Virginia Tech Shooting Spurs Manhunt, Student Alert

[off piste]

This is impossible! It couldn't have happened!! There's existing gun laws that prohibit the posession of guns in schools! Impossible!

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aUjvHFtrH8RI&refer=home


Virginia Tech Shooting Spurs Manhunt, Student Alert (Update2)
By Demian McLean
April 16 (Bloomberg) -- Virginia Tech University said a gunman was arrested and another remained on the loose today at the school's Blacksburg campus. One person was killed and as many as seven injured, the Associated Press reported.
Shots were fired at West Ambler Johnston dormitory and Norris Hall, the school said on its Web site. The campus has been closed and students locked inside buildings as police hunt for the shooter still at large, the school said.
``Stay inside your building, away from windows,'' the school Web site said. Students off campus were urged to keep away, and classes were canceled.
The shooting follows a week in which bomb threats were made at the school, formally called Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. It has about 26,000 students.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker didn't immediately return phone messages or e-mails from Bloomberg News.

[off piste]

My heart goes out to all the poor victims of this senseless crime. And, it looks like it could've been avoided:

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

Gun bill gets shot down by panel

HB 1572, which would have allowed handguns on college campuses, died in subcommittee.

By Greg Esposito (greg.esposito@roanoke.com)
381-1675
A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.
House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.
The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.
Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."
The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.
Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.
In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.

[bdee]

WTF?? Didn't this happen just a few hours ago, and there's already a political angle?

[AA]

Off-Piste so 30+ people are killed in Virgina and you decide that you will get on your soap box and spew about it's a good idea to have college kids with handguns. You need to think before you type.

[off piste]

No, YOU need to ignore it and not read it if you don't agree. Fact is, it's true, sorry if you can't see that simple fact -- why do you think these POS's target schools for this type of thing -- because theres effectivly a sign hung out saying "Unarmed People Here".

[bdee]

Oh well in that case I should worry about being shot at work, the post office (maybe not??), the grocery store, my bathroom, the beach, my dentist's office, the vet's, the gas station.....

[AA]

No, YOU need to ignore it and not read it if you don't agree. Fact is, it's true, sorry if you can't see that simple fact -- why do you think these POS's target schools for this type of thing -- because theres effectivly a sign hung out saying "Unarmed People Here".

There is a reason I dont read the crap that gets posted in the Politics and Rants forum, the only reason I happen upon this thread was the title appeared to be news of an actual event (and it was). My point is that you should wait for them to clean up the blood and remove the bodies before you rail about the policies that you believe would solve the problem. Perhaps I was expecting some sense of decorum / dignity but obviously I am in the wrong place. I should have know better.

Respond however you want, I'm not going to waste my time reading any more posts here.

[off piste]

Sorry, but what could be more of a statement about how these policies fail than the story itself? If there should be a "waiting period" before something is "permissible" to be discussed, than what is it? Who decides it? These people were killed because of this policy, pure and simple.

[off piste]

About the Brady Campaign's lack of observing a "waiting period" before discussing this issue?

http://bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=884

Nation Again Grieves Over A Tragedy "Of Monumental Proportions"
For Immediate Release:
04-16-2007

Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792

Blacksburg, VA – Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, issued the following statement:

"Our thoughts and prayers go out to the families of the Virginia Tech University community, and to the families of the victims of what appears to be one of the worst mass shootings in American history.

"Details are still forthcoming about what motivated the shooter in this case to act, and how he was able to arm himself. It is well known, however, how easy it is for an individual to get powerful weapons in our country.

"Eight years ago this week, the young people in Littleton, Colorado suffered a horrible attack at Columbine High School, and almost exactly six months ago, five young people were killed at an Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania. Since these killings, we've done nothing as a country to end gun violence in our schools and communities. If anything, we've made it easier to access powerful weapons.

"We have now seen another horrible tragedy that will never be forgotten. It is long overdue for us to take some common-sense actions to prevent tragedies like this from continuing to occur."

[off piste]

Oh well in that case I should worry about being shot at work, the post office (maybe not??), the grocery store, my bathroom, the beach, my dentist's office, the vet's, the gas station.....


Why, are all those places posted as "no gun" zones? I was carring at the vet's today, and the grocery store, and the gas station, and my bathroom. I didn't feel the urge to present and gun down random people once.

I wonder how many of those students worried about being shot today when they were driving to campus? Where can I buy one of those crystal balls you use?

[Mr_Cheeze]

It seems like in every interview I have seen, students, faculty, and alumni alike all agree on how safe they always felt on that campus. So even if that gun law were passed, I think it's a great stretch to assume that anybody would have even had a gun with which to prevent this occurance in the first place. While I agree with the omnipresent right to bear arms, I feel that the outrage over the non-passage of a gun bill is very much out of place here. One has nothing to do withthe other. Youcan neither say that this Chinese nationalist on a student visa would have had second thoughts about his actions, nor that "safe" feeling students would have been packing heat.

[kernel crash]

"Youcan neither say that this Chinese nationalist on a student visa would have had second thoughts about his actions, nor that "safe" feeling students would have been packing heat."

I guess that's the way I see it. If he was hell bent on getting his ex, then the fact that they may have been a few armed students on campus probably wouldn't have made a difference.

[off piste]

I think it's an even bigger stretch to assume that just because these poeple felt safe, there wouldn't be anyone legally packing heat. I feel safe in my truck, but I still wear a seat belt. It goes back to the crystal ball analogy - if I didn't feel safe -- I wouldn't head out the door in the first place.

Also, a great deal of their perceived safety came from the fact that the Government said they were safe, because guns were banned from the campus. It also looks now like the shooter was a student, who was bound by the same no-gun laws as the rest of them. So, what would've been the big deal of allowing law-abiding citizens the option of being peacfully armed at their option? The government failed to protect these people -- the cops don't even have the obligation to protect by law. If I were on that campus, would you really say that things were better in the long run that I was unable to defend myself and ended up as one of the dead rather than have been able to at least attempt to do so? Did you see the footage -- there were dozens and dozens of cops with "assault rifles" and full tactical gear, and they were hiding behind cars and trees while shots were going off, waiting for it to end so they could begin writing their reports and go home at the end of their shift.

Maybe the answer is a complete ban on civilian ownership of guns?

According to http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkjgc.html, Japan has the tightest gun control laws in the free world. This is what took place today:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aGc1MLlnIW_k&refer=japan

Nagasaki Mayor Is Shot During Japan Re-election Bid (Update1)
By Shigeru Sato
April 17 (Bloomberg) -- Nagasaki City Mayor Iccho Itoh was shot near the southwestern Japanese city's train station at about 7:50 p.m. local time by an unidentified gunman, a city official said.
Ito's heart stopped beating later in hospital NHK Television reported, citing an unidentified government official.
The city office doesn't know what Itoh's condition is and is seeking more information, Yuko Kimoto, a spokeswoman, said by telephone today. Itoh, 61, was sent to Nagasaki University Hospital immediately after the shooting, she said.
Itoh was campaigning in his bid for re-election for a fourth term as mayor when the gunman shot him. The election will be held on April 22.
Kyodo News said the mayor is unconscious and in a serious condition. Local police arrested a suspect who belongs to a Yamaguchi-Gumi crime syndicate, Kyodo said.
Ito was born on 23 August 1945, according to the city's Web site. Nagasaki is a city on the island of Kyushu 969 kilometers (602 miles) west-southwest of Tokyo.

[off piste]

"Youcan neither say that this Chinese nationalist on a student visa would have had second thoughts about his actions, nor that "safe" feeling students would have been packing heat."

I guess that's the way I see it. If he was hell bent on getting his ex, then the fact that they may have been a few armed students on campus probably wouldn't have made a difference.

So, what, pray tell, did the other 30 + deaths have to do with killing his ex? And strictly hypothetically speaking, are you really saying that if there were some other's peacfully packing, and in a situation to do something about it, that there wouldn't have been much less than the 30 killed?

[gixxerw]

In the first place it is illegal for a student on a VISA to have a firearm so right there gun bans don't work. You actually think a criminal is going to follow the law when getting a gun? Look at washington DC strictess gun control in the US but everynight there is a shooting in the capital. Gun control laws don't work period.

[Mr_Cheeze]

So, what, pray tell, did the other 30 + deaths have to do with killing his ex? And strictly hypothetically speaking, are you really saying that if there were some other's peacfully packing, and in a situation to do something about it, that there wouldn't have been much less than the 30 killed?

You are trying way too hard to make a connection between the defeated gun measure and this tragedy. Way too hard. What happened happened. Nobody knows what was going through that madman's head, not you, not me. And you simply cannot say that the presence of a law allowing guns on campus would have prevented anything like this. I repeat, I am for the right to bear arms, so don't attack me because you are on the defensive for trying to justify a politica agenda.

[off piste]

No, actually, I'm not. The defeated gun measure is a very small part of my post. It's just one point I was making, I'm simply reponding to those addressing it. And where did I say that poeple CCW'ing would've prevented this from happening? Please, PLEASE show me! On the other side of it, please show me where the existing gun laws (of which the CCW ban was ONE), or any future gun laws, would've prevented it.

I DO know, and I'd like to see you disprove it, that if anyone of those people had a CCW and got cornered while exercising their right to peacefully carry, that they would have had more of an option than they did when the madman was the ONLY one armed.

If it makes you happier, if I was down there at the time, and CCW'ing against policy with the threat of a felony charge hanging over me if discovered, I wouldn't have been a hero. I'd have went the other direction from the gunshots and screams as fast as I could to a safe exit, and wouldn't have engaged the gunman even if I made a visual and I saw him shooting these people in the heads. I would've only drawn and engaged if he'd blocked my excape and left me no other alternative.

[Slappy]

These people were killed because of this policy, pure and simple.

Mark, methinks you have been spending too much time talking with the 'gun nuts'. I'm all for the right to bear arms and agree bans don't do much if anything, but c'mon now, let's not let reason escape us here. And I'm gonna venture that you really don't need to 'pack heat' while you're making a doody at home. Vigilance is one thing, paranoia is another. (Unless of course you're making some really nasty doodys)
:D

[off piste]

Ok, I wasn't actually wearing it while sitting on the pot. I had it when I walked in the house coming back from grocery shopping, so it was sitting up on the sill next to me.

I will re-phrase that statement, though. The students weren't killed because of the policy, but the policy did in fact make the situation worse than it could have been.

[Slappy]

Ok, I wasn't actually wearing it while sitting on the pot.

Thank god, now I can try to banish that visual from my head.

:eek:

:D

[off piste]

Thank god, now I can try to banish that visual from my head.

:eek:

:D

:har:

[Mr_Cheeze]

No, actually, I'm not. The defeated gun measure is a very small part of my post. It's just one point I was making, I'm simply reponding to those addressing it. And where did I say that poeple CCW'ing would've prevented this from happening? Please, PLEASE show me! On the other side of it, please show me where the existing gun laws (of which the CCW ban was ONE), or any future gun laws, would've prevented it.

Maybe you forgot about your second post in this thread, which shortly followed the first. Didn't seem like such a "very small point". Do you deny that in posting this article that you implied that "CCW'ing" could have prevented this? There's no other way to take it.

I hate to agree with AA with his whiney attitude about the political threads ("I'm not reading any more posts because someone might disagree with me. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!)... but his original complaint is appropriate. The timing of the political agenda is in poor taste.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Ok, I wasn't actually wearing it while sitting on the pot. I had it when I walked in the house coming back from grocery shopping, so it was sitting up on the sill next to me.

I will re-phrase that statement, though. The students weren't killed because of the policy, but the policy did in fact make the situation worse than it could have been.

You cannot say "in fact". This is your opinion, and it's based on way too many assumptions.

[off piste]

For someone who got swatted down (and complained about such) his "racially motivated" posts on here, your comments on poor taste are ironic at best. Indeed, isn't your present avatar a f-you to that spanking?

[kernel crash]

So, what, pray tell, did the other 30 + deaths have to do with killing his ex? And strictly hypothetically speaking, are you really saying that if there were some other's peacfully packing, and in a situation to do something about it, that there wouldn't have been much less than the 30 killed?


If students were allowed to carry guns on that campus, what are the odds that those students, carrying those weapons, would have had their weapons on that day in that classroom. And in a moment of blind terror, what are the odds that those students would be able to pull out those weapons, and shoot to kill, and hit the right target! Multiply that by many armed students peeking through the hallway door thinking "I'll get him before he gets me". I'm just saying that this is all monday morning "quarterbacking". Nobody really knows. Its a huge campus. All this went down in such a small area.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Aha, avoiding the question eh?

No, my comments would be outright hypocritical. So there. Touche.
But at least I was purposefully trying to be provocative. Apparantly too much so for the sensitive folks around here.

As for my avatar... well, is it so hard to believe that I'm a fan of Little Richard? I could have chosen the blackface character. Now that would have been an f-u.

[off piste]

Avoiding what question? If it was the statement about not being able to say something was a fsct, fine, I'll re-phrase that too.

It's a fact that if the law abiding citizens were allowed to CCW on campus if they wished, than it would've raised the probability that the shooter wouldn't have been to only armed person on campus that day. How's that?

[off piste]

If students were allowed to carry guns on that campus, what are the odds that those students, carrying those weapons, would have had their weapons on that day in that classroom. And in a moment of blind terror, what are the odds that those students would be able to pull out those weapons, and shoot to kill, and hit the right target! Multiply that by many armed students peeking through the hallway door thinking "I'll get him before he gets me". I'm just saying that this is all monday morning "quarterbacking". Nobody really knows. Its a huge campus. All this went down in such a small area.


Ok, so help me here. So you're saying that it's better that LAW-ABIDING people don't have the option of DEFENDING THEMSELVES if they decide to, and they were safer to not have the option even though it went bad in this case?

Sorry, I'm just trying to follow you. I agree, maybe it would'nt have made a difference. After all, you have one gunman, and perhaps 100's of people around him. Even un armed, these people could't stop him? For instance, a text book from behind, aimed at his head, followed by a group tackle.

But I guess this is just society of sheep now. Big Daddy Government will make sure we're safe and tucked in.......

[BG]

Hmmmm...I wouldn't be too worried about gun carrying students at school, but SPRING BREAK that's another story
What's Rosie's take on this

[orangediamback]

LOL...does anyone really care what rosie has to say..lol....

[off piste]

http://news.aol.com/entertainment/tv/articles/_a/rosie-odonnell-calls-gun-control/20070417132509990001

Rosie O'Donnell Calls Gun Control 'Impossible'
In Remarks About Campus Shooting, Calls NRA 'Scary'
AP
NEW YORK (April 17) - The Columbine shootings drove Rosie O'Donnell to depression, but she says she's "almost numb" to the Virginia Tech attacks.

She's so discouraged, she said on "The View" that she believes tougher gun control is "impossible."

O'Donnell has fought for tougher gun control laws for years and once got into a fight with Tom Selleck about it on her old talk show. She now feels it was "a futile attempt" and "there will never be gun control in America."

O'Donnell says the NRA is "organized," "scary" "they have guns" and, she says, it's "impossible" to fight them.

I wish I claim ownership of this, but I can't:

Rosie O'Donnell Calls Weight Loss 'Impossible'
In Remarks About Increasing Obesity , Calls Portion Control 'Scary'
AP


NEW YORK (April 17) - The Atkins diet drove Rosie O'Donnell to depression, but she says she's "almost numb" to the Slimfast and Weight Watchers trends.

She's so discouraged, she said on "The View" that she believes tougher portion control is "impossible."

O'Donnell has fought for tougher portion control laws for years and once got into a fight with Richard Simmons about it on her old talk show. She now feels it was "a futile attempt" and "there will never be portion control in America."

O'Donnell says the Food Industry is "organized," "scary" "they have cheesecake" and, she says, it's "impossible" to fight them.

[BG]

"If the Left takes Imus, we'll take Rosie, cheesecake and all"

[orangediamback]

will someone please take her out...lol...and people actually listen to her and believe that what she says is wisdom:confused:

[Mr_Cheeze]

Those aren't people. Those are zombies.

[MTBME]

I agree, maybe it would'nt have made a difference. After all, you have one gunman, and perhaps 100's of people around him. Even un armed, these people could't stop him? For instance, a text book from behind, aimed at his head, followed by a group tackle.

That's a tough call. I think people's initial instincts is to get out of harms way. And when it happens that fast, there's no time to co-ordinate with others in the room. Besides, who wants to be the first to rush him knowing that you will most likely be shot dead first. It's the third or fourth guy rushing him that might actually get to him.

[Slider]

Wondering how you feel about this. We can deny suspected terrorists the most fundamental civil rights, but not gun ownership?

Slider

CNN, today:

NRA opposes bill to stop gun sales to terror suspects
Story Highlights• Group urges Bush administration to withdraw support of bill
• Bill would let AG block terror suspects' gun sales, licenses, permits
• NRA: Measure would "allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights"


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

In a letter this week to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, NRA executive director Chris Cox said the bill, offered last week by Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-New Jersey, "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

"As many of our friends in law enforcement have rightly pointed out, the word 'suspect' has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties," Cox wrote.

In a letter supporting the measure, Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said the bill would not automatically prevent a gun sale to a suspected terrorist. In some cases, federal agents may want to let a sale go forward to avoid compromising an ongoing investigation.

Hertling also notes there is a process to challenge denial of a sale.

Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition, including a felony conviction, domestic abuse conviction or illegal immigration. There is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.

"When I tell people that you can be on a terrorist watch list and still be allowed to buy as many guns as you want, they are shocked," said Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports Lautenberg's bill. (The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence Web site)

In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, lawmakers are considering a number of measures to strengthen gun sale laws. The NRA, which usually opposes increased restrictions on firearms, is taking different positions depending on the proposal. (The National Rifle Association Web site)

"Right now, law enforcement carefully monitors all firearms sales to those on the terror watch list," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "Injecting the attorney general into the process just politicizes it."

A 2005 study by the Government Accountability Office found that 35 of 44 firearm purchase attempts over a five-month period made by known or suspected terrorists were approved by the federal law enforcement officials.

[off piste]

I don't understand the logic of the question. What does the NRA have to do with denying "suspected terrorists" basic rights? Bush has stated that if the Assault Weapons Ban ever gets to his desk he'd sign it, so maybe you should start there if you're looking for a trampling of rights.

It seems to me that this would be something you'd be for -- after all, as the article states, suspect still means innocent until proven guilty. Being able to take a person's 2nd Amendment rights away just because the government "suspects" them of something without a trial is pretty scary. And anyway, it's highly unlikely a "terrorist" is going to not procure guns just because thr Government says they can't -- that's why criminals get guns despite the fact all these laws says they can't have them. Now, a "proven" terrorist, or criminal, that's a different story.

Hell, it's even a "liberal" issue now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?hp

A Liberal Case for Gun Rights Helps Sway Judiciary

By ADAM LIPTAK (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/adam_liptak/index.html?inline=nyt-per)
In March, for the first time in the nation’s history, a federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. Only a few decades ago, the decision would have been unimaginable.
There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.
In those two decades, breakneck speed by the standards of constitutional law, they have helped to reshape the debate over gun rights in the United States. Their work culminated in the March decision, Parker v. District of Columbia, and it will doubtless play a major role should the case reach the United States Supreme Court (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/supreme_court/index.html?inline=nyt-org).
Laurence H. Tribe (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/t/laurence_h_tribe/index.html?inline=nyt-per), a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.
“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”
The first two editions of Professor Tribe’s influential treatise on constitutional law, in 1978 and 1988, endorsed the collective rights view. The latest, published in 2000, sets out his current interpretation.
Several other leading liberal constitutional scholars, notably Akhil Reed Amar at Yale and Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/u/university_of_texas/index.html?inline=nyt-org), are in broad agreement favoring an individual rights interpretation. Their work has in a remarkably short time upended the conventional understanding of the Second Amendment, and it set the stage for the Parker decision.
The earlier consensus, the law professors said in interviews, reflected received wisdom and political preferences rather than a serious consideration of the amendment’s text, history and place in the structure of the Constitution. “The standard liberal position,” Professor Levinson said, “is that the Second Amendment is basically just read out of the Constitution.”
The Second Amendment says, “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.” (Some transcriptions of the amendment omit the last comma.)
If only as a matter of consistency, Professor Levinson continued, liberals who favor expansive interpretations of other amendments in the Bill of Rights, like those protecting free speech and the rights of criminal defendants, should also embrace a broad reading of the Second Amendment. And just as the First Amendment’s protection of the right to free speech is not absolute, the professors say, the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms may be limited by the government, though only for good reason.
The individual rights view is far from universally accepted. “The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts that the constitutional right to be armed is linked to an organized militia,” said Dennis A. Henigan, director of the legal action project of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “The exceptions attract attention precisely because they are so rare and unexpected.”
Scholars who agree with gun opponents and support the collective rights view say the professors on the other side may have been motivated more by a desire to be provocative than by simple intellectual honesty.
“Contrarian positions get play,” Carl T. Bogus, a law professor at Roger Williams University, wrote in a 2000 study of Second Amendment scholarship. “Liberal professors supporting gun control draw yawns.”
If the full United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit does not step in and reverse the 2-to-1 panel decision striking down a law that forbids residents to keep handguns in their homes, the question of the meaning of the Second Amendment is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court. The answer there is far from certain.
That too is a change. In 1992, Warren E. Burger, a former chief justice of the United States appointed by President Richard M. Nixon (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/n/richard_milhous_nixon/index.html?inline=nyt-per), expressed the prevailing view.
“The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to have firearms at all,” Mr. Burger said in a speech. In a 1991 interview, Mr. Burger called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Even as he spoke, though, the ground was shifting underneath him. In 1989, in what most authorities say was the beginning of the modern era of mainstream Second Amendment scholarship, Professor Levinson published an article in The Yale Law Journal called “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.”
“The Levinson piece was very much a turning point,” said Mr. Henigan of the Brady Center. “He was a well-respected scholar, and he was associated with a liberal point of view politically.”
In an interview, Professor Levinson described himself as “an A.C.L.U.-type who has not ever even thought of owning a gun.”
Robert A. Levy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian group that supports gun rights, and a lawyer for the plaintiffs in the Parker case, said four factors accounted for the success of the suit. The first, Mr. Levy said, was “the shift in scholarship toward an individual rights view, particularly from liberals.”
He also cited empirical research questioning whether gun control laws cut down on crime; a 2001 decision from the federal appeals court in New Orleans that embraced the individual rights view even as it allowed a gun prosecution to go forward; and the Bush administration’s reversal of a longstanding Justice Department position under administrations of both political parties favoring the collective rights view.
Filing suit in the District of Columbia was a conscious decision, too, Mr. Levy said. The gun law there is one of the most restrictive in the nation, and questions about the applicability of the Second Amendment to state laws were avoided because the district is governed by federal law.
“We wanted to proceed very much like the N.A.A.C.P. (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_association_for_the_advancement_of_colore d_people/index.html?inline=nyt-org),” Mr. Levy said, referring to that group’s methodical litigation strategy intended to do away with segregated schools.
Professor Bogus, a supporter of the collective rights view, said the Parker decision represented a milestone in that strategy. “This is the story of an enormously successful and dogged campaign to change the conventional view of the right to bear arms,” he said.
The text of the amendment is not a model of clarity, and arguments over its meaning tend to be concerned with whether the first part of the sentence limits the second. The history of its drafting and contemporary meaning provide support for both sides as well.
The Supreme Court has not decided a Second Amendment case since 1939. That ruling was, as Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a liberal judge on the federal appeals court in San Francisco acknowledged in 2002, “somewhat cryptic,” again allowing both sides to argue that Supreme Court precedent aided their interpretation of the amendment.
Still, nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights. The only exceptions are the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and the District of Columbia Circuit. The Second Circuit, in New York, has not addressed the question.
Linda Singer, the District of Columbia’s attorney general, said the debate over the meaning of the amendment was not only an academic one.
“It’s truly a life-or-death question for us,” she said. “It’s not theoretical. We all remember very well when D.C. had the highest murder rate in the country, and we won’t go back there.”
The decision in Parker has been stayed while the full appeals court decides whether to rehear the case.
Should the case reach the Supreme Court, Professor Tribe said, “there’s a really quite decent chance that it will be affirmed.”

[Who]

I didn't see anything wrong with the OP or its timing. That's just my opinion though. I could not agree with it more either. This has been a hot topic on all the forums I visit. Here is a post of mine from another forum backing up my opinion that if one person in that crowd was a loud to exercise his/her 2nd amendment right things could have ended much differently.




Few people remember the school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi that took place in October 1997. Fewer people remember how it ended.


This episode came to a close when Pearl High School Assistant Principal Joel Myrick sprinted a quarter mile to retrieve a personal handgun from his car and confronted the shooter who was unwilling to continue the attack against an armed victim.


Myrick parked so far away from the school to keep from violating federal gun free zone statutes. By the time the shooting spree ended, two students lay dead and seven others were wounded. Myrick's heroic defense of the children at his school was sparsely reported, going mostly unnoticed by the establishment media who were unwilling to report that he used a gun to end the mayhem and murder.


They were also unwilling to ask the hard question - how many children died while Myrick sprinted to his car?


Compare the carnage at Pearl High School with that of the Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, where a gunman murdered 22 people and wounded 18 others before turning the gun on himself. Among those at Luby's on October 16, 1991 was a woman who was licensed to carry a handgun, but obeyed the law by leaving her legally carried handgun in her car because of signs banning weapons.


At times she was within feet of the killer and instinctively reached for her gun which wasn't there. By the time it was over, her mother and father were among the dead.


Once again, the media never asked how many people were killed because the license holder was disarmed.

Click for the article (http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article1997.html)

:soapbox:

[Slider]

What makes gun rights different from all the other rights defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Unless the NRA says explicitly why gun rights are more fundamental than, say habeas corpus, the implication is that all the other rights trampling done by Bush is also wrong. My guess is that the NRA doesn't see it that way, and I am just trying to understand why.

Slider

[FriedRys]

Maybe it's because if you take away the gun's, your taking away any possibility of armed rebellion?

[Who]

What makes gun rights different from all the other rights defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Unless the NRA says explicitly why gun rights are more fundamental than, say habeas corpus, the implication is that all the other rights trampling done by Bush is also wrong. My guess is that the NRA doesn't see it that way, and I am just trying to understand why.

Slider


Though I agree to a degree with you. All rights trampling is WRONG. I don't see your point however. Are you saying you think they should trample the 2nd amendment right just because they managed to trample Habeas Corpus? I disagree if thats the case.

I skimmed through the constitution out of curiosity to see what exactly is said about "habeas Corpus" and found nothing (I used google to try to bring me to the actual amendment that points to it, I came up with nothing except an explanation of what it was, which I already new) Where is it mentioned in the constitution?

Also why would the NRA defend another amendment? NRA= National Rifle Association, Not National Rights Association (I know you don't think that is what it stands for, just making a joke :har: ). They would not even need to defend the 2nd amendment if it was not under attack. Instead they would get to spend their funding in a more productive manner (Why should they have to waste millions on something my great grand father died to protect, something that my 5xgreat grandfather fought to create!). I think the National Rifle Association has its hands full trying to protect JUST ONE of our many rights that are getting trampled. I would not want to see them focus on anything more. Keep the funds focused on the issue that pertains to the group. It would be like NEMBA spending its funds to fix the highways in my opinion.


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, :eek: shall not be infringed :eek:

That is exactly how its written (with the EEK faces and all ;)). I would say it is pretty cut and dry. I would also say they have managed to rape it as much as they can, and will most likely continue to rape it. At this point in time I can not exercise my 2nd amendment right due to the fact that I have not asked for permission to it. So I would say my rights has been trampled as it is. :soapbox:


Great discussion by the way. There are good points from both sides in this thread. I respect your opinions and look forward to reading them weather I agree or disagree. :rad:

[off piste]

What makes gun rights different from all the other rights defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Unless the NRA says explicitly why gun rights are more fundamental than, say habeas corpus, the implication is that all the other rights trampling done by Bush is also wrong. My guess is that the NRA doesn't see it that way, and I am just trying to understand why.

Slider


Being that the NRA is in existence for gun education and 2nd Amendment rights, exactly what else do you expect them to concentrate on?

[Slider]

OK, then if their case is strong, where does that leave the arguments for denying other civil rights to suspected terrorists?

I'm not saying I'd expect them to make those arguments, but the implications are clear. You can't have it both ways.

Slider

[off piste]

OK, then if their case is strong, where does that leave the arguments for denying other civil rights to suspected terrorists?

I'm not saying I'd expect them to make those arguments, but the implications are clear. You can't have it both ways.

Slider


I'm still not following where the NRA is advocating denying other civil rights. Maybe I'm missing it, but I'm really having trouble with this.

[off piste]

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,,21678380-5006009,00.html

Gun Crimes explode In Australia

SYDNEY is in the grip of a wave of gun crime, with a weapon fired or used to menace innocent residents six days in every seven.

Police figures show there have been no fewer than 40 incidents involving guns across the metropolitan region since the beginning of last month.

The presence of guns in so many recent crimes is at odds with the State Government's repeated insistence that the incidence of gun crime is continuing to fall dramatically.

The armed robbers, carjackers and home invaders have not discriminated between districts of the city, striking everywhere from Double Bay to Sydney's west, from the southern to the northern suburbs.

On April 17, a security guard opened fire on two masked men after one of them had pointed a gun at the guard outside a factory at Arncliffe.

The following day, three men held up a hotel at Guildford, in western Sydney.

They assaulted a male staff member and punched a female patron in the face.

On April 20, a man brandishing a handgun walked into a Fairfield jewellery store and forced the owner to fill up a backpack with expensive trinkets.

On April 24, residents of Marlow, on the Hawkesbury River, were evacuated after reports that an "agitated'' man carrying a sawn-off shotgun had been stalking several properties.

A subsequent search of the 49-year-old man's Wisemans Ferry home allegedly netted an unregistered, shortened firearm and several rounds of ammunition.

Police Minister David Campbell expressed concern over the incidents but said police raids 10 days ago had resulted in eight armed robbery suspects being taken off the streets.

"Any level of gun crime in NSW is unacceptable, and police are working hard to catch those responsible,'' Mr Campbell said.

"Police arrested eight armed-robbery suspects and charged them with at least 19 offences.

"Armed-robbery gangs are a plague on our streets, and it's pleasing to see our police making breakthroughs and getting serious criminals behind bars.''

Mr Campbell said the Government had taken "giant steps'' towards reducing the number of illegal guns on Sydney's streets and "the thugs who carry them''.

Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research figures showed crimes involving firearms had dropped by 44 per cent since 1997, he said.

Shooting offences had fallen by 40 per cent since 2001, and shooting incidents involving handguns had dropped by about 62 per cent over the same period.

[Slider]

I'm still not following where the NRA is advocating denying other civil rights. Maybe I'm missing it, but I'm really having trouble with this.

I am saying that, if you agree with the NRA's argument about gun rights for suspected terrorists, then you have to, by extension, agree that they have other rights under the constitution. Very straightforward.

Slider

[off piste]

I think that's pretty strait forward, and the majority are in agreement that our rights are being trampled. Now, what's that got to do with the NRA fighting for the one right it was created to uphold?

[Slider]

The NRA, long time Republican and Bush supporters, seem to be saying that Bush is wrong about the rights of suspected terrorists, which happens to be a hallmark if his presidency. Not just the right to bear arms, but all the protections from legal persecution that are outlined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

It surprises me that the NRA, and the Bush adminstration that they endorsed in both elections, have come down so clearly on opposite sides of the fence here.

Slider

[off piste]

It's happening all around. Even these Liberals are finally coming to their senses about the 2nd:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[Mr_Cheeze]

The NRA, long time Republican and Bush supporters, seem to be saying that Bush is wrong about the rights of suspected terrorists, which happens to be a hallmark if his presidency. Not just the right to bear arms, but all the protections from legal persecution that are outlined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

It surprises me that the NRA, and the Bush adminstration that they endorsed in both elections, have come down so clearly on opposite sides of the fence here.

Slider

It might be more surprising to know that you come down on the side of Bush on this issue, albeit for different reasons, and only to an extent. I think both sides are, at least, consistent in their respective stands. Bush wants to usurp the Constitution at his whim whenever that word "terrorist" comes into play. The NRA will not stand for gun control. No surprises there.

[Slider]

I am for protection of everyone's civil rights. Things change once you are accused in court of law of a crime. But the accusation has to come first. That isn't the Bush position.

I doubt the NRA even sees the implications of their position.

Slider

[Jisch]

I didn't read this whole thread, so I am probably playing the idiot here.

I saw a segment on 20/20 on Friday - one of those "Mythbusters" things. The basic idea is that gun control does not help in lowering gun related crime. The criminals don't own registered weapons - they interviewed some guys in prision. The prisoners further indicated that their worst fear is an armed target.

One of their points of proof is the town in GA who put a law on the books that said everyone in the town had to own a gun (unenforceable of course). The violent crime in that town dropped significantly once the law went on the books.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled program.
John

[Who]

That sounds like a good read. Any chance on the name of the town?? I would like to read more up on that.

[Mr_Cheeze]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/08/fortdix.plot/index.html

I don't know about anybody else, but I can't wait to find out if these suspects posessed registered firearms. I'll wager not.

I guess the more imperative question remains as to whether or not these men are United States citizens. For their sake they had better be, or it's going to be a nice, long holiday in a federal penitentary somewhere offshore with participation in some fun vacation-like activies in the offing, like water-boarding and the ever popular sleep deprivation. Then again, it probably doesn't matter if they are legal residents. They're screwed.

[off piste]

If you Google the story, you'll find many accounts that say they were trying to buy AK47's from an "Arms dealer working for the FBI".

Since the AK-47 is the full-auto version of the semi-automatic AK-47 variant US citizens are allowed to purchase, I'm guessing the "arms dealer" was probably a bad guy "cooperating" with the FBI on this. Getting a full-auto Federal license is difficult, to put it mildly. That coupled with NJ's firearms laws, which make Mass's look like Vermont's, pretty much guarantees that this transaction wouldn't have been legal, assuming they had firearm liscenses in Jooisee to begin with (doubtful).

[Slappy]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/08/fortdix.plot/index.html

I don't know about anybody else, but I can't wait to find out if these suspects posessed registered firearms. I'll wager not.

I guess the more imperative question remains as to whether or not these men are United States citizens. For their sake they had better be, or it's going to be a nice, long holiday in a federal penitentary somewhere offshore with participation in some fun vacation-like activies in the offing, like water-boarding and the ever popular sleep deprivation. Then again, it probably doesn't matter if they are legal residents. They're screwed.

3 of 'em were illegals.
The harder they get screwed, the happier it'll make me.

[off piste]

I'm sure the fact they're illegals will make them the Libs new Poster Children for the "horrible persecution" they'll face.