Virginia Tech Massacre

[Dungeon Master]

OMensh:If the majority of Americans really want guns
control, they would have guns control. But they don't,
and they wouldn't have it.

Let's assume for a moment that the majority of Americans don't want gun control. (And with the very vocal NRA, thats a dubious assumption).

This may come as a shock to some, but there are certain things in which it doesn't really matter what the majority wants. There are some things that are just plain wrong. There is absolutely no need for a civilian population to have automatic weapons. And for a city population, there is no need to have any weapons. There may be a case for firearms for some farmers, some sporting shooters, and perhaps recreational hunters. This is a very small minority of the population, and would be easy to regulate with strict controls.

There was a time when the majority wanted lynching, slavery and the death penalty. All civilised societies, except the USA has eliminated these population wants. And even the USA has eliminated 2 of these, at great collective anguish.

My point is that the majority (otherwise known as a "mob") is not always right. Gasp! Democracy and all that!

Sometimes it takes a courageous leader to do what is right rather than what is popular.

[Danny]

Let's assume for a moment that the majority of Americans don't want gun control. (And with the very vocal NRA, thats a dubious assumption).

This may come as a shock to some, but there are certain things in which it doesn't really matter what the majority wants. There are some things that are just plain wrong. There is absolutely no need for a civilian population to have automatic weapons. And for a city population, there is no need to have any weapons. There may be a case for firearms for some farmers, some sporting shooters, and perhaps recreational hunters. This is a very small minority of the population, and would be easy to regulate with strict controls.

There was a time when the majority wanted lynching, slavery and the death penalty. All civilised societies, except the USA has eliminated these population wants. And even the USA has eliminated 2 of these, at great collective anguish.

My point is that the majority (otherwise known as a "mob") is not always right. Gasp! Democracy and all that!

Sometimes it takes a courageous leader to do what is right rather than what is popular.

If only they had done a more thorough background check, Cho would never have been able to buy the guns.  Or if the University would have been more insistent about him receiving therapy (which, apparently, they did a few years ago for 48 hours) it might have been averted. 

Anyway, even with all of that, I know places where I can buy illegal guns.  So I really don't know how we can solve this problem.   

[Danny]

Good point. Once in circulation - via a legitimate first owner or not - fire arms keep spreading. Even fire arms from WWII are used for criminal activities. A major problem in Europe is the staggering amount of fire arms coming from the former Communist countries - especially former Yugoslavia.

Q

Yeah, and in the States there's sooooooooo many guns out there--criminals who cannot buy guns legally can just as easily buy an illegal one. 

[Sergeant Rock]

Sometimes it takes a courageous leader to do what is right rather than what is popular.

The United States has neither a dictatorship nor a parliamentary system. It doesn't matter how courageous a leader or his party might be; even if their party controlled Congress, they still couldn't single-handedly change the Constitution which, for all intents and purposes, is writ in stone and guarantees the people the right to bear arms. In order to change the Constitution, both houses of Congress have to approve by two-thirds votes a resolution calling for the amendment. To become effective, the proposed amendment has to be approved by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.

That will never happen.

The blood baths will continue.

Sarge

[Sergeant Rock]

To me is really very simple: the majority of north-americans
worship guns and enjoy violence immensely. Any intent to
ban guns has failed and is going to fail in the future. You can't
change a people's mentality.

You have a very distorted view of Americans, Carlos. That's not surprizing given the media and Hollywood and, of course, our insane foreign policies. But in fact most Americans don't own guns; most Americans abhor violence. We're no different than any other nationality on this planet. Believe it or not, we're compassionate human beings just like the majority of citizens in your country.

I was a solider; even in my profession, very few of us owned private weapons. I never have. Perhaps I could illustrate my point this way: in my immediate family there are 14 adult males: only two own guns. They are serious hunters (everything from turkey in PA to bear and cougar in the Rockies to caribou on the arctic circle) and have between them about a dozen rifles and pistols. Statistically, averaged out, it might appear that nearly every male member of my family owns a weapon when in fact only 15% own guns. I repeat, most Americans do not own a gun and we're horrified by real violence.

Sarge

[Larry Rinkel]

It is an open question whether the 2nd Amendment unequivocally grants citizens the right to bear arms, or whether it does so (as I believe) only in service of a "well-regulated state militia," that is, a body of individuals outside the armed forces who play a role in national defense - which some interpret as the predecessor to today's National Guard. The Supreme Court has never decided the issue, and in any case, the right to bear arms can still be considered as allowed under the catch-all 9th and 10th Amendments. The right granted by the 2nd Amendment, however, is of course not an obligation, as should be proven by the originally proposed text (which supports conscientious objection to military service on religious grounds):

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

In any case, the wording of the Amendment in no way suggests that the American populace on the whole is either gun-happy or violent, and the Sarge hits the nail on the head as decisively as Carlos misses it. I've lived in the United States for 58 years and have never owned a gun, know few people who do, and see no reason to believe the United States is intrinsically any more violent than any other society. A psychopath like Cho probably could find a gun whether it was "controlled" or not, and from what I've read of him I doubt any amount of "counselling" would have done stopped him from committing the bloodbath experienced at Virginia Tech.

[greg]

I think it's much simpler than that, there was no clear motive. The guy is freaking insane, he was admitted into a mental hospital only 2 years ago, and stalks women.... He is simply an crazy individual, a crazy individual who was introverted, therefore depriving him a chance of getting mental help.

He really belonged to a mental hospital, not a campus.

you know, i think you're right.
It may be hard for most people to understand (being disturbed and mad all the time for no reason) since most of us get mad for a reason- at least it's hard for me to imagine someone being like that.
Either way, he definetely needed more help, more medicine especially.


the whole debate with gun control is interesting- i can't actually take a side. you could still buy illegal guns, but the odds that someone will get a chance to do a school shooting will go down- i mean, when's the last time you've heard of a "school knifing" where they go down the halls, stabbing to death 30 victimes? then again, i'd be afraid in a society where there's only knives since being stabbed to death could be much more painful if not done properly

[mahlertitan]

To me is really very simple: the majority of north-americans
worship guns and enjoy violence immensely. Any intent to
ban guns has failed and is going to fail in the future. You can't
change a people's mentality.

that's bullshit, hasty generalization, and guilty by association, 2 fallacies you just committed there.
1) you don't know that majority of Americans own firearms. I don't have the exact numbers, but people i know don't even know how to fire a gun, let along buy one.
2) Why should it be that a few evil/messed up individuals (like Cho) represent the "American Mentality"?

please make valid arguments, otherwise it's really a waste of my time reading any of your other posts.

[Sergeant Rock]

It is an open question whether the 2nd Amendment unequivocally grants citizens the right to bear arms, or whether it does so (as I believe) only in service of a "well-regulated state militia," that is, a body of individuals outside the armed forces who play a role in national defense

I'm in favor of far, far stricter gun control and I see no reason to permit just anyone to own semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines of the type needed for law enforcement and battle. However, I disagree with your assertion that the 2nd Amendment applies only to members of a State militia. The Amendment says, the right of the People, not the right of part-time soldiers. I don't know how that can be any more clear. Our history supports that interpretation. If the People hadn't been armed, there would have been no revolution against a despotic state; the founders understood that and wanted to ensure the citizens always had the means to fight. I do not for a moment think the framers meant that only the State's soldiers had the right to be armed. That makes no sense given the fact the Bill of Rights specifically guarantees freedoms against the State. It's not a list of rights that the State has. It's all about the people.

If it didn't mean The People, then the amendment would have been clarified 200 years ago by the courts, or at least at some point in our history. The Supreme Court has never decided the issue because there is no issue. We have a right to own guns. Period.

So, in the United States any damn fool can buy a lethal weapon; they even sell them to young alien residents with psychotic personalities. I'm glad I live in Germany.

Sarge

[Haffner]

So, in the United States any damn fool can buy a lethal weapon; they even sell them to young alien residents with psychotic personalities. I'm glad I live in Germany.

Sarge

I wish I could! I don't think Germany accept convicted felons as immigrants  . I guess I can't entirely blame them.

[MishaK]

OMensh:If the majority of Americans really want guns
control, they would have guns control. But they don't,
and they wouldn't have it. So,your affirmation is total
nonsense.

You should really get your facts straight before you accuse people of spewing nonsense. Survey upon survey in recent years has shown that the majority of Americans supports gun control. Mind you, I said gun control, not a ban on private gun ownership. The problem is that politicians rely on the fundraising support of the NRA and the gun industry which is very powerful. Hence, to not alienate them, they have lacked the guts to pass laws that most Americans want (case in point, when the Republican congress allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to expire in 2004, even though Americans were overwhelmingly in support of extending it). Secondly, the problem is that the Congress has neither proper proportional representation nor a balanced regional representation. Voters from rural states in the midwest and southwest paradoxically carry more weight than voters in the urbanized and densely populated East and West Coasts. The result is that those states where gun ownership is more popular and where gun ownership to a degree makes some amount of sense, have disporportional power to decide the issue in their favor. The whole gun control issue really is a conflict between rural America (and Americans who still have outdated romantic ideals of a rural America) on one side, and on the other side urban America which has to live with the disastrous results of easy access to weapons.

I'm in favor of far, far stricter gun control and I see no reason to permit just anyone to own semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines of the type needed for law enforcement and battle. However, I disagree with your assertion that the 2nd Amendment applies only to members of a State militia. The Amendment says, the right of the People, not the right of part-time soldiers. I don't know how that can be any more clear. Our history supports that interpretation. If the People hadn't been armed, there would have been no revolution against a despotic state; the founders understood that and wanted to ensure the citizens always had the means to fight. I do not for a moment think the framers meant that only the State's soldiers had the right to be armed. That makes no sense given the fact the Bill of Rights specifically guarantees freedoms against the State. It's not a list of rights that the State has. It's all about the people.

If it didn't mean The People, then the amendment would have been clarified 200 years ago by the courts, or at least at some point in our history. The Supreme Court has never decided the issue because there is no issue. We have a right to own guns. Period.

So, in the United States any damn fool can buy a lethal weapon; they even sell them to young alien residents with psychotic personalities. I'm glad I live in Germany.

That's not entirely correct, Sarge. The Superme Court has consistently interpreted the 2nd amendment to apply to the states' rights to regulate the states' militias, today the National Guards. The use of the word "people" comes from the aversion of the founding fathers towards a standing army and is intended to enable the citizens as such (not the state) to possess weapons, but within the framework of a state militia. Whenever the Sup.Ct. decided on a private right to bear arms it was within the context of the non-enumerated rights under the 9th amendment and in the context of each individual's right to self defense. If one were to read the 2nd as you do, the Assault Weapons ban and other similar laws would indeed have been unconstitutional and wuold have easily been challenged. But they aren't because that's not what the 2nd says. There is a recent case in which Scalia (who else?   ), in a footnote to his dissent, suggested that the 2nd should be reinterpreted to mean that the people (i.e. each citizen) have a right to bear weapons no matter what, thereby ignoring the first half of the sentence of the 2nd amendment. I bet that if this issue comes up again before the court, Scalia with his new right wing friends on the bench will try to push in this direction. But, currently, the private right to bear arms in Supreme Court jurisprudence still derives from the 9th, not the 2nd. It is sad how NRA propaganda has in the public mind completely transformed the 2nd amendment into something it isn't, as if the first half of the sentence didn't exist. Indeed, most Americans don't even know the first half of the sentence.

[Larry Rinkel]

I'm in favor of far, far stricter gun control.

So am I. But let's read the text of the Amendment:

"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."

Naturally, any member of the People can join such a militia. That's not at issue. But the Amendment doesn't simply read:

"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

or even:

"The need of citizens to hunt deer or protect themselves against criminals having being acknowledged, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Every time someone interprets #2 as an unqualified right of the people to own weapons, they have to overlook the opening clause. IMHO, the right to own weapons as provided in #2 cannot be separated from the stated purpose therein for owning weapons.

[Larry Rinkel]

The Superme Court has consistently interpreted the 2nd amendment to apply to the states' rights to regulate the states' militias, today the National Guards.

As stated on The Other Board by my good friend Ralph Stein, a professor of constitutional law at Pace University:

The Supreme Court, as many are surprised to learn, has never defined the nature and extent of the Second Amendment. All claims as to its meaning are by those on one side or the other of the gun issue. However, in the pre-World War II Miller case the Court upheld Commerce Clause-based legislation, still in effect, that prohibited the interstate shipment of automatic weapons except when authorized, e.g., for law enforcement agencies.

I shall have to refer your example cases to him to see where they fit in.

[Sergeant Rock]

So am I. But let's read the text of the Amendment:

"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."

Naturally, any member of the People can join such a militia. That's not at issue. But the Amendment doesn't simply read:

"The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

or even:

"The need of citizens to hunt deer or protect themselves against criminals having being acknowledged, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Every time someone interprets #2 as an unqualified right of the people to own weapons, they have to overlook the opening clause. IMHO, the right to own weapons as provided in #2 cannot be separated from the stated purpose therein for owning weapons.

Larry, the opening clause mentions a reason (one reason) why the people have the right to keep and bear arms...but I see nothing that says you have to be a soldier. O seems to think that it's a shut case too but it's not. Well known gun-nut Orin Hatch unfortunately makes sense:

They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms.

"When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.


And this from 5th Circuit Court in 2001:

...there are numerous instances of the phrase "bear arms" being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the "people" (or "citizen" or "citizens") "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or "himself"] and the state", or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage "bear arms" was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.


That others dispute Hatch and the Fifth Circuit is the reason we're having this debate now. It hasn't been satisfactorily resolved. I happen to agree with this interpretation of the Second...but, living in Germany, I'm glad I don't have to live with its implications.

Sarge

[knight66]

As the USA is federal, can specific States make their own laws ro restrict the kind of weapons citizens can own? Obviously here I am thinking of the semi automatic weapons. I don't understand why they are allowed unless there are specific reasons that people would need them. I gather some States have different rules from others about how easy it is to get a gun: but do any take it further than that? Or does the constitution prevent them from the kind of restriction I have asked about?

Mike

[MishaK]

As stated on The Other Board by my good friend Ralph Stein, a professor of constitutional law at Pace University:

The Supreme Court, as many are surprised to learn, has never defined the nature and extent of the Second Amendment. All claims as to its meaning are by those on one side or the other of the gun issue. However, in the pre-World War II Miller case the Court upheld Commerce Clause-based legislation, still in effect, that prohibited the interstate shipment of automatic weapons except when authorized, e.g., for law enforcement agencies.

I shall have to refer your example cases to him to see where they fit in.

Well, I disagree with the highlighted part. That's too strong. I am also referring to Miller. But in Miller the Court upheld gun regulation with the following interpretation of the 2nd amendment:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

...

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179]   were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

However you read the Miller opinion, there is no way around concluding that the Court considered the first half of the 2nd amendment essential to the second half. And you can't read an unfettered private right to gun ownership into the 2nd without ignoring the first half of the sentence. See also Lewis v. United States, footnote 8:

These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"). United States v. Three Winchester, United States v. Johnson, Cody v. United States.

Forgive me for not copying the full citations, but findlaw is not letting me copy and paste for some reason. See also ADAMS v. WILLIAMS, 407 U.S. 143 (1972):

There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.

The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 , upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia."


"The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be [407 U.S. 143, 151]   secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion." Id., at 178-179.

Note the highlighted part. Sigh...

[MishaK]

O seems to think that it's a shut case too but it's not.

No I don't. I think people are trying to ignore the percedents, which I think are quite clear, but the case is not shut at all since both Thomas and Scalia have in hidden footnotes suggested an eagerness to revisit the issue and rule in favor of the gun lobby.

Well known gun-nut Orin Hatch unfortunately makes sense:

I am afraid he doesn't. And the reason is this misconception:

Larry, the opening clause mentions a reason (one reason) why the people have the right to keep and bear arms...but I see nothing that says you have to be a soldier.

The misunderstanding is the same as here:

They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms.

The mistake here is that both you and Hatch are thinking from the perspective of the modern professional military. But that is not at all what the founding fathers had in mind when they used the word "militia". They were averse to a standing professional army. They thought the states would simply organize ad hoc militias of free citizens who would train regularly and be available for the national defense when needed. Due to the absence of a formal permanent structure, each citizen should keep his weaponry personally at home. This is what the 2nd refers to and there is some background to the original concept of a "militia" in the Miller opinion I cited. Indeed, you don't have to be a soldier under the 2nd, but that is because the founding fathers didn't intend to have professional soldiers at all. Still, the 2nd relates only to gun ownership in the context of citizens' service in an organized militia.

...there are numerous instances of the phrase "bear arms" being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the "people" (or "citizen" or "citizens") "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or "himself"] and the state", or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage "bear arms" was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.

This is just plain bad logic and bad jurisprudence. You can't use the text of a state constitution (which may perhaps grant more rights than the federal constitution) to interpret the federal constitution. The 2nd does not speak of self defense. Yet, the Sup. Ct. has found a right of self defense under the 9th.

As the USA is federal, can specific States make their own laws ro restrict the kind of weapons citizens can own? Obviously here I am thinking of the semi automatic weapons. I don't understand why they are allowed unless there are specific reasons that people would need them. I gather some States have different rules from others about how easy it is to get a gun: but do any take it further than that? Or does the constitution prevent them from the kind of restriction I have asked about?

State law is unconstitutional if it either violates specific provisions of the federal constitution (which trumps state law via the Supermacy Clause) or if it is found to infringe upon a legal area that has been preempted by the federal branch. One such area would be the regulation of interstate commerce which is specifically reserved to the federal government. Insofar as state law regulating weapons were to be interpreted as infringing upon interstate commerce in weapons, it could be struck down as unconstitutional. Even if it were to pass muster (and many states have very restrictive gun control laws), they are in most cases not worth the paper they are written on since the states cannot police their borders and prevent the importation of weapons from less restrictive states. E.g. Washington DC has very restrictive gun control laws, but Virginia next door is very liberal. So people go and get their guns in Virginia and the DC law is a paper tiger.

[Michel]

Because little jenny passing her piano exam is only news to her immediate family and friends.  If she cheated on her exam, perhaps that would elicit a news feature.

But its pleasant; it is nice to know good things are happening. Otherwise, we think life is all doom and gloom. And we live in fear; and so the "need" for guns continues.

[greg]

stop all the arguing and the law stuff, i'm gonna get a gun and shoot you all up-

POW POW POW!!!! 

wait, i just destroyed my computer monitor 
(see, we Americans really are stewpid aren't we  )

[carlos]

And what happen with the spanish lessons? I'm ready
to renounce to my fee, and give it free of charge.