VA Tech shooting and politics (THIS IS THE THREAD FOR TALK OF "gun control", ETC)

[samcol]

Originally Posted by scout

I don't think you have anything to worry about as it's just as illegal for a "Marine just back from combat, potentially with a ptsd" to own a RPG as it is for you yourself to own own one. It is also illegal for just anyone to own a automatic weapon.

On a completely different note but along these same thoughts, some of our pro gun control crowd needs to brush up on current gun laws. Over 99.9% of the objections that have arose and state pro gun control reasons are already illegal but for whatever reason keep getting hashed and rehashed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again.

One thing I'm curious about is how it can be legal for a green card holder to buy weapons, especially with our current concerns about terrorism. I think this policy should be at the forefront of the debate rather than gun ownership as a whole.
In light of all the information coming out about the shooter another noteworthy question that needs to be answered is was this gentleman ever under the care of a doctor for psych reasons. This is one of the questions you have to answer on your paperwork when you legally purchase a firearm. We know that he was supposedly referred to counseling for some his writings. As more information comes out it seems perhaps someone could have blown the whistle on this whacko long before he committed this atrocity.

I agree. I think it's totally insane that someone with a greencard can buy firearms. Especially with the lax immigration policy and terrorism threat like you mentioned.

[ubertuber]

Originally Posted by scout

In light of all the information coming out about the shooter another noteworthy question that needs to be answered is was this gentleman ever under the care of a doctor for psych reasons. This is one of the questions you have to answer on your paperwork when you legally purchase a firearm. We know that he was supposedly referred to counseling for some his writings. As more information comes out it seems perhaps someone could have blown the whistle on this whacko long before he committed this atrocity.

Just a note here, because I have personal experience in being a college administrator in the position to spot these kinds of things...

So much of what people are saying now is hindsight. The creative writing thing is relatively significant. The fact that he was a "loner"... Well, that's only significant after the fact. If we had tried to refer every kid who met the threshold this guy was at, you'd end up intervening with 5-10% of your population at one point or another. Of course, the social patterns combined with the school thing look significant, but you won't realistically have all the people who see these different facets in a position to compare notes, even at a smaller school. Some schools are uneasy about even attempting stuff like that in light of privacy concerns, which can lead to court cases. And most places are unable to MANDATE counseling. You can suggest it, but it nigh impossible to MAKE someone go. I became really adept at phrasing my suggestions so that they sounded like mandates without actually being so.

I guess what I'm getting at is that a lot of kids at school are (or go through periods of being) a little unstable. Since they internalize these instabilities, it's about impossible to know which way it's gonna go. So snap and sing hymns for 19 hours without stopping, some lock themselves in the shower and quote Shakespeare, some develop chronic psycho-somatic illnesses like seizures, some develop fixations on cleaning their homes with bleach while hording water bottles in their bedrooms, some try to kill themselves, and every once in a while one will go and try to hurt someone else. I've seen all of the above firsthand except for the last. The only truly reliable indicator that a person will try to hurt someone is a history of doing so.

[scout]

According to this report which states

Authorities found two three-page notes in his dorm room after the shootings. They weren't suicide notes and provided no clue about why he did what he did. Instead, they were expletive-filled rants against the rich and privileged, even naming people who he thought had kept him down, federal and state law enforcement sources said. Two government officials said he had been treated for mental health problems.

it was illegal for him to honestly answer the questionaire and to purchase the firearms legally because one of the questions you have to answer specifically asks if you have ever been under a doctors care for psych/mental health reasons. If you have you are automatically denied, period, end of story. The article then goes on to erronously state on the next page

.....He used his driver's license as identification and had no problem buying the guns because he was complying with Virginia law, which permits the purchase of one gun a month, investigators said.

which may comply with Virginia law but he also must comply with federal law and part of complying with the federal law he must fill out the application/questionaire mentioned above that asks about 20 or so questions and when answered truthfully can cause one to be denied on the spot before your application is ever called into the BATF for the final approval.

For those that have never bought a gun before here's a little play by play that you have to do before you ever walk out of the store with your new firearm whether you buy it at a gunshop or one of the infamous gun shows that is always brought up by gun control advocates. {1} you decide what firearm you are purchasing and haggle the price until you are satisified {2} the dealer then hands you a state form and a federal form which you have to fill out {3} the dealer then looks over the federal form to make sure all your answers are what they should be, if not you are automatically denied on the spot {4} if you have answered the questions properly and everything is legit the dealer then makes a call to the BATF for final approval. The BATF then searches their database for any red flags and either denies, puts you on hold for further investigation and they have 10 days to complete this phase or you are approved and you can then leave the gun store or gun show with your new purchase. The forms are then sent to the state and federal authorities. The dealer keeps his copy of the forms forever, he can never destroy them because it is the record of the firearm he once had in his possession. He also has to keep a log of every single firearm that has ever come into his possession. His log, the serial numbers of the guns on his shelf, the paperwork of all the guns he has ever sold, the paperwork with your information and all the other pertinent details have to match or he loses his license. You don't just walk in and give the man a handful of money, show your drivers license and walk out with a newly purchased firearm, not legally anyway.

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Just a note here, because I have personal experience in being a college administrator in the position to spot these kinds of things...

So much of what people are saying now is hindsight. The creative writing thing is relatively significant. The fact that he was a "loner"... Well, that's only significant after the fact. If we had tried to refer every kid who met the threshold this guy was at, you'd end up intervening with 5-10% of your population at one point or another. Of course, the social patterns combined with the school thing look significant, but you won't realistically have all the people who see these different facets in a position to compare notes, even at a smaller school. Some schools are uneasy about even attempting stuff like that in light of privacy concerns, which can lead to court cases. And most places are unable to MANDATE counseling. You can suggest it, but it nigh impossible to MAKE someone go. I became really adept at phrasing my suggestions so that they sounded like mandates without actually being so.

I guess what I'm getting at is that a lot of kids at school are (or go through periods of being) a little unstable. Since they internalize these instabilities, it's about impossible to know which way it's gonna go. So snap and sing hymns for 19 hours without stopping, some lock themselves in the shower and quote Shakespeare, some develop chronic psycho-somatic illnesses like seizures, some develop fixations on cleaning their homes with bleach while hording water bottles in their bedrooms, some try to kill themselves, and every once in a while one will go and try to hurt someone else. I've seen all of the above firsthand except for the last. The only truly reliable indicator that a person will try to hurt someone is a history of doing so.

I hear what your saying Uber, hindsight is always 20/20 and its awful easy for us to quarterback from the confines of our easy chair.

[Nisses]

I don't get how it's important that he got the gun in a legal fashion.
The true problem should be that due to the legal structures, it's very easy to get a gun (if lying on a dead-giveaway question like that isn't even checked).

Shakran: After reading up on the second amendment and its history, I can't say I agree with you on your interpretation of that sentence.

Due to the brevity and unclear (to me) phrasing, it had me going around a bit, but

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia
"Militia is the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide defense or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity. ........ a militia is distinct from a regular army"

So interpretation of the word Militia alone, can even make a huge difference as to the exact meaning of the amendment.
Given that alot of people seem to interpret it very broadly anybody, even on their own, can qualify as a militia at some point.


It sounds like the constitution defines a militia as being necessary for a free state to function, and because of this, the right of people to bear and keep arms will not be restricted within limits:

Infringe
In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated" sound pretty unbendable, but the Supreme Court has ruled that some laws can, in fact, encroach on these phrases. For example, though there is freedom of speech, you cannot slander someone; though you can own a pistol, you cannot own a nuclear weapon.
http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#INFRINGE


I can't say I agree with the 2nd Amendment, *at all*. But that to me is what is written in your (America's) constitution.


edit: cuz I forgot to add the bit about interpretation of Militia halfway in my post.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by pigglet

i'd like to ask a few quick questions about this thing with smooth and mirevolver, and if the modding is going to be public from here on out, then i'll ask them publicly.

1. what happened to all the talk a few months ago about tfp opening up and people being able to call a spade a spade?

I don't think anyone here would have a problem with Smooth telling us that our argument is stupid. And if someone does, they need to get over it. Smooth crossed the line by calling the PERSON an idiot. Attack the ideas all you want, but realize that you are not dealing with retarded children here. Each of us is an adult, with our own intelligence and our own ideas on how things should be done. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I say, but I expect them not to assume I'm stupid because they don't like what they read.

[roachboy]

so cruising around the net this morning looking for more infotainment on this, i stumbled across this fine example of powerful deduction as the headline on cnn.com:

gunman 'suicidal'

gee...you think so?

what idiots.....


anyway, more generally:

cant control arbitrariness folks. no way no how. you just have to accept that. no amount of fantasy concerning universal armament will change the simple fact that arbitrary shit happens. of course this is amurica, so it is easier for this arbitrariness to happen with guns than it is elsewhere. the fantasy of universal armanent is a fantasy of universal control looped through political conceptions of where ultimate control should lie--but the simple fact is that in this kind of situation, there really was nothing to be done.

another way: folk indulge the parlor game of ex post facto thinking because arbitrariness freaks them out. i think most are smart enough to see the problem with the logic, but they play the game anyway. it is therapeutic: rather than having to think about chance, you think about breakdowns in some order that could have remained perfect in its perfect control had errors not happened, and that can be imagined as still-perfect in potentia if such "errors" can be controlled for in the future. from this viewpoint, total state surveillance and universal armament turn out to be variants of the same logic, versions of the same thing.

[Rekna]

The shooter did not have a "clean" history. He was accused of stalking twice and placed in a mental health facility. These are the types of things background checks would bring up and cause further scrutiny.

[hiredgun]

Originally Posted by samcol

I agree. I think it's totally insane that someone with a greencard can buy firearms. Especially with the lax immigration policy and terrorism threat like you mentioned.

What? What did this kid's being a greencard-holder versus a citizen have to do with his eventual shooting spree? What makes you think that a greencard-holder represents any more of a school-shooting threat?

I'm sorry, I just don't see it, and your attitude comes off as xenophobic.

[roachboy]

i *knew* the resident alien status of mr. cho would come up refigured in terms of some rightwing xenophobia. it follows in a straight line from the ongoing construction of him as someone Other who was lurking about within the Us. it almost seemed unnecessary that the stories be written which appeared yesterday describing him as an "eccentric loner"---that's right folks, not to worry, the guy was a cliche.

as more information emerges, he gets positioned more and more clearly in this dubious space of the Outsider Amongst Us.
next step would be a raising of the collective hysterometer to orange of some such because he would have been entirely blurred into the fiction of the "terrorist" as a kind of one-man sleeper cell.
it is ridiculous.
get a fucking grip, folks.

[ubertuber]

This may be a topic for another thread, but it relates because I don't see what his green card status has to do with anything.

Rights granted on the basis of the constitution are granted because we're human, not because we're Americans. I'm deeply disturbed by the trend to deny rights and protections to people based on their national status - whether it be fair trial or something like gun ownership. If it's a right, it's a right.

[Jinn]

Rights granted on the basis of the constitution are granted because we're human, not because we're Americans. I'm deeply disturbed by the trend to deny rights and protections to people based on their national status - whether it be fair trial or something like gun ownership. If it's a right, it's a right.

The right to vote in US elections is a 'human' right?

[samcol]

Playing the xenophobia card on these forums is getting so bad I think we need another Godwin's Law.

[Rekna]

Originally Posted by ubertuber

This may be a topic for another thread, but it relates because I don't see what his green card status has to do with anything.

Rights granted on the basis of the constitution are granted because we're human, not because we're Americans. I'm deeply disturbed by the trend to deny rights and protections to people based on their national status - whether it be fair trial or something like gun ownership. If it's a right, it's a right.

Quoted for truth. I have always felt that our constitution should apply to every single person within our jurisdiction as our forefathers specifically said in our deceleration of independence that mankind has certain unalienable rights....


With that been said I do see 1 reason to deny foreigners weapons that I would deem appropriate. If there was a system in place which required extensive background checks in order to purchase a weapon (ie interviewing previous employers, family, ect) a new resident alien would not have much background to probe. In this case I would support not allowing resident aliens to buy a weapon for the first couple years they are in the US.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by samcol

Playing the xenophobia card on these forums is getting so bad I think we need another Godwin's Law.

The thing is, screaming 'Godwin' doesn't always negate the argument being made. Sometimes, something is comparable to the Nazi war of aggression leading up to and being WWII. The only problem is that people are afraid it might be overused and it will lose some of it's shock value.

xen·o·pho·bi·a
–noun
an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

If used correctly, and if it can be defended from a semantic standpoint, the word must stand.

Edit: for example:
Statistically speaking, Mexican immigrant workers are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens, therefore those that say Mexican immigrants are coming into the US and committing crimes (other than the act of illegally immigrating) could be xenophobic.

[roachboy]

style note: probably the most irritating legacy of the o.j. simpson trial is the popularization of that meaningless construction:

"to play the x card..."

end style note. the post:

in samcol's post above, this tedious, empty phrase functions as if it use alone constitutes an understanding and containment of a particular critique. so it is that the idea behind the post is essentially to disable recourse to a category--xenophobia--which in the case of posters like samcol is a prefectly legitimate way of characterizing such logic as there is behind trying to get explanatory mileage out of cho's resident alien status as if that would in some bizarre-o world make him more inclined to snap and go around shooting people. the claim is idiotic.

again, all this is about trying to find some peculiar "not one of us" status for this guy--an operation that has nothing at all to do with understanding anything, nothing to do with questions of what, if anything, would constitute a rational response to the vt murder/suicide, nothing to do with anything except insofar as if feeds into some pathetic ideological illusion that there is an amurica of "normal righteous folk" who would never snap, would never indulge acts of arbitrary violence, and then there are those Others, those Fucked Up People who explain any and all disturbances to the otherwise perfect harmonious world of "real amuricans".

this is a really problematic way of seeing this fiction of the "us" or "amurica" or the nation--what it functions to do is establish the conditions of possibility for efforts to cleanse the body amurican of disordered folk---because there is no "us" there is no coherent boundary to be defended--but the illusion that there is one is enough to set up consent for attempts to maintain it in its "order" in its "virtue" in its "purity"--and so you get to see the same retro-nationalism that we all know and love so bloody much turning up again here, in debates around a situation that has fuck all to do with it.



the only reason that there is any objection to the category of xenophobia here is as an attempt to block the laying out of the logic behind such moves in this (or any) context because once you lay out the logic, its idiocy is transparent.

[scout]

Originally Posted by hiredgun

What? What did this kid's being a greencard-holder versus a citizen have to do with his eventual shooting spree? What makes you think that a greencard-holder represents any more of a school-shooting threat?

I'm sorry, I just don't see it, and your attitude comes off as xenophobic.

So..... It's not paranoid or xenophobic to want to completely disarm the populace because a few terrible persons of ill repute manage to beat the system?

I don't get it and I probably never will.

This is much like the liberal left movement to cry foul at the denial of certain God given rights to the terrorists housed at Gitmo while bringing up legislation to deny the God given rights of the law abiding citizens of the United States. They haven't had time to bring up all the legislation they promised including legislation for the impeachment of the President, although they promised they would. According to them he has broken many, many laws and is perhaps the biggest criminal in American history. But by golly they have had time to craft anti-gun legislation.

what the fuck?

[Rekna]

Thou shall not kill......

I don't think God intended everyone to be armed as one of the rights he gave us. On the contrary the New Testament over and over and over talks about forgiveness and love and not revenge and hatred. Somehow I find it hard to believe that a gun leads to forgiveness and love but I can definitely see it leading to revenge and hatred.

[dc_dux]

Originally Posted by scout
So..... It's not paranoid or xenophobic to want to completely disarm the populace because a few terrible persons of ill repute manage to beat the system?

I don't get it and I probably never will.

This is much like the liberal left movement to cry foul at the denial of certain God given rights to the terrorists housed at Gitmo while bringing up legislation to deny the God given rights of the law abiding citizens of the United States. They haven't had time to bring up all the legislation they promised including legislation for the impeachment of the President, although they promised they would. According to them he has broken many, many laws and is perhaps the biggest criminal in American history. But by golly they have had time to craft anti-gun legislation.

I think you're letting your emotions get the best of you.

What guns laws have been introduced that want to "completely disarm the populace" by this new (or any recent) Dem congress?

When did the majority of the Dem who were recently elected to the majority "proimise legislation for the impeachment of Bush"?

I find it a bit contrarian that some of the gun rights folks here fight so hard for unrestricted rights under 2nd amendment but are ready to trash the 14th amendment.

What the fuck?

[smooth]

Originally Posted by shakran

I don't think anyone here would have a problem with Smooth telling us that our argument is stupid. And if someone does, they need to get over it. Smooth crossed the line by calling the PERSON an idiot. Attack the ideas all you want, but realize that you are not dealing with retarded children here. Each of us is an adult, with our own intelligence and our own ideas on how things should be done. I don't expect everyone to agree with everything I say, but I expect them not to assume I'm stupid because they don't like what they read.

Shakran, the day after...I'd appreciate it if you'd go back and re-read what I wrote because the instances where I used the word "dumb" were specifically aimed at behavior and not the person.

At the start of the downward spiral, I was clear I valued his opinion but not his analysis. Later, I requested that a mod lend a neutral voice to the assessment of the data (a suggestion I've made directly to Halx in terms of what role moderators might consider in a form of "pre-emptive" in-thread moderation). Even after that I reiterated that I valued his opinion, that I took issue with the analysis, and then labeled the inability or unwillingness to reassess the data in light of what I was explaining as "dumb." I also added misquoting people was "dumb", but I never labeled either of the persons behind those posts unintelligent. Both responses were limited to the behavior exhibited.

I don't know what calling a position or saying a person is being "obtuse" would resolve since my understanding is it means unintelligent, dull, lacking insight, etc. But I already apologized, because I recognize that my standards of certain things aren't the same as the communities. So it goes that I happened to have realized last night what pigglet alluded to regarding the past discussions on these types of things...basically that the "political" interactions are back at square one and I'm not particularly interested in that kind of discourse...although I may choose to read what some friends have to say from time to time (which is why I'm even here currently) but I doubt I will contribute much thought of my own for some time again.

[roachboy]

god given?
what are you talking about?
when that phrase appears, it is an 18th century reference to theories of natural law. since the claims of the american revolution were based on an idea of restoring rights violated by england, the language of natural law served a tactical function.
but the notion of natural law itself is at the very best problematic, based as it is, as it always was, on fundamentally religious committments simply transposed from the register of religion to that of transcendent categories (limits, prohibitions and their opposite)...but without the category of religion behind it, this transposition holds no water. you have a long history of ethics as a branch of philo that tracks the problems encountered when western folk noticed that there was a world beyond them that could not simply be understood as less than them, or as repetitions of their history and so trapped in some eternal childhood waiting around for the heroic western white folk to rescue them and show then the way to adulthood--which was of course embodied in the euro-americans themselves. the notion of natural law became untenable. this still freaks out some ethicists so deontology persists, but is mostly a space ccupied by religious thinkers who for whatever reason continue to blur their religious committments and philosophical work into each other. meanwhile, in most other areas of ethics, folk have worked out the obvious: that constructions on the order of natural law were, are and always will be political matters.

there is no natural law: the language of it provided a veneer of legitimation to the constitution itself--but within the constitutional regime, any rights are stipulated by the document itself, they function as rights within that regime because of the status accorded the document itself.
this god character has nothing to do with it.

===================================================

aside, added: smooth---i wish you'd reconsider what you say about your participation here in your last post. for what it's worth, i think this is a better more interesting place because you play about in it as well--your views are consistently interesting and thoughtful---if folk are bothered by the style in which they are sometimes presented--well---in my view anyway---fuck em.

[Deltona Couple]

Well WOW! What an amazing thread. took me a long time, and I STILL have yet to finish every post. MOST people on this thread know that I am pro-gun ownership. Now that it is clear to everyone my basic stance, here is my take on some of what has been said here:

As far as students being allowed to carry on campus:
1: I disagree that they should be allowed. It is difficult enough to go around campus worrying about studying for exams and socializing, than to add "who is carrying a piece".
2: From the news articles I have read, MOST of those students that were killed were under the age of 21. Now correct me if I am wrong, but my research showed that HANDGUNS are not allowed for purchase in Virginia until the age of 21. So it is a moot point to consider what MIGHT have happened, or NOT happened, if students were allowed to carry on campus.

As far as faculty carrying on campus: Personally, I don't see it as a bad idea, considering what HAS happened in the past. However I DO agree that if you ARE going to allow faculty to carry, then they should ALL be given extensive background checks, and go through a POLICE sanctioned gun training class on how to use it, and WHEN to use it.

History has shown that in the states where concealed wepons permits have been enacted, that crimes against INDIVIDUALS has decreased over time. Now OBVIOUSLY this doesn't include such a HORRIFIC situation as that at Virginia Tech. There will ALWAYS be anomolies in life. We can't begin to predict human bahavior or emotions when under stress; and lets face it, there are not many things more stressful than highschool and college. It is terrible what has happened, and there is nothing that we can do now to go back and change things, but lets cool down before we start taking action too soon. Face it, after September 11th, we jumped the gun pretty quick, and see where THAT led us? (Don't go jumping me about the war or anything...if ANYONE can attest to how I feel about the war, support of/or the actual fact that we are there in the first place it is Willravel, whom I have ENJOYED many discussions of our difference of opinions in threads of that subject!)



Now as to the 2nd amendment: I love how some people are trying to give their opinion on what it menas, so here is mine...
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Maybe the grammar is a little off, but I read it thusly: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state" (because we may NEED at some point in the future, a militia), "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"(the right of individual gun ownership, will not be taken away)
I do not read it as a FULL sentence, meaning that only those needed for a militia will be allowed to own/carry guns, but as a WHOLE statement.

As a thread jack here:

Am I the only one who thinks that maybe the reason the United States has never actually been invaded by a foreign nation, is because they are worried about the fact that every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the USA has a half dozen or more guns in their own home? I mean face it, when Germany invaded France, do you think it MIGHT have been tougher if everyone in France had a couple of guns in their home? I mean face it, if we were invaded say at Miami, how long do you think it would take to get an actual FULL military presense to defend it?...but If say 50% of the people there had firearms of their own...then BANG! there is our Militia, per the constitution!...

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

From the news articles I have read, MOST of those students that were killed were under the age of 21. Now correct me if I am wrong, but my research showed that HANDGUNS are not allowed for purchase in Virginia until the age of 21. So it is a moot point to consider what MIGHT have happened, or NOT happened, if students were allowed to carry on campus.

Federal law states that you have to be 21 to purchase from an FFL. You need only be 18 to POSESS and carry....so if you were given a handgun as an 18th birthday present..you're legal.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

History has shown that in the states where concealed [weapons] permits have been enacted, that crimes against INDIVIDUALS has decreased over time. Now OBVIOUSLY this doesn't include such a HORRIFIC situation as that at Virginia Tech. There will ALWAYS be [anomalies] in life. We can't begin to predict human [behavior] or emotions when under stress; and lets face it, there are not many things more stressful than [high school] and college. It is terrible what has happened, and there is nothing that we can do now to go back and change things, but lets cool down before we start taking action too soon. Face it, after September 11th, we jumped the gun pretty quick, and see where THAT led us? (Don't go jumping me about the war or anything...if ANYONE can attest to how I feel about the war, support of/or the actual fact that we are there in the first place it is Willravel, whom I have ENJOYED many discussions of our difference of opinions in threads of that subject!)

I'm sure \we both agree that most if not every military action in response to 9/11 has been a mistake. The rest is another matter.

I'll again call on the UK to cite as an example of a nation that has a successful gun ban. The short history of that ban has shown that a gun ban can lower gun crime when carried out correctly. While it's easy to call the VT massacre an anomaly, the fact of the matter is it's much easier to commit a massacre with a gun than it is with a knife or bat. I'd rather face a man in a dark alley if he were armed with a knife or bat than a gun. I'm sure you agree.

Originally Posted by Deltona Couple

Now as to the 2nd amendment: I love how some people are trying to give their opinion on what it means, so here is mine...
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Maybe the grammar is a little off, but I read it thusly: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state" (because we may NEED at some point in the future, a militia), "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"(the right of individual gun ownership, will not be taken away)
I do not read it as a FULL sentence, meaning that only those needed for a militia will be allowed to own/carry guns, but as a WHOLE statement.

And you're not the only one the read it that way. The thing is: they were obviously intended to be linked in spirit by their logical functions. It's in that sense that I derive my interpretation.

What was the intended function Second Amendment? The populace was able to wage war against the superior forces of the British Army partially because of their militia's armaments. Had the populace not been able to organize militias, it's entirely possible we'd all have all bad teeth and snobby accents. Bearing that in mind, when one starts a new government who's genesis features such realizations, the idea of regulating power between the government and the populace should be balanced by having an able militia that is not federally controlled. In the unlikely case that the federal government, using the military, were to infringe on our rights and such we should have the organizational capacity to hold our ground by having a capable militia. Do we have anything like that now? Not really, and it's a shame because I believe that things like Waco could have been prevented if representatives from a militia were to speak with the ATF they could have brought with them the promise of armed resistance that could have acted as a deterrent (one would hope). Moving back to what this means so far as the Amendment, I believe that the Amendment is in place to protect the ability of the populace so far as maintaining military power in the form of a militia or militias. The clear reasoning would be to make sure that a potential police state would meet with heavy resistance.

How would this apply today? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Federal government continues on it's current authoritarian road. Let's say that, in the name of fighting crime or terrorism, that we have tanks rolling down our streets, curfews, kidnappings, the loss of due process for those citizens captured, and detention camps for those suspected but not tried. If this were to ever happen, I would have the Constitutionally protected right to organize a militia to the ends of returning order. It's the right to resist governmental tyranny in organized groups. I'd probably use bombs instead of guns, personally, because it's clear that IEDs are the most successful way to combat a military like ours. They're cheap and easy to construct from common parts and compounds.

When you ask a gun owner why they own a gun, I'd be willing to bet that they'd say they have the gun to protect themselves or their families from criminals or aggressors. While I concede that this is reasonable, I do think it's clear that that intent is not in the Second Amendment, and thus things like the right for an individual to bear arms is not Constitutionally protected unless they are a member of a militia which has the function of supporting the power of the populace in case the government oversteps it's bounds.

My fingers hurt, and I have to get back to work.

[pig]

quick post: i concur, perhaps obviously, with the above posts of roach and smooth. the perspectives and approaches are appreciated by some, but apparently not by others. c'est la vie. i'd suggest further discussion take place in a separate thread if necessary.

/end threadjack

[Ourcrazymodern?]

An armed nut goes on a rampage and kills dozens of other people for his 5,555minutes of fame, but he's dead. What a concept.

[roachboy]

thing is that i dont see a police state being met with any particular resistance simply because people have guns---they are not magic objects, they do not bring with them political consciousness--what would matter is the organization of consent. if consent is organized on grounds that folk find to be compelling, they will not resist--it wont occur to them. so they would be docile people who happen to have guns. they would not percieve a police state as a police state: they would probably think in terms of necessary security measures carried out for some political objective that they would agree with. if the consent ran deep enough, people with guns would be no more or less inclined than people without guns to turn over suspected dissidents to the state.

same logic obtains for a revolutionary movement--what matters really is the political program--that is what would give a sense of direction and coherence to any such movement.

either way, people with guns are just people with guns. there IS NO POLITICAL MEANING TO OWNING A GUN. none--no more than political orientation can be derived from the car you drive or the pants you wear--insofar as all are commodities, all are functionally equivalent. having a gun does not make you free--it doesnt make you anything---a gun is a tool that no more tells you what to do with it than having a saw tells you how to cut pieces of wood to size for a building. to think otherwise would require that you also think that you can build a complex model spontaneously because you bought a tube of glue.

in the present political and legal environment, owning a gun is a type of accessorizing.
some people like chanel, other people like a glock.
it is a consumer choice.
nothing political about it, the imaginings of gun fetishists notwithstanding.


in a non-revolutionary situation, political conflict is primarily ideological and can be seen as a war of position. gramsci was right.

[Eeeraq]

Check out this AP story.

"As a korean, I'm embarassed"

how about, as a human, I'm embarassed!

[Willravel]

RB, great post.

[Rekna]

A Virginia district court found that Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui was "mentally ill" and was an "imminent danger to others," according to a 2005 temporary detention order.   click to show 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266683,00.html
BLACKSBURG, Va. — A Virginia district court found that Virginia Tech killer Cho Seung-Hui was "mentally ill" and was an "imminent danger to others," according to a 2005 temporary detention order.

Cho "is mentally ill and in need of hospitalization, and presents an imminent danger to self or others as mental illness, or is seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self, and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment," reads the order, obtained by FOX News.

Cho had previously been accused of stalking two female students on campus and had been taken to a mental health facility in 2005 after an acquaintance worried he might be suicidal, police said Wednesday.

Meanwhile, NBC has received a package that was mailed by the gunman who killed 32 people and himself this week on the Virginia Tech campus.

The box, turned over to Virginia authorities by the network, contains a manifesto, reportes WNBC in New York. NBC believes the package was mailed between the first and second shootings on Monday.

The disclosure about Cho's past run-ins with authorities added to the rapidly growing list of warning signs that appeared well before 23-year-old student Cho went on his rampage. Among other things, Cho's twisted, violence-filled writings and sullen, vacant-eyed demeanor had disturbed professors and students so much that he was removed from one English class and was repeatedly urged to get counseling.

In November and December 2005, two women complained to campus police that they had received calls and computer messages from Cho, but they considered the messages "annoying," not threatening, and neither pressed charges, Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said.

Neither woman was among the victims in the massacre, police said.

But after the second complaint, the university obtained a temporary detention order and took Cho away for psychiatric evaluation because an acquaintance reported he might be suicidal, authorities said. Police did not identify the acquaintance.

Around the same time, one of Cho's professors informally shared some concerns about the young man's writings, but no official report was filed, Flinchum said.

The chief said he was not aware of any other contact between Cho and police after those episodes.

According to court papers, on Dec. 13, 2005, a magistrate ordered Cho to undergo an evaluation at Carilion St. Albans Hospital. The magistrate signed the order because of evidence Cho was a danger to himself or others as a result of mental illness. The next day, according to court records, a special justice approved outpatient treatment for Cho.

A medical examination conducted Dec. 14 found that Cho's "affect is flat. ... He denies suicidal ideations. He does not acknowledge symptoms of a thought disorder. His insight and judgment are normal."

It is unclear how long Cho stayed at Carilion, though court papers indicate he was free to leave as of Dec. 14. Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker said Cho had been continually enrolled at Tech and never took a leave of absence.

A spokesman for Carilion St. Albans would not comment Wednesday.

After the first stalking incident, police referred Cho to the university's disciplinary system, Flinchum said.

But Ed Spencer, assistant vice president of student affairs, would not comment on any disciplinary proceedings, saying federal law protects students' medical privacy even after death. In any case, Cho remained enrolled up until his death.

"There is no blame from students," said Elizabeth Hart, a communications major and a spokeswoman for the student government. "Who would've woken up in the morning and said, 'Maybe this student who's just troubled is really going to do something this horrific?"'

She added: "There's no way to know which kids are just troubled students and who's going to develop into something greater."

Campus police on Wednesday applied for search warrants for Cho's medical records from the campus health center and an off-campus facility. "It is reasonable to believe that the medical records may provide evidence of motive, intent and designs," investigators said in court papers.

Police searched Cho's dorm room and recovered, among other items, two computers, books, notebooks, a digital camera, and a chain and combination lock, according to documents. The front doors of Norris Hall, the classroom building where most of the victims died, had been chained shut from the inside during the rampage.

Fourteen people remained hospitalized Wednesday.

Cho's roommates and professors portrayed him as a creepy, solitary figure who rarely even made eye contact with his roommates, much less speak to them. They said they were never told he was suicidal.

His bizarre behavior became even less predictable in recent weeks, roommate Karan Grewal said. Grewal had pulled an all-nighter on homework the day of the shootings and saw Cho at around 5 a.m., although Cho didn't look him in the eye.

"Nothing seemed out of the ordinary, it seemed he had just woken up," Grewal told FOX News.

Grewal said Cho was "totally alone" every day, and never spoke to family or friends on the phone or via the Internet. He did spend a lot of time on the computer writing, however, Grewal said. But he would never talk to his roommates.

"He never showed anger on his face. Whenever I tried to talk to him, he would just sit there and ignore me, as if I was invisible," Grewal said. "He just sat there staring through space most of the time ... he showed no emotion ever."

Grewal said he and his other suitemates didn't even know Cho's major, or that he had a sister. They thought he was a business major and was surprised to find out after the shooting he was studying English, since they assumed his English wasn't very good, and that was why he never spoke.

Grewal said he would have made more of an effort to get to know Cho had he known of his social and mental problems.

"I tried to be friends with him but after multiple attempts and he showed no interest, I thought he just wanted to be lonely," Grewal said. "If I was told before he was depressed or suicidal, I definitely would have kept an eye open ... I definitely would have tried harder to be his friend or know a little bit better."

Authorities said he left a rambling note raging against women, religion and rich kids. News reports said that Cho, a South Korean immigrant who came to the U.S. as a boy and whose parents worked at a dry cleaners, may have been taking medication for depression.

Professors and classmates were alarmed by his class writings — pages filled with twisted, violence-drenched writing.

"It was not bad poetry. It was intimidating," poet Nikki Giovanni, one of his professors, told CNN.

"I know we're talking about a youngster, but troubled youngsters get drunk and jump off buildings," she said. "There was something mean about this boy. It was the meanness — I've taught troubled youngsters and crazy people — it was the meanness that bothered me. It was a really mean streak."

Giovanni said her students were so unnerved by Cho's behavior, including taking pictures of them with his cell phone, that some stopped coming to class and she had security check on her room. She eventually had him taken out of her class, after threatening to quit if he wasn't removed.

Lucinda Roy, a co-director of creative writing at Virginia Tech, said she tutored Cho after that. She said she tried to get him into counseling in late 2005 but he always refused.

"He was so distant and so lonely," she told ABC's "Good Morning America" Wednesday. "It was almost like talking to a hole, as though he wasn't there most of the time. He wore sunglasses and his hat very low so it was hard to see his face."

Roy also said she arranged to use a code word with her assistant to call police if she ever felt threatened by Cho, but she said she never used it.

This did not appear on the "instant" background check. Virgina needs to reevaluate its instant background check as it is apparently way to lax.

All the warning signs where there. The University was warned by a professors, students had complained about him for stalking, he started a fire in his dorm room, and yet none of this showed up on a background check. I think the University was highly negligent in not reporting this information to police. Well these types of things are not always preventable this one most definitely was. Virgina really needs to improve there background checks.

[Willravel]

Rekna, yes this seems to have little or nothing to do with the Second Amendment and more to do with bad decision making by whomever is in charge of security and background checks. Anyone who would stalk or start a fire should require a psych profile (which could have prevented this massacre).

[Rekna]

I'm betting Virgina is going to be paying a lot of money in lawsuits for negligence.

[Ourcrazymodern?]

Virginia can afford it - she's no longer a virgin. The shooter may have been.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by Rekna

This did not appear on the "instant" background check. Virgina needs to reevaluate its instant background check as it is apparently way to lax.

All the warning signs where there. The University was warned by a professors, students had complained about him for stalking, he started a fire in his dorm room, and yet none of this showed up on a background check. I think the University was highly negligent in not reporting this information to police. Well these types of things are not always preventable this one most definitely was. Virgina really needs to improve there background checks.

The background check is a federal background check, not a state check. This is pursuant to the brady bill passed back when reagan was president. If there was a failure in the check system, it was due to federal negligence.

Originally Posted by willravel

Rekna, yes this seems to have little or nothing to do with the Second Amendment and more to do with bad decision making by whomever is in charge of security and background checks. Anyone who would stalk or start a fire should require a psych profile (which could have prevented this massacre).

and if the shooter would have simply stolen a weapon or two, how would it then have been prevented? or bought a weapon off the street? or from a private party? The bottom line is that there is simply no possible way to prevent any person from obtaining a gun.

Originally Posted by roachboy

having a gun does not make you free--it doesnt make you anything---a gun is a tool that no more tells you what to do with it than having a saw tells you how to cut pieces of wood to size for a building. to think otherwise would require that you also think that you can build a complex model spontaneously because you bought a tube of glue.

If you were accosted by someone with a gun and that person tells you to turn around, are you going to turn around or say no?

If that same person accosts me, i'm going to tell him no, as I draw my own gun against him. I am now FREE of being forced to submit to said attackers demands.

Originally Posted by Rekna

I'm betting Virgina is going to be paying a lot of money in lawsuits for negligence.

The state will not be paying anything. If anyone pays money, it will be the university.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

and if the shooter would have simply stolen a weapon or two, how would it then have been prevented? or bought a weapon off the street? or from a private party? The bottom line is that there is simply no possible way to prevent any person from obtaining a gun.

That's a great attitude. We also can't stop all pedophiles from raping children....so why even try?

I've already posted a straightforward way to avoid this: public monitoring by both government and corporation of each gun by putting a bar code on every gun. Every gun produced is a matter of public record. The records start when the guns are produced. The record has a list of the factory, shipping company, vendor, and owner. If a gun goes missing, they can track down exactly when in the process it went missing and can take steps to prevent it in the future. If there's a dirty vendor or shipper, they get shut down. If the gun is stolen from a legal owner, then policy on how to keep guns must change.

[powerclown]

sorry, wrong thread. don't..shoot me.

[hiredgun]

Originally Posted by scout

So..... It's not paranoid or xenophobic to want to completely disarm the populace because a few terrible persons of ill repute manage to beat the system?

I don't get it and I probably never will.

This is much like the liberal left movement to cry foul [*snip* bizarre rant about 'the left' -HG]

what the fuck?

Okay, I'm going to have to sidestep almost all of this because I have not made any arguments for (or against) gun control in this thread, nor have I identified myself with the left or any of the Bush-related arguments you've brought up. None of that is relevant to my post.

My simple point is: there's something bizarre and utterly arbitrary about choosing national origin as a way to explain this incident. There is absolutely zero evidence that his being Korean (or more broadly a non-citizen) had an atom's worth of bearing on what happened. You cannot even construct a hypothetical explanation of how such linkage might operate, because it's completely absurd.

[Willravel]

It reminded me of Bill ORly's argument in that other thread.

[Halx]

Hopefully they find enough shit mentally wrong with this guy that they can't blame benign devices like video games and rock music for long. That is unless they say it caused the insanity. Then we know who the real psycho is.

[dirtyrascal7]

Originally Posted by willravel

Rekna, yes this seems to have little or nothing to do with the Second Amendment and more to do with bad decision making by whomever is in charge of security and background checks. Anyone who would stalk or start a fire should require a psych profile (which could have prevented this massacre).

I had the same view as you regarding the psych profile being able to prevent this from happening, but apparently that isn't true... below is an excerpt from this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18169776/

The two women complained to campus police that Cho was contacting them with “annoying” telephone calls and e-mail messages in November and December 2005, campus Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said.

Cho was referred to the university’s disciplinary system, but Flinchum said the woman declined to press charges, and the case apparently never reached a hearing.

However, after the second incident, the department received a call from an acquaintance of Cho’s, who was concerned that he might be suicidal, Flinchum said. Police obtained a temporary detention order from a local magistrate, and in December of that year, Cho was briefly admitted to Carilion St. Albans Behavioral Health Center in Radford, NBC News’ Jim Popkin reported.

To issue a detention order under Virginia law, a magistrate must find both that the subject is “mentally ill and in need of hospitalization or treatment” and that the subject is “an imminent danger to himself or others, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for himself.”

According to a doctor’s report accompanying the order, which was obtained by NBC News, Cho was “depressed,” but “his insight and judgment are normal.” The doctor, a clinical psychologist, noted that Cho “denies suicidal ideations.”

Cho was released, said Dr. Harvey Barker, director of the health center.

Now, apparently he went to the health center in early 2006, so he essentially had a year after being released for his mind to continue deteriorating to the breaking point. The article mentioned that there were no further police incidents from that point until Monday, so unfortunately there wasn't another chance for a formal re-evaluation of him.

However, every article I've read featuring statements from people who interacted with him gave very grim and creepy views of this guy... so you would think somewhere along the line a warning flag would have gone off in someone's mind and prompted further investigation.

[archetypal fool]

Originally Posted by dirtyrascal7

However, every article I've read featuring statements from people who interacted with him gave very grim and creepy views of this guy... so you would think somewhere along the line a warning flag would have gone off in someone's mind and prompted further investigation.

Yeah, but I think we've all met the occasional creepy guy every once in a while, and not every introverted creepy guy is capable of doing this kind of thing.