Maybe that's because the people with good marksmanship tend to be responsible, legal gun owners?
Despite the fact that it's a part of the "conservative agenda", I'm totally behind gun rights. With the government edging closer to tyranny than it has in a long time, we should really remember the meaning behind the second amendment. People can debate it all they want (you know, some people don't understand English, so they think it means the opposite of what it means), but we all know the spirit of the law: the people must be ready and willing to rise up against their government if it impinges on their freedoms. Even if the year begins with "2". Even if cars and planes have been invented. Even post WW2, post 9/11. Does the passage of time and the changing of technology and world order change what makes us fundamentally American?
Our biggest flaw is not our "violent tendencies", or our lack of gun control laws, or those pesky evil video games. It's our complete lack of accountability. We blame the government for everything: Katrina, Columbine, VT. We always find some obscure, fallacious argument linking the latest tragedy to some political agenda. Meanwhile, the one thing the government is actually, actively doing--waging a pointless and devastating war--gets nothing but grumbles and blog entries.
This is the country that voted the RIAA as the most evil corporation in the world...ahead of Halliburton. On one hand, you've got people who'd rather secure their right to violate copyrights than see equitable world trade and alternative energy. On the other, you have people who really, really want to take rights away from gay people, and oh by the way here's another million dollars to wage your illegal war.
It's the same thing. The worst school shooting in history, and people are talking about video games, how it's George Bush's fault, how we need gun control. Everything is a god damn political issue. If we understood personal accountabillity, we'd understand that this shooting was the fault of one man: the shooter. Columbine was two kids who wanted to cause a horrible tragedy and gain lasting infamy. 9/11 was caused by evil terrorists who wanted to hurt America for their own reasons. Katrina was caused by an act of God.
Tragedies happen. As 9/11 proved, what you do to recover is what's important. Politicizing them only leads to trouble. (Again, see 9/11. Yay Bush! You happened to be in a white house at the time! Here are our freedoms, please invade Iraq with our blessings!)
RainbowRaven, you hit on a nerve of mine. University police are entrusted with making the University look good. This often comes into conflict with the rights of students.
On morning when I was in college, I got a call from the campus police. They told me that they caught someone red-handed that was jumping on cars. My car was one of the damaged cars. The roof was dented in where he had jumped on it. I asked for the person's name so I could recover for the damages. The University police refused to provide it because they wanted to "protect" the suspect.
Had I known then what I know now... they would have provided that name one way or the other.
I can tell you that ever since the Feds required public reports of campus crime rates... universities have gone out of their way to cover up these incidents.
I can tell you that ever since the Feds required public reports of campus crime rates... universities have gone out of their way to cover up these incidents.
RIT's administration would get super angry if anyone ever called the police instead of campus safety...
I can tell you that ever since the Feds required public reports of campus crime rates... universities have gone out of their way to cover up these incidents.
RIT's administration would get super angry if anyone ever called the police instead of campus safety...
Yes, this is a notice to anyone in college. Don't rely entirely on campus police. Their job is to make sure the university looks good. They keep things as hush-hush as possible at all times. Their worst nightmare is if the media were to ever show up at the school, so they avoid it at all costs. If you are in college, and you really need some help from police, call the real police and the campus police. The campus police will show up sooner, but the real police are more likely to provide actual justice. So call campus police if you lock yourself out of your car, but call the real police if it gets stolen or vandalized.
It amazes me that colleges believe in brand loyalty over awareness and security. Of course you call the cops. You ALWAYS call the cops when shit is going to go down and a gun is involved.
I deal with this on a fairly regular basis. A local public school system often opts to "handle" in-school crime on the QT instead of involving police. They figure schools aren't required to generate incident reports like law enforcement. So guns in school? Knives in lockers? Massive lockdown? Shhhhhhh. Don't let anybody know -- it might hurt our reputation.
I can tell you that ever since the Feds required public reports of campus crime rates... universities have gone out of their way to cover up these incidents.
RIT's administration would get super angry if anyone ever called the police instead of campus safety...
I really hope that this doesn't lead to my school enhancing the security procedure that will be impletemented next year. I'm sure it will, as long as we don't have metal detectors, they don't make me feel safer and we don't need to spend the money on those things, we need to get better teachers.
I really hope that this doesn't lead to my school enhancing the security procedure that will be implemented next year. I'm sure it will, as long as we don't have metal detectors, they don't make me feel safer and we don't need to spend the money on those things, we need to get better teachers.
We had a vigil on my campus. We talked and lit candles. My university will be sending things down to Virginia Tech to show solidarity and offer comfort. The usual really. Then there was a serious forum about changing security and updating emergency methods on my campus. We have a lot of holes and methods that need to be fixed. I don't feel the most confident about Binghamton University changing things but hey.
I don't know if your school is a high school or university and it's been 4 years since I was at Stuyvesant High School in the city but I do understand how you feel. Recent alums who have come to this university have said that they brought metal detectors to my h.s. I couldn't help but feel indignant about it. Stuy wasn't a zone school. Metal detectors don't belong in the best public high school in the city. That's what I thought. Old elitism kicking in. I'll always remember how they locked down the school after 9/11. Couldn't go out for lunch or hang out in our usual spots where the geeks and geeky goths hung out (everyone was a geek at Stuy, even the cheerleaders, there was no way around it, we were also all a bit crazy). Nearly the epitome of fascism and only the ones who could remember what it used to be like, like me and my friends and our junior class and the seniors, fought back. The sophomores had only been there a year before and the freshmen were meek and didn't know any better.
Universities and colleges are bigger than high schools and yet they seem to be more lax in their security. It should be the other way around due to the great size difference. I think it would be wise for all universities and colleges to analyze what happened at Virginia Tech when all the facts are out, and then update themselves accordingly.
Your assertion doesn't make sense. The purpose of the second amendment was to safeguard against government tyranny. A militia is not a state-controlled fighting force. How does a state use arms to defend against its own tyranny? It doesn't. Individuals do. By pure definition, a militia is a body of citizen soldiers, not a body of professional soldiers. When the revolution comes, I'm going to be armed, even if I have to break someone's interpretation of the law to do it.
Your assertion doesn't make sense. The purpose of the second amendment was to safeguard against government tyranny. A militia is not a state-controlled fighting force. How does a state use arms to defend against its own tyranny? It doesn't. Individuals do. By pure definition, a militia is a body of citizen soldiers, not a body of professional soldiers. When the revolution comes, I'm going to be armed, even if I have to break someone's interpretation of the law to do it.
Amen! And about Virginia, think if every student in the university had a concealed weapons permit and was carrying Perhaps the guy wouldn't have dared to do anything. And if he did, it would have been 120 students against 1 instead of 1 man picking off 120 students. Furthermore, most gun crimes are not committed by those with a concealed weapons permit. Everyone should get one and feel it is their duty as a citizen of the US of A. Or else be glad someone else around you may have one to save your butt, if need be.
"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." Is the actual text of the Second Amendment.
As someone who lives in a country with strict gun control laws and who agrees that the average citizen should NOT be able to buy a hand gun. And who thinks Australia is a safer place since the strict gun control laws came in in 1995 it hasn't been easy for me to come to terms with the fact that Americans do and should have the right to guns.
The Constitution clearly supports the right of Americans to have guns and until you change the Constitution you just have to live with that. If you are passionate about free speech, passionate about your right not to have your house searched without a warrant etc. you have to accept that the Second Amendment is just as important. Don't try to change the meaning of the words, lobby for a change to the Constitution.
As someone who lives in a country with strict gun control laws and who agrees that the average citizen should NOT be able to buy a hand gun. And who thinks Australia is a safer place since the strict gun control laws came in in 1995 it hasn't been easy for me to come to terms with the fact that Americans do and should have the right to guns.
People tend to say "Oh, we haven't had any mass shootings since the Port Arthur massacre and the New, stricter gun control laws!" - The only problem is, that there wasn't Before either. It was an isolated event, with no precedent.
Additionally, I think our Gun control laws are strict to the point of lunacy.
For example, Airsoft Firearms are legal in some states on a Category A licence, but only Bolt action Rifle Airsoft weapons are legal for sale and ownership, and all Airsoft weapons must have a unique Serial number that is registered with the state and federal government. You also can't own paintball guns, nor Starter pistols.
You also must get a "Permit to acquire" to buy an airsoft gun.
I mean, firearms, alright, but Jesus, Gun shaped toys?
People tend to say "Oh, we haven't had any mass shootings since the Port Arthur massacre and the New, stricter gun control laws!" - The only problem is, that there wasn'tBeforeeither. It was an isolated event, with no precedent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Edgar_Cooke Not all of his murders were gun murders, but there were gun murders. They were also very much random. I seem to recall he knocked on someones door and shot them in the face when they answered the door. (He went on a killing spree, so it counts...)
I'm sure there are other incidents.
Personally, I'm rather happy with the fact that I can walk to the street and not get shot. There are still incidents were nutjobs beat people to death at random (Has happened a couple of times in the last few years), or insane riots about race...
There are instances where places are held up 'apparently' with a gun, but people getting gun murdered is very rare...
As for the rest of your post, I hadn't realised our gun laws were that strict. Thanks for making me happier again about where I live.
Your assertion doesn't make sense. The purpose of the second amendment was to safeguard against government tyranny. A militia is not a state-controlled fighting force. How does a state use arms to defend against its own tyranny? It doesn't. Individuals do. By pure definition, a militia is a body of citizen soldiers, not a body of professional soldiers. When the revolution comes, I'm going to be armed, even if I have to break someone's interpretation of the law to do it.
You might not think it makes sense, but as of right now, the only guidance from SCOTUS is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S 174 (1939), which holds that there is no absolute individual right to bear arms. Whether it makes sense or not, it's the law as of right now. Otherwise, how do you think there can be such regulation as we have now?
Now the federal circuits are split between the "individual right" view, the "collective right" view, and some intermediate views. There's a very interesting Memorandum Opinion you can find by clicking on Note 10 in this article.
Here's a question: If you're worried about fighting tyranny, you must consider that you'll be fighting the Army, with it's tanks, artillery, helicopters, and various means of hurting. In order to have even a chance, you'd need some bazookas, chain guns, and maybe a tank or two of your own. Do you think the right extends that far? Do you think everyone has the right to have an M60?
And about Virginia, think if every student in the university had a concealed weapons permit and was carrying Perhaps the guy wouldn't have dared to do anything. And if he did, it would have been 120 students against 1 instead of 1 man picking off 120 students.
So it would have been safer to have a shootout involving 121 students? Okay, I'm sure you'll say that you feel like if you were there you would have been rational and heroic and concentrated your fire on the bad guy. What about the other people? Thaye might not be as rational. They might have started shooting at anyone. They might have shot you, mistakenly thinking you were the bad guy. How could law enforcement then identify the bad guy? "Halt! All good guys stop shooting!"?
So Joe's solution is to try to legislate any free radicals out of the picture. If only there were enough laws, enough controls. If only we restricted access and policed enough, then we would be safe. Then nothing like this could happen ever again, right? Give up enough freedoms in the name of security -- that will do the trick.
I just don't get how you can subscribe to this point of view without conflicting with your other arguments on the board.
So Joe's solution is to try to legislate any free radicals out of the picture. If only there were enough laws, enough controls. If only we restricted access and policed enough, then we would be safe. Then nothing like this could happen ever again, right? Give up enough freedoms in the name of security -- that will do the trick.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin
Jason: Felons can't buy guns in Va. Why is that, do you suppose? Is it because they might be a little too dangerous to be trusted? Then why wouldn't we think that someone who's been involutarily hospitalized is too dangerous to be allowed to buy a gun? Keeping such people away from guns is really not that restrictive.
I'm not advocating trading freedom for security. There is a rational basis for restricting access to guns in the case of people who've proved they can be dangerous to themselves or others, and the state has a compelling interest to protect its citizens from such dangerous people.
Your cases are fine. As I said, the federal circuits are split, thus the ruling in Parker. The split gives rise to different interpretations as I wrote earlier. It's an unsettled question. The Prinz case, however, has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The Court was interpreting a federalism problem caused by the Brady Act. Miller is the only case in which the SCOTUS addressed the Second Amendment directly and it held that there's no individual right. It's not my opinion, it's the text of the case.
I think that the Court will eventually find that access to firearms may be restricted, but that legislation should be reviewed with strict scrutiny.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin
You do realize that Franklin never said this, don't you?
I'm no gun control advocate, but even I have no problem with a restriction on people who have been hospitalized for mental health issues.
Come on guys... you really don't think stuff through. Everyone is so quick to rally around the Constitution before you actually use your brain. Did you see what the 2nd Amendment said? It deals with a militia. Therefore, if a person suffering from a mental disability is inappropriate for a militia, then the Constitution itself doesn't give them the right to bear arms.
Before you start arguing about a document... take some time and read it. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to do anything they want with any gun wherever they want. Sorry, but legal scholars much smarter than us are all in agreement there.
Even James Madison, perhaps the biggest federalist there was, said: Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
So it's not about a bunch of people running around in order to effect anarchy. The right to bear arms is so a government of the people can defend itself. Geesh.
Felons can't buy guns in Va. Why is that, do you suppose? Is it because they might be a little too dangerous to be trusted? Then why wouldn't we think that someone who's been involutarily hospitalized is too dangerous to be allowed to buy a gun? Keeping such people away from guns is really not that restrictive.
Because being involuntarily hostpilized is not the same as being charged with a crime; denying a former patient rights is a violation of due process. It's assuming guilt without proving it. And the U.S. isn't in the business of "not really that restrictive." We're supposed to be in the business of ensuring freedoms -- isn't that what the Bill of Rights is about? I mean, it's not about hedging bets about who is acceptable to have rights and who isn't.
As for "being dangerous to themselves," I don't see how that is a concern of the state. Suicide is not a crime in many states, and if you believe that abortion is the decision of a woman to control her body, then how is the right to die any different? If someone wants to end their life, then I don't see how it is the state's business.
My big problem with this whole ordeal is that the outcome will be knee-jerk reactions by politicians mugging for popular, but not enlightened, opinion. It's all about facetime. One of the questions a reporter asked the president of VTech really pissed me off -- he said (paraphrase), "What have you done to ensure something like this never happens again?"
That's the problem. I see a horrible chain of events where we'll attempt to legislate so that "this can never happen again." But that's not realistic. There will always be chinks in the armor, especially in high-density population centers like college campuses. No matter how many guns you take away, it won't make people less violent, and it won't make a mentally deranged individual any less deadly. They will always find a means to exercise their sickness if they are truly committed to it.
Kilarney - Your assertion to a higher authority as an absolute truth is a logical fallacy. And yes, because a militia is made up of individuals instead of sponsored by the state, the second amendment does, in fact, mean that individual citizens have the right to bear arms. At least according to the constructionist argument. Like Joe said, that's been the crux of the debate for decades, and is typically the one contested point that divides the parties.
Sorry, but legal scholars much smarter than us are all in agreement there.
This is what you said, and it is a falacious argument. All legal scholars are not in agreement, and even if they were, that does not mean they are correct. It is argumentum ad numerum and argumentum ad verecudiam.
Because being involuntarily hostpilized is not the same as being charged with a crime; denying a former patient rights is a violation of due process. It's assuming guilt without proving it.
This makes no freaking sense. Being charged with a crime? Have you forgotten the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine? As for mental health treatment... there no "assuming guilt" about it. It's a clinical diagnosis. You are either diagnosed or you aren't. There is plenty of due process that protects people against involuntary commitments.
As for "being dangerous to themselves," I don't see how that is a concern of the state.
That's a matter of some debate - and it boils down to personal opinion. I'm no fan of big government, but even I recognize that government has some duty to protect its own citizens.
My big problem with this whole ordeal is that the outcome will be knee-jerk reactions by politicians mugging for popular, but not enlightened, opinion. It's all about facetime.
This is a very valid concern. The reality is that 99.9 percent of gun owners do not use their gun in an inappropriate way.
I edited the post to add a reference to James Madison. I wasn't relying solely on legal scholars.
Nonetheless, it's rather arrogant to think that we know better than scholars who have studied the issue at much greater depth than we ever will.
How is it an ad numerum? I'm talking about a handful of people, not the masses. It's also not an ad verecundiam. That's when you use a famous person for a proposition that they aren't an expert in. We can reasonably expect that legal scholars are capable of giving an opinion on legal matters.
This makes no freaking sense. Being charged with a crime? Have you forgotten the "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine? As for mental health treatment... there no "assuming guilt" about it. It's a clinical diagnosis. You are either diagnosed or you aren't. There is plenty of due process that protects people against involuntary commitments.
That was exactly my point - involuntary commitment is not indicative of guilt. That is why it cannot be used as the basis for restricting freedoms after release. To say that a former mental patient should not be granted rights is ridiculous and circumvents due process.
To say that a former mental patient should not be granted rights is ridiculous and circumvents due process.
What's your authority for your position? Because I can tell you that courts uphold laws all the time that limit the rights of people suffering from mental diseases.
Heck... it's a violation of federal law to own a gun if you are a drug user.
1) Innocent until proven guilty. 2) Craziness is not a crime. 3) A crazy person is not guilty by dint of being crazy, unless in the course of their illness they commit a crime. 4) It is acceptible to restrict the freedoms of a convicted felon. 5) It is not acceptible to restrict the freedoms of someone who has not been convicted (unless, obviously, they are being held while awaiting or during trial).
Therefore, restricting the rights of someone who has been treated AND RELEASED circumvents due process.
Back home in KY, we required a jury determination of civil disability because such disability denied the defendant all kinds of rights, such as the right to contract, the right to vote, and the right to purchase firearms. Such a determination was in no way a guilty verdict. It was a determination that the defandant could not attend to their personal or financial needs. They still lost a brace of rights that we take for granted.
Now, a person who's been involuntaried has been judicially determined to be a danger to himself or others. I believe that such a person should not be able to purchase a gun, not because they're guilty of a crime, but because I think they're much more likely to be dangerous than someone who hasn't been involuntaried. I've speculated earlier that legislation might take into account that the danger may pass, by the imposition of a time period in which the hospitalization would restrict access.
Comments
Despite the fact that it's a part of the "conservative agenda", I'm totally behind gun rights. With the government edging closer to tyranny than it has in a long time, we should really remember the meaning behind the second amendment. People can debate it all they want (you know, some people don't understand English, so they think it means the opposite of what it means), but we all know the spirit of the law: the people must be ready and willing to rise up against their government if it impinges on their freedoms. Even if the year begins with "2". Even if cars and planes have been invented. Even post WW2, post 9/11. Does the passage of time and the changing of technology and world order change what makes us fundamentally American?
Our biggest flaw is not our "violent tendencies", or our lack of gun control laws, or those pesky evil video games. It's our complete lack of accountability. We blame the government for everything: Katrina, Columbine, VT. We always find some obscure, fallacious argument linking the latest tragedy to some political agenda. Meanwhile, the one thing the government is actually, actively doing--waging a pointless and devastating war--gets nothing but grumbles and blog entries.
This is the country that voted the RIAA as the most evil corporation in the world...ahead of Halliburton. On one hand, you've got people who'd rather secure their right to violate copyrights than see equitable world trade and alternative energy. On the other, you have people who really, really want to take rights away from gay people, and oh by the way here's another million dollars to wage your illegal war.
It's the same thing. The worst school shooting in history, and people are talking about video games, how it's George Bush's fault, how we need gun control. Everything is a god damn political issue. If we understood personal accountabillity, we'd understand that this shooting was the fault of one man: the shooter. Columbine was two kids who wanted to cause a horrible tragedy and gain lasting infamy. 9/11 was caused by evil terrorists who wanted to hurt America for their own reasons. Katrina was caused by an act of God.
Tragedies happen. As 9/11 proved, what you do to recover is what's important. Politicizing them only leads to trouble. (Again, see 9/11. Yay Bush! You happened to be in a white house at the time! Here are our freedoms, please invade Iraq with our blessings!)
So gun control? Fuck it, status quo.
On morning when I was in college, I got a call from the campus police. They told me that they caught someone red-handed that was jumping on cars. My car was one of the damaged cars. The roof was dented in where he had jumped on it. I asked for the person's name so I could recover for the damages. The University police refused to provide it because they wanted to "protect" the suspect.
Had I known then what I know now... they would have provided that name one way or the other.
I can tell you that ever since the Feds required public reports of campus crime rates... universities have gone out of their way to cover up these incidents.
I deal with this on a fairly regular basis. A local public school system often opts to "handle" in-school crime on the QT instead of involving police. They figure schools aren't required to generate incident reports like law enforcement. So guns in school? Knives in lockers? Massive lockdown? Shhhhhhh. Don't let anybody know -- it might hurt our reputation.
I don't know if your school is a high school or university and it's been 4 years since I was at Stuyvesant High School in the city but I do understand how you feel. Recent alums who have come to this university have said that they brought metal detectors to my h.s. I couldn't help but feel indignant about it. Stuy wasn't a zone school. Metal detectors don't belong in the best public high school in the city. That's what I thought. Old elitism kicking in. I'll always remember how they locked down the school after 9/11. Couldn't go out for lunch or hang out in our usual spots where the geeks and geeky goths hung out (everyone was a geek at Stuy, even the cheerleaders, there was no way around it, we were also all a bit crazy). Nearly the epitome of fascism and only the ones who could remember what it used to be like, like me and my friends and our junior class and the seniors, fought back. The sophomores had only been there a year before and the freshmen were meek and didn't know any better.
Universities and colleges are bigger than high schools and yet they seem to be more lax in their security. It should be the other way around due to the great size difference. I think it would be wise for all universities and colleges to analyze what happened at Virginia Tech when all the facts are out, and then update themselves accordingly.
Amen! And about Virginia, think if every student in the university had a concealed weapons permit and was carrying Perhaps the guy wouldn't have dared to do anything. And if he did, it would have been 120 students against 1 instead of 1 man picking off 120 students. Furthermore, most gun crimes are not committed by those with a concealed weapons permit. Everyone should get one and feel it is their duty as a citizen of the US of A. Or else be glad someone else around you may have one to save your butt, if need be.
As someone who lives in a country with strict gun control laws and who agrees that the average citizen should NOT be able to buy a hand gun. And who thinks Australia is a safer place since the strict gun control laws came in in 1995 it hasn't been easy for me to come to terms with the fact that Americans do and should have the right to guns.
The Constitution clearly supports the right of Americans to have guns and until you change the Constitution you just have to live with that. If you are passionate about free speech, passionate about your right not to have your house searched without a warrant etc. you have to accept that the Second Amendment is just as important. Don't try to change the meaning of the words, lobby for a change to the Constitution.
People tend to say "Oh, we haven't had any mass shootings since the Port Arthur massacre and the New, stricter gun control laws!" - The only problem is, that there wasn't Before either. It was an isolated event, with no precedent.
Additionally, I think our Gun control laws are strict to the point of lunacy.
For example, Airsoft Firearms are legal in some states on a Category A licence, but only Bolt action Rifle Airsoft weapons are legal for sale and ownership, and all Airsoft weapons must have a unique Serial number that is registered with the state and federal government. You also can't own paintball guns, nor Starter pistols.
You also must get a "Permit to acquire" to buy an airsoft gun.
I mean, firearms, alright, but Jesus, Gun shaped toys?
Not all of his murders were gun murders, but there were gun murders. They were also very much random. I seem to recall he knocked on someones door and shot them in the face when they answered the door.
(He went on a killing spree, so it counts...)
I'm sure there are other incidents.
Personally, I'm rather happy with the fact that I can walk to the street and not get shot. There are still incidents were nutjobs beat people to death at random (Has happened a couple of times in the last few years), or insane riots about race...
There are instances where places are held up 'apparently' with a gun, but people getting gun murdered is very rare...
As for the rest of your post, I hadn't realised our gun laws were that strict. Thanks for making me happier again about where I live.
Now the federal circuits are split between the "individual right" view, the "collective right" view, and some intermediate views. There's a very interesting Memorandum Opinion you can find by clicking on Note 10 in this article.
Here's a question: If you're worried about fighting tyranny, you must consider that you'll be fighting the Army, with it's tanks, artillery, helicopters, and various means of hurting. In order to have even a chance, you'd need some bazookas, chain guns, and maybe a tank or two of your own. Do you think the right extends that far? Do you think everyone has the right to have an M60? So it would have been safer to have a shootout involving 121 students? Okay, I'm sure you'll say that you feel like if you were there you would have been rational and heroic and concentrated your fire on the bad guy. What about the other people? Thaye might not be as rational. They might have started shooting at anyone. They might have shot you, mistakenly thinking you were the bad guy. How could law enforcement then identify the bad guy? "Halt! All good guys stop shooting!"?
I just don't get how you can subscribe to this point of view without conflicting with your other arguments on the board.
As for legal evidence, you have me at a disadvantage with all of your lawyer-ly experience. I can only point to what I think is an excellent testimony to the senate's constitution subcommittee, and to what you will undoubtedly label a skewed, biased propaganda site. I'm also not sure if the D.C. circuit court's ruling holds sway, or whether Prinz v. United States remains valid.
- Benjamin Franklin
I'm not advocating trading freedom for security. There is a rational basis for restricting access to guns in the case of people who've proved they can be dangerous to themselves or others, and the state has a compelling interest to protect its citizens from such dangerous people.
Your cases are fine. As I said, the federal circuits are split, thus the ruling in Parker. The split gives rise to different interpretations as I wrote earlier. It's an unsettled question. The Prinz case, however, has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. The Court was interpreting a federalism problem caused by the Brady Act. Miller is the only case in which the SCOTUS addressed the Second Amendment directly and it held that there's no individual right. It's not my opinion, it's the text of the case.
I think that the Court will eventually find that access to firearms may be restricted, but that legislation should be reviewed with strict scrutiny.
I'm no gun control advocate, but even I have no problem with a restriction on people who have been hospitalized for mental health issues.
Come on guys... you really don't think stuff through. Everyone is so quick to rally around the Constitution before you actually use your brain. Did you see what the 2nd Amendment said? It deals with a militia. Therefore, if a person suffering from a mental disability is inappropriate for a militia, then the Constitution itself doesn't give them the right to bear arms.
Before you start arguing about a document... take some time and read it. The 2nd Amendment doesn't give anyone the right to do anything they want with any gun wherever they want. Sorry, but legal scholars much smarter than us are all in agreement there.
Even James Madison, perhaps the biggest federalist there was, said:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
So it's not about a bunch of people running around in order to effect anarchy. The right to bear arms is so a government of the people can defend itself. Geesh.
Okay, Hungyjoe... let's dig in...
As for "being dangerous to themselves," I don't see how that is a concern of the state. Suicide is not a crime in many states, and if you believe that abortion is the decision of a woman to control her body, then how is the right to die any different? If someone wants to end their life, then I don't see how it is the state's business.
My big problem with this whole ordeal is that the outcome will be knee-jerk reactions by politicians mugging for popular, but not enlightened, opinion. It's all about facetime. One of the questions a reporter asked the president of VTech really pissed me off -- he said (paraphrase), "What have you done to ensure something like this never happens again?"
That's the problem. I see a horrible chain of events where we'll attempt to legislate so that "this can never happen again." But that's not realistic. There will always be chinks in the armor, especially in high-density population centers like college campuses. No matter how many guns you take away, it won't make people less violent, and it won't make a mentally deranged individual any less deadly. They will always find a means to exercise their sickness if they are truly committed to it.
I edited the post to add a reference to James Madison. I wasn't relying solely on legal scholars.
Nonetheless, it's rather arrogant to think that we know better than scholars who have studied the issue at much greater depth than we ever will.
How is it an ad numerum? I'm talking about a handful of people, not the masses.
It's also not an ad verecundiam. That's when you use a famous person for a proposition that they aren't an expert in. We can reasonably expect that legal scholars are capable of giving an opinion on legal matters.
Heck... it's a violation of federal law to own a gun if you are a drug user.
2) Craziness is not a crime.
3) A crazy person is not guilty by dint of being crazy, unless in the course of their illness they commit a crime.
4) It is acceptible to restrict the freedoms of a convicted felon.
5) It is not acceptible to restrict the freedoms of someone who has not been convicted (unless, obviously, they are being held while awaiting or during trial).
Therefore, restricting the rights of someone who has been treated AND RELEASED circumvents due process.
Now, a person who's been involuntaried has been judicially determined to be a danger to himself or others. I believe that such a person should not be able to purchase a gun, not because they're guilty of a crime, but because I think they're much more likely to be dangerous than someone who hasn't been involuntaried. I've speculated earlier that legislation might take into account that the danger may pass, by the imposition of a time period in which the hospitalization would restrict access.