2nd Amendment and Antis, Interpreting the Law of The Land

[Autolycus]

I love how some people turn Liberals into the bad guys when this has nothing to do with Liberals or Conservatives but with Anti-Gunners versus Pro-Gunners.

I agree very much with what Crazed SS is saying. Essentially VT style tragedies are part of the price of freedom. You cannot really prevent them. Even though a police state could not necessarily prevent them it would make them much less common.

 

[unspellable]

Police state?

A police state doesn't make violence less common, it legitimizes it.

On the other hand, the sort of person who pulls off things like VT depends on finding sheep. If there are a few sheep dogs in the crowd he will stay home. It's a common thing that such types commit suicide when the police show up. If they anticipate armed resistance from the crowd, the plot will never get off the ground.

Mexico has vey effective gun control. Not so much the draconian gun laws, but because the common man simply can't afford one. But while firearm possesion is relatively rare, they have a higher murder rate than the US.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

To Tecumseh and crazed ss and all other interested parties:

I can't let you get away with equating the travesty at Virginia Tech as the cost of the uninfringed keeping and bearing of arms. Sure, Cho was able to keep and bear an arm, but because of the unconstitutional law, none of his victims - all apparently law abiding - weren't allowed to keep and bear arms where they met their demise. Cho ignored the unconstitutional law, took his arm to the scene, and perpetrated his massacre of the disarmed. Cho broke unconstitutional law and none of his victims did. Cho also broke much constitutional law with his murderous acts.

Unconstitutional Gun Control Laws are the culprit here. Yes, there is no way to prevent someone like Cho from attempting such acts, but there is a way to DEFEND against such acts. When you cut that defense off at the door, or the parking lot, or the borders of a campus and such, you grant an impunity to the Cho's of the world to run amok with anarchy.

However many may be killed or injured in the time it takes someone to draw and shoot back might be a price of the right to keep and bear arms - if the perpetrator even chooses to act without impunity - but the tens of deaths at Virginia Tech are a direct result of the unconstitutional law forbidding the law abiding from having the means to defend themselves.

Don't forget that Cho should have been institutionalized in the first place. This fact takes the deaths out of the purview of any consequence of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms altogether, doesn't it!

You must keep this all in perspective - unless, of course, if you wish to keep the right shrouded in darkness, misconception, and unwarranted derision.

Woody

 

[crazed_ss]

Dude, having a gun isnt a magical talisman against being shot. Cho could have went Charles Whitman on the place and 100 armed students with pistols wouldnt have been able to stop him. Guns are highly effective weapons and they're very easy to acquire. This is a good thing, however, with freedom comes risk. If you want easy access to firearms, you need to be willing to accept the risk that people are going to use those firearms for evil. This is the downside of your freedom.

The same goes with many other freedoms. We have the freedom of speech and expression. This means hate groups can use that freedom to recruit others to hate their fellow man. This is a bad thing, BUT it is all part of the freedom of speech, so there's nothing we can really do about it.

I guess what I'm trying to get across is, you have to take the bad with the good.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Dude, having a gun isnt a magical talisman against being shot.

I never said that. What I did say was that Cho could have been stopped long before all 32 people were systematically executed by him.

Point of interest: Whitman was brought down with a shotgun and - yes - a .38 caliber revolver.

Woody