Another Tragically Predictable Tragedy?
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.
221 Responses to “Another Tragically Predictable Tragedy?”
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:
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
- 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.
Idiosyncrat- Oh come on. Ann Coulter is a neocon not a liberal. Where have I ever advocated harming anyone outside the law? Good Grief
> 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)
> 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?
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?
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.
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.
nicrivera- Ok so you are Pat Buchanan isolationist neocon. What?
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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…)
> 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
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.
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.
How does my neighbor’s ownership of a gun infringe upon your right to life?
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.
Exactly, if you use Whites logic than owning a car and a having 12 pack of beer in your fridge would be illegal.
nicrivera- He/she kills me with the gun. That’s how.
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?
nicrivera- No on all accounts.
Why?
I asked:
to which White Agent replied:
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.
Some students have said the shooter was an Asian (muslim?).
So I’m assuming that you’re critical of the Bush administration for implementing these policies?
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.
We The People=White Agent
North2Alaska April 16th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
In Alasker? You counted all six cops? Ok….whatever you say.
Clever redirection. Say, you wouldn’t happen to be a politician would you?
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
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.
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!
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.
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.
> 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).
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.
> 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.
Apparently WhiteAgent=SCOTUS, also.
Federalist #10? Feh, ptui.
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.
nicrivera – No….Its because the Legislature allowed the administration to interpret it that way.
[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.)
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.
> 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).
> 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?
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.
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?
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.
BTW:
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:
No pride, indeed.
Don’t patronize us. Stop being coy. It’s your favorite fantasy.