BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Rapparee
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:01 PM

Bill, the answer is to change the culture. But I don't expect that to happen.

I would like to know why a "domestic dispute" in a dormitory wasn't handled by the campus cops to start with. If a quarrel had reached the point where a Residence Assistant was called in, why wasn't it handled as a similar quarrel would have been off the campus and the police called?

I've known of students at a major US university who thought that they shouldn't be held responsible for anything from underage drinking to assault and battery to rape because "I'm a XXXXX student." (The argument didn't hold.)

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:07 PM

"...the feebleness of the response to the deaths of two young people..."

Feeble is putting it lightly.

I suppose because they 'assumed' it was a domestic dispute, there was no need for a lock down? That tells you how seriously they take domestic disputes! Don't they realize that those who kill during a domestic dispute are enraged and are a danger to everyone? Pity the women of Viginia.

I work in an elementary school and I can assure you we have emergency response procedures in place and we have drills at least once a year. We all know the difference between code yellow and code red. It is far more likely that you will find a gun on a university campus so what kind of excuse does the administration or the police have? Absolutely none!

It is sad and disgusting that anyone would even want to commit such a horrible act but the response was equally apalling.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:15 PM

I dropped in yesterday to offer my condolences to those affected by this tragedy. I am thoroughly disgusted with the way some of you manage to turn Tragedy into Trash. I'll start a "Sympathy" thread for those interested (if no-one else has) and respectfully ask that you keep your debate out of it.
Sincerely.
Jim

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:35 PM

All of the issues in this thread have been discussed on the Diane Reem show today. The issues are not trash unless nothing is learned or improved!

All of us are revulsed by horror in different ways.

I did not know there are ~ 17,000 violent assualts on US college campuses every year, few of which involve guns. However the US does rank #11 in random gun violence if you exclude things like civil wars in other countries, some of which we supply the guns.

I do apologize for comparing all Virginia youth to the kind of teenage kids you see in Virginia Shopping Malls. The students at Virginia Tech are a wonderful diverse and comsmopolitan group of people.

The tragedy of the holocaust survivor senior professor killed yesterday, while trying to save others, is somehow compounded by the fact that it was on Holocaust rememberence day.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:37 PM

That's fine Jim...

but since the 'debate' is alread here:(I considered a 4th thread...but who knows the best way?)


Mick says "Virtually no one I know ever treated guns in an irresponsible way, "

I knew one. Back before I had thought through all the implications of the gun situation--in fact, I lived in his basement apt. for a year.....he knew guns quite well. He owned a shotgun, and a couple of rifles and several handguns. He favored his .45, however. He often walked around with it loosely concealed in his back pocket! Once, at a county Young Democrats meeting where there was a contentious election, he was surprised by being nominated for a position. He walked up to decline the nomination with that .45 half uncovered bulging obviously. At another meeting of the NAACP, the gun FELL OUT of his pocket on the floor! He smirked, picked it up, and went on talking.
This guy fancied himself a 'protector'...a swashbuckling knight. He knew another man who he considered 'dangerous', so he would drive on nightly patrols with armament by his side.
(He wanted ME to learn to load and use both the .45 and the shotgun...he considered one 30 min. lesson to be adequate. I was bemused & confused, trying to humor him.)

One night, he got a call from a woman we both knew, who said something like, "Mac..can you come over...I am really upset..."

so...he came down, grabbed ME, and "C'mon Bill...we have to go...you drive!"....Off we went, just a few blocks. As I pulled up to the curb, he opened the door, and...so help me, ROLLED out of the car as it was still moving, .45 in hand, and rushed in a crouch up to the door...where the startled woman said "Mac...what in the world are you doing? I was just tired & upset and needed to talk!"

Now, this was a GOOD guy. He meant well...and fortunately, nothing ever happened that would put him in a sad newspaper story. But it is easy to see how there might have been. Mac could SO easily have decided he saw a 'danger' and used that gun too quickly.

Perhaps if Mick had known Mac, he could have talked some sense into him...but I really doubt it. And I wonder how many other similar stories there are?

Mac decided *I* needed a gun, and procured for me a 5 shot .22...just in case. I shrugged and hid it away.........guess what? It was stolen in a burglary. It was pawned...and they wanted me to BUY it back. I declined.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 01:49 PM

My nieces know both one of the men who jumped out the window (after which the gunman killed everybody left in the classroom) and the woman who survived the main classroom attack and has been on CNN.
This time it wasn't a white guy, though.
Anybody saying he was at the right age to be coming down with schizophrenia?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 02:11 PM

well you did,
and you are right that it is a possibility

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 02:14 PM

A man came to VT a year ago to discuss the role that first shooter video games play in creating school killers.

There is even a Columbine challenge video game in which players can hone their skills.

The military has paid for some of the games to help depersonalize trainees to kill with calm exactitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 02:19 PM

Outlaw English majors!

And Basketball.

.................................................................
Gunman came to U.S. at age 8 from South Korea
POSTED: 2:00 p.m. EDT, April 17, 2007

Story Highlights• Gunman was 23-year-old senior English major
• Cho Seung-hui listed Centreville, Virginia, as hometown
• Gunman, family described as quiet

CENTREVILLE, Virginia (CNN) -- The gunman in Monday's massacre at Virginia Tech was Cho Seung-hui, a 23-year-old senior English major from Centreville, Virginia, Virginia Tech Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said Tuesday.

Cho took his own life as police closed in on him, according to Col. Steve Flaherty, Virginia State Police's superintendent. Thirty other bodies were found in Norris Hall along with Cho, officials said.

Two people were killed earlier Monday in a college dormitory.

Cho, a South Korean national, was a legal resident of the United States, emigrating from his native country when he was 8, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

He lived in a Virginia Tech dormitory, but not in the one where the first of Monday's shootings took place, university officials said.

"It certainly is reasonable for us to assume that Cho was the shooter in both places, but we don't have the evidence to take us there at this particular point in time," Flaherty said.

Police searched the residence at the home address he listed in Centerville, a suburb of Washington, on Monday night, CNN's Bob Franken reported.

Neighbors and a postal worker who delivered mail to the residence described the family as friendly but quiet, Franken reported. No one was home at the white, two-story townhouse residence Tuesday.

Cho was a loner, according to Larry Hincker, the associate vice president for university relations.

Authorities are having a hard time finding any information about him, Hincker said.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington that Cho was a legal permanent resident and had a green card.

Cho "was very quiet, always by himself," neighbor Abdul Shash told The Associated Press. He said the family was quiet, and Cho often played basketball, according to an AP report.

Fairfax County Schools in Virginia issued a statement Tuesday saying Cho graduated from Westfield High School in Chantilly, Virginia, in 2003. The school's Web site describes it as an "Honors" high school.

Court records obtained by the AP show Cho got a speeding ticket from Virginia Tech police on April 7. He was cited for going 44 mph in a 25 mph zone, the AP reported, with a court date set for May 23.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 02:41 PM

I just got a recorded phone call from the superintendent of our schools. He/it said a letter was coming home with the kids today with suggestions to how to deal with the VT shooting incident with our children.


On TV there are damage control speeches with Bush in attendence.
IF VT were sued 2 million dollars for every dead and wounded person in these gun deaths they would certainly be facing bankruptcy or closure unless the NRA were to help.

Yes let the NRA help pay VT for the loss of these fine people.

I am sure there are no members of the NRA willing to surrender their guns or support gun laws similar to the UK.

Let them pay a tribute, not a fine, for every gun death in our country.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Donuel
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 02:55 PM

The letter says we should pray.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 03:18 PM

Time the silent majority in America asserted themselves.
The only time gun deaths make the news is when multiple tragedies occur.
American gun laws are a national disgrace....on a par with what you laughingly call an administration...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: gnu
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 03:39 PM

Since this thread now includes "debate" and "opinions", allow me....

Some nut goes nuts with a gun. Someone must be punished. Punish all of the gun owners.

That is truly fucked up.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 03:43 PM

Some people seem to think it is ok to try to make political points off even a tragedy of this magnitude.

But then, they would rather pass more "feel-good" laws that don't work than to try to deal with the real problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 03:49 PM

But tragedies are perfect for scoring political points. A far bigger tragedy gets played out on the streets of Baghdad on a weekly basis, and people see no problem scoring political points off that. For me, to kill other people in the name of a faith or an ideology is far more of a tragedy than to do so because of a psychotic episode.
Yes, it is a tragic and appalling episode - similar to many that seem to have happened in the US. But compared to Iraq or Chechnya...

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:03 PM

right on Cap'n.
Your message rings of truth more strongly than all the crocodile tears on Mudcat...
   "From my dead cold hand"....fucking scum....Ake.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Slag
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:08 PM

Gee, I must have missed some of the news!!! How long was this psychotic a member of the NRA? Did the NRA teach him to be a loner? Did it teach him how to kill people with malice aforethought? Is the NRA a criminal organization? If so why haven't arrests been made? Just what does the NRA stand for? What do they do?

You know, it would be interesting to see a research study on the political leanings of those who commit murders, mass murders and the like. The prejudicial hatred spewed out by some of the posters herein drips of venom and murder against many law abiding folks who are responsible gun owners who seek to obey all the legal contortions necessary in order to protect their families and neighbors from criminals and the deranged and to enjoy a hobby and a sport. Am I supposed to believe that their hearts are in the right place?

American gun laws a disgrace? Hardly! The books are full of odious and restrictive gun laws as well as useful ones which increase mandatory sentences for those who abuse their rights. Laws cannot change the hearts or minds of haters and killers nor can they stop the same from arming themselves in some fashion. That fact alone necessitates the law abiding to be armed in some manner or we will be sitting ducks such as these unfortunate souls were at VT. Get real.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:13 PM

Slag ....have you lost it completely?

That heap of shit is not even worthy of a reply

Its more full of holes than those pesky "redskins"

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:14 PM

I think NRA is National Rifle Association.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:16 PM

"That heap of shit is not even worthy of a reply"

Sort of what I thought about your diatribe...

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:19 PM

NRA

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:21 PM

But it is nice to know all the support for the removal of rights to provide for imagined security.

If we just mandate a single world religion, and force everyone to comply with it, think about how much less conflict there will be.

Freedom of speech was never meant to include such things as the Internet and television: After all, the Founding fathers did not think about that.

No group of over three people should be allowed to assemble, to prevent tragedies like the killings. If they had to be in groups of two or three, think how many fewer would have been killed.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:22 PM

Get real
Reality as in VT, Columbine, the Amish shootings and plenty of others I suppose. But, heck, it's a small price to pay for freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:23 PM

"The National Rifle Association, or NRA, is a non-profit group for the promotion of marksmanship, firearm safety, and the protection of hunting and personal protection firearm rights in the United States, established in New York in 1871 as the American Rifle Association. It sponsors firearm safety training courses, as well as marksmanship events featuring shooting skills and sports. The NRA is sometimes said to be the single most powerful non-profit organization in the United States. It predicates its political activity on gun ownership being a civil liberty protected by the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, and is the oldest continuously operating civil liberties organization in the United States. According to its website, the NRA has 4.3 million members"

OK, we better outlaw the ACLU as well: Can't have those pesky rights interfere with anybody's idea on how to make the world a safer place.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:24 PM

Didn't really expect you to be a supporter of the "gun lobby" BB.
I used to have a little respect for your opinions.
Goin' for a bit of easy sympathy vote these days are we??

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:24 PM

Care to give ONE case where the criminal DID NOT violate the LAW?????


Oh, I guess we should pass more laws that are not enforced...

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:26 PM

"Didn't really expect you to be a supporter of the "gun lobby" BB."

If you devalue part of the Bill of Rights, what justification do you have for ANY rights?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:27 PM

"I used to have a little respect for your opinions."


Never that I can recall.



"Goin' for a bit of easy sympathy vote these days are we?? "

Yes, YOU and the others demanding the removal of rights ARE.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:29 PM

To my knowledge the "right to bear arms" actually refers to militias.
Please correct me if I am wrong...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: bobad
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:31 PM

The Language of the 2nd Amendment

The 2nd Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." One way in which the NRA constructs its mythical 2nd Amendment is by changing the language of the real one. The NRA's political ads consistently omit the part about the militia being necessary to a state's security. Indeed, the abridged version actually appears on the edifice of the NRA's Washington, DC headquarters.

The NRA's deliberate omission of the militia language speaks volumes, because it is precisely that language that expresses the purpose, and limit, of the right to keep and bear arms. As the United States Supreme Court wrote in its fullest discussion of the Amendment's meaning, the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of state militia forces. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939). The Court added: "It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Therefore, the necessity of maintaining effective state militias is, by the language itself, the only concern of the Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms exists only to the extent necessary to meet that concern. There is nothing in the Amendment's language even remotely suggesting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for hunting, self-protection, target shooting or other individual pursuits unrelated to the operation of state militias.

http://www.guncite.com/hci2nd.html

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:31 PM

Not for the first time, I'm rather glad that 4,000 miles and the chill Atlantic divides me from folk like Slag and BB.
With such articulate and noble champions for the Land of the Free, it's little wonder that half the world seems to hate the US and the other half laughs at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:32 PM

What about tightening up the restrictions for
non-citizens to posses guns, or the kinds of guns they possess. Would that violate the 2nd amendment?

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:33 PM

"To my knowledge the "right to bear arms" actually refers to militias.
Please correct me if I am wrong...Ake "

You are wrong- THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

Like "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. " and
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,"



-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bill of Rights
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Amendment II

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


Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:37 PM

"Our nation's primary gun law is the 1968 Gun Control Act, passed in the wake of the murders of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Robert Kennedy.

Major Provisions:

Established categories of prohibited firearms purchasers and possessors.
Convicted felons, fugitives from justice, illegal drug users or addicts, minors, anyone adjudicated mentally defective or having been committed to a mental institution, anyone dishonorably discharged from the military, illegal aliens, anyone having renounced U.S. citizenship.

Licenses and set standards for gun dealers.
Establishes licensing fee schedule for manufacturers, importers, and dealers in firearms; sets record-keeping standards; requires licenses to be obtained from the Secretary of the Treasury; requires serial numbers on all guns.

Prohibits the mail-order sales of all firearms and ammunition.

Prohibits the interstate sale of firearms.
A handgun purchaser may only buy a gun in the state in which he/she resides; however, long gun sales to individuals in contiguous state that did not violate either state law, were allowed. (Today, long guns may be purchased from gun dealers in any state, regardless of purchaser's state of residence).

Sets age guidelines for firearms purchased through dealers.

— Handgun purchasers must be at least 21.
— Long gun purchasers must be at least 18.

Prohibits the importation of non-sporting weapons.
The importation of "Saturday Night Special" handguns and some semiautomatic assault rifles (the 43 weapons covered in the 1989 Bush Administration ban) as well as two military shotguns have been barred under this section of the law.

Sets penalties for carrying & using firearms in crimes of violence or drug trafficking.

Prohibits importation of weapons covered in the National Firearms Act and extends NFA restrictions to machine gun frames and receivers and conversion kits (i.e., parts to make machine guns).

Prohibits importation of foreign-made military surplus firearms.

Prohibited the sale and manufacture of new fully automatic civilian machine guns (effectively freezing the number of them in circulation).
This provision was adamantly opposed by the NRA. In fact, some of its most radical members did not want the McClure/Volkmer bill to pass if it contained this provision.

Immediately following the enactment of this law, the NRA announced that "its highest priority" in the next Congress would be to repeal the ban on machine guns. To date they have not introduced legislation to do this.

Prohibited the sale of parts or "conversion kits" - used to make semiautomatic firearms fully automatic.

Classifies silencer parts and kits as weapons falling under the National Firearm Act."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=1968&menu=gvr

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:37 PM

I appear to be RIGHT BB

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:40 PM

It's OK, Ake - I don't think he's yet grasped the concept of the conditional clause.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Escamillo
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:41 PM

We have seen the ceremony at VT some minutes ago. It ended in a paroxysm of applauses, football hurras , shouting "we are the VT", and loud wows.

This is what I said above, and this is the subject that (IMHO) should be addressed immediately, in the US, in my country and all the world. An educational institution is not a football team. No internal brotherhoods should be allowed, no competitions be promoted, no seek for any kind of internal or external championship be accepted, and especially no discrimination or mockery against others in or out of the institution be tolerated.

To achieve this, it is not necessary to amend the constitution or create new laws, it is only a matter of orientation from the politic and educational authorities, it is their duty. And we as parents can claim for a change and get it done.

This will not solve the problem of the easy distribution of firearms, and will not cure psychotic personalities, but will surely configure a social environment where students could develop feelings of solidarity instead of anger and revenge.

And of course, we all know that we in particular, or our children, never became murders just for having been discriminated from some team. Let's see the problem in general, not in particular.

Un abrazo - Andrés

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:42 PM

"Prohibited Persons
The original GCA prohibits firearms purchase and ownership by certain broad categories of individuals thought to pose a threat to public safety. However, this list was in contradiction between the House and the Senate versions of the bill, and led to great confusion. This list was later augmented, modified, and clarified in the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. The 1986 list is:

Anyone who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year.
Anyone who is a fugitive from justice.
Anyone who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.
Anyone who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution.
Any alien illegally or unlawfully in the United states or an alien admitted to the United states under a nonimmigrant visa.
Anyone who has been discharged from the US Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions.
Anyone who, having been a citizen of the United states, has renounced his or her citizenship.
Anyone that is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner.
Anyone who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (See the Lautenberg Amendment.)
A person who is under indictment or information for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year cannot lawfully receive a firearm. Such person may continue to lawfully possess firearms obtained prior to the indictment or information."

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:43 PM

Oh dear, could someone put BB out of his misery before he slips up with his cut and paste and ends up posting part of his lower bowel to this thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:45 PM

"March 12, 2007

Last Friday a federal appeals court in Washington DC issued a ruling that hopefully will result in the restoration of 2nd Amendment rights in the nation's capital. It appears the Court rejected the District of Columbia 's nonsensical argument that the 2nd Amendment confers only a "collective right," something gun control advocates have asserted for years.

Of course we should not have too much faith in our federal courts to protect gun rights, considering they routinely rubber stamp egregious violations of the 1 st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, and allow Congress to legislate wildly outside the bounds of its enumerated powers. Furthermore, the DC case will be appealed to the Supreme Court with no guarantees.   But it is very important nonetheless for a federal court only one step below the highest court in the land to recognize that gun rights adhere to the American people, not to government-sanctioned groups.   Rights, by definition, are individual. "Group rights" is an oxymoron.

Can anyone seriously contend that the Founders, who had just expelled their British rulers mostly by use of light arms, did not want the individual farmer, blacksmith, or merchant to be armed?   Those individuals would have been killed or imprisoned by the King's soldiers if they had relied on a federal armed force to protect them.

In the 1700s, militias were local groups made up of ordinary citizens.   They were not under federal control! As a practical matter, many of them were barely under the control of colonial or state authorities.   When the 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well-regulated militia," it means local groups of individuals operating to protect their own families, homes, and communities. They regulated themselves because it was necessary and in their own interest to do so.

The Founders themselves wrote in the Federalist papers about the need for individuals to be armed.   In fact, James Madison argued in Federalist paper 46 that common citizens should be armed to guard against the threat posed by the newly proposed standing federal army.   "

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:46 PM

"Today, gun control makes people demonstrably less safe-- as any honest examination of criminal statistics reveals. In his book "More Guns, Less Crime," scholar John Lott demolishes the myth that gun control reduces crime. On the contrary, Lott shows that cities with strict gun control--like Washington DC--experience higher rates of murder and violent crime. It is no coincidence that violent crime flourishes in the nation's capital, where the individual's right to defend himself has been most severely curtailed.

Understand that residents of DC can be convicted of a felony and put in prison simply for having a gun in their home, even if they live in a very dangerous neighborhood.   The DC gun ban is no joke, and the legal challenges to the ban are not simply academic exercises. People's lives and safety are at stake.

Gun control historically serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government."

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: bobad
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:47 PM

"Therefore, the necessity of maintaining effective state militias is, by the language itself, the only concern of the Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms exists only to the extent necessary to meet that concern. There is nothing in the Amendment's language even remotely suggesting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for hunting, self-protection, target shooting or other individual pursuits unrelated to the operation of state militias."

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:48 PM

Sounds like good sense Andres.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:49 PM

The 'founders' also advocated slavery and the confiscation of Native American land. Should that, too. be sacrosanct?
It seems to me that the constitution is about as useful as Isadora Duncan's scarf.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:49 PM

Captain Ginger,

Sorry if a discussion of the rights that some of us support is so annoying to you. Feel free to require everyone to think just like you, and act like YOU want them to.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Constitutional Legal Scholars Acclaim Federal Court's Overturning of D.C. Gun Ban



    WASHINGTON, March 14 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On March 9, a federal
appeals court in the District of Columbia has overturned the 31-year-old
ban on keeping handguns in homes in the nation's capital city, ruling that
the ban is unconstitutional. The panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit became the nation's first federal appeals court to
overturn a gun-control law by declaring that the Second Amendment grants a
person the right to possess firearms.
    Two Independent Institute research fellows were involved in the
plaintiffs' case.
    "The Founders' true intent of the Second Amendment is vindicated by the
U.S. Court of Appeals in Parker v. D.C. (2007)," said constitutional legal
scholar Stephen Halbrook. "Rejecting the perverse 'collective rights' view
that this Bill of Rights guarantee protects governmental units rather than
persons, the Court squarely holds that law-abiding individuals have the
right to keep and bear arms, and thus that D.C.'s ban on possession of
handguns even in the home is unconstitutional." Halbrook, who has written
extensively about the second amendment, is the author of the Independent
Institute's forthcoming book, The Founders' Second Amendment, which is
being published by Stanford University Press.
    In addition, Independent Institute Research Fellow Don B. Kates, Jr.
notes that, "The Founders of this nation strongly endorsed the right to
arms; as Thomas Paine put it, 'arms like laws discourage and keep the
invader and plunderer in awe and preserve order in the world....' The D.C.
Circuit court opinion effectuates that constitutional tradition."
    "Based on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, this
ground-breaking ruling overturns one of the longest-running and most
restrictive gun bans in the U.S.," said David Theroux, President of the
Independent Institute. "Washington, D.C., has led the nation with the
highest murder rate for most every year of this ban's existence. The
federal court's decision upholding the individual's right to self-defense
should be applauded by all those who care about the civil liberty
protections of the Bill of Rights."

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: artbrooks
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:51 PM

The "militia clause" is apparently going to the Supreme Court again, based upon the recent ruling on the DC government gun control law. It will be interesting to see if the current Court upholds the 1939 decision. It has been my impression that the NRA and other segments of the gun lobby have been trying very hard to keep this out of the courts for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:53 PM

Captain Ginger,

read my 17 Apr 07 - 04:21 PM - YOU obviously feel that since the times have changed, rights should be forfeit whenever YOU disagree with them.

If you want to make a case for changing the 2nd amendment, do so- but until it is changed, it remains as valid as the others, and you alter it at the risk of losing those, as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: akenaton
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:53 PM

Are you unaware BB that your "Armed citizens" live under one of the most tyrannical governments in the world??

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:54 PM

"It has been my impression that the NRA and other segments of the gun lobby have been trying very hard to keep this out of the courts for a long time."

It has been my impression that the NRA and other segments of the gun lobby have been trying very hard to get this into the courts for a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: Virginia Tech Shooting, 20 dead?
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 17 Apr 07 - 04:55 PM

Not so much a discussion, BB, as a one-man barking session. As I have said, I'm thankfully unaffected by your 'rights' and your 'freedoms' and am merely gaining some vicarious amusement from prodding you and watching you inflate like a proposterous little puffer fish in a frenzy of cutting and pasting.

I do like to think that I have the right not to remain silent. It would, after all, take a heart of stone not to laugh.