<p>"Funny how you missed the U.S. 5th Circuit and the DC Circuit recent cases on A2. </p>
<p>See: Emerson v. US and Parker v. District of Columbia. </p>
<p>I’m sure you just overlooked them by accident."</p>
<p>Surely you’ve mistaken me for someone with alot of free time? </p>
<p>What did I miss?</p>
<p>^The “collective rights” view is really like telling the founders: you wrote " the people" but we know you erred and really meant “the states”. As if the founders didn’t know the difference. It’s absurd. </p>
<p>The founders knew exactly what rights they were enshrining. Thousands and thousands of colonists died for these rights - the friends and neighbors of the founders. They meant exactly what it says…the people have a right to keep and bear arms - subject to reasonable regulation like background checks, reasonable waiting periods and paying a $200 tax to have a machine gun (which are now sooo expensive only the rich can afford one).</p>
<p>Not you, opie. I was referring to oog. ;)</p>
<p>Virginia has a big militia, of which I am proud to be a part.
</p>
<p>“However I don’t think banning or outlawing firearms will stop crime.”</p>
<p>Umm, duh? THe same can be said about traffic laws, alcohol and other drugs, etc… Should we stop making laws because they won’t completely stop said act?</p>
<p>Laws can change the moral compass of a nation. They are all we have to set out in a new direction.</p>
<p>First and foremost let it be known that I am a card carrying member of the NRA. That is not to say I agree with everything the NRA does. I’ve always advocated the banning of military/near military weapons (whose only purpose, other then shooting ranges, is to kill offensively). I believe in background checks and waiting periods for guns. However I also believe that since people will always have guns (black market) I have the RIGHT (2nd ammnd) to protect myself against these people. I live in California, where “Erin’s Mom” can attest to it being extremely difficult to get a carry and conceal permit. To me, there is no point in having a gun if you cant C&C it. God forbid I was ever in a situation such as VT, but if I was I’d be praying that I had my firearm on me at the moment. If even one student had a handgun on them in that building, there is a much greater chance less than 33 people would have died…</p>
<p>This morning’s TV has started me to worry a bit… not about another shooter on campus, but what some are starting to suggest as “solutions” to prevent this in the future. People are getting credible face time who are a bit kooky and remind me of the german scientist Peter Sellers played in Dr. Strangelove. </p>
<p>We honestly don’t know if arming everyone makes it safer or makes it more often. </p>
<p>From my personal life a decade ago, when my back failed me, I was in a situation where I felt my life was about to be threatened by three big somoan guys approaching my parked car (waiting for appointment) in a menacing fashion. I was able to drive away. After that, I really considered a gun for protection, even went to gun shows, considered a Glock. Handled it, pointed it and really considered it. </p>
<p>Didn’t buy it. Reason… I’d use it. I would have shot those guys the second they touched my car, without hesitation as with my back so bad, I could not defend myself any other way. Then I would have thought. I would have reacted, rather than thought. </p>
<p>I know I am not the only individual who could or would do the same. How many people react then think? Would a gun right there help or hurt? This is a tragic situation, I don’t know if there’s actually an answer that works every time.</p>
<p>
This is standard gun nut cant. And it’s both wrong and kind of dumb. The VT case is probably a pretty good example. Readily and legally available guns make it easy to kill lots of people with little effort. Making it harder to get guns will make killing people something that requires a lot of work. The amount of increase in difficulty of killing people you need to prevent a lot of senseless deaths is actually pretty small. Setting up killers as some sort of superhuman monsters who will find a way to accomplish their misdeeds regardless of obstacles is a lame excuse for doing nothing. For the most part, people who kill other people with guns are simply giving in to transient impulses or following a too-easy script. If guns weren’t so easy to get fewer people would be senselessly killed, plain and simple.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed, but in the same vein, one could argue that if handguns were illegal, there’d be a greater chance that less than 32 people would have been killed. And then we could go back and for discussing the details of the situation and playing the “what if” game until we’re blue in the face.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that while perhaps saving lives, neither option is necessarily preferable, at least IMHO. I’m not saying that there is an easy and viable solution to the issue, and more and more I question whether or not one exists. </p>
<p>Perhaps the real question in the VT matter is that why an individual that was taking prescription drugs for depression was allowed to purchase a handgun. What are your opinions on that matter?</p>
<p>The freedoms we collectively want for ourselves result in the ability to do each other harm. If we so choose, we can try to reduce the ability of someone to kill large numbers of people quickly.</p>
<p>We can only speculate if Cho’s inclusion an available database of persons with a history of mental problems could have prevented his purchase of a semi-automatic weapon and ammunition.</p>
<p>Unless something changes, mass killings will continue; it is the price we pay for our having easy access to guns. The current situation will change only when enough people want it to change. I don’t think VT is likely to change politicians’ opinions. Perhaps only when voters in each congressional district elect a new representative who says that she or he will enact tougher gun control will anything change.</p>
<p>If students were generally armed in order to prevent such tragedies, we don’t know if this would result in fewer or more gun deaths on campus; guns would then be ubiquitous at keg parties.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ReHqCDyDrQ&NR=1[/url]”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ReHqCDyDrQ&NR=1</a></p>
<p>All facts were checked.</p>
<p>I agree ghost, neither situation is favorable. However when i saw this picture I didn’t think “crime of passion” or “depressed” I thought “cold blooded killer.” This is absolutely scary! I think had he not been able to get a pistol legally, he would have gotten one illegally…this is frightening. After something like this I want to have my handgun on me at all times…to protect myself from nuts like this. I know this may cause problems for some people, such as those who dont know how to properly handle a gun, but from my own viewpoint I would want one after seeing this ****</p>
<p>Having dealt with a card-carrying psycho roommate assigned to my son’s freshman room mid-term, I know too well that the rights of the mentally unwell student F-A-R outweigh the rights of innocent students and neighbors. It is very difficult for schools to kick out disturbed students–or warn fellow students of the danger–with or without assault or stalking records–especially if the perpetrator’s parents resist the boot. Nikki Giovanni and the head of the VT English department complained strenuoulsy about Cho and I will bet beans to dollars that the university did try to remove that student–but the parents resisted the bleak prognosis. Beans to dollars they held onto their denial by refusing to take their son out of Virginia Tech.</p>
<p>That’s the restrictive law that should be changed immediately–moving on to a ban on automatic weapons and a severe restriction on handguns–like the rest of the sane world.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the lilly-livered Dems won’t raise this issue now–for fear it will turn conservatives against them.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, parents need to be prepared to REMOVE their children from harm’s way–regardless of expense. I put my street savvy son up in a hotel until Housing got their head on straight and found my son another room. I don’t know what I would do about a crazed male stalker but I think I might remove the child from the school.</p>
<p>Ban the automatic weapons, keep the handguns…so I can protect myself from nutjobs like this.</p>
<p>My great suspicion would be that because of the wonderful privacy laws promulgated by those who want kids to be able to do what they wish, the parents are unaware of a lot of this, if not most of it. </p>
<p>Its perhaps a less than 50/50 bet, but I’ll stake my dollar against that bean. </p>
<p>I’ll bet no one notified them of anything because its against the law. [This is of course, a question of fact, and well get those facts in due course shortly]</p>
<p>One of the only strategies a federally funded university has is to write to the parents suggesting they remove the student. With two prominent faculty members advocating that Cho be removed, I am 100% certain that Cho’s parents received such a letter–as did the parents of my son’s psycho roommate. In our case, the parents SUED the university when the admin tried to remove their son for assualt and threatened assault–but without the parent’s permission. Don’t underestimate ambitious boomer parents–Korean or otherwise.</p>
<p>Cho’s parents apparently called the police in 2005 and recommended their son be committed to a mental facility because he was in danger of harming himself. Cho’s absolutely knew that he was unwell and dangerous. Despite their extreme fears, my guess is that they simply hoped he would recover and get on with a ‘normal’ life with a ‘normal’ degree.</p>
<p>I hope Virginia Tech reveals their attempts to remove Cho. It would be an eyeopener for most parents. I have heard the English department say that they are going to advocate for a change in law to allow them to remove students like Cho.</p>
<p>If someone can explain to me how the presence of 9mm high capacity semiautomatic handguns improves the lives of Americans maybe I’ll buy the crap about the 2nd Amendment. </p>
<p>I can see it now - “The kids at VT would have been a whole lot safer if only they’d all been armed.” I wonder who they would have known to shoot? I wonder how the cops could have identified the bad guy shooter versus the good guy shooter? I can just imagine how rooms full of panicked people would have reacted had they all been armed. This is just more insanity.</p>
<p>Excellent notion - Katrina with MORE guns. There weren’t enough people shooting each other I guess. Maybe we should hand out guns in my city - make them mandatory in fact - where nearly everyday someone is shot to death. Yeah, then they could all protect themselves.</p>
<p>This 2nd Amendment gun B<em>S</em> is nothing more than a bunch of paranoid macho bullies dominating the majority of sane and peace-desiring Americans.
The gun lobby would like us to believe that MORE guns are the answer to every problem. Too bad the vast majority who don’t buy that logic don’t vote that issue.</p>
<p>We live in a country where the gun lovers are coddled and nurtured by a government obsessed with violence. Shame on Bush, the “Bring 'em on” guy, for standing up at a memorial for 32 innocent victims, murdered with the very weapons he upholds as sacred.</p>
<hr>
<p>Sorry - but I’m in the ANGRY stage of mourning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Certainly. No arguments from me there. The kid obviously had his share of mental problems. I only brought up the medication thing because abruptly dicontinuing medication for depression has caused people to do some pretty horrible things. I’m not really up on my gun control laws, and as an NRA member, perhaps you are, but are there any provisions for mental health?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. I think the problem with the entire argument in favor of banning guns outright is that hinges on a rational response from potential killers. Regardless if it was at his own hands or not, this guy would have been executed - that is about as costly as you can get. Cho implemented a methodical plan that required a fair amount of planning. If he had to spend some time getting a gun and had to spend more on the black market for it, I doubt that would have mattered.</p>
<p>Did anyone notice Chris Matthews (Hardball) so very briefly hit upon the idea of violence in movies and entertainment might have played a role when he mentioned that Cho appeared to be mimicking imagery from movies like The Matrix in his self-portraits. I’m disappointed that Matthews quickly jumped back on the gun control bandwagon and really didn’t let the discussion go anywhere else. </p>
<p>I really think we have to discuss both the ‘why’ (violence as a misguided answer to problems) in addition to the ‘how’ (access to firearms) when trying to figure this all out.</p>
<p>It seems he spent at least two months putting his plan into action. In VA you can apparently only buy one firearm a month. That means he was screened at least twice.</p>
<p>In the old days such people would have been locked up before they could do harm. Three days in a facility with a psychiatrist carefully checking you out may have done some good here.</p>