Cynical Nation

And South Korea worries that Americans will use this as an excuse to harrass Koreans in the U.S.

South Korea concerned over US killings

"The government will work out measures to prevent a backlash on South Koreans living in the US and minimize the impact on the South Korea-US alliance"

As far as I can determine, there has been absolutely no backlash anywhere in the U.S. against Koreans.

Then, of coursem you have humps like this d-bag on NRO:

Spirit of Self-Defense [John Derbyshire]

As NRO's designated chickenhawk, let me be the one to ask: Where was the spirit of self-defense here? Setting aside the ludicrous campus ban on licensed conceals, why didn't anyone rush the guy? It's not like this was Rambo, hosing the place down with automatic weapons. He had two handguns for goodness' sake—one of them reportedly a .22.

At the very least, count the shots and jump him reloading or changing hands. Better yet, just jump him. Handguns aren't very accurate, even at close range. I shoot mine all the time at the range, and I still can't hit squat. I doubt this guy was any better than I am. And even if hit, a .22 needs to find something important to do real damage—your chances aren't bad.

Yes, yes, I know it's easy to say these things: but didn't the heroes of Flight 93 teach us anything? As the cliche goes—and like most cliches. It's true—none of us knows what he'd do in a dire situation like that. I hope, however, that if I thought I was going to die anyway, I'd at least take a run at the guy.

AS FOR making it OK for students to carry concealed weapons on campus, let me get this straight: college campuses + barely-adult-at-best kids + guns + boozy frat parties + real or imagined slights + lack of self-control = safer campuses?

Last graph was mine, not the idiot Derbyshire's

You're right fred, we all need to consider cancelling our subscriptions to the National Review -- but let's bring the troops home from Europe and South Korea first to assure that there won't be a "backlash" against our cherished allies.

"Pity the Europeans couldn't afford the courtesy of similar restraint."

Restraint for what? The Spiegel article is correct. If there were stricter gun laws (especially in VA), this might had never happened. The killer bought both of his guns legally. Think about it. In VA any crazy person can walk into a gun store and buy guns anytime, essentially without questions asked.

I guess I am one of the "exceptions", but it has nothing to do with politics. I sincerely believe that we need much stricter gun control. In fact, I believe that guns should be outlawed altogether. As you know I respect and understand your views, but I simply think the evidence is on the other side. There is no reason that citizens need to have guns. The way to fix the problem is to strengthen the police and law enforcement. In fact, thats what policemen advocate and argue for.

By the way, today there is emerging evidence that the killer (Cho) was taken to a mental facility in 2005. Don't you think that (at the very least) the law in VA should prohibit selling guns to people who were treated for mental illness? It is beyond comprehension that someone officially crazy was able to buy guns.

Rushing an armed gunman is, of course, extremely risky, though that's how Colin Ferguson (the LIRR illegal immigrant shooter) was brought down and three armed students at the Appalachian School of Law brought down Nigerian national Peter Odighizuwa after he began a shooting spree at that institution.

According to John Lott, "The quick response by two of the students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives."

"When the sound of shooting erupted, panic ensued. "People were running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in front of traffic, trying to get away," Gross said.

"Instead of joining in the chaos, Gross and Bridges ran to their cars and got their guns. Joined by an unarmed Ted Besen, an ex-Marine and police officer, the three men approached the shooter from different sides.

"I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down," Bridges recalled. "Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed him back, and we all jumped on."

I think the real lesson from tragedies like the VT massacre, the LIRR shootings and the Luby's Luncheonette rampage are the same - gun bans only assure that the innocents are disarmed.

Moreover, the idea that better gun control will stop tragedies like these is inane. Julio Gonzalez perpetrated the WORST case of mass murder in U.S. history in March of 1990 using only a dollar's worth of gasoline, a small container and a makeshift wick.

87 people were killed in the Happyland Social Club fire in the Bronx on March 25, 1990.

More gun control laws or even a national gun ban is of no use without giving law enforcement the authority to search (on suspicion and without warrant) persons, their dorm rooms, homes, hotel rooms, cars, etc, in order to enforce that ban.

The fact that guns are too easy to get on the black market and too easy to make, requires that any sought of severe gun control would require draconian law enforcement measures, not at all unlike what the Giuliani administration visited upon the inner cities of New York - random stop & frisks with police putting random people up against walls for "pat downs," and regular street closings where people entering or leaving that block would have to show ID.

I've supported much milder intrusions and been assailed as a "police state supporter," so it is vital for those who support stricter gun controls or gun bans to know that they are supporting a much more intrusive set of policies than I ever endorsed.

Now, I'm probably willing to accept a much tighter "security state" than most here, but I can't deny that self-defense is the most basic human right and a prerequisite for self-ownership/freedom.

Huh, a fat lot that German guy knows. You can't buy a gun in VA without having at least 3 forms of ID. So you have to have already acquired a driver's license if you want to buy a gun. That's not easier at all!

In a related bit of irony, Barack Obama gave a political speech where he compared the violence at VT to "other forms of violence," including "the verbal volence of Don Imus."

Ben Smith's blog chronicled it like this;

“But while Obama mourns the slain students, he takes the massacre more as a theme than as a point of discussion.

"Maybe nothing could have been done to prevent it," he says toward the end.

"So he moves quickly to the abstract: Violence, and the general place of violence in American life.

"There's also another kind of violence that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways," he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of "violence."

"There's the "verbal violence" of Imus."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0407/Obama_on_Virginia_Tech_and_Violence.html

And Ace at Ace of Spades HQ put it like this;

"Then there's the "violence" of conscience of a shameless politician attempting to score points on the still-cooling bodies of the dead, and the "violence" perpetrated against the English language by a near-retard who can't comprehend the subtle distinction between a slight and a slaughter."

http://www.ace.mu.nu/

4/17/2007

Tell 'em, Tami!

Besides. Germans shouldn't be allowed to criticize America for at least another 40 years.

Blue Wind: "Restraint for what? The Spiegel article is correct. If there were stricter gun laws (especially in VA), this might had never happened."

And on the same day as the VT tragedy: International Herald Tribune, April 18, 2007 -- Nagasaki seeks clues to slaying of mayor -- Handguns for private citizens are totally illegal in Japan.

Blue Wind: " The killer bought both of his guns legally. Think about it. In VA any crazy person can walk into a gun store and buy guns anytime, essentially without questions asked."

What question would you have asked Cho Seung-Hui to verify his sanity?

The murder rates for Japan is among the lowest in the world, around 0.5; the rate of the United States is among the highest among all developed countries, around 5.5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder

"The murder rates for Japan is among the lowest in the world, around 0.5; the rate of the United States is among the highest among all developed countries, around 5.5." (PE)


That’s immaterial to the point WF made, PE.

“Mayor Kazunaga Ito, who went by the name Itcho Ito in public life, was shot twice in the back Tuesday night on a sidewalk here after a campaign speech, said Hirozumi Chiyoda, a spokesman for the Nagasaki prefecture police. He died hours later in a local hospital from blood loss, Chiyoda said.”

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/18/news/japan.php

Switzerland has one of the world’s lowest crime rates and there, EVERYONE must own a gun. Moreover, both Switzerland and Japan are relatively homogeneous countries.

Foreign crime rates are not a valid argument, in either case.

Ban violent video games... check.

Repeal the 2nd Amendment... check.

How about we instead find a way to help disturbed people like Cho before they go buy a gun and kill dozens of people?

"Switzerland has one of the world’s lowest crime rates and there, EVERYONE must own a gun.

Hey JMK,
You completely distort the facts as always. Your statement above is FALSE. What they do in Switzerland is summarized here . They all have to serve in the military and DURING THAT PERIOD they are given a weapon to keep at home. That is part of their military service. They have some sort of militia instead of army. For good reasons. That country has never been in any war in its history. They are the most peaceful country on earth, and well known for it. Thats why they dont need an army.

PE is right. We have one of the highest rates in crime, because of lack of gun control. At least in some states.

CRB, it's always easier to ban "things" than try to solve real problems.

>We have one of the highest rates in crime, because of lack of gun control.

You'd have a damn hard time demonstrating that, Blue. As I've said, the liberalization of American gun laws in past decades has coincided with a sharp decrease in violent crime, including gun deaths. The evidence simply does not support your assertion.

You can also look at regional variations of gun laws. The District of Columbia and Newark, NJ are both places with very strict gun laws. Alaska and Vermont have the most liberal gun laws in the country. Where would *you* rather walk the streets alone at night?

"Where would *you* rather walk the streets alone at night?"

Actually NYC by far. Much more fun than the rest. And they also have tough gun laws. Anyway, I agree that there is no hard evidence to back what I say using US data only, and you may be right. My basis for my beliefs is that the crime rates in most european countries (where guns are banned altogether) are much lower than here.

The fact that I believe that guns should be regulated does not mean that I dont respect the rights of gun owners. I can see your point. I just think that someone should look at the issue very carefully. I prefer the police enforcing the law than citizens themselves.

"That country has never been in any war in its history. They are the most peaceful country on earth, and well known for it. Thats why they dont need an army." (BW)


That doesn't contradict my above statemtnat all BW.

The Swiss may not need an Army, BUT they certainly NEED those guns!

AS I said above, those who'd endorse stricter gun control or a gun ban, need to repeal the 4th as well as the 2nd Amendment, because it isn't enough to merely pass laws, we have to then give law enforcement the authority to stop & frisk any and everyone they deem fit to be searched.

Laws are meaningless until they're meaningfully enforced.

I just insist that those who'd ban guns come clean and acknowledge that it's not only the 2nd Amendment they have a problem with, it's the 4th as well.

"My basis for my beliefs is that the crime rates in most european countries (where guns are banned altogether) are much lower than here. " (BW)


Now that's UNTRUE!

England, France & Germany all have soaring violent crime rates...I showed you the comparison between Orleans, France and New Orleans, USA - Orleans, France has a violent crime rate that is 67% higher than New Orleans!

>The fact that I believe that guns should be regulated does not mean that I dont respect the rights of gun owners..

Well, it kinda does. Unless, of course, you're backtracking. I notice you said "regulated" here, and not banned. Are you shifting?

>I just think that someone should look at the issue very carefully.

Again, this sounds very different from a person who wants to ban guns.

>I prefer the police enforcing the law than citizens themselves.

So does everybody. No one wants citizens to "enforce the law." We just want citizens to be able to defend themselves. Big difference.

OK, JMK. First of all, I just stated the fact that Japan has a much lower murder rate than does the United States. I didn't state why that was the case as obviously the difference in gun laws are not the only differences between the two cultures.

That said, I don't quite understand how it is OK to point out that on this day that there were was a murder in Japan as well, but it was not relevant to mention the overall murder rates of the two countries.

So what was the point that Without Feathers made, that gun murders do happen in Japan? Yes, they do happen, but less of them, although Japan does have a higher suicide rate.

As far as walking the streets alone, have you ever been on a rural road at night? At least in Newark, your cell phone works.

"I notice you said "regulated" here, and not banned. Are you shifting?

No, I am not. I believe that guns should be banned altogether. However, I realize that it will be essentially impossible for this to happen at this time, and the only realistic expectation now would be to have much tighter gun control in all states. I think is reasonable to expect that mentally disturbed killers like the guy in VA would not be allowed to legally purchase guns, like he did.

PE: "So what was the point that Without Feathers made, that gun murders do happen in Japan?"

The point is that gun control obviously doesn't prevent gun crime.

Another salient point is that people often seem to assume that "murder" is a synonym for "homicide by handgun." In fact, in this country only about two-thirds (10,100 in 2005) of murders are committed with firearms of any kind. A startling 892 murders using "hands, fists, feet, etc" were committed in 2005. In other words: If every firearm on the planet disintegrated over night, The U.S. would still probably be the most murderous country on the planet.

The problem is violence, not firearms, and as long as we continue blame inanimate objects for violence, we aren't going to get anywhere in solving the problem

PE, the point that WF made was that even in a culture where guns are banned (Japan's), gun murders do occur.

One of the reasons we have such a high rate of gun violence is that we are a culture rooted in "freedom" as self-ownership and personal responsibility and not "freedom" as license ("doing whatever one wants so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else").

Much of the rest of the world seems to view "freedom" as license, so do an increasing amount of Americans.

The view of freedom as self-ownership predicates violent self-defense as one of the most basic human rights.

Guns are easy to make, homemade explosives are even easier and a gasoline bomb or "molotoff cocktail" is still even easier to make.

Calls for more gun control or gun bans is blaming an inanimagte object or tool for the problems of the humans who misuse that tool.

That's why the calls for stricter gun control and gun bans requires not only abolishing the 2nd Amendment but the 4th.

Those restrictions and bans mean nothing if law enforcement isn't given the powers to search any and everyone they wish to search, in an effort to make sure those bans are enforced.

"I think is reasonable to expect that mentally disturbed killers like the guy in VA would not be allowed to legally purchase guns, like he did." (BW)


VA DOES have laws against both felons and the mentally ill owning firearms.

In this case, it appears that it's the medical side that failed the system, as none of Cho Seung-Hui's problems (his stalking two women, neither of whom pressed charges, setting fire to his dorm room, or his overnight stay in a mental facility) were documented, probably because he was never clinically diagnosed with Depression or any other major psychiatric disorder.

If they had documented him as mentally ill, the VA "Inst-check" would've picked that up and voided any sale of guns to Cho Seung-Hui.

The unfortunate bottom-line is that a person intent on doing massive harm is going to find a way to do just that.

That's NOT "society's fault."

It's HIS fault.

The best option for stopping Cho Seung-Hui would've been an Appalchian School of Law type intevention early on during his rampage.

Has it been confirmed that Cho was in fact involuntarily committed? Because that's what was reported yesterday. And it was also reported that Virginia does not allow those who have been involuntarily committed to purchase guns. If that is the case, why isn't there a system in place to check that kind of information? How can a law require something like that but have nothing in place to ensure that it is followed?

A reasonable question, K. I say we look into that before repealing the 2nd Amendment.

"That's NOT "society's fault."

No, IT IS society's fault. If it is so easy for a phychotic killer to go and LEGALLY obtain guns, and then use them to kill 32 people, what makes you think it is not society's fault? Of course and it is. He should have never had legal access to guns. It is such simple concept that you refuse to see.

I think K's question is a good one. And I believe that the answer is simple. The gun lobby does not want restrictions to gun sales.

If your only point, WF, is that gun control doesn't prevent ALL gun crime, well yes I agree with that statement. Furthermore, the existance of a police force doesn't stop all crime, nor do traffic lights stop all accidents. The question of whether limitations on gun ownership reduces the threat of murder is a matter open to debate, as far as I'm concerned.

As far as..

"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."

I respect that it is part of the Constitution and I respect that the Founding Fathers knew that gun ownership was a check against tyranny. Beyond that, I believe there are valid disagreements over its interpretation, the result of which is that state laws vary by a considerable degree and the Supreme Court has ducked some fundamental questions over its meaning.

I love the Constitution, but I don't think that is the clearest bit of a prose our Founding Fathers wrote.

And I should add that most states have, written in their state's constitution, a much clearer guarantee of an individual's right to own guns.

I believe that New York and New Jersey are two states that do not have that written in their state constitutions.

"Has it been confirmed that Cho was in fact involuntarily committed? Because that's what was reported yesterday. And it was also reported that Virginia does not allow those who have been involuntarily committed to purchase guns. If that is the case, why isn't there a system in place to check that kind of information? How can a law require something like that but have nothing in place to ensure that it is followed?" (K)


He had no criminal record and the medical system seemed to have failed to either document Cho Seung-Hui as mentally or, or failed to deliver that information to the Insta-check system.

Like any system, it's only as good as the information put into it.

Apparently Cho Seung-Hui wasn't in the Insta-check system.

He had no criminal record.

And the reports I've seen weren't clear on his official mental health status either.

Better information, or at least information delivery would probaly make the Insta-check system better.

"That's NOT "society's fault." (JMK)


"No, IT IS society's fault. If it is so easy for a phychotic killer to go and LEGALLY obtain guns, and then use them to kill 32 people, what makes you think it is not society's fault? Of course and it is. He should have never had legal access to guns. It is such simple concept that you refuse to see.

I think K's question is a good one. And I believe that the answer is simple. The gun lobby does not want restrictions to gun sales." (BW)


Nothing about this case was "society's fault," BW.

It was ALL Cho Seung-Hui's fault....every bit of it.

That's why this issue isn't anout "THING control" (guns), but "PEOPLE control," something most Liberals aren't exactly down with.

Seung-Hui had no criminal record and was very possibly never documented as "mentally ill," that's why he wasn't in the Insta-check system.

Look, Seung-Hui's problem was that he was a dark, brooding guy who envied wealthier people, reviled the Capitalist system that allowed some to have so much more than others, and (possibly because his family reportedly spent the decade before coming to America in Saudi Arabia) felt that America and thus Americans were often the "bad guys" on the world stage.

How many others like him are out there?

Probably ten or twenty million, at least!

How many of those are really dangerous?

Probably a very small percentage - maybe 5% or so (just guessing, but it's almost certainly a small percentage).

Since you haven't defended the 4th Amendment, I take it you accept that any gun ban would require a much more intrusive police presence, with police routinely and without warrant being able to search people at will in order to enforce that ban.

Further it would also necessitate a much greater amount of what's called "pattern analysis," or "criminal profiling" and allowing authorities to detain and interrogate people, based solely on such patterns, for instance, "brooding loners, who express dislike for Capitalism and/or America."

That's going a lot further than I've ever suggested going on the WoT intrusions that I've defended (infiltrating and surveilling Muslim groups in the U.S., detaining ANY people who've ever given to suspected terror fronts, and denying terror suspects, both citizens and non-citizens, access to U.S. courts, instead assigning their cases to military tribunals, etc.).

As Julio Gonzalez proved, people intent on mass murder are going to find ways to do it, with or WITHOUT guns.

The WORST mass murder in U.S. history (87 killed) was carried out WITHOUT a gun, on March 25th, 1990.

Deranged people will always find ways to do deranged things.

That's why the real issue is "PEOPLE control" NOT "OBJECT control."

JMK, I think we can both agree that Cho shouldn't have had access to the guns he bought. (At least I think we can...)

But can you suggest a way that we could keep guns away from nut cases and protect the rights of the vast majority of law abiding citizens?

How about "brooding loners" who express dislike for Air America?

Anyway, seriously, prayers for all those affected by this tragedy. I know someone who had taught there until getting a job in Minnesota this year. All people she knew still at VT are safe.. but obviously she is devastated.

Despite our differences here, I think we all can come together in prayer for those who were affected by this tragedy, as well as admiration for the heroes, such as the 76 year old Holocaust survivor who gave his own life to save the lives of his students.

Peace and good night and let us count our blessings.

Yes, Bob, but if he'd either been declared mentally ill or had his mental health status been put into the Insta-check system, presumably he would've been barred from buying a gun.

My only two points about all this are, (1) gun bans would require abolishing both the 2nd & 4th Amendments, as privacy rights would have to be violated in order to enforce such a ban and (2) deranged or just evil people will do deranged and evil things with or without guns, as Julio Gonzalez proved.

I think the problem really is a "people control" problem," and that's a thorny area.

"How about "brooding loners" who express dislike for Air America?" (PE)


I think that would be too broad a group, because apparently even most Liberals hated AAR, at least judging by its ratings.

God bless your friend, PE.

"Survivor guilt" is a very common experience in people who survive disasters and tragedies.

I know a number of guys who had worked mutuals on 9/11 and even though the "knew" they didn't do anything to cause their mutual partner's death, they still "felt" that the other guy "took their bullet."

71 y/o Liviu Librescu (the Romanian born Holocaust survivor) was one of the heroes of that day - a truly great man.

Turns out that legal loopholes may have allowed Cho Seung Hui's mental status to eveade the Insta-check system.

"A judge's ruling on Cho Seung-Hui's mental health should have barred him from purchasing the handguns he used in the Virginia Tech massacre, according to federal regulations. But it was unclear Thursday whether anybody had an obligation to inform federal authorities about Cho's mental status because of loopholes in the law that governs background checks.

"Virginia State Police send information on prohibited buyers to the federal government. They maintain that the sale was legal under state law and would have been barred only if the justice had committed Cho to a psychiatric hospital. Barnett ordered outpatient treatment instead.

"The Virginia attorney general's office declined to discuss the application of gun laws to Cho's case. Barnett also declined to comment.

"The state uses a slightly different standard than the federal government, barring sales to individuals who have been judged "mentally incapacitated."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070420/ap_on_re_us/virginia_tech_shooting_weapons

PE: "I love the Constitution, but I don't think that is the clearest bit of a prose our Founding Fathers wrote."

Well, perhaps not as clear (in your mind) as the bits about unrestricted abortion and the right to plan terrorism free of government intrusion, but clear enough in my view.

WF..

First of all, while I am pro-choice, I am very skeptical regarding the Constitutional Grounds of "Roe vs. Wade." Frankly, I believe the judges stopped interpreting the Constitution and started writing laws.

Regarding your second point regarding government intrusion, you will have to be more specific, but certainly the Bill of Rights does place limits on Government intrusion.

And lastly, regarding..

"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."

Read the sentence. It begins with a reference to how a well regulated Militia is necessary, therefore the right of the "people" to bear arms shall not be infringed. Again, many states have in their constitutions clauses that more clearly grant individuals the right to keep and bear arms, but the meaning of this sentence has been debated for more than 200 years. Result: the laws of New York vary considerably from the laws of Virginia.

Interesting, PE. I'm going to come down to your right on guns but to your left on Roe.

Last first. I think the "collective right" view of the Second Amendment has fallen out of favor in recent years. The truth is that it always struck me as a bit contrived. There are no other such "collective" rights in the Constitution, much less in the Bill of Rights.

The wording is odd, but the operative part of the sentence is still "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not read "the states may keep militia."

By reading the writings of the Founders it's pretty clear to me that they wanted to guarantee an individual right to bear arms. In the wording of the amendment, they chose to identify one (of many) reasons for why such a right should exist. Just my $0.02.

As far as Roe goes, I part company with many of my friends who view it as the epitome of judicial activism from the High Court.

Robert Bork can argue that there is no "right to privacy" enumerated in the Constitution, and he is right, as far as it goes. But the 9th and 10th amendments make it pretty clear that we shouldn't presuppose a right not to exist simply because it's not spelled out in the Constitution.

In short, I believe in the "emanations" and "penumbra" that conservative judicial scholars have mocked for decades. I think the guarantees against unreasonable search and seizure and the quartering of soldiers are fairly decent evidence that a right to privacy, in some sense, can be argued from a 9th amendment standpoint.

Granted, Roe might not have been the acme of well-crafted judicial scholarship, but I do think it's sound enough to be upheld.

I support the right of individuals to own guns because I believe that violent self-defense is a prerequisite for self-ownership (Liberty) and we weren't given the "choice," as Americans, to be self-owning, it was foist upon us by the Founders with a "No backsies," called the Bill of Rights.

I support unfettered first trimester abortion (and would even mandate it in some instances) but I still believe the SC was over-reaching with Roe as it over-reached with the insipid 1973 nationwide ban on the death penalty.

Both Capital Punishment and abortion SHOULD be state matters and not determined by the federal government.

The Court remedied that 1973 bit of over-reaching, but not Roe.

I think politically, most Americans support first trimester abortion (about 2/3s do) but feel too many of the wrong people are having them and not enough of the right (the poor) are availing themselves of that right.

Sure, many won't say that, but I believe that's the prevailing view.

Hell, it ALWAYS WAS the view behind legalizing abortion - Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood was in the American Eugenics movement.

Barry, I actually agree, more or less, with your last sentence. While there is no right to an abortion in The Constitution, and I am skeptical of the "right to privacy," it does seem that the original intent includes precluding states from constructing arbitary restrictions on otherwise lawful activity -- that's what was actual at stake in Roe vs Wade.

In 1973 abortion was legal in the U.S. and the number of legal abortions in the U.S. was over half a million. Texas was trying to do an end-run around the legal process by making it practically impossible to exercise that legal right. The Supreme Court rightly slapped that infringement down.

To me, the Second Amendment is not at all ambiguous. All that is needed is a reading of the text with an understanding of 18th century lexicality (yes, it's a word, look it up). The word "regulate" is frequently misunderstood to mean only what it generally means today -- that is (per Merriam-Webster): "1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority."

In fact the word has a broader meaning which was more widely used right up through the 19th century: "to bring order, method, or uniformity to" In other words: Training and practice to achieve proficiency. The amendment becomes completely unambiguous if you apply that meaning and assume that Founders wanted as many citizens as possible to be practiced and proficient with firearms (the high-tech of the day) in the event that they were needed to serve in a "well regulated militia." Using that perfectly valid and, in the 18th, century widely recognized usage of the word "regulated" the sentence can easily be transliterated as: "A well trained and proficient militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."

While I am not hip to the latest fashions in Constitutional thinking, I would think, however, if the second amendment did establish gun ownership as an individual right, that gun control laws in the states that don't have individual rights detailed in their state constitutions would be struck down as unconstitutional regardless. As it stands, it is my understanding that the lower courts have varied in their verdicts, depending largely on state and region.

> As it stands, it is my understanding that the lower courts have varied in their verdicts, depending largely on state and region.

That's true, PE. There's also been, I believe, a reluctance of both sides to tackle the issue head-on before the Supreme Court. But I also think the "collective right" interpretation holds less sway than it used to. I, for one, would welcome clarification from the SC once and for all. Moreover, after the recent decision striking down DC's gun bans, I think it may actually happen.

OK, I'll throw this out to everyone here...

How do we keep the Cho's of the world from getting guns and still protect the rights of average citizens?

Here's my thought on it:

Make gun ownership like car ownership. Require a license to use one and registration and insurance to own one.

Oh, and just for the record; I absolutely believe that gun ownership is a guaranteed right.

Oh yeah, and to get a license require the applicant to not only take an eye test but require them to get a doctor to certify they are sound of mind and body.

>Make gun ownership like car ownership. Require a license to use one and registration and insurance to own one.

I'm not as expert on different state laws as I should be, but my own personal experience in states like North Carolina (which is considered to be fairly liberal in terms of gun laws) this was already the case, except for insurance. When I got my concealed carry permit I had to undergo a background check, register my firearm, and pass a training class.

If New Jersey, my current home state, were to have laws like you propose I'd be very happy. Alas, they are considerably more restrictive than that. :-(

I know NJ, my home state as well, is very restrictive.

But couldn't something be done on a federal level that establishes a minimum standard?

I'm willing to bet that you had to go through all those hoops because it was a "concealed carry" permit. If you simply wanted to but a shotgun I'll bet there were virtually no restrictions in NC.

>If you simply wanted to but a shotgun I'll bet there were virtually no restrictions in NC.

True, which I've always thought was odd, given that for sheer destructive power it's hard to beat a 12-gauge shotgun.

>But couldn't something be done on a federal level that establishes a minimum standard?

This is something the NRA has always pushed for -- some minimal degree of uniformity between states. I often travelled back and forth between North and South Carolina, and I adhered to the letter of the law, I'd have to stop at the border every time, get out of my car, and transfer my weapon from the trunk to the driver's seat or vice versa, depending on which way I was going.

I do have some qualms on federalism gounds about the federal government micromanaging state gun laws, but some minimal "bill of rights" might be helpful.

It certainly seems sensible to have at least a uniform national standard as to what information would go into the Insta-check system.

As it turns out, in Virginia, the system is only alerted once a person is committed.

""Virginia State Police send information on prohibited buyers to the federal government. They maintain that the sale was legal under state law and would have been barred only if the justice had committed Cho to a psychiatric hospital. Barnett ordered outpatient treatment instead."

You'd think the standard should be much more strict than that, even if the system can be later abridged in cases where mistakes in commitment were made.

People with any significant mental health issues or any significant (ie. felonious) criminal record should be barred from legally buying guns.

Again, such a plan isn't a fail safe.

All we know is that Cho Seung-Hui bought those guns legally, but if that venue wasn't available and he was determined to get them, there's always he black-market route.

Still, I'd agree with a basic minimum federal standard that made the Insta-check system, which numerous states use, more functional and reliable.

Why blame the guns? They didn't walk in and shoot themselves.

We invite every foreigner to come work cheap in America, so they bring their mental cases like this kid along. He was intent on murder.

This was a smart kid. He could have easily poisoned and killed more students. He could have ran a car into a crowd of students. He could have made a simple bomb and killed just as many, or a lot more. He could have lit a match and started a fire that killed hundreds after securing the escape routes.

The problem wasn't his guns, the problem was his inherent insanity. The Korean community knew about it, but did nothing. Like most immigrants, they only look our for themselves.

Note that he didn't go shoot up the Korean community.

Well, I have to commend you for a rather remarkable trait.

Even when you come upon the germ of a right idea (it certainly was Cho's mental state that was the primary issue here) you manage to butcher it with a breath-taking mean-spiritedness and a mind-numbing naivete.

Cho Seung-Hui's family came here legally and his parents ran a dry cleaning shop - a productive enough venture. His sister recently graduated from Princeton and works for the government.

He may well have been a bigot, but his naturalized status isn't a factor in this crime.

We have a serious problem with structural unemployment in this country and legal immigration is vital to dealing with that.

The current immigration system needs to be "fixed," - eliminate "anchor babies" and make "merit" (desirable skills) the primary prerequisite for immigration....and ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION must be ELIMINATED completely, as it's a national security issue, as well as an economic one.

In other words, Cho's insanity WAS a major factor in this hideous crime, but his immigration status wasn't a factor at all.

We don't need them here. His sister will take a good job that some real American needed.

Most asians run cash businesses that allow them to evade taxes. The live illegally with many fmailies packed into one cheap rented house, which they trash completely and leave for the owner to repair and clean, saving all of their money until they can start buying up properties and businesses.

They are not good for America, and we certainly don't need them here.

If asians are so great, why are their own countries so shitty they need to come over here?

Like Mexicans, they generally refuse to assimilate, and once they gain any position, they disriminate against all "outsaiders" -- meaning real Americans.

They are racists. We don't need them here.

Absolutely untrue in virtually every instance, but spoken like a true Liberal none-the-less.

We have profound structural unemployment (look it up, I'm not going to explain that again) and legal immigration (probably on the order of a few hundred thousand immigrants per year) is vital to dealing with that,

Liberals like yourself constantly and deliberately confuse needed LEGAL immigration with dangerous and negative ILLEGAL immigration.

It's unfortunate that this tape was made public due to an acrimonious celebrity divorce.

Alec Baldwin is a political moron, but just because he's wrong politically, didn't warrant this.

JMK, you look the weakest and dumbest when you call a registered Republican like me, who voted for Reagan, and who is a REAL Conservative, not a neocon sellout like you -- a Liberal.

I hold no Liberal positions on anything.

Your boy, Bush, is the one who is FOR illegal immigration, that makes YOU the Liberal.

Bush Jr is indeed WRONG on illegal immigration and that's one of MANY things I've disagreed with him over.

I wish there were some way to prove me a "reflexive Bush supporter," but sadly there isn't. I've checked.

Ironically enough, Bush Jr, just like Ronald Reagan did, is pushing an amnesty program for illegals, although Bush Jr., isn't calling it amnesty, as Reagan DID...and that policy was wrong in BOTH cases.

All that merely proves is that on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, Reagan was wrong too!

EVEN Tom Tancredo (whom I like on the subject), does NOT seek to tighten LEGAL IMMIGRATION, nor does he confuse the two.

Tancredo, thoughtfully approves of maintaining the current levels of legal immigration, but making that immigration dependent upon one having specific skills we need and ending things like "anchor babies" and family re-unification.

We have significant structural unemployment in America and that must be addressed via things like LEGAL IMMIGRATION and H-1B Visas (which they're rightfully considering raising the limits on again).

We NEED immigrants, in fact, we need them badly, but we don't need illegal invaders.

Bullshit. We have corporations who need cheap labor to make more obscene profits.

(as an aside, note that gas prices are now $3.00+ again, as I predicted -- as I said, Big Oil dropped prices to manipulate the election)

Microsoft interviews me over and over, but they want me to work for 20% less than the going rate. Then they go to congress and demand to import cheap slaves.

"Structural" my ass.

YOU really NEED to read THIS;

http://workingclassconservative.blogspot.com/2007/02/guess-where-gasoline-prices-are-heading.html

A great piece, if I do say so myself.

It's all in there.

I can't comment on your experiences with MS, except to speculate that perhaps you were 20% overpaid to begin with....I don't know, I'd just be guessing.

The FACT is that the financial services sector now uses more H-1B Visa workers than do the IT fields and for the same reason - structural unemployment.

Salaries in that field have NOT gone down and jobs are still going begging.

Ergo, this COngress will almost certainly raise the H-1b Visa ceiling again.

We NEED Legal immigrants and there is no politician, nope, not even Tom Tancredo, who'd seek to seriously curtail Legal immigration.

And thanks for tacitly acknowledging that Reagan, like G W Bush pushed for and got passed, an amnest bill for illegal aliens. You made my day.