able to defend my house from criminals… if they were there (which they usually aren’t.) My security system is also a deterrent. Most criminals do not want to hang around when sirens are blaring and the police are being autodialed (as an aside, when my alarm went off the week after i had it installed, it took 10 minutes for the cops to respond from the station one block from my house.) But the true defense of my home, and the people in it that I love, is me.

    Sure, I could hope that the alarm goes off if someone tries to break in and when the cops arrive (in about ten minutes) they will save me. But I know from personal experience that a badguy could do a lot of bad things in ten minutes, so I choose to defend my home with my gun. The police can do what they want when they finally get here.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    This debate is a perfect example of how the left-right spectrum has become utterly useless.

    White Agent,

    You seem to think that anyone who supports gun rights must be a “neocon” or on “the right.” That is completely wrong. Libertarians are adamantly opposed to gun control. Many Democrats living in the interior regions of the United States are also opposed to gun control. So you can’t just paint everyone who disagrees with you as being some kind of right-winger.

  • White Agent

    nicrivera- Yes it does. You Modified the EXACT WORDS of the Constitution to eliminate the Obligatory Introductory Clause. Which also eliminates YOUR argument completely.

    But it is typical of you neocons to cut and slice the Constitution to fit your propaganda and distorted view of America and Liberty.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    KeenEdge,

    I completely agree with you. Even if you lived a block away from the nearest police station, that doesn’t assure you absolute protection. I was just trying to make a point that for many people, relying upon the police for protection is a non-option.

    You make a good point about deterrence. If a burglar is trying to decide which of two neighborhoods he is going to rob, and he knows that 90% of the people in one neighborhood have firearms and only 10% of the people in the other neighborhood have firearms, obviously he’s going to choose the latter.

    People who push for strict gun control laws aren’t doing their neighbors any favors.

  • White Agent

    nicrivera- Well if the Shoe fits. Oh I know you want to hide in the middle….but…..there is no middle. The “middle” is a myth. In the end you MUST vote one way or the other. Or waste your vote on a third party….which are never in any “contrived” political middle.

  • White Agent

    The prezzildent’s Speech:

    You don’t speak for America jerk. It’s Your neocon republican party’s goofy ideology that is the VERY REASON FOR THIS MASS MURDER!

    Along with the Nazi NRA.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    But it is typical of you neocons to cut and slice the Constitution to fit your propaganda and distorted view of America and Liberty.

    LOL! I’m a neocon now!

    White Agent,

    Have you not read a single comment I’ve posted over the last 48 hours. I must have written at least a half dozen posts criticizing neoconservatives. One of my biggest criticisms of neoconservatives is their refusal to recognize our civil liberties, which, ironically, is what you’re guilty of now.

    When it comes to civil liberties, it seems tht the left and right are two sides of the same coin. Each only seems interested in protecting those civil liberties that they personally believe in.

  • stevesh

    White Agent Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    The “middle� is a myth.

    Aristotle would take exception to that.

    Please scroll up and read the mast-head. Chill.

  • Entropy

    So let me get this right. At a time when the body count is still rising, Shaun writes on one hand that gun control would not have prevented this, yet goes on to essentially suggest it would have by the specious comparison of gun owner rights to those of the victims. Simply disgusting imo.

  • North2Alaska

    Imagine if this were to have occurred in an Israeli University. The shooter would not have gotten 2 shots off before being stopped (shot) by other students or faculty.

    This has been documented numerous times during attacks in public places in Israel where armed citizens have greatly reduced the number of fatalities and injuries to fellow citizens. Do some research…

    White Agent: Would you rather be gunned down by a criminal than be saved by a law abiding citizen carrying a concealed gun?

  • White Agent

    stevesh-Aristotle is dead. So who cares?

    Chill what?

  • White Agent

    North2Alaska- That is a hypothetical that is irrelevant.

    Israel? Well…..last I check we weren’t surrounded by crazy Arabs. Another irrelevant statement that failed.

  • North2Alaska

    Why irrelevant? You can’t or won’t answer the question? It’s pretty simple really.

  • White Agent

    North2Alaska- Its yet another stupid neocon, prove a negative, question.

    So answer Mine: “Would you rather get hit by a car or never go outside your house?”…

    These mental midgit tactics cost you the last election, but you still don’t get. Amazing.

  • Idiosyncrat

    White Agent wrote:

    Oh I know you want to hide in the middle….but…..there is no middle. The “middle� is a myth. In the end you MUST vote one way or the other. Or waste your vote on a third party….which are never in any “contrived� political middle.

    One way or the other. With us or against us. Yes or no. Black or white. Republican or Democrat. These are ALL false dichotomies.

    Every issue presents it’s own unique set of circumstances and potential solutions. Some of them conservative in nature, others liberal in nature. In this particular case, there’s a whollllle lot of options in between kicking down every door in America to seize guns and ensuring that the people behind those doors have unfettered access to their munitions of choice. Either dominant political party is capable of introducing and implementing legislature that is based on thinking rather than caricatured rhetoric. And we the voters have an important role in seeing that they do just that so that blowhard windbags no longer dominate the agenda.

  • Warmongering Lunatic

    There are already millions of guns in the U.S., Home Depot has all the tools you need to go into the manufacture of fully-automatic weapons, and it’s not like we don’t have thousands of miles of borders to smuggle things across.

    So, sure, advocate outlawing guns if you think that’s “right”. But if you think it’s going to save lives, you must be smoking marijuana. (And we know you can’t be, because it’s outlawed, right?)

  • Nobody

    Nic I’m telling ya your a neocon. You just haven’t come out of the closet yet.

  • White Agent

    Idiosyncrat- That’s a lot hyperbole to get around the FACT that when you vote you will have but two viable choices.

    Its a two party system dummy, like it or not.

  • Idiosyncrat

    North2Alaska, the situation in Israel is very different than here.

    Private citizens in Israel cannot easily obtain guns for personal use. It’s a permit system that would make many gun control advocates in the US blush.

    Because of military conscription of the citizen army of a relatively small population within a geographically small place, it is quite common to see armed soldiers on public buses, in cafes and other public places — and even ‘off duty’ dancing in night clubs with their assigned weapon strapped to their backs. Also, every public and most private spaces in Israel are guarded. You cannot enter the campus of Tel Aviv University by car or on foot without being checked. The same goes for malls and most cafes.

    Along with the police, those are the people who are doing the interventions you speak of. Is America ready for that kind of militarized presence? No, IMHO it’s not. People will scream bloody murder (no pun intended) about their rights to privacy and movement being infringed upon…

  • North2Alaska

    Your analogy is far from being similar to the one I posed. When you feel you are capable of presenting an intelligent argument maybe it would be worth my time to reply to your comments. It’s typical of people with your views to dodge questions, answer a question with a question, and then insult the other party.

    I think deep down you know if the $#% hit the fan; you wouldn’t hesitate to hide behind the gun toting wacko saving your life. You might even thank the person afterwards…..but that’s irrelevant and hypothetical.

  • White Agent

    Warmongering Lunatic- Well you missed the part where I wrote “kick down doors and search everything” and ” Mandatory death penalty for those harboring guns after the ban”.

    You should add “Negative Nellie” to “Warmongering Lunatic”.

    Think Nike, Just Do It! Save lives!

  • White Agent

    North2Alaska- right, like I’m going to continue such a laughable argument with…well….$#%.

    Oh yes…..run to the TV cowboy in the white hat for protection…..

    That little sound in the back of your mind…….thats the world laughing at you.

  • http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/ Shaun Mullen

    Nic:

    This debate is a perfect example of how the left-right spectrum has become utterly useless.

    Amen.

  • kritter

    Maybe we need armed right and left wing militias in this country to defend the liberals from the conservatives and vice versa!

  • Idiosyncrat

    White Agent, yes it’s a two party system. But the details of the policy positions implemented by either party is are not pre-ordained by a long shot.

  • White Agent

    Shaun Mullen- Oh come on. There must be an extreme left on this issue in order to finally pull the damn argument back to the center. Its an issue left untouched for years now. Time it caught up with the new political reality don’t ya think?

    lol

  • North2Alaska

    Speaking of laughing…

    In your pristine world of totalitarian gun control where law enforcement is kicking down doors to inflict mandatory death sentences on all citizens; I’ll be one of those guys kicking down your door. And guess what. I’ll still be armed. I’ll still be carrying a gun protecting citizens like you from the huge number of criminals that will not be willingly giving up their guns.

    As law enforcement do you honestly think I’m afraid of Mrs. Smith carrying that snub nosed in her purse to keep from getting raped in a dark alley? Or do you think I’m a bit more afraid of the rapist who wouldn’t care less if guns were illegal?

    You like to paint Europe as the model for gun control. Why don’t you read a little statistics about crime in England and France? It will be an enlightening experience.

  • Idiosyncrat

    White Agent, are you capable of making an argument without hurling insults?

  • White Agent

    Idiosyncrat- Why do I hear the sound of tapping finger nails?

  • Sam

    Agent is a professional douchebag Idio, don’t waste your breath.

  • Idiosyncrat

    Idiosyncrat- Why do I hear the sound of tapping finger nails?

    Because Ann Coulter’s lapel mike is a little too low? Turn down the volume.

  • White Agent

    North2Alaska- No you’ll be dead….and….forgotten. there is more “law enforcment for gun control than ever against it.

    And about Europe…I lived there for a dozen years. Screw your Talk radio derived statistics. You are wrong, not to mention laughable.

    If you neocons were not such tight arses there wouldn’t be such a need for protection because there would be a hell of a lot more prosperity in America.

  • DLS

    > Maybe we need armed right
    > and left wing militias in this
    > country to defend the liberals
    > from the conservatives and
    > vice versa!

    Describe Iraq in two words, K.

  • White Agent

    Idiosyncrat- I don’t “hurl insults”. I return them. I believe thats fair.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    White Agent,

    When two people disagree over what the text of the Constitution means, what better way to solve that dispute than to turn to the words of the Founding Fathers, who were intimately involved with the creation of the Constitution:

    If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.

    - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

    Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

    - James Madison, Federalist No. 46

    These two passages from the Federalist Papers reveal that the Founding Fathers believed that the American people would be armed of their accord. The federal government did not form militias and then grant them the right to keep and bear arms. People already had the freedom to keep and bear arms, and from among them, the individual states were to form militias to defend the country against invasion.

  • White Agent

    Idiosyncrat- Oh come on. Ann Coulter is a neocon not a liberal. Where have I ever advocated harming anyone outside the law? Good Grief

  • DLS

    > Imagine if this were to have
    > occurred in an Israeli University.

    Yes, by people often far more crazy or hateful, better armed, and better organized.

    (Or at the El Al ticket counter at LAX)

  • DLS

    > One way or the other. With us
    > or against us. Yes or no. Black
    > or white. Republican or Democrat.
    > These are ALL false dichotomies.

    Even assuming most issues are yes-no, two-position, or “polar” issues, there is not only one issue. Hence we possess different combinations of positions on several issues.

    This is one major reason why 4-6+ parties rather than two, with proportional representation, and in fact was what caught my attention when reading about proportional representation years ago.

    With merely five polar issues there are 32 combinations. What if they aren’t your combination in either of the major party platforms?

  • White Agent

    nicrivera- No. Those were times when America was an agrarian society wand more than 75% rural, (meaning Indians, bears and such).

    Now we are 97% urban and/or suburban. No indian threat, (unless you count Swaraaj and his nukes), and, no bears.

    Besides, whatever the hell they said, we can read English as well as they could. That’s EXACTLY why they wrote it down. Its says WELL-REGULATED-MILITIA.

    Why make it confusing with side descriptions and interpretations that have no valid place today?

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    Nic I’m telling ya your a neocon. You just haven’t come out of the closet yet.

    Nobody,

    I am most definitely not a neocon because I don’t share the neoconservative vision of establishing the United States as some sort of world’s policeman/benevolent hegemon.

    You and White Agent have more in common than either of you would care to admit. You both have a very selective reading of Constitution, the difference being that you defend Republican programs that subvert the Constitution and threaten our civil liberties while White Agent defends Democratic programs that subvert the Constitution and threaten our civil liberties.

  • North2Alaska

    Whitey, Where do you get your stats that most law enforement are in favor of gun control?

    If I were to poll any of my coworkers, maybe 2% would be in favor of gun control. I would bet you that is typical for most LE agencies in Amercia as I have had numerous such conversations with numerous individuals from across the country.

  • White Agent

    nicrivera- Ok so you are Pat Buchanan isolationist neocon. What?

  • stevesh

    White Agent Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
    stevesh-Aristotle is dead. So who cares?

    Sigh.

    A cheerleader for the collapse of his own culture, of which he is ignorant, oblivious, or estranged to a degree that is near pathological.

  • DLS

    > Private citizens in Israel cannot
    > easily obtain guns for personal
    > use. It’s a permit system that
    > would make many gun control
    > advocates in the US blush.

    “However,a quick glance at the rigid gun laws in Israel will show that it has far stricter firearms laws than many people, including myself, previously thought.”

    http://www.jpfo.org/israel-firearms.htm

    > Because of military conscription
    > of the citizen army of a relatively
    > small population within a
    > geographically small place, it is
    > quite common to see armed
    > soldiers … Also, every public
    > and most private spaces in
    > Israel are guarded.

    True, too. They’re constantly under threat.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    nicrivera- Ok so you are Pat Buchanan isolationist neocon. What?

    Not even close, White Agent. You’re inability to see issues beyond left-versus-right blinds you to reality.

    My position is consistent. I support ALL civil liberties. It’s right-wingers and left-wingers such as yourself who are selective in terms on which civil liberties you support and which ones you don’t.

  • DLS

    > what better way to solve that
    > dispute than to turn to the
    > words of the Founding Fathers

    Indeed, that is the right way to construe — look at other words written by those who wrote the words in question in order to determine the intent the words are meant to say.

  • DLS

    Nic Rivera wrote:

    >> nicrivera- Ok so you are
    >> Pat Buchanan isolationist
    >> neocon. What?

    > Not even close, White Agent.

    He or she has missed much, often on this thread.

    > You’re inability to see issues
    > beyond left-versus-right
    > blinds you to reality.

    It’s much worse than that, though the left-right thing deserves a follow-up. You and Shaun are incorrect about the left-right spectrum. It exists, obviously, and it is far from useless. About the only thing worth noting is that it is sometimes not linear, but circular, because positions at either extreme often overlap. Someone can be so far left or right they “come back around” to being like those on the other extreme.

  • DLS

    It was said:

    >> Aristotle is dead. So who cares?

    > Sigh.
    >
    > A cheerleader for the collapse
    > of his own culture, of which he
    > is ignorant, oblivious, or estranged
    > to a degree that is near pathological.

    Hey, it’s the same argument used by lefties to disparage the Second Amendment (not only are we not a wilderness or a frontier society any more, but it was written by dead guys back in the 1700s, anyway) while fighting as hard as they can, to save (and abuse) the First, while strangly ignoring that amendment’s age. (The Second as well as the Tenth, “who cares? They were written by long dead people, evil aged wealthy hierarchical-patriarchal white males.” But they never say that about the First Amendment, or the Third, or the Fourth…)

  • DLS

    > These two passages from the
    > Federalist Papers reveal that
    > the Founding Fathers believed
    > that the American people would
    > be armed of their accord.

    Federalist 41 also lays to rest any claim of unlimited, or unconstrained, federal power (it can do whatever it wants) under the “general welfare” clause. But you know how the Left has viewed that clause since the 1930s. At least some of the New Dealers were honest and said that they replaced constitutional federalism with their de facto unitary state with its capital in Washington because the Constitution was in their way. Since then any question of federal overreach is subjected to venom.

    See the bottom (the end) of Federalist 41 if you are curious.

    Here is the original,

    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

    as well as a modified version that may be preferred or needed by some of you.

    http://www.tranzoa.com/html/fed41txl.htm

  • White Agent

    nicrivera- You keep bleating on about Civil Liberties. I submit to you that LIFE is the dominant civil liberty!

    See issue “beyond” left verses right. So debate teams are redundant now? I think not. There will always be debate of opposing opinions. What are you trying to suggest here….some utopia higher though process? Sorry, I call BS.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    DLS,

    A pure one-dimensional left-verus-right political spectrum is overly simplistic.

    liberal conservative

    What does it mean to be “liberal”?
    What does it mean to be “conservative”?

    The words hardly mean anything anymore. They’re completely subjective based upon who’s defining the term.

    A more objective way to define political philosophy is based upon the degree of government intervention a person wants. Libertarians want virtually no government intervention while authoritarians (or communitarians) favor a significant amount of government intervention in virtually all issues. Liberals and conservatives are people who tend to mix and choose where they want government to intervene, with liberals favoring significant intervention in fiscal/economic matters and conservatives favoring significant intervention in social/personal matters.

    Personally, I favor the two-dimensional Nolan Chart (though, it too is overly simplistic) to the one-dimensional left-right spectrum.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    nicrivera- You keep bleating on about Civil Liberties. I submit to you that LIFE is the dominant civil liberty!

    How does my neighbor’s ownership of a gun infringe upon your right to life?

  • White Agent

    DLS- I PROFOUNDLY DISAGREE!

    They are just as dead as Aristotle! Our forefathers did not form the legislature giving the people the power of government so as to never change. They did it so that the PEOPLE COULD CHANGE LAW WITH NEW IDEAS AND PROGRESS FORWARD! Let the damn lawyers argue “Law Precedents”! LET THE PEOPLE ABOLISH AND MAKE NEW LAW as they so desire! Lawyers follow the law, they do not lead it.

    We The People control law, not our dead forefathers and that is the way it was intended.

  • North2Alaska

    nicrivera- You keep bleating on about Civil Liberties. I submit to you that LIFE is the dominant civil liberty!

    How does my neighbor’s ownership of a gun infringe upon your right to life?

    Exactly, if you use Whites logic than owning a car and a having 12 pack of beer in your fridge would be illegal.

  • White Agent

    nicrivera- He/she kills me with the gun. That’s how.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    White Agent,

    I’m just curious.

    Do you support the USA PATRIOT Act?

    Do you support NSA warrantless electronic surveillance program?

    Do you support ths suspension of Habeas Corpus?

  • White Agent

    nicrivera- No on all accounts.

    Why?

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    I asked:

    How does my neighbor’s ownership of a gun infringe upon your right to life?

    to which White Agent replied:

    He/she kills me with the gun. That’s how.

    You’re avoiding my question, White Agent. If my neighbor were to shoot you with his/her gun, he/she would indeed be violating your right to life.

    But that’s not what I asked. I asked how the mere ownership of a gun violated your right to life. Based upon your logic, the mere ownership of a knife or a baseball bat would also violate your right to life.

    And that’s just silly.

  • Laura

    Some students have said the shooter was an Asian (muslim?).

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    nicrivera- No on all accounts.

    Why?

    So I’m assuming that you’re critical of the Bush administration for implementing these policies?

  • White Agent

    nicrivera April 16th, 2007 at 3:51 pm -

    Right, hardly have meaning anymore?!

    They have NEVER had more meaning! Especially since the right is nearly destroyed! When that task is finished, then those of you whom are “moderates” will be the new right!

    I look forward to the debate because I know it will be less visceral and much more enjoyable.

    Why? Because the opposing views will make much more sense. So help us finally stamp out the pitiful remnants of the neocon nit wits and back to proper governance.

  • stevesh

    White Agent Says:
    April 16th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
    DLS- I PROFOUNDLY DISAGREE!

    They are just as dead as Aristotle! Our forefathers did not form the legislature giving the people the power of government so as to never change. They did it so that the PEOPLE COULD CHANGE LAW WITH NEW IDEAS AND PROGRESS FORWARD! Let the damn lawyers argue “Law Precedents�! LET THE PEOPLE ABOLISH AND MAKE NEW LAW as they so desire! Lawyers follow the law, they do not lead it.

    We The People control law, not our dead forefathers and that is the way it was intended.

    We The People=White Agent

  • White Agent

    North2Alaska April 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    In Alasker? You counted all six cops? Ok….whatever you say.

  • North2Alaska

    Clever redirection. Say, you wouldn’t happen to be a politician would you?

  • White Agent

    North2Alaska April 16th, 2007 at 3:59 pm -

    That’s a different subject. We will get to beer/car ownership the next time somebody mows down 32 kids with a car full of six-packs.

    ROTFL

  • White Agent

    Laura- No just that evil maroon hat tribe on the loose again.

    BTW, did you hear the wonderful Arab-Palestinian on CNN? Great words noble and heartfelt. I was inspired.

  • White Agent

    DLS April 16th, 2007 at 3:48 pm -

    Well, you can wake up the dead and ask them what they meant or you can use that noggin that God gave you and apply the Constitution to all these alive people we have around us.

    What do YOU want the Constitution to say? I’ve told you what I think it says. Together, along with all our countrymen, through our elected representatives WE THE PEOPLE will decide what it says and there is no power on earth that can stop us. That is my answer to the hem-hawing, screw-ball Constitutional purists that are America’s modern version of the house of Lords.

    The Constitution is a Living document, not a Dead document!

  • stevesh

    What do YOU want the Constitution to say? I’ve told you what I think it says. Together, along with all our countrymen, through our elected representatives WE THE PEOPLE will decide what it says and there is no power on earth that can stop us. That is my answer to the hem-hawing, screw-ball Constitutional purists that are America’s modern version of the house of Lords.

    What if all the White Agents=We The People, along with their WA/WTP elected representatives decided to abolish the Constitution? What then?

    You have no more of an understanding of the Constitution than a maroon hat.

  • http://www.blackshards.com marc

    WA’s right about the Constitution being a living document. All fans of gun control have to do is follow the built-in procedures to pass an amendment banning gun ownership.

    If enough people agree with there position it shouldn’t be a problem to get it passed. That isn’t the case, however, and such an attempt would be a waste of effort.

  • DLS

    > The Constitution is a Living document, not a Dead document!

    The lie of the Left revisits us, right on cue.

    Laws and meanings and the intentions behind them are not subject to change by whim or political convenience, no matter how much you want them to be. You cannot truthfully say that “red” now means green (along with contempt for the words “crimson” and “scarlet” in older, florid 1700s language).

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    What do YOU want the Constitution to say? I’ve told you what I think it says. Together, along with all our countrymen, through our elected representatives WE THE PEOPLE will decide what it says and there is no power on earth that can stop us. That is my answer to the hem-hawing, screw-ball Constitutional purists that are America’s modern version of the house of Lords.

    White Agent,

    It’s precisely that kind of elastic reading of the Constitution that allows President Bush and his advisors to interpret the Constitution any way they want.

    The Constitution says what it says. If people want to change it, the Amendment process is the appropriate way to do so.

  • DLS

    > Our forefathers did not form
    > the legislature giving the people
    > the power of government so as
    > to never change.

    Correct…

    > They did it so that the PEOPLE
    > COULD CHANGE LAW WITH NEW
    > IDEAS AND PROGRESS FORWARD!

    Correct — through the legitimate process, which in the case of the Constitution is the amendment process. (Or through a Constitutional convention.) There is no other legitimate process that can change our Constitution.

    > Let the damn lawyers argue “Law
    > Precedents�! LET THE PEOPLE ABOLISH
    > AND MAKE NEW LAW as they so desire!

    Only in the correct manner. And not change the Constitution every day.

  • stevesh

    What do YOU want the Constitution to say? I’ve told you what I think it says.

    Apparently WhiteAgent=SCOTUS, also.

    Federalist #10? Feh, ptui.

  • SteveK

    Laura Says:
    Some students have said the shooter was an Asian (muslim?).

    Laura,

    This is just more of the same crap found in every one of your posts. Fear and hate mongering of all things Muslim seems to be your only goal in life and it’s eating you up.

    You don’t even have the courage of your conviction… otherwise you’d reply to those who disagree with, or object to, the venom you spew.

    Your diatribes have evolved from embarrassing to obsessive to obscene. Shame on your cowardly hit-and-run posting technique and shame on you.

  • White Agent

    nicrivera – No….Its because the Legislature allowed the administration to interpret it that way.

  • DLS

    [M]arc wrote:

    > WA’s right about the Constitution
    > being a living document.

    He’s wrong. “Living document” means the words can be reinterpreted to mean something different now than they were interpreted to mean yesterday. What is sought is the meaning liberals want.

    But you grasped the real truth:

    > All fans of gun control have to do is
    > follow the built-in procedures

    Yes.

    > to pass an amendment

    Yes.

    > banning gun ownership.

    Or just repeal the Second Amendment, which would enable state and local governments to ban gun ownership, if you wanted no federal intervention. (Repealing the Second is not enough to constitutionalize federal gun control; the federal government would also need to be explicitly empowered to do this, or implicitly in the more straightforward case you provide.)

    > If enough people agree with there
    > position it shouldn’t be a problem
    > to get it passed. That isn’t the case,
    > however, and such an attempt would
    > be a waste of effort.

    If they cannot succeed the legal way, and often whether or not they could, what do the losers do instead? They misuse the courts to secure what is called “legislation from the bench.” (Then they lie and deny the judiciary is arrogating legislative powers, when it obviously is.)

  • White Agent

    stevesh- The people of the United states can certainly abolish the constitution. They abolished the King’s Law didn’t they?!

    ROTFL there is now way you can possibly turn this around on me. I am absolutely correct.

  • DLS

    > A pure one-dimensional left-versus-right
    > political spectrum is overly simplistic.

    I know it is imprecise, too, but it is quite useful.

    > A more objective way to define political philosophy
    > is based upon the degree of government
    > intervention a person wants.

    It’s another way to view things, and I realize you like it because you’re more of a libertarian than I am. (I’m about 85 per cent of the libertarian you are, and that fifteen per cent difference is significant, obviously.)

    > Libertarians want virtually no
    > government intervention while
    > authoritarians (or communitarians)

    or other contemporary collectivists

    > favor a significant amount of
    > government intervention in
    > virtually all issues

    Yes, distinct from substitution of public for private organization (admittedly this overlaps greatly with what you mention).

    > Personally, I favor the two-dimensional Nolan Chart

    Right there you have the basis for four political parties (four corners).

  • DLS

    > otherwise you’d reply to those who disagree with,

    I would like to know why Laura bashes Obama and is frequently conservative, but goes far out of her way to defend and support Hillary Clinton. Affirmative action in practice?

  • White Agent

    DLS-April 16th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    Oh contraire! Laws are made by the Legislature, (the people), changed by the Legislature, (the people), and, eliminated by the Legislature, (the people). Old laws, news laws….don’t matter. The people can change them as they wish through the elective/legislative process, or God forbid, by violent force. Whatever it takes.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    I think we’re just going around in circles on this issue.

    I’m not even sure why the issue of gun control was even pertinent to this debate. By Shaun’s own admission, stricter gun control laws were unlikely to prevent this tragedy.

    Shaun’s already made his views about the NRA clear over at his blog.

    My question to him would be, if the NRA is so powerful, why do we still have federal gun laws?

    And my question to conservatives and/or Republicans would be, if Republicans are so pro-Second Amendment, why do we still have federal gun laws?

  • Nobody

    Right there you have the basis for four political parties (four corners).

    We can’t get nothing done with 2 parties. Four would be just grand, we could get 1/2 as much done for twice the price and blame it on Ron Paul.

    What a country.

  • stevesh

    BTW:

    “The gunman was said to be of Asian appearance and dressed in maroon hat, leather jacket and black-military style shooting vest.” (AP&DailyMail)

    A Chinese national on a student visa. In the States since 8/07. He killed his girlfriend and a Resident Assistant before the classroom executions.

    In future WhiteAgent shall be referred to as WhiteAgent(MH).

    And, lest we forget:

    It lessens the horror not one iota and I take no pride in a prescience borne of long experience, but I will not be surprised in the least that the wacko who gunned down 33 people on the Virginia Tech campus this morning before being killed was a white male armed with street legal weapons who was not part of a well-regulated militia but had a head full of problems.

    No pride, indeed.

  • stevesh

    “…or God forbid, by violent force”

    Don’t patronize us. Stop being coy. It’s your favorite fantasy.

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    We can’t get nothing done with 2 parties. Four would be just grand, we could get 1/2 as much done for twice the price and blame it on Ron Paul.

    Well, if one believes that the federal government is spending far too much, then getting 1/2 as much done wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

  • Nobody

    Well, if one believes that the federal government is spending far too much, then getting 1/2 as much done wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

    agreed but not for twice the price. Now you got 4 parties who want a cut of the pie and not two

  • DLS

    > The people of the United states can certainly abolish the constitution.

    Actually, this is correct. It would have to be done through a Constitutional convention, ironically, to be legitimate.

    Lazare’s liberal book about abolishing the Senate (to do away with the “undemocratic” representation in that body) addressed one issue right, that the Senate could be abolished as the single way to end the equal-votes-for-states suffrage in the Senate. However, the book was wrong in how the Senate was abolished (it was simply by a decision, by whim) and predictably used as the claimed basis for it, the losers’ favorite worthless justification for doing anything, the Preamble. The whim aspect of this is something White Agent needs to pay more attention to (as well as that the amendment process is the way the Constitution is supposed to be changed). (Note that Lazare also wants the Electoral College to be abolished.)

    “Lazare offers this doomsday scenario: In 2020, California threatens to secede from the union unless its representation in the Senate is increased to be in proportion with its population. In response, the House of Representatives passes a resolution abolishing the Senate, wins popular approval of this decision by a national referendum, and thereafter runs the country by its own majority rule. Lazare approves of this course. It would be justified, he argues, by the principle that ‘we, the people,’ having proclaimed the Constitution in the first place, can amend or abolish it through our elected representatives in the House, without following the amendment procedure specified in Article V. What the president, the courts, the armed forces, and the press would be doing while all this is going on, Lazare does not explain.

    One cannot help but note the similarity of Lazare’s preference for majoritarian absolutism with that of Pat Buchanan. Buchanan would have Congress set aside Supreme Court constitutional decisions, though even he would probably acknowledge the need to amend the Constitution to do this. Not so Lazare, who would have the House alone seize all the government’s powers by coup d’etat.”

    “Lazare would encourage the House majority to leapfrog Article V because he believes that it absolutely bars any amendment changing the equal suffrage clause–the right of all states to the same number of senators. But practical politics aside, nothing in the Constitution bars it from being amended first to remove the “equal suffrage” clause and then to adopt a second amendment reconstituting the Senate with some form of unequal suffrage for the states.”

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n4_v28/ai_18172963

    “The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy argues that the venerated eighteenth-century charter needs to be overhauled or even scrapped because it blocks the way to any modernization of American government that will give ‘the people’ power to cope with twenty-first-century problems. Lazare sees us as complacent in the face of gridlock because of our blind faith in the Constitution. ”

    “Lazare denounces the ‘long and tortuous’ amending process, which ‘severely constrained’ efforts to change the Constitution. But what are the facts? Once an amendment is submitted to the states, how long does it take to get the required three-fourths of them to ratify? Leave out the curious twenty-seventh (no pay raise for Congress to take effect until an election intervenes) that took from 1789 to 1992, and consider the Bill of Rights (two years and three months in an age of slow communications) as a single unit. The median time for the remaining sixteen is—can you guess?—one year.”

    “Culture drives politics, not the reverse. He cites Newt Gingrich to the effect that America is a ‘deeply conservative country’ and laments that it is true ‘because the Ancient Constitution is a deeply conservative concept.’ On the contrary, we are a peculiar people, loving the new and the young but idealizing the past, which we constantly flee. It’s how we are, not how the Founding Fathers made us. And what the record shows is that when the will is really there, we will change the system while swearing that we are really preserving it, as we have long done.”

    http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1996/5/1996_5_12.shtml

    “It cannot be over-emphasized that the United States Senate is an anti-nationalistic and anti-majoritarian institution. (Well, it is conducive to a majority, but it’s more Calhounian than majoritarian.) The Senate conspicuously clashes with the notion of a uniform American people. If we’re all one people, why do the not even one million Americans in Delaware receive the same representation as the over fifteen million Americans in Florida? Why should one section of the American people wield disproportionate power in the upper legislative house that determines, among other things, which judges are confirmed and which treaties are ratified? Moreover, this arrangement appears immutable since Article V provides that ‘no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.’

    Consistent nationalists are outraged by this demographic power gulf and logically call for foundational change in American government, namely the abolition of equal state suffrage in the Senate.”

    “States exert a preclusive effect against consolidation and must be gutted: That is the sum and substance of the nationalist temperament.”

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/kantor/kantor20.html

    “Of course, even worse than equal state representation per se is an obscure provision in the Article V amending clause stipulating that ‘no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.’ What this means, simply, is that all states must give their consent before there can be any deviation from the principle of equal state representation whatsoever–which, considering how much small states would stand to lose in such an eventuality, they presumably never will.”

    [Lazare]

    http://www.prospect.org/print/V11/21/lazare-d.html

  • DLS

    > We can’t get nothing done with 2 parties.
    > Four would be just grand, we could get 1/2
    > as much done for twice the price and blame
    > it on Ron Paul.

    What would you suggest to get better representation than we have now?

    4-6 or more parties is a good idea for this. And if you’ve lived and traveled all over the USA as I have, you know this country is far from homogeneous.

  • DLS

    > Well, if one believes that the
    > federal government is spending
    > far too much

    Or doing too much…

  • christine

    Another student has passed. He had been shot in the chest. His name was Michael. He was the son of an online friends’ neighbor. Another online friends’ child and the child’s best friend and her sister are physically fine.

  • grognard

    Top five mass murders in the US. Atta and others, airliners hijacked with box cutters, 3000 killed. McVeigh, fertilizer bomb, 168 killed. Gonzales, gasoline bomb, 87 killed. Kehoe, explosives, 45 killed. Graham, explosives, 44 killed. Do guns make it easier to kill? Yes, but if somebody is intent on murder not having access to guns means nothing.

  • DLS

    > Do guns make it easier to kill?
    > Yes, but if somebody is intent
    > on murder not having access
    > to guns means nothing.

    There are ways to kill more people more efficiently than with guns, certainly.

  • http://uk.geocities.com/swaraj47/Swaraaj_page.html Swaraaj Chauhan

    Violence cannot be stopped by just banning guns.

    A majority of Americans seem to lean on arms owing to a fear psychosis that can be perhaps traced to the memories of being the settlers in an alien land not very long ago in history.

    There are those who have, consciously or unconsciously, developed a macho trait to overcome this fear.

    These traits become more visible whenever the nation responds to a major crisis, such as the present shocking killings in the American campus, or when muscle power is used outside the USA.

    There is no easy solution when fear and violence take possession of one’s mind and thought. Banning this, or having more and more strict legislation, alone would not help much.

    9/11 has further complicated things for an average American. The past four years have clearly displayed that violent response to violent acts creates more fear.

    Now add to all this the growing confusion in the minds of the people when things don’t work out in the ‘desired’ fashion despite having all the muscle power.

    And we have the heady cocktail of fear, macho trait and confusion. A deadly combination that can sap the strength of the mightiest person/nation.

    Violence (or fear or greed or whatever) is in the mind…and it is from there it has to be healed or removed. Otherwise a person/nation continues to suffer, and makes others suffer.

    “The Roots of Violence: Wealth without Work, Pleasure without Conscience, Knowledge without Character, Commerce without Morality, Science without Humanity, Worship without Sacrifice, Politics without Principles.â€? — Mahatma Gandhi

  • http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB nicrivera

    From BlogDayAfternoon:

    At least 32 people are dead after a gunman unleashed a hail of bullets at Virginia Tech. Don Imus, we hardly knew you. Rightards said we need more guns in order to prevent gun violence. Libtards responded with demands for fewer guns. Half of all centards want a few more guns, the other half want ice cream or something.

    What? Why not guns and ice cream?

  • White Agent

    grognard- Oh Right, but students are not always intent on murder. Chance of catching the prospective murderer while accumulating explosives, real damn good. And you KNOW how the airports are nowadays.

    Please. You make that old tired argument while more and more kids are killed. Why would anybody listen to someone like you?

    Disgusting

  • poppy7

    Very very sad, but…yawn..what’s all the fuss about? Americans have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over the past few years during their illegal occupation of that country, trying to impose their ‘democratic’ ways.Trigger happy fools, who clearly do not learn from past mistakes.Do any of you shed a tear or spare a thought for those innocent people in Iraq or throughout the Middle East? I live on the other side of the world (luckily) but I do have American friends, it is just the American establishment, I and the majority of others, detest. Bush got in a second time, let a alone a first, what a joke. God will not help you, growing a conscience might. Understand that the world does not revolve around you, don’t be so self absorbed and develop some humanity. For if you don’t change, you will be the cause of your own destruction.

  • White Agent

    I think Swaraaj is right. We have to do MORE than just ban guns. We have to ban heady cocktails of fear, macho traits and confusion before our strength is sapped.

  • grognard

    White, missed my point entirely. You focus on the tool used for killing, not the intent of the person using the tool. Yes guns make it easier, but Gonzales was kicked out of a bar, went home, made a gasoline bomb and returned to light the fire that killed 87 people. Total time to do this was a half hour including travel time. Lack of a gun did nothing to stop him from mass murder, it didn‘t even slow him down.. I want to know the underlying cause of the rages that these people go into that makes them do these acts of violence, that understanding stops the killing. Focusing on the weapon used stops nothing.

  • http://www.independent-conservative.com daveinboca

    I think Swaraaj is wrong. If this were China, they’d be harvesting the VT victims’ organs like the bodies were a bunch of busted pinatas. So why doesn’t gentle Swaraaj go to China and donate himself? And stay away from that mean old USA with its macho wealth and power?

  • White Agent

    daveinboca- Well if they are dead Dave, what difference does it make?

    grognard- Well then lets make them stick to gasoline bombs. Limits their potential. Why not legalize nuclear weapons grog? I mean, you can’t stop a mass murderer from getting one anyway….right?

  • DLS

    > If this were China, they’d be
    > harvesting the VT victims’
    > organs like the bodies were a
    > bunch of busted pinatas.

    Not waiting for clinical death, either.

    “Macho USA,” “cowboy USA,” etc. — this from someone in one of two nations constantly chest-thumping in its own neighborhood with far more “macho” posturing than the USA has ever engaged in.

    I await more tit-for-tat missile and even nuke tests there.

  • MichaelF

    This actually passes as a serious comment regarding the psyche of an entire nation? How about if I conclude that such drive is the result of fear and cowardice on the part of the writer. I could think up even more disparaging remarks based on the history of a nation which values cows above people. Or how about I just contrast the American love for freedom with the Indian caste system. Of course we could just simply consider what The United States has done in a few hundred years as compared to India in a few thousand. Or just look at the state of the two nations today.

    Please spare me your value system as I have no desire to trade my liberty for what constitutes freedom in your country. Before you cast aspersions on other cultures perhaps you should engage in a bit of self reflection. And I’m not talking about contemplating your navel, practicing reiki or some other such nonsense. Perhaps our freedoms can’t be understood from your perspective. But we will continue to not drive our policies based on the actions of a few solitary lunatics. You will never understand our reasons for valuing human liberty over the lives of cows. But I assure you it is far more complicated than your absurd and insulting characterization

  • MichaelF

    The above post was in regard to this drivel .

    Swaraaj Chauhan Says:

    April 16th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
    Violence cannot be stopped by just banning guns.

    A majority of Americans seem to lean on arms owing to a fear psychosis that can be perhaps traced to the memories of being the settlers in an alien land not very long ago in history.

    There are those who have, consciously or unconsciously, developed a macho trait to overcome this fear.