News-Record.com

I just admitted, I have no idea,how to solve this problem. It may well be true, that more guns, would have solved this sooner. Saying that I sure as heck would not want to be in school,if the students had guns.

I agree, Doug. Wyatt Earp at a kegger? I hope not.

Well, your buddy Doug Clark blames the problem on antidepressants, not guns. I guess that can be the next bumper stick "Guns don't kill people; antidepressants kill people". That'll fit right beside "Charlton Heston is my president."

Seriously, how many more people need to be murdered before we do something - anything - about gun violence? Clearly, easy access to firearms is a huge part of the problem.

JS:
Even more to the point, the problem in this case involves easy access to guns by someone who clearly had documented mental health issues.

Well, that's another aspect to this. As long as anyone can go buy a gun at Wal-Mart or the corner pawn shop, it becomes impossible to keep guns away from psychos and criminals. When they are that easy to obtain, anyone can get them.

Don't forget: the Va. Tech shooter used legally purchased handguns to commit these murders.

JS,
Have you tried to purchase a gun lately. It took me 3 days to buy a shot gun at Wal mart.
If we would give up our right to so much privacy, this should not have happened!
People raised hell, because Bush want to listen in on people, that was a threat to this country.If the state of Va. had done what was right this may have not happen. They where scared that they may have been sued by the civil right people.My guess is you be one of the first to holler.
There are 20000 gun laws on the books. They did not work. Less privacy may have!

Doug,

If I had to choose, i would rather give up my right to buy as gun, than my right to privacy

Me, too, mikeg.

Doug, the Va. Tech shooter purchased his guns legally. The system didn't fail because of privacy concerns - it worked exactly as it was supposed to. Cho Seung-Hui had the legal right to buy those guns - and that's the problem.

As long as guns are readily available to the general public, there will be no effective way to keep them out of the hands of the bad guys. How many innocent people have to die before we give up our love affair with guns?

just saying, do you have even an inkling of the purpose of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution?

Funny you should mention the Second Amendment. It 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."

Note the second, third and fourth words: "well regulated Militia". The pro-gun crowd conveniently likes to forget this part of the Second Amendment. I'm not sure how allowing any nutjob to walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a pistol qualifies as a "well regulated Militia".

just saying, the purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow the citizens to arms themselves as protection from the government. It is the one amendment that guarantees the other freedoms. Unarmed citizens are called "subjects" and the Constitutional amendments are there to make sure we never return to that type of rule.
It's called FREEDOM.

just saying, the Supreme Court in numerous rulings over the years has always affirmed that the citizenry as individuals may exercise the Second Amendment right. There have been silly claims such as yours, but they're just that, silly.

Jaycee, if you really think an armed revolt against the United States government is even on the table in the 21st century, well, I don't know what else to say.

The Supreme Court also upheld slavery at one point. Laws change. Times change. Societies change.

just saying, you apparently have no clue as to the checks and balances in a democracy. I might argue that the framers of the Constitution had no intent to allow the hate speech of the KKK or the Black Panthers, but it's called FREEDOM. And the Second Amendment insures the government will not take your freedoms away by allowing the citizens to have a position of strength against a totalitarian-bent government. It's why we fought the Revolution against England and freed ourselves from a tyrannical government in which "subjects" had few rights.
You really don't understand what we're talking about, do you?

Jaycee, would you like to see handguns on every other student attending college? Would you like to be the professor of such a group of students, especially if they haven't been earning passing grades? How about young women going on dates with armed (and probably often drinking) young men? Have you got a daughter?

Yes, citizens have a right to own SOME sort of "arms". Do they ahve a right to "bear" them anywhere, at any time? The amendment doesn't stipulate. This has been interpreted, for example, to justify hunters having their shotguns and rifles. When hunting. Not when going into McDonald's (where they consume far more processed beef than any venison they ever kill). They surely don't need rapid-fire, multi-shell machine-gun-like weapons, let alone pistols, Glocks, etc.. Hunters don't need to plug deer or even big bear full of a couple hundred holes. If they are real sportsmen, at least. And it spoils the meat (as if they intend to eat most of it, hypocrites).

And to ward off our own government? I don't see how the Second Amendment condones or even mentions armed insurrection. Quite the opposite, the "well-regulated militia" (note the emphasis on "regulated") called for seems clearly intended to PROTECT said government.

Granted, the need for such an armed militia to guarantee the "security of a free state" does leave room to imagine an attempt to take the entire nation by force against the will of the citizenry, whereby logically one can infer some of the major armed forces (Army, Navy, Marines, et al) might well be in cahoots with this posited rogue government.

Any attempt to control such a geographically huge area as the whole nation would be plainly beyond the abilities of our military. We can't control Iraq or Afghanistan.

Which would be to the citizenry's advantage, since individually or even in concert, the paltry caches of all the hunters and paranoids out there would be no match for tanks and missiles.

Maybe they should allow Joe Public to own those, too? And a bazooka or two on campus, while we are at it!

Mr. Langer, you need to do some research on the US Consitution. The Bill of Rights is not intended to give the government power, but rather to limit the power of the government over the people. The Second Amendment is specifically intended to allow an armed citizenry to pose a roadblock to any future government which would try to take away the people's rights. It has nothing to do with self-defense, hunting, or target shooting.
Would you also say the First Amendment is outdated and should be ignored? How about we limit journalists to *one* article a month? After all, these *assault* journalists don't really need to say that much, do they? And how about mandatory background checks on the mental health of every newspaper reporter or TV anchor so they can *prove* their qualifications to exercise a right guaranteed them under the US Constitution?
The Second Amendment guarantees you'll be able to exercise the rest of them.

Mr. Jaycee (in lieu of a real name)

I have done the research, Mister. That's part of my job, as well as an enduring hobby. This particular amendment, you can read clearly, calls for a regulated militia. Who do you think is doing the regualting here? As an individual, one cannot count as a regulated militia person by oneself. Regulation and the idea of being part of a militia are collective ideas, by their very definition!

Now, yes, the amendment denies the powers of a government to seize all sources of firearms. That may well be to prevent a coup état; remember, it was a much smaller nation in 1789, one might more easily imagine a centralized government becoming a tyranny. Nowadays, of course, we vote in our would-be tyrants, even re-electing them.

Today, again, I submit it is surappsingly improbable for such a coup of military force against the citizens. Secondly, even if there was such an action, do you think the masses armed with rifles or even the repeat-fire arms of mass killers an the like would stand a chance against tanks and missiles, if such a tyrant chose to use them? The Founders could not have envisioned such weapons which would make the terms of the amendment nearly moot upon that possible issue.

Instead, the amendment has evolved into a call for the rights of hunters and gun enthusaists. Would you prefer to only license guns to those who avow to take them into action only at the moment of clear and present danger posed by a rogue government?

Wrong again, Mr. Langer. The power of the Bill of Rights is that it protects the citizens from a tyrannical government. Not one single thing in the Second Amendment was intended to address hunting, target shooting, or self defense.
I'm sure the framers of the Constitution didn't "envison" that the First Amendment would be used to protect the hate speech we see today, even from the floor of the Senate, or "Piss Christ" or burning the US flag. However, that freedom is guaranteed and has been upheld time and time again.
Likewise has the Second Amendment. The intent is for the citizenry to always have the means (and the threat) of resisting a government that would take away the other rights. That is why the Second Amendment comes after what's arguably the first most important, the right to free speech.
The Second Amendment guarantees that you'll be able to exercise the rest of them.
The notion that "only the military and police" should have weapons is likewise contrary to the intent of the Constitution. Both of those are the very government entities citizens need to protect themselves from, should the government try to strip us of the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.
The ever-present possession of arms by citizens is one of the most important aspects of a free nations and serves as probably the most important check-and-balance against government tyrrany.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
--Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]

" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604

And, lastly, something a bit more modern:

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959

Wrong yourself, Mr. Jaycee. I said it EVOLVED, as some human minds have over the past 200+ years. Thus, the Supreme Court HAS used the amendment to uphold hunters' rights.

You also have still avoided replying to my inquiry as to whether you think we should allow citizens to arm themselves with the kinds of firepower necessary to truly fight against a potential rogue government and army, navy, etc.

I am not arguing that the original intent may have been to arm citizens against a potential rogue government. My points are that a) the amendment HAS been interpreted BY the highest court in the land to apply to OTHER uses, too; and b) that the notion of the avergae stash of weapons, or even the big hauls by Timothy McVeigh, would be a lackluster barricade against the combined forces of U.S. national forces, if taken over by sinister minds. That makes the amendment moot as such a bulwark.

In fact, Boris Yeltsin didn't need a gun to stop the tanks sent by KGB to topple Gorbachev.

Why stop with abandoning the intent of the Second Amendment, Mr. Langer?
Heck, we don't need that pesky ol' 4th Amendment, either. The police should be allowed to come in and search your house anytime for any reason. Surely the Founding Father's didn't intend to protect criminals when they came up with that one, did they? Hey, that was then, this is now. Let's go after those criminals and to heck with their rights!
And how about that 5th Amendment thing? Why, with crime these days, surely we should be able to force confessions out of people. I mean, we've *evolved* over the years, haven't we? There's no real need to protect someone from being forced to confess, is there?
Man, let's get with the times.
Maybe YOU could rewrite the Constitution the way YOU want it to work, eh? The Langer Constitution For Evolved Times. What a great idea!
Oh, yeah. And we've decided you talk too much, so no more Freedom of Speech for Mr. Langer! You can only say things that are pre-approved by the Government.
How's that for enlighenment in view of our "evolved" times?

Did I say we even needed to "abandon the intent"? No, it is simply mooted by technology the founders never envisioned. Once more, do you propose to allow bazookas and missiles, anti-aircraft guns and the rest to be open for purchase?

Criminality, alas, has not changed...except, perhaps internet crimes. Do you propose that all internet conduct be left entirely unsupervised by police? Is one's PC one's castle?

People's right to abstain from self-incrimination also is a defendable bulwark, since the human brain has not changed its technology. Keeping one's mouth shut is a lot easier (admittedly, for some) than defeating a rogue government by force of insufficient arms. It also goes to show how the power of words and one's willingness to physically withstand an onslaught are sometimes more powerful than guns. Again, my Yeltsin reference. Throw MLK in there, too, and Gandhi.

I certainly never said anything against the other amendments, nor against the 2nd. I merely pointed out its lack of practical application if there were such a rogue government take-over (most likely carried out by elected officials with the collusion of the Pentagon). Do you really think the current kinds and numbers of firearms in private hands could defeat such overwhelming force were it unleashed, say, on cities wholesale?

As I also said, the more likely outcome would be that using tactics like that in Iraq (which is largely effected by IEDs and ground-to-air missiles, not handguns, etc.) by the insurgency, whatever rogue government was set up could not control the entire country. Oh, they might find ways, surely; but the current arsenal in private hands would not play the major part in fending it off. Once more, I ask you, do you propose escalating the sorts of things available for legal purchase within our borders? Why not take the 2nd Amendment word-for word, if it is to ensure against unwanted government take-over? Why not allow coalitions to stand at the ready, their own militias, a la what Montana and other western states have squirreled away? Why not more Branch Davidians? And let them be armed like small armies. That'll scare whomever would try to take our country away from us, using our own government, or if they were foreign invaders! Heck, why rely on just the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force and National Guard (hey, aren't those last fellows the actual descendants of a "well-regulated militia")? Every man his own Rambo!

"There are those in America today who have come to depend absolutely on government for their security.
And when government fails they seek to rectify that failure in the form of granting government more power.
So, as government has failed to control crime and violence with the means given it by the Constitution, they seek to give it more power at the expense of the Constitution. But in doing so, in their willingness to give up their arms in the name of safety, they are really giving up their protection from what has always been the chief source of despotism—government.
Lord Acton said power corrupts.
Surely then, if this is true, the more power we give the government the more corrupt it will become.
And if we give it the power to confiscate our arms we also give up the ultimate means to combat that corrupt power.
In doing so we can only assure that we will eventually be totally subject to it."
— Ronald Reagan"

Jaycee:
Nobody's suggesting outlawing private gun ownership altogether.

Allen, MANY are suggesting just that. Many think that "only the police and the military" should have guns. I address that above as well.

Constant quotation does not address the questions I have posed, jaycee. Please, how far do you suggest we grant citizens in procuring armaments to fight against the inevitable illegitimate government you predict? In fact, odds probably do favor some dangerous take-over someday...we are a young nation, after all. Secession was attempted; wholesale coup état at some point may only be a statistical likelihood.