RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Mercnbeth -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 12:31:11 PM)

Cho Seung Hui wrote this play for an English class. His professor referred him for counseling. Was it the gun or inherent evil or some deep psychosis? How can whatever this man was thinking be regulated?

How long to you think it will take before someone tries to produce the play?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html



ArchangelMichael -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 8:31:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MistressLorelei

We don't value all of that in the U.S.   The way it looks presently, what the United States values (or has voted to implement, regrettably no doubt) is a dictatorship.  The present administration would like to do away with abortion (the most individual of individual freedoms),  yet give easy access to anyone who wants a gun.  I guess this philosophy is consistent  with Pro-war mentality.

Giving everyone a gun is the same as no one having a gun... except more people die as a result- lots more people!


That reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw today. It said, "If you're pro-life, you can't be pro-war." I'm more of a pacifist, myself. Although I don't believe that everyone should have access to guns, I also don't agree with heavy government control over anything. But that's the libertarian in me talking.



minnetar -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 8:39:36 PM)

Don't the countries with very strict gun control have alot less more violence than ones who allow it?  Based on that, i would prefer less violence versus less civil liberties.  i know in my city the murder rate has increased dramatically in the last few years.

minnetar



ArchangelMichael -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 8:40:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

Cho Seung Hui wrote this play for an English class. His professor referred him for counseling. Was it the gun or inherent evil or some deep psychosis? How can whatever this man was thinking be regulated?

How long to you think it will take before someone tries to produce the play?

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0417071vtech1.html


Interesting. This guy kills a bunch of people and now his "highly disturbed" play is put on display for all to see and it will probably be published. Why? Because it'll sell from all the media attention. Sometimes I wonder if the force most responsible for creating monsters is the media.

Of course, what this will also set off is paranoia towards anyone who tries to produce anything even remotely violent and disturbing. I suppose we should keep a close eye on Quentin Tarentino, Robert Rodriguez, and Frank Miller. The films they've produced have been quite disturbing. How about the writers of movies like Hostel, La Turistas, and the Saw series? You never know. Maybe one of them will crack and kill a bunch of people. And we better watch Evangeline Lilly. She plays a character on TV who killed her abusive father. Or maybe the writers of Lost are right on the edge.

Although it is said...there's a fine line between genius and insanity. I just don't want this to turn into another, "Kids get violent because they play violent video games" type of witch hunt.



MissSCD -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 8:43:48 PM)

That is an excellent article regarding the tragedy.  The student was disturbed. 
Unfortunately, there is nothing we can really do except try to observe our youth's behavior. 
He came from a very educated family and had the resources to get help.  Some how he fell through the cracks.
We cannot limit gun control because one person goes beserk.  He could have got in a car and drove through the building and killed those poor people.
Automatic weapons to my knowledge have been banned.  Semi-automatic weapons are legal.  The only difference in the number of bullets in a hand gun is six compared to seven in a simi-automatic.  That techology has been around for 100 years.  It is nothing new.
All you can do is be ready to go.  It is your own choice.  
I don't like weapons.  I think people who have them should be trained in how to handle them.  At the same time, we have the right to protect ourselves and families. 
Just be ready.  It could happen to you.

Regards, MissSCD



ArchangelMichael -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 8:45:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnetar

Don't the countries with very strict gun control have alot less more violence than ones who allow it?  Based on that, i would prefer less violence versus less civil liberties.  i know in my city the murder rate has increased dramatically in the last few years.

minnetar



The problem is that once you start overregulating one thing, it opens the doorway to the loss of other personal freedoms. I don't like guns any more than you do. I've never touched one and will never touch one. And it makes me nervous to even hear someone talking about one. I was at a party this weekend and there was guy there talking about his vast gun collection. I was having trouble dealing with it.

Remember that the lifestyle we lead is heavily persecuted as it is. Do we want more of our personal freedoms taken away?



minnetar -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 8:47:41 PM)

Archangel that is why my response said i would gladly take away this civil liberty in order to have less murders or that is how i basically equate it.

minnetar



BrutalDemon -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 9:17:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or


Let me remind you of something.

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

Note the placement of the comma.



Note that it's a comma, and not a full stop (or period, whatever). "People" is also capitalised.

Now... being a native English speaker, I read that as "The Federal Government have no right to prevent Citizens arming themselves and forming well regulated militias for the defence of the state"

So... are gun holders part of well regulated militias? Active in the National Guard?

The Bill of Rights, which is formally recognised as a series of Ammendments to The Constitution of The United States of America" does not allow for individuals to own firearms for private use.


And even if that WAS the case... What about the 21st Ammendment?

For those unfamiliar with American Constitutional Law... The 18th Ammendment is more commonly known as Prohibition, and the 21st is the Ammendment repealing the 18th. So there's already a precedent for not only adding to the Constitution, but repealing any later additions, just so long as the two thirds majority of both houses agree. The only thing missing, is the political will of the Senate and the House. 



popeye1250 -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 9:40:07 PM)

Ah,... the National Guard is not "The Militia."
And where in the Constitution does it say that "the government" has the right to keep and bare arms?



BrutalDemon -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 9:58:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Ah,... the National Guard is not "The Militia."
And where in the Constitution does it say that "the government" has the right to keep and bare arms?


In the Preamble...
quote:


We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


... also here... Under Article I. Powers of The Congress

quote:


To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

... and here...

quote:


Article II... Powers of the President.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States


That's also what identifies the National Guard as "the militia of the several states". The National Guard are, theoretically, all under the direct command of the State Governors, or their appointed Lieutenant Generals.




SadisticMan -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 10:02:13 PM)

"the right to bear arms..", does that mean a musket ? which was the only rifle known then



juliaoceania -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 10:05:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadisticMan

"the right to bear arms..", does that mean a musket ? which was the only rifle known then


I always think that it is rather amusing to think that we could keep our government in line with a few hand guns, I mean if we were going to take that view I suppose we should all have our own personal nuclear bombs since these are technically "arms" too.



BrutalDemon -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 10:05:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadisticMan

"the right to bear arms..", does that mean a musket ? which was the only rifle known then


"Arms" at the time of drafting The Constitution, was the recognised term for military and personal weaponry. That now includes everything from muskets, swords and other non-domestic blades used offensively... all the way up to Hydrogen Bombs

<edited to add>...

posted simultaneously as julia... don't make me get out my tool-belt and hard-hat, missy ;o)



Sinergy -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 10:13:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadisticMan

"the right to bear arms..", does that mean a musket ? which was the only rifle known then


I always think that it is rather amusing to think that we could keep our government in line with a few hand guns, I mean if we were going to take that view I suppose we should all have our own personal nuclear bombs since these are technically "arms" too.


Last time I went through X-ray at the airport I had to put my Converse All-Stars through the machine.

What are considered "arms" which people "bear" seems to be fairly all-encompassing. 

I will agree that none of the Founding Fathers who signed the Bill of Rights could have conceived of a citizenry that would try to fly on planes bearing the arms known as canvas sneakers.

Sinergy

p.s.  Gotta love that South Park episode where Kenny tries to get on an airplane with a pair of fingernail clippers and is shot dead by a TSA employee screaming "Die Terrorist!"

p.p.s.  I only realized going through the metal detector that I was wearing my T-shirt that has a picture of Geronimo and 3 of his warriors, and states "HOMELAND SECURITY" on top and "Fighting Terrorism since 1492" on the bottom.



cyberdude611 -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 10:32:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadisticMan

"the right to bear arms..", does that mean a musket ? which was the only rifle known then


I always think that it is rather amusing to think that we could keep our government in line with a few hand guns, I mean if we were going to take that view I suppose we should all have our own personal nuclear bombs since these are technically "arms" too.


80 million handguns in the United States. That will be enough to overwhelm even the our own military.

In fact, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto during World War II said that invasion of the US is suicide for any army specifically because the American population is armed. He said, "there is a rifle hiding behind each blade of grass."



juliaoceania -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 10:58:27 PM)

quote:

80 million handguns in the United States. That will be enough to overwhelm even the our own military.

In fact, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto during World War II said that invasion of the US is suicide for any army specifically because the American population is armed. He said, "there is a rifle hiding behind each blade of grass."


It would not be very hard to nuke us into submission, but that is a different story.... like I said, if the constitution is to be taken seriously I want my nuclear arms.



Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 11:00:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

ORIGINAL: SadisticMan

"the right to bear arms..", does that mean a musket ? which was the only rifle known then


I always think that it is rather amusing to think that we could keep our government in line with a few hand guns, I mean if we were going to take that view I suppose we should all have our own personal nuclear bombs since these are technically "arms" too.


Who said anything about handguns? Semiautomatic assault rifles AND automatic rifles should also come into play as well. For those who freak out over "everyday people" having machineguns, bear in mind that they were perfectly legal up until 1986 and we didn't have a single Columbine then. The banning of machine guns is unconstititional as was the  "temporarily defunct" 1994 assault weapons ban.



Pulpsmack -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 11:02:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania
if the constitution is to be taken seriously I want my nuclear arms.


Oh that's brilliant.Nah, they were just kidding. You know the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to be free from the establishment of religion, due process.. you know, it's all a fucking joke



juliaoceania -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 11:05:39 PM)

Did you have your sense of humor surgically removed or is it a genetic flaw dude?



Termyn8or -> RE: Gun Control And Tragedy (4/17/2007 11:07:21 PM)

I really hate to hijack the thread back to the OP, but oh well.

If one person in that room had a gun, alot less people might've died. You find one piece of logical evidence to the contrary I will kiss your ass downtown at rush hour.

If one student had a Father like me, and there were not metal detectors, between 25 and 28 lives would likely be saved, because MY kid would know how to use it.

The simpleton approach wants to take away the guns, but doesn't see that everybody is not going to turn them in. Further thought finds no other solution, but logic says to shoot people who shoot people.

If you shoot people who shoot people there will be less people shooting people. I mean does this sink in here ?

The people who want gun control are usually those who either need or deserve to get shot. No exceptions.

You don't trade MY liberty for your safety, and I suggest you don't trade yours. I will die before I comply.

Know what ? I frequently leave my door unlocked. I'll give you three guesses why I can do that.

Second amendment in laymen's terms :

Since the gov needs guns, the preople need guns. Guns are not primarily for protection from robbers etc., but then maybe they are. Guns are needed to get rid of a system that "no longer serves the People". They certainly want the citizens of the land of the fee and the home of the slave to be defenseless.

They want the physically strong to rule, because they are easier to control. And when we live in what pretty much amounts to a breeding pen for soldiers, it all works out well. For them.

I stop now.

T



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875