All that will do is disarm law abiding citizens. I doubt anyone can say they have run gang members through a backround check so they could purchase their guns...

The flaw in your lovely proposal is that repealing the second amendment will only result in disarming law-abiding citizens while the criminals and crazies will still have access to illegal weapons of all sorts, some of them a hell of a lot worse than guns.

To put this issue in perspective, I suggest you (Paul and anyone else) read my article from last year on a similar incident where a more sensible culture dealt with this sort of situation in a more intelligent way.

Hiding our heads in the sand and giving up essential liberties to the government only make us into greater victims. They don't solve the problems of crime and violence.

Dave

timp and Dave: and what about guns owned by law-abiding citizens that wound and kill family members in accidental shootings?

Dave - Sorry, but I don't agree with your conclusions about the Texas shootings. The problem with an armed citizenry along the lines you describe is that one of them could just as easily turn into a lunatic and start shooting at innocent people. Human nature, is, alas, not very predictable.

Why should the 2nd Amendment be repealed? This shooting happened in a "Gun Free Zone." By LAW, the students and faculty are not allowed to have guns in that area. Lot of good that did them, didn't it.

According to an article published in 1999, there are on average 1,500 accidental deaths (all age groups) due to firearms.

There are also in excess of 120,000 accidental deaths caused by doctors.

Maybe we should ban doctors, and not guns?

Paul,

As Dave and timp have suggested, all you would do would be to unarm law abiding citizens. People killed in their homes because of a gun owner, children? While a horrible, horrible tragedy, I think there should be repercussions for those found negligent, it was and is ultimately the fault of that gun owner. To borrow the cliche, with awesome power comes awesome responsibility.

Now, I'm no survivalist, no gun nut, hell I don't even own one, though a member of the U.S. Military and having grown up with guns most of my childhood. Fact of the matter is, the reason the 2nd amendment exists is in the event of an overzealous, overareaching government and a citizens ability to redress, through whatever means neccessary. Don't take that away

Benjamin - I understand your argument. But if our government did start, insanely, directing the military to attack American citizens, would a "well armed militia" really be able to stand up against that?

And do you really think, that the US Military, the all volunteer, good ole American Boys and Girls force, would stand for that? I mean come on. No, I don't think it's the military you have to worry about them. The 2nd amendment is that final check, it the check and balance scheme, that says don't fuck with us too bad, we are armed.

Take away a civil liberty - it's shocking at first, but we settle into it, get used to it and it becomes easier and easier to strip 'em away, one by one. You don't kill a frog by dropping him in boiling water.

And frankly to me, this shouldn't even be an issue of gun control or the 2nd amendment, it should be about WTF happened in those two hours inbetween. You have a shooting on campus with a murder still at large, how do you not instantly lock it down.

timp and Dave: and what about guns owned by law-abiding citizens that wound and kill family members in accidental shootings?

On a population basis the number of accidental shootings are almost statistically meaningless. They may get a lot of press coverage when they happen, but they are actually so rare these days that they can't even be meaningfully analyzed statistically.

Dave - Sorry, but I don't agree with your conclusions about the Texas shootings. The problem with an armed citizenry along the lines you describe is that one of them could just as easily turn into a lunatic and start shooting at innocent people. Human nature, is, alas, not very predictable.

This is exactly what's wrong with the left in America today. You are starting from the assumption that every citizen is potentially dangerous to others, rather from the more reasonable and sensible assumption that most people exist to do good rather than evil. Very, very few people suddenly turn into lunatics and go on a shooting spree. No matter how much publicity it gets, it's still freakishly uncommon.

What you seek to do is punish the ENTIRE population by taking away their right to bear arms in order to protect us against a minority of crazies so small it can't even be measured as a percentage of the population.

The sensible way to deal with this threat - and this is why I linked to that article - is to have armed and trained citizens - even if only a small number - who can respond to such a threat in kind and bring an end to it.

Dave

You have a shooting on campus with a murder still at large, how do you not instantly lock it down.

Benjamin, this is why I linked to my article on Whitman, because in that case one of the ways the killer was 'locked down' was through the support of armed citizens.

If, as Big Al suggests, this was a 'gun free zone', that's at the heart of the problem.

Dave

People who say we do not need the second amendment because the military is so powerful that a militia could never stand up to it should think of one thing....Iraq.

If a few crazies with guns can keep the military from getting complete control in Iraq that will work here if they ever decided to do something we didn't like.

The founding fathers were geniuses. Let's not tinker with their work. Should we get rid of the first amendment? Fifth? Didn't think so.

Liberals should quit picking and choosing which fundamental constitutional rights they like.

We're not very good at controlling things in our country. Perhaps it's due to the openness of the society, as permitted by our Bill of Rights, or maybe it can be attributed to our long-standing veneration of the individualistic, self-reliant, lone wolf who has long been an iconic mixture of our myth and history in literature and film.

Whatever the reason, both the early twentieth century Prohibition of alcohol and the current prohibition of drugs did not, and have not succeeded, even minimally.

One assumption everyone who advocates making guns illegal (or, in this case, repealing the Second Amendment) makes is that repeal or outlawing will magically make all currently legal guns (the NRA says there are 300 million privately owned guns in the US) disappear. That idea seems naive in the extreme.

A far better and more effective policy would be to rigorously enforce all laws already on the books which escalate the punishment of crimes committed with the use of a gun.

Big Al: No, we shouldn't ban doctors, because they do some good, in addition to making mistakes. What good do guns do?

Dave - I understand why you linked to the article, but as I said, I disagree with your solution: There's no guarantee that one of the well-trained and well-armed citizens won't have a nervous breakdown and go ballistic - well-armed and well-trained.

Benj: No, in fact I don't think the US military would be likely to attack Americans (thank goodness, nothing like that has happened since Kent State and other tragedies like that in the 1970s). But, if that's the case, we lose an argument in favor of a well-armed citizenry, don't we.

But I do agree that repealing any part of the Constitution, let alone the Second Amendment, is a very serious matter, and I don't advocate it lightly.

If we look at what a great job we did with something like Prohibition, I am sure that one gets the idea that guns will only become more popular with any kind of legislation banning them.

All the gun control rules have done nothing for a place like Washington, DC, or England for that matter. Criminals will always find a way to get guns, while law-abiding citizen will be defending themselves with utensils.

(don't ban guns...ban humans

what good are they - ?)

speak for yourself, troll ... in my case, I know quite a lot of humans who do a lot of good...

Dave wrote: Very, very few people suddenly turn into lunatics and go on a shooting spree. No matter how much publicity it gets, it's still freakishly uncommon.

I would think that even if this happened once, it would be more than enough.

and you'd be what Paul...human - ?

figures

I am about as anti-gun as they come, but really, it's pointless to try and take guns away. Obviously with all the gun control in the world it wouldn't have stopped this assface from killing who he wanted.

When I first talked to EO about this on the phone today I said "I'll bet it was some student of an "ethnic" background who either went crazy because a) he got a bad grade and freaked or b) a domestic situation with a girl.

Weird. Those engineering students are wound too tight. I wonder what his motivation for killing 32 people will be.

Regardless of how people feel about the second amendment, it would have been nice if Bush and the white house simply offered their prayers and sorrow for the families of those killed and left it at that. We all know that Bush is pro-bare arms, amid the worst shooting in US history is not the time to remind us. The loss of human life should take precedence over his politics.

Unless you are going to repeal people from going crazy, you have no solution. The genie is already out of the bottle, so you can't just click your heels and wish guns would go away. I don't own them, nor do I care for them, but what is making them illegal actually going to accomplish? Drugs, child porn, drunk driving, all still around.

These mass killings happen because the victims are unarmed and following an unconstitutional "gun free" zone law. If any other gun had been present at any of the mass killings that do happen, the killer might have been stopped before anyone was dead. But "gun laws" make some people feel good, so the logic of cops with guns good and citizens with guns bad doesn't strike thenm as completely illogical.

Dawn wrote, I am about as anti-gun as they come, but really, it's pointless to try and take guns away. Obviously with all the gun control in the world it wouldn't have stopped this assface from killing who he wanted.

But I don't think it's about complete or perfect solutions, or anything remotely close to that.

It's about doing whatever we can to improve the odds, even just a little bit.

A Symptom of our "Chain Letter Society"?

Read an analysis of the influences in our "Chain Letter Society" that may be precipitating events like the tragedy at Virginia Tech and how our focus on winning and being number one may be fostering a generation of children with fully inadequate coping skills who have a misguided sense of self-worth...

Paul comments:

It's about doing whatever we can to improve the odds, even just a little bit.

As in any human endeavor, the cost has to be measured against the benefit.

Taking away everyone's right to own a gun is much too high a cost for what is certain to be a minimal level of benefit, IMO.

Taking the guns away from good sensible people doesn't do anything to those odds your talking aobut but make them worse!

Think about it...there's 20 people in a room, all of them have guns...one pulls his out and starts shooting...one of the other 19 will take him out...now, take those 19 guns away from the good people...you end up with 19 dead people...nobody to stop the looney!

I'm pretty sure there's an area in florida where the citizens walk around armed...and htye have one of the lowest crime rates in the country...

You walk into a bank to rob it and see EVERYBODY armed you're more than likely gonna go find another bank to rob...unless you're trying to commit suicide.

Paul: A gun, lawfully owned, in the hands of a "good citizen" can prevent a crime. In fact, it has prevented many crimes. I suggest you read the "Armed Citizen" section of the American Rifleman magazine. There are plenty examples there.

Guns in the hands of the police do not stop nearly as many crimes as those in the hands of lawful gun owners. Remember, the police are there to pick up the pieces AFTER a crime has happened. They rarely stop one in motion.

With regard to what a "Well armed militia" might do against a modern army. Let me remind ALL of you, the Afghans did an excellent job of fighting off the Soviet Army. It just goes to show you, what determined people can do, with proper motivation.

To Dave who thinks only liberals can hold an anti-gun view - Believe it or not, I'm as liberal as they come, yes to all my conservative friends, some of us liberals are also pro-gun.

To Paul who is willing to sacrifice his constitutional rights to feel safer - I would rather be gunned down in a hail of bullets by a crazy ten-year old who got ahold of his daddy's automatic hunting rifle that wasn't in a gun safe with a trigger guard then repel the second.

And you, good sir, are apparently lacking in imagination.

Benjamin wrote: To Paul who is willing to sacrifice his constitutional rights to feel safer

Benjamin -what do you reckon to be the purpose of government?

Evem Thomas Hobbes acknowledged that the fundamental purpose of government - the only purpose on which everyone should agree - is to protect the lives of its citizens.

If a right guaranteed in the Constitution does more harm than good in that fundamental purpose, isn't it wise to consider if we might be better off without it?

Paul:

Before we ban guns to protect American citizens, we should ban automobiles and swimming pools; both of which kill far more people every year than guns do.

Violence and right to bear arms: do they go together? They may in some cases, but in most situations they dont. The right to carry arms is a powerful way against the universal rights of government, which is more deadly. For this, read a brilliant new book: China and the new world order: how entrepreneurship, globalization, and borderless business are reshaping China and the world. In that book, Chinese reporter george zhibin gu gives an huge account on how China is trapped by a self-appointed government, and how the nation is trying to escape the deadly bureaucratic trap. Very powerful.

Paul - as you know reality often flies in the face of theory

your government cannot protect you from incidents like today's

look to yourself and your friends

Evem Thomas Hobbes may have thought that the gov exists to protect its citizens, but the Supreme Court has ruled that the government, its employees, the military, and Federal State and local police are not responsible for the saftey of its citizens.

You are responsible for your own saftey and possibly the safety of your family (if you have one). Lesson learned from today? Dont go to school where a panel of highly educated intelligent like minded individuals whom have never been exposed to violence dictate your rights to defend yourself.

FEAR THE GOVERNMENT THAT FEARS YOUR GUNS. I'm betting that you are one of those folks scared to death by the Patriot Act. You should be. Do you really want to give up the government reset-button? You can say "call the police" when you need help from a robber. But who do you call when you need help from the police? think HARD!

Enough of the government conspiracy theories. Here's some logic: A supreme court case (Castle Rock v. Gonzales) basically stated that the police are not required to provide protection from criminals. That means the police are not RESPONSIBLE for you or your family's protection. So who *IS* responsible? YOU ARE! Do you really want to give up your most effective means of self defense?

Think about this: criminals BREAK laws. that's what they do. If someone is willing to break a law against murder (which could get him the death penalty), do you really thing they're going to be concerned with a gun law?

Think of guns like drugs. Crystal meth is illegal, right? I bet you know what part of town you could find some, right? So if crystal meth is illegal, why is it available? And if criminals could get drugs that are totally illegal, what makes you think that they couldn't get guns? Would it be that hard for some columbian drug cartel to pack his speedboats full of guns instead of drugs?

Do you really want to tell the entire nation's criminals that they need no longer fear a homeowner with a shotgun?

The 2nd amendment is that final check, it the check and balance scheme, that says don't fuck with us too bad, we are armed. - Benjamin Cossel

Well put.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
What is wrong with you people? Don't you see where this would lead?

To N - That wsan't me, that was Madison.

I would point you toward the book Freakonomics in which an economist, who has never owned a gun, ran numbers on gun deaths vs. swimming pool deaths. Swimming pools are much more likely to kill a child than a gun. Problem is guns are frightening (to those who have no knowledge of them) but swimming pools are calm pools of water. The fact remains that the pools are much more dangerous than guns. How about banning those instead?

To Paul - one of the two histroical roles of the FEDERAL government, the one you mention, was/is to provide for a National Defense.

Again, I go back to - the 2nd amendment is more about our ability as citizens to have a means to protect ourselves from ourselves.

I don't think the law has outlived it's usefulness, in fact I think everyday it becomes more and more viable.

Jay: "The fact remains that the pools are much more dangerous than guns. How about banning those instead?"

The difference is that pools are not built for the express purpose of drowning people.

Dr Dreadful: "The difference is that pools are not built for the express purpose of drowning people."

Neither are my tools.

This is just a pattern of history repeating itself. The Pope tried to ban crossbows, gurrelia combat was abhorred by the "civilized" European nations, then nuclear/biochemical weaponry and handguns. See what I'm saying? People will always kill people, regardless of secular law, religous mandate, or even common morals. Sorry, but that's the way the world works.

To everyone who has said/is saying/will say "guns are meant only to kill" or "xxx wasn't designed to kill people, guns are" STOP IT.

Firstly, a gun is designed to fire a metal projectile from a barrel, through the use of combusting a highly flammable material. That's it. That's all they are designed to do.

People use them for various things. Unfortunately, some people choose to use a firearm to criminal ends. Others choose to slaughter tin cans, blast holes in paper, put some dear meat on the family table, or prevent a rape.

On the other hand, there's cars. Cars are not designed to kill people. In fact, they are designed to be as safe as possible. They have to go through crash testing, seatbelts are required. Virtually every car on the market today has an airbag. You have to go through driver's ed, spend so many hours practicing, and take a knowledge AND practical test just to get a license to drive. And somehow with all those safety restrictions, and regulations, and features, cars still kill more people than guns ON ACCIDENT...

Dave - I understand why you linked to the article, but as I said, I disagree with your solution: There's no guarantee that one of the well-trained and well-armed citizens won't have a nervous breakdown and go ballistic - well-armed and well-trained.

There's also no guarantee that they won't go berserk in their cars as has happened in several recent incidents and run the cars into crowds. Does that mean we should ban cars?

Hell, Jim Jones killed 150 people with Kool-Aid. Should we ban that too? David Koresh got a couple of score killed for Jesus. Should we ban Jesus?

If the death count on this incident is correct it is the 8th biggest mass murder in the US in the 20th/21st century. Of the 7 larger ones, only #7 was also carried out with guns. #s 1-6 were 1 arson, 3 bombings and 2 deliberate plane crashings (assuming we count 9/11 as a single event). So let's ban gasoline, a variety of household and farm chemicals and airplanes.

The point I'm making here is that the problem isn't by any means the guns. It's the intent to kill a bunch of people by whatever means are available.

Dave

Americans have a right to bear arms -- under the Second Amendment to our Constitution -- but that right should be repealed.

Actually, the right to defend oneself is a fundamental human right which is merely affirmed in the constitution. You can repeal the amendment, but that doesn't take away the right. The amendments don't GRANT rights. We have the rights and the amendments are there to protect them. Without the amendments being enforced we have to protect them by other means.

Dave

The second amendment was designed to keep a standing militia in the period after the War of Independence and prior to the US attack on Canada that began the war of 1812.

That's over 200 years ago, where the weapon of choice was a slow-loading flintlock pistol or musket, and let's be honest - a lot's changed. Is there really any place for 300 million guns in a modern society? There is already a standing militia: The National Guard. So that takes care of that bit. How could the founding fathers have foreseen a country of this size sprining up from the 13 colonies, with any understanding of what the future would be like or how eaponry would change?

There's no need for a total gun ban IMO - but restrictions both on gun ownership, through licensing etc, and the types of guns able to be kept, in no way infringes Americans' 2nd amendment rights. It still gives citizens the right to bear arms.

In the city, and in most rural areas, can anyone tell me why you'd need anything more than a low-calibre, single-shot bolt action or repeat loader rimfire weapon?

The restriction should be on auto and semi-auto large calibre or .223 centrefire weapons.

And handguns, of course ...

Just doesn't make sense to ban cigarette smoking almost everywhere and then let every second idiot walk around with a gun. It's absolute madness in this day and age in a modern, civilised society.

Perhaps it's time America sorted out its priorities. Otherwise, this shit will keep happening.

In answer to those who know I'm Australian, BTW, and want to point out that the crime rate Down Under hasn't fallen since the gun ban here 10 years ago, I'll just say this: there have been no mass shootings or multiple gun murders since the Port Arthur massacre that led to the (partial) gun ban.

Dave wrote: There's also no guarantee that they won't go berserk in their cars as has happened in several recent incidents and run the cars into crowds. Does that mean we should ban cars?

As Dr. Dreadful replied to Jay, above - the difference is that cars and swimming pools are not expressly designed to kill people.

Look, you can kill someone with a pillow, with just about anything.

Surely you see the difference between cars, swimming pools, and pillows, on the one hand, and guns on the other.

A gun can kill 30 or more people in a few minutes, and can't be used for anything other than killing.

That's why we should do all in our power to strictly limit their availability.

STM - todays events prove we don't live in a modern civilized society...as you'd like to believe...one armed person on that campus...in that engineering building could've ended that dumb shit in a heart beat...but those of you that want to disarm us all stopped that from happening. As long as we have the freedoms we have in this country we need to defend ourselves from the crazy ones...

Guns aren't expressly designed to kill people. That is just one of their functions. Plus it's a legitimate function in its own right. Guns can kill animals, they can deter those who intend violence, they can wound, they can be used for improving hand-eye coordination and for competitive sports. Hell, they make damned fine paperweights too.

But the fact is that there are situations where guns have legitimate uses, as legitimate as a car or a swimming pool. Do you think you should not have the capacity to defend yourself by killing someone who is attempting to kill you?

As for the number killed, you can kill a hell of a lot more with a gallon of gas, a match and a crowded nightclub.

Dave

and apparently...at least from what I'm hearing on the news out here in the bay area...this was also a product of our great open border policy...bring us your hungry, your tired...your freaking loonies!!!

big fucking fence I tell ya! that's what we need!

"damned fine paperweights"

...that's funny!

A car can kill 30 people within a few seconds. An airliner used in a creative enough manner can kill hundreds instantly, thousands over the course of a few hours.

While you may not be willing to fight for your right to defend yourself, I am. MEN are inherently evil, not firearms.

I will never be a victim.

The Second Amendment will never, ever be repealed. Ever. If you live to be three thousand years old, and witness the President, the Vice President, the Cabinet, and the entire Congress all killed by citizens with guns in a single half-hour, you will not see the right to bear arms repealed in this country.

I applaud your speaking on your principles, but for all practical purposes you're wasting your time. Whether I, or even the majority of Americans, agree with you--it's a hopeless, helpless, fruitless cause. Period.

The only thing is Andy, there's no getting around the fact that the gun homicide rate in the US is way higher per capita than any other comparable western democracy. The real reason: the proliferation of guns in the US (300 million and counting, and that's a conservative estimate).

I'm sure it doesn't bother you one iota, but people outside the US do think it's bizarre and even laughable that Americans continue with this blind-belief in the absolute infallibility of the constitution nonsense around the 2nd amendment (I notice too that the people who are often squealing about the need to punt the 16th amendment are also the ones who don't want the 2nd touched. Both are as legitimate as the other, BTW). The founding fathers never intended for the constitution to be the sole arbiter of the law in the United States - that's why they included the 9th, as a very strong warning against that idea.

It's the proliferation of high-powered weapons that's the problem, Andy, not the fact that one person on campus could've ended it in a heartbeat if they'd been armed.

I love that hoary old NRA chestnut: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

True ... but nine times out of 10 in the US, it's people with guns doing the killing. I am not an anti-gun nut, BTW, and have had to use firearms in the past in the country. They do have their place, especially for rural workers. But I have also seen first hand on quite a few occasions what high-powered weapons can do to the human body and it ain't pretty (especially on kids) and it's what turned me around to the idea that the average person has no business owning one.

Keep your guns... just bring in some legislation that places some restrictions on their type, availability, calibre, storage, carriage and use.

he didn't have high powered weapons...a 9mm and a 22! mighta been a 25...but no where near high powered! and a butt load of ammo!

It's not the proliferation of guns...it's the proliferation of a life style...people ain't killing each other in my neighborhood!

Dave my good man. Jim Jones killed over 900 people, a far cry from the 150 you stated. Glocks rock.

What happens if cars become a choice of weapon for madmen? Ramming them into sidewalk cafes for example?

Do you ban cars? True, there is no "right to bear cars" clause and it seems like a strange example but it really is besides the point. I can see STM's point and I have grappled with that one for years Society change and evolve but I'm not sure if repealing the 2nd amendment would do anyting regardless of its original intent. I think it goes deeper than that. The bottom line is that it won't change a damn thing.

I'm glad it's worked out for Australia but I can tell you the gun registry introduced by the incompetent corrupt Liberal party has been an unmitigating disaster that has cost taxpayers millions - if not billions. Guess what else? We had a tragedy on a College (equivalent to Grade 12/13 in high school) campus here in Montreal only last year. Despite the tireless efforts of well-inentioned people who vowed to eradicate this sort of madness after the famous Polytechnique massacre at the Unversity of Montreal where 15 women were killed in 1989.

The sad thing is that it happened again in 1994 with Valery Fabrikant who killed four colleagues at the engineering department at Concordia University and as I mentioned the Dawson shooting that claimed one life. Had it not been for the quick and professional repsonse of the Montreal police and the fact that the killer did not know how to shoot and aim properly it would have been worse.

There most certainly is a problem or even a malaise but we need to be measured and enlightened in our response. Banning guns is the not the problem. Maybe we simply are failing our kids at the most basic levels?

God speed to the victims families and friends as well as Virginia Tech.

A 9mm is a fairly potent firearm Andy, and the .22 ... was it a .22 or .223? It depends on the size of the charge, btw, in regards to what gives a bullet it's power, and how that charge is configured for firing.

Most small .22s are rimfire weapons, which are unlikely to have done the kind of carnage we're seeing here. My bet: the .22 is really a .223 centre fire, fired from a semi-auto with a magazine of 10-15 rounds.

Sorry mate, but I just don't understand how anyone can condone the keeping of "military-style" weapons in a civilised society in this day and age. Really, if people have a desperate need to fart around with guns, they should join the armed forces or the police - where they can also learn why you don't fart around with guns.

Like I say, 300 million firearms out there in the community just makes this one aspect of American life a laughing stock - if it wasn't so tragic - in the eyes of the rest of the civilised world (although like I say, it's a blind spot for you and you probably couldn't give a shit, but still, that's the truth).

But whatever you say, it's still total madness.

Alessandro wrote: What happens if cars become a choice of weapon for madmen? Ramming them into sidewalk cafes for example?

Do you ban cars?

Again, no, because killing is a perversion of the use of a car - in contrast to killing with a gun

that is the truth...I really don't give a rats ass what the rest of the world thinks of my country...I've been there...I like it fine, but I was born and raised here...and it's here I stay.

As far as I'm concerned we outta close up shop and let the world see what it's like without us for a while...they'll be back...they always come back.

didn't this country get started because our forefathers were tired of what the rest of the world thought we should be doing?

But what's fucked up is you jump on this tragedy to start singing about an assault weapon ban! Even though this lunatic foreigner...from a country that you probably think we should be concerned at how they see us...came over here on a STUDENT VISA...and shot up a quiet little campus in Blacksburg VA

FUCK THAT!!!

Once you get your grubby little hands on assault weapons...and see that it did absolutely nothing to stem the gun violence problem then you'll go after every other gun! It's a bullshit argument. and that's the truth!

STM says:

Keep your guns ... just bring in some legislation that places some restrictions on their type, availability, calibre, storage, carriage and use.

Pass all the laws you want; they won't stop the guy who wants to do some killing. They'll just stop those he shoots at.

You heard it here first, Stan. You Aussies have just been lucky so far. Inevitably, some other nutcase is going to get his hands on a gun and head for the nearest crowd; Pt. Arthur all over again, bans or no bans.

One other thing, cobber:

Sorry mate, but I just don't understand how anyone can condone the keeping of "military-style" weapons in a civilised society

Watch your language there, mate! Who the hell you callin' a "civilised society", eh?

Besides..as I've read here many times...we ain't civilized...we're juvenile...right CR?

Yeah, lovely piece of reasoned thought, there, Andy. I'm surprised you didn't start shouting!

Loved the bullsh.t bit in the other post about defending the freedoms you have. You have about the same amount of freedoms every other civilised western democracy has. Some actually have more, but there's your other delusion, eh?

I know you don't see it this way, but I consider it a freedom to have a government that had the balls to take steps to make sure every second idiot can't get a weapon that he or she might want to use to start taking potshots at me.

I'm glad most of the guns in this country are now in the hands of the Army and the police, and not available to any total fu.kwit. And much as I don't like it, I can live live with the idea that a few crims still have them.

What's next. In Scotland they are banning knives. What comes after that rocks, bats. What else?? Do you feel safe now??

you keep relying on your govt...

probably for everything....I know my govt can't keep weapons from every second idiot...but I have it under control...at least at my house.

I've been to a couple of countries with more freedoms than I have here...and I envy them some of those freedoms...but some of those freedoms...those that I envy are changing in this country every day...it's still the best place on the planet...

dispute it all you want...and while you're at it keep believing that this govt...the one that I'm sure I could find a million negative comments here from you and your buddies...to defend you from all those enemies...both foreign and domestic...

and it comforts me so to know that you can live with a few criminals being armed while the rest of us aren't...I hope he prowls your neighborhood first!

country's turning into a bunch of sissies!

HA!!!

Andy wrote: "Besides..as I've read here many times...we ain't civilized...we're juvenile...right CR?"

Don't confuse me with CR. Also, let's get this straight: I don't advocate a total ban on guns as some people do need them, and sports shooting is legitimate. BTW, to be fair to CR's viewpoint, he was a squaddie and has a fair idea of what guns can do to people, and like most ex-soldiers, he quite rightly has somewhat of an aversion to them being in the hands of the wrong people (the untrained, I'd assume, and those who don't need them).

Why can't you guys see the wood for the trees? You too Clav. But you are probably right, it is likely only a matter of time before someone goes berserk again.

However, we used to have these kinds of incidents every couple of years - without fail. There hasn't been one since Port Arthur, and that's a good thing. You can't totally guard against nutcases, but you can make it harder for them.

It's really hard to stab 30-plus people with a knife, or shoot that many with a rimfire single-shot weapon before someone jumps on you.

and I actually did start shouting...I was pounding the keys while I was typing that!

Andy wrote: "dispute it all you want...and while you're at it keep believing that this govt...the one that I'm sure I could find a million negative comments here from you and your buddies...to defend you from all those enemies...both foreign and domestic..."

You sound like a prize wanker. Get a fu.king grip on reality before you start posting this gibberish. And as most people know here, I'm not anti-American. It's this ONE thing that I find bizarre. All the other mad stuff about America I can deal with ...

If you believe your govt...what ever fucking govt it is can protect you from the loonies of the world...I'd say you're the prize wanker there bucko! but good luck with it...and if you ain't from here...then why the fuck do you even care??? For that matter...what business is it of yours??? don't you have enough issues where you are from?

BTW, to be fair to CR's viewpoint, he was a squaddie and has a fair idea of what guns can do to people, and like most ex-soldiers, he quite rightly has somewhat of an aversion to them being in the hands of the wrong people (the untrained, I'd assume, and those who don't need them). (emphasis added)

I don't personally know a single ex-GI who's anti-gun, and every single one I know is, like me, a combat veteran.

From what I know of the NRA membership profile, a high proportion of members are veterans.

Who's talking anti-gun Clav?? Why is it that having a viewpoint about the proliferation of firearms has to be interpreted as anti-gun?

I don't know a single soldier here who thinks it's OK for every second person to have a gun, especially when they haven't been trained to use them.

As for you Andy, you sound like a bloody fu.kwit on this: there are plenty of my countrymen out there putting their lives on the line for your country even as we speak, and they've been doing it both for you and the British since the Boer War. Learn your fucking facts mate before you start with that crap.

Ask Clav, he knows. He was in Vietnam with my countrymen. I'll say again: I'm not anti-American ... I'll say it again, even. I'm against blind belief in the right to own weapons 200 years after a simple piece of legislation was devised to help protect against marauders when the US had no standing army.

And why do I care? I have spent a bit of time in the US over the years, and doubtless will be there again in the future. So while that's always a possibility, it does bother me and it's my right to be bothered.

Plus mate, this is a free country (mine) - just like yours. I'm allowed to have an opinion and express it even if you don't like it. And while we're on amendments, since it's a US-based website, your first one allows anyone to say whatever they like as long as they're not breaking the law.

OK, Stan.

It would be a dull world (and friendship) if we agreed on everything...

call me a fuckwit all you want...fight along side my countrymen, thank you...you're not a citizen..YOU DON'T GET A SAY!

Sorry pal..that's the way it works over here...you become a citizen..you vote...otherwise...hey...honestly...shut the fuck up! No body cares what you think.

But you're right, here in this fairly awesome place I call home...you do...like everybody else have the right to say what you like...and I like everybody else have the right to change the channel...consider this one turned off!

Have a nice day!

To all whom wish for more controls on US firearms: please move to one area of the country so your government can assist you. Advertise the fact that you dont like guns. Then leave the rest of us alone.

Take the majority of the funding for state and local police forces with you.

I'll petition to live in Col. Cooperville today.

And STM, I missed it, are you in AU or NZ or something?

[Entire comment deleted. I think that's enough now, Gentlemen. All complaints to the usual place. Thank you. The Comments Editor]

The idea of repealing the 2nd amendment is twisted. In the aftermath of this horrible tragedy, some may understandably be attracted to this solution.
First, let me say the 2nd amendment didn't CREATE the right to "keep and bear arms." The right existed prior to the 2A and would continue afterword, no matter what. Without it, however, it would be far easier for the government to punish people for excercizing the right.
And do you really believe the 2nd amendment will be the ONLY right that gets trampled?
Far from it. Already the 10th amendment is near-meaningless. The 1st amendment gets a workout every time some goofus like Imus sticks his foot in his mouth.
In an age of ever-diminishing rights, is it possible the ONLY reason why we have ANY left is BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment???

An inalienable Right CANNOT be "repealed". Especially when it was enacted with the words "shall NOT be infringed". It is a PRE-EXISTENT NATURAL RIGHT. One long considered as the First Law of Nature. Which laws, are the very basis of our intended government.

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

- William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England 136, 1765-1769.

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance."

- Thomas Jefferson, Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376.

"....The express authority of the people alone could give due validity to the Constitution....

"...The first question is answered at once by recurring to the absolute necessity of the case; to the great principle of self-preservation; to the transcendent law of nature and of nature's God, which declares that the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed. Perhaps, also, an answer may be found without searching beyond the principles of the compact itself...."

"...A compact between independent sovereigns, founded on ordinary acts of legislative authority, can pretend to no higher validity than a league or treaty between the parties. It is an established doctrine on the subject of treaties, that all the articles are mutually conditions of each other; that a breach of any one article is a breach of the whole treaty; and that a breach, committed by either of the parties, absolves the others, and authorizes them, if they please, to pronounce the compact violated and void...."

"It is one of those cases which must be left to provide for itself. In general, it may be observed, that although no political relation can subsist between the assenting and dissenting States, yet the moral relations will remain uncancelled. The claims of justice, both on one side and on the other, will be in force, and must be fulfilled; the rights of humanity must in all cases be duly and mutually respected; whilst considerations of a common interest, and, above all, the remembrance of the endearing scenes which are past, and the anticipation of a speedy triumph over the obstacles to reunion, will, it is hoped, not urge in vain moderation on one side, and prudence on the other."

PUBLIUS

- James Madison, The Federalist No. 43, Jan. 23, 1788.

Because over 100 million people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century ......... just say NO to gun control!

As for the other more civilized countries in the world, such as the (formerly) Great Britian and Australia (among others) ..... Crime, especially violent crime, has gone up exponentially, since instituting gun bans. Not an example I would care to follow. And now even their gun crime volume is going up - how can that be. The UK sends victims to prison. If a person defends themselves in the UK it's prison for them. There a Rapist is just given a ticket.

Sixty people were shot here. And 32 of them shot to death. Not one of those people had enough respect for themselves to defend themselves. I choose to be responsible for my own safety, thank you very much. I might not be able to stop some "crazy" from sneaking up and shooting me, but I can ensure that I am the last person he ever shoots.

I find it sad that many people in this country don't feel their own, or any life is worth defending. I feel so much pity for them.

We need the second amendment now more than ever.

Amy

What about the university and the Feds banning guns on campus? It used to be that schools allowed them on campus and had shooting ranges. guess what no school shootings. Now days they are banned and no one has the ability to defend them selves. the 2nd is not only about protecting the natural right of self defense or defending yourself against the government. It is about people being able to have arms to protect themselves and thier families any time any where.


What if I told you that as a result of this we wanted to ban knives and fists and bats etc? Heck in MA it is illegal to defend yourself. you'll get charged with a crime most times especailly if you use a gun. Pepper spray requires a pistol carry license.


Now this was a chinese national with a visa. So guess what this guy had to get his guns illegally. the serial numbers were filed off. So you are saying we don't have the right to defend our selves against a chinese national who gets a gun or guns and decides to go rambo on an open campus.


The cops in the level 3 suits were all just out there waiting for a long time. The cops didn't get in there and take that jerk out. They failed in thier duty IMHO. I would have gone in there and taken him out. I don't accept criminals doing that. Maybe I get wounded or or killed but it will be in the line of protecting innocents.

I do not accept trash like this killing people. I would respond. The cops never even got near this guy or even seen him before he killed himself.

If I were a cop I would have got in there asap back up or not and taken this ass hole out.

Amy Sue: "Not one of those people had enough respect for themselves to defend themselves."

That is a despicable comment. Were you there?

"Amy Sue" said: "Because over 100 million people were murdered by their own governments in the 20th century".

1) It's not the 20th century;

2) It didn't happen here, in NZ, or Canada, and it certainly didn't happen in America;

3) It only happened in Britain when people started firing at the government (in Ireland).

Do you seriously believe that your institutions of law can't protect you from your own government?

What, the evidence of the past 200 years says you can't trust the US Government? Please, spare me - this is just paranoid, loony right-wing madness.

And what a thing to say about the victims not having the self respect to protect themselves. You should give yourself an upper cut for that one, Amy Sue.

Amy Sue #80.

Before you make idiotic comments about the state of law and order in my country, please make sure that what you are saying is fact and not just something you heard in a one-sided debate with your fellow gun nuts.

Rapists in Britain are NOT "just given a ticket". If convicted, they go to prison for a very long time. And you will not get sent down for using reasonable force to defend yourself either (reasonable force NOT being defined as blowing your assailant's head off with something designed to stop a charging blue whale at 600 paces).

Every single time something like today happens, you can guarantee that some pro-gun person will whine, "But in Britain they banned guns and gun crime went up!" Let's get one thing clear. Private gun ownership is not now, and never has been, widespread in Britain. If violent crime has increased, it probably has a lot more to do with underlying social problems than with criminals suddenly not having to worry about whether their victim is going to fill them full of holes.

Don't get me wrong - I enjoy shooting. I just think guns belong on the range, not in people's pockets.

Dr Dreadful: "Don't get me wrong - I enjoy shooting. I just think guns belong on the range, not in people's pockets."

Hear, hear, and quoted for truth.

And here's a PS on Amy Sue's #80. Gun crime has NOT risen in Australia since the gun ban, and most of the shootings there have been have been crims shooting crims. You are NEVER going to guard against that.

However, there is one fact that is not in dispute: since certain types of weapons were banned, the kinds of mass shootings that used to happen regularly and culminated in the deaths of 35 people at Port Arthur in a single shooting, have not happened in the 10 years since.

You can also still own guns here, BTW - just with stringent controls - and the use of reasonable force, even with a gun, to protect yourself, is still considered a legitimate defence at law. Where do you get your ideas, Amy Sue?

Sean #81: Actually I'm glad you're not a cop. I'd especially not like to be your commanding officer. The phrase "loose cannon" springs irresistibly to mind.

Dave wrote: But the fact is that there are situations where guns have legitimate uses, as legitimate as a car or a swimming pool. Do you think you should not have the capacity to defend yourself by killing someone who is attempting to kill you?

Of course people should have the right to defend themselves.

But I'd rather have a world in which I can use my knife or non-gun to defend myself against an attacker with a knife or non-gun, then a world in which we shoot it out.

Now, obviously, we can't erase all guns.

I just want to see the number of guns reduced, guns become more difficult to attain, etc.

And, right, that will fall more, first, on law-abiding citizens. But, eventually, it will affect the number of guns available to lunatics, too.

Mark T wrote: In an age of ever-diminishing rights, is it possible the ONLY reason why we have ANY left is BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment???

No, it's not.

You think - what? That the government respects our rights because we have guns?

We have rights because most Americans still respect the rule of law. Not as much as we should. Not all the time. But we do.

So, when the Supreme Court stepped in and stopped the recount in Fla in 2000, the 50%+ Americans who voted for Gore respected that, even though they hated that.

That's why we have rights in the country.

Dave Nalle #51: "Guns aren't expressly designed to kill people." Really? The invention of the gun took off precisely because it was a very good way of killing people. The other uses came later.

If you dont live in a country where you had to fight for your freedom, you may not trust anyone with weapons.

I'm glad that this can be open for debate and that folks from around the world can participate, but if you havent lived here, your perspective might be a bit... skewed.

For instance, I'd have a hard time collecting Japanese historical swords in the UK or in AUS: BBC News The Age -because the gov told me that they are looking out for my safety.

But I suppose that's better than living in one of those other facist Western Countries like New Zealand... New Zealand Government PDF -isnt that nice? They have there own censorship division that looks out for my safety because I'm not smart enough to take care of my own needs.

I wont even get into slippery slope.

Gun control by any other name (2nd amendment changes) is still gun control and is still racist.

And for those of you who currently live in this country, There is no first without the second.

"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law."

Please take note of the last bit. "such as allowed by law". The 9th amendment was expressly designed to guard against the very notions being expressed in many of the above posts - for those who think that the constitition should be the sole means of deciding what the law might be, or how it should be interpreted.

Dr Dreadful: the "gun" came from a need to breech wooden and stonemasoned walls many, many years ago.

Thanks anyway.

STM: dont forget to finish your thought:

"Which is also declared by the same statute ... and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."

vertrose wrote: Dr Dreadful: the "gun" came from a need to breech wooden and stonemasoned walls many, many years ago.

Thanks anyway.

True, but Dr. Dreadful is still right - because the purpose of breaching those walls (by cannon, the grandfather of the gun) was to kill the people inside the walls.

For details, take a look at William McNeill's excellent book - The Pursuit of Power - that I put in the Amazon box under my post.

STM wrote: However, there is one fact that is not in dispute: since certain types of weapons were banned, the kinds of mass shootings that used to happen regularly and culminated in the deaths of 35 people at Port Arthur in a single shooting, have not happened in the 10 years since.

Exactly!

Vertroue ... the US has its own censorship divisions. They're the ones that decide what kinds of ratings to put on films (or whether to ban them), and whether to allow books to be read, or read by minors, and what ads and TV programs you can and can't watch. There is plenty of censorship at various levels of government in the US: federal, state and local, along with some industry censorship boards. And there always has been ... make sure you know what you're talking about before you start writing.

And don't get carried away with this notion of having more rights than anyone else. You don't.

As for me not being able to buy a samurai sword because it's banned by law, well, I'll just say that you can't buy a rocket launcher because it's banned by law.

What's the difference when you're talking these kinds of "rights"? It's either all in, or all out, according to your way of thinking.

Clearly, that's not the case even in the US.

Jason wrote: A car can kill 30 people within a few seconds. An airliner used in a creative enough manner can kill hundreds instantly, thousands over the course of a few hours.

Right, but you conveniently left off the end of my sentence - which was that the gun can't be used for anything but killing (and we can add wounding, if you like).

I will never be a victim.

No one wants to you to be. But don't oblige others to be.

Vertroue wrote: "Which is also declared by the same statute ... and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions ... "

Please, once again, take note of the last bit - "under due restrictions". I read that very clearly as meaning it was never meant to be unrestricted, and the previous bit I've quoted as meaning that the government has every right to decide on what weapons can be banned by law.

Go and take a look also at all the writings on the 9th amendment, particularly the thoughts of the founding fathers. The consensus: an instruction on how the constitition of the United States should NOT be interpreted. In other words, not the ONLY law of the land.

Paul Levinson: I dont see the amazon link... is it in your url?

The purpose was not merely to kill the inhabitants, but to show force and possibly end a months long siege conflict with no further bloodshed. Barring that, yes it was Braveheart time...

STM: what about the Monash University shooting? Or all of the gangland murders in Melbourne? Did it stop those?

The US currently has the most restrictive process for purchasing any item pinned squarely on the firearm. Hell, its easier to get actual explosives than it is firearms. Legally.

And if your the un-legal type, money talks.

And now, for fun:

"In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting,government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's,anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations,variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings."

gunshow wrote: An inalienable Right CANNOT be "repealed"

You're confusing the Declaration of Independence (inalienable rights) with the Constitution.

As I'm sure you know, we already had one Amendment repealed.

STM: with a $200 tax stamp and the most lengthy background check this government has, I CAN own a rocket launcher, a grenade launcher, even a true machine gun.

To quote something i read somewhere once:

"... make sure you know what you're talking about before you start writing."

vertroue wrote: Paul Levinson: I dont see the amazon link... is it in your url?

It's the third book, on the right, in an Amazon ad right below the text of my post (above the comments)...

vertroue wrote: To quote something i read somewhere once:

"... make sure you know what you're talking about before you start writing."

Actually, the really important thing is to make sure you know what you're talking about before you finish writing, and publish it, right? :)

STM sayz: the US has its own censorship divisions.

For determining the needs of minors. Not the voting public. If I choose not to look at nudie pics its my choice....if the gov tells me I cant look at them its censorship....get it?

Even the toughest movie ratings can be overridden by a parent. An "R" rating still means that a twelve year old can see the movie with a parent and isnt that who we are supposed to be learning responsibility from anyway? :)

As a side note, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank parents everywhere who actually give a damn what there child is doing/learning at any given minute...

Go ahead and repeal it/ See what happens.

People like you ignore the real problem.
People being allowed in this country that donot share our values. eg., Foreigners!

I see the Press continue to ignore that this shooter @ Virginia tech was busted last year for Bomb Making and he's out walking the streets of America?
So much for the Law putting criminals away huh?

Oh....up there!

:) Thanks Paul.

vertroue wrote: Oh....up there!

:) Thanks Paul.

My pleasure.

My wife says I have male-pattern blindness, and always miss seeing stuff right in front of me...:)

This is the shooter from Virginia Tech!

Sweet! its cheap too!

Another thought. This country tried once already to ban something based on passioned pleas and paranoid policy and it created a multi million dollar bootleg industry to satisfy needs.

Lets not try that again shall we?

I truly think that if folks believe we need to ban something because to many people are abusing it, that we should honestly separate and live in different areas of this country. I wont predict what would happen, but it would make a neat experiment, no?

Tim wrote: People like you ignore the real problem.

And who, exactly, would be people like me - I'd be interesting in meeting some (safety in numbers)...

My wife says I have male-pattern blindness, and always miss seeing stuff right in front of me...:)

My ex used to say the same thing.

She must be right, I can't see her anymore!

"if the gov tells me I cant look at them its censorship....get it?"

The US government has banned plenty of movies, ads, art, books, ideas (remember McCarthyism) you name it. Like I say, please know your subject before you get on here and write your thoughts.

Censorship has always existed in the United States - and fair enough too, why shouldn't the government/governments you elect be free to make some of those decisions?

"Another thought. This country tried once already to ban something based on passioned pleas and paranoid policy and it created a multi million dollar bootleg industry to satisfy needs".

What a bloody ridiculous thing to do, too, that was. Imagine banning booze, but letting everyone run around with a gun. Now's it's a smoking ban creeping in, but enough guns to arm all the world's third-world countries and then some, that's fine. Only in America ...

The US government has banned plenty of movies, ads, art, books, ideas (remember McCarthyism) you name it. Like I say, please know your subject before you get on here and write your thoughts.

And like I say: show me what you think is banned from adults in the US.

Oh yeah! I can't wait to hear how the Police and George Bush and Virginias Representives, are going to explain to the parents of all the dead victims at Virginia Tech. Why they allowed a terrorist to walk the streets after being busted for bomb making?
Then try to sell the idea that an Unarmed popluace is a good thing. When their own government will not protect them. Good Luck Paul on that one!

For all of you that would like an entertaining view of a portion of this debate: Enjoy!

vertroue wrote: I truly think that if folks believe we need to ban something because to many people are abusing it, that we should honestly separate and live in different areas of this country. I wont predict what would happen, but it would make a neat experiment, no?

It would.

By the way, I think I said somewhere up in early commentdom that I'm not calling for a ban on guns.

I'm rather calling for more to be done to limit them than we do now. And, since I do respect the Constitution, I don't see how guns can limited at all, with the Second Amendment in place.

Sorry, Paul is NOT advocating a ban

Vertroue ... plenty of movies, art, and books have been banned in the US, just do a search on google. I'm not posting dirty links, as you can do it if you're interested. But McCarthyism is a classic example of censorship and an attempt to ban an idea in the US.

Also on the first amendment question, given the world situation at the moment, get out on the street in front of the White House wearing Arab headress and a T-shirt that says "Osama was right" or something like it whilst shouting "Bush should die" or some other nonsense and see what happens. I reckon you'd last all of five minutes before you got bundled up and carted off.

Not saying that it shouldn't happen, btw, just making a point. Censorship exists in many forms.

Oh dear, I'm talking to myself ... the time warp and the international dateline kicks in again. Good night, America ....

and I have had to use them in the country a couple of times as protection from dangerous animals.

And whether we agree or disagree, I would LOVE to hear those tales.... I just finished "The Man Eaters of Tsavo" recently and really dig outdoor stories.

I do support serious controls and a crackdown on illegal weapons.

So do I! The problem is that the current agency in the US to go after the criminals who market guns, or the folks who posess illegal firearms Is largely inneffective. Its a damn shame too, because with some funding they could be very good at what they need to do. But I wouldnt vote to give them another dime, because currently they are the most feared branch of our government.

There also the only branch of our government that can write its own laws with no congressional or public oversight. If they decide tomorrow that any of the items they oversee are illegal, they kick down the door the day after.

Warning: the folks that run this site are passionate (arent we all?) but they do have news tidbits http://www.atfabuse.com/

Also, jpfo.org has a wonderful article or two outlining how this agency arrested and attempted to charge a man by ruling that a shoestring was an illegal machine gun.

Seriously, truth is stranger than fiction.

We have plenty to fear over here STM, some rational, some not.....

By the way, I think I said somewhere up in early commentdom that I'm not calling for a ban on guns.

Ok.

vertroue wrote: My ex used to say the same thing.

She must be right, I can't see her anymore!

I'm sure she's eating her heart out, right now...:)

Also on the first amendment question, given the world situation at the moment, get out on the street in front of the White House wearing Arab headress and a T-shirt that says "Osama was right" or something like it whilst shouting "Bush should die" or some other nonsense and see what happens.

Being from outside the US I'll assume you havent heard of Cindy Sheehan (snicker).

Unless there is currently a security situation On/near the White House grounds you could do exactly what you suggest... sans the death threat. I wouldnt reccomend climbing the fence though.....there *REALLY* picky about that....

STM wrote: Oh dear, I'm talking to myself ... the time warp and the international dateline kicks in again. Good night, America ....

I heard you, and dug it!

You're not calling for a ban on guns, just a repeal of the 2nd amendment which would open the way for such a ban.

The 2nd amendment doesn't outright prevent things like gun registration. It might not even interfere with a possible requirement for a certain amount of mandatory training. Gun owners largely oppose these things, but they might be a more realistic routes to pursue than a ban or repeal of the second amendment.

Of course, the best protection we have now, and likely the best and most reasonable we could ever have, is the process of instant background checks which is currently in place. When worrying about guns, remember that every gun that's sold legally is sold by a licensed firearms dealer who checks the background of the purchaser with the FBI database. There are a few exceptions for completely private gun sales and individual sales at gun shows, but they're a tiny minority.

Dave

Dave wrote: You're not calling for a ban on guns, just a repeal of the 2nd amendment which would open the way for such a ban.

Only if a majority of Americans, and in every single state, wanted that.

It takes less than a unanimous vote of the people or the states to repeal an amendment, and one of the key things about the Bill of Rights is that it is supposed to guarantee the rights of minorities against tyrrany of the majority. Guns do that too.

Dave

Vertroue wrote: "And whether we agree or disagree, I would LOVE to hear those tales.... I just finished "The Man Eaters of Tsavo" .. "

... fascinating story that one, eh? Nothing that exotic here though I'm afraid mate, just a couple of snakes and a wild pig or two. Snakes are OK if you keep your eyes open, because they aren't interested in you - mostly. Like I say, you have to keep your eyes open. They don't like being trodden on ...

The pigs can be buggers though. They come charging out of the bush, and can rip your calf or thigh away in a flash. You don't have to be after them for them to come for you, either. Even so, not shooting one would be the preferred option if possible - unlike some of my mates, who used to go on "pig shootun" expeditions.

Heaven help us. It's a miracle any of them (or any of the continent's wildlife) survived, given the amount of beer drunk, the number of V8s revved to near self-destruction and the sheer firepower involved.

Paul: Rights do not derive from the Constitution, Declaration, or any other document.

STM: "Hard" censorship (ie, full-on bans, not just voluntary restrictions) does not exist in the US.

MP: I beg to differ ... I thought that too, until an American set me right. I've checked the evidence, you should too.

The argument about the military potentially attacking the citizenry is odd at best. If they were to do so today, with the guns that we currently have, we wouldn't be able to withstand them.

Dave

You forget (always) that gang members get their guns from ordinary law abiding citizens. Illegal guns are stolen guns.

Repeal the 1st amendment and do away with blogs

Zedd, illegal guns are also brought into the US in large numbers from outside the country, and that's even more so in countries where guns are more restricted than they are in the US.

A couple of additional points on this. Apparently since they put new restrictions on gun ownership in Australia - which STM keeps touting - there has actually been a significant rise in overall gun crime, especially gang related.

Dave

THE WORST CAMPUS VICTIM DISARMAMENT TRAGEDY IN US HISTORY

You will never see those as headlines !!!!

How big does tragedy have to get to wake up the Anti's???

Of course lawful self defense with a firearm is not permitted on school grounds. Basically the rule on campus is... "We will not be able to protect you, and now you live and learn in a VICTIM DISARMAMENT ZONE, so you won't be able to protect your self either."

I imagine champagne corks are poppin' with the gun control croud.

The truthful fact of the matter is -

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria

"You won't get gun control by disarming law-abiding citizens. There's only one way to get real gun control: Disarm the thugs and the criminals, lock them up, and if you don't actually throw away the key, at least lose it for a long time... It's a nasty truth, but those who seek to inflict harm are not fazed by gun controllers. I happen to know this from personal experience." ---Ronald Reagan, 1983

Somebody else said:

"Several millions who have died because they had no arms to defend themselves. Men today are just as evil as they have ever been. And can always be counted on to rule with a rod of iron (read rifle in modern times) those who have no rod."

Will this horrible event finally wake up anti 2A sheeple???



moondog

Dave wrote: "there has actually been a significant rise in overall gun crime".

Mainly due to a gangland war in Melbourne (old-style crims, not punks) engaged in a fierce battle for organised crime turf. No one's been killed in the crossfire though, as far as I know, and the only attempt at a mass shooting was partly thwarted with two dead when a student at Monash University jumped up and tackled the guy as he was switching handguns.

There have been no mass-carnage shootings of the type that used to happen here regularly since Port Arthur, I suspect because the types of guns favoured for these acts are hard to get.

As I keep pointing out to you Dave, that's the bottom line in my argument. That's all I'm saying Dave. And really, if you don't want this terrible stuff to keep happening, someone's got to do something.

The scope of this latest shooting is hard to fathom, really.

In January 2006, a bunch of congressmen with as twisted views as yourself rejected House Bill 1572 which would have allowed students with legitimate concealed carry permits to carry guns on campus. The bill died and so did all those innocent people. They could have fought back. Under your ideas, these people just have to sit there and die. THere is no way to stop all gun flow with laws. People can and will get guns if they want them. If need be they can make their own or steal them. They're not concerned about breaking the law so that won't be a problem. You are part of the problem.

Rather frightening how fast Mr. Levinson reacted with this political view. It appears he likely formulated this idea for a long time - no doubt with the help of the numerous misleading press releases from gun control groups.
It's very sad that he instantly uses a tragedy like this to propose his idea.
It's also sad that he never used any critical thinking to question the statistics from lying gun-control nuts, or the scary realities of such a useless proposal.

AND ANOTHER THING...

LUBY'S CAFETERIA, COLUMBINE AND NOW VIRGINIA TECH ARE PERFECT EXAPMLES OF GUN CONTROL. THE ONLY FLAW BEING, IS THAT, ONLY THE BAD GUY HAD THE GUN.

Not surprisingly, a prevalent reaction from commenters on this post has been a cry to "wake up and smell the bacon". Unfortunately, there's no agreement on what good bacon should smell like.

On one side you have the gun control advocates saying, "Don't you gun freaks get it yet? Guns in private hands KILL people!" One the other, you have the pro-gun lobby saying, "Don't you gun control freaks get it yet? Armed students coulda STOPPED this!"

No, they DON'T get it. Opinions change through thought and experience, not overnight. Epiphanies only happen to Jewish religious enforcers on business trips to Damascus. No-one's going to suddenly stop ranting and say, "Oh, how silly of me. Now that this has happened, of course I'm going to mosey straight on over to the local blacksmith and have him melt my entire arsenal down."

What everyone SHOULD get from this, and soon, is the need for some kind of drastic action to stop this kind of thing from happening again. Whatever it is (and I don't pretend to know) it's going to make some people very unhappy. It needs some serious thought and debate. The experience of other countries needs to be looked at and measured against America's deeply ingrained gun culture. And by that, I do NOT mean someone trumpeting, "In country X, after A happened, they did B which resulted in C, so we're going to do D instead!"

Being from a country where nobody (even the police) walks around carrying guns, my personal feeling is that the way to go is probably NOT to arm each and every citizen with enough firepower to bring down the government of a small Central American country. That's my opinion. I'm not going to change it just like that. You'll have to convince me... but no yelling.

vertroue wrote (comment #124): Unless there is currently a security situation On/near the White House grounds you could do exactly what you suggest...

Why don't we send you along to try it out then? Purely out of scientific curiosity.

Over 75 million disarmed citizens were killed by their governments in the 20th century. Hundreds of millions were killed by people that their governments could not protect them from. Guns saved lives and property during the King riots, Hurricane Katrina disaster, etc.

I enjoy and exercise my right to be a citizen (rather than a subject)and control my own destiny. Some would like to believe that we are educated beyond the possibility of any kind of travesty requiring an armed citizenry in this country. History has shown time and again that certain triggers (no pun intended) cause humans to degenerate into animals.

We all have the right to refuse to have the capability to defend ourselves in these situations. Feel free. Don't tell me that I would have to be a victim, too.

Josh:

Humans are animals. We do not "degenerate" into them. In situations of extreme stress, like Katrina, we will do exactly what any animal would to preserve our own life, i.e. whatever it takes.

Like breaking into peoples homes to steal TVs.

I don't know. Seems to me if we remove guns, people will find another way.

Fertilizer apparently does more than nourish seedlings.

:o)

Paotie

MP wrote: Paul: Rights do not derive from the Constitution, Declaration, or any other document.

Right. I didn't say rights ultimately "derive" from either document. I said the phrase "inalienable rights" comes from the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution.

Josh wrote: Like breaking into peoples homes to steal TVs.

Yeah, my cat does that all the time when he's cold, wet and hungry. Doesn't occur to him to look for food or blankets.

I'm talking about survival, not opportunism.