2nd Amendement Rights
 

Some comments were made by a few in the NIU shooting thread, but as a few people have stated the thread shouldn't be taken over by people discussing their opinions. That is not what the thread is about. So, I decided to start a new one.

People are pissed and saying that when can we start "defending" ourselves. I'm sorry, it is one thing to defend yourself it is completely another thing to allow everyone to carry a gun! Unfortunately, we live in a society where some people just don't give a shit and if we allowed them to carry a gun they would find a reason to shoot it. Gun violence isn't going to go away, but what we need to do, as a society, is educate people on guns. Educate people on the hazards that shooting a gun can cause. Educate people on gun safety.

But, IMPO, getting a gun is too easy in some states so I think it should be harder (emphasis on I, this is my opinion).

As for the schools, seriously, they can only do so much. They are open campuses, it's not like they can make a stream of metal detectors blocking the campus and hire the people to maintain them to check every student that walks in if they are carrying a weapon. Come on. Even if they put metal detactors in the buildings, in reality it won't stop the shootings, if someone is hell bent to shoot up a school (because they are a little on the not so sane side) they could easily do it outside.

As for the 2nd amendment, it states that it is the "militia" who have the right to bear arms, but through time it has been "interpreted" by the states and federal government that civilians have the right to bear arms.

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.

http://www.constitutioncenter.org/ex...ofRights.shtml


Let the arguments and discussion begin.


Also, it is one thing to be passionate about your opinion and to state it in an appropriate manner, it is completely another thing to go off half-cocked and start attacking another poster because you don't like their opinion.

As I've said before, and this whole thread should take on this peice of advice (impo):

"Agree with me, disagree with me, but please respect my opinion"


I don't mind discussing or clarifying my opinion, what I don't like though is people attacking my opinion.

With all the school shootings, this is a very touchy subject, but obviously people need to talk and vent their feelings, their frustrations and thoughts. That's why I started this thread, we just need to be respectful of each other.

This was a good idea.

I agree with you.


...

Sorry I don't have much else to add. :(

Yes, this is a good idea. The shootings at NIU really upset me and I was tempted to say something about gun control in one of the threads but I knew it wasn't the place for it.

Personally, I think we in the United States have a very unhealthy obsession with guns. Did anyone see the recent story about the little boy who shot his sister over a bag of potato chips? I'll post a link if I can find it.

Our society is tending to rely on violence to address difficult situations instead of communication.

I have more to say on the issue, but no time. Hope others post their opinions.

Finally! Thanks for starting this thread.

I agree about education. I think much of the fear among the anti-gun crowd is the result of unfamiliarity with guns and the type of people who own them.

I don't think everyone should be allowed to carry a gun. I do believe, however, that those who go through their state's carrying requirements should be allowed to do so for purposes of defense. I believe this should extend to college campuses as well. Before anyone has a seizure at this idea, think about how ridiculous it is that in many places, a responsible, 22 year old college student can carry a concealed firearm for self defense in most places...except where he/she spends a huge amount of her time. Additionally, these areas are loudly painted as "Gun Free Zones," which simply assures aggressors that his victims won't have the means to defend themselves.

I know many people worry about accidents and irresponsibility. I suspect, however, that these people don't have many friends who regularly carry a firearm. To be honest, most of the firearm owners I know treat it like having a new child. It is an enormous responsibility and not one to be taken lightly. Accidents very rarely happen during carry, to the degree that I've never heard of one. Also, people who are licensed to carry concealed weapons are VERY RARELY involved in gun violence. Unlike the aggressors who are predisposed to breaking the law anyway, those who go through the process of obtaining a permit show their respect for the law by jumping through the hoops required by individual states. For example, look at the concealed carry on campus movement, whose members are foregoing their ability to protect themselves (in accordance with the law), despite this rash of school shootings. Instead of breaking the law to carry on campus, they're using the proper outlets responsibly in attempts to change the country's mindset.

Concerning the Second Amendment, most agree that the individual right to arms is guaranteed by the provision. Even Greekchat lovechild Barack Obama said as much yesterday.

10 U.S.C. 311 defines the militia as consisting "of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..." It also goes on to describe unorganized and organized militia, in addition to the qualifications for women.

What purpose would be served by limiting firearm membership to militia members? The government and the MSM has placed an extremely negative connotation on the term "militia," leading to the presumption that these people are part of fringe elements seeking to destroy the status quo. If the militia referred to is the National Guard, as some assume from Sec. 311, I think there are far too many federal ties within the Guard's organization, essentially destroying the underlying purpose.

As pacifistic as our society may have become, the subject matter of the Second Amendment is necessary to preserve the other fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. If someone kicks down your door at 4am, your security system and the efficient local police may be a moot point. I don't like to say that Vtech or NIU could have been mitigated by a courageous person who was responsibly carrying a legal firearm. However, I think that is the only thing which could have helped, as stiffer penalties mean nothing to those who don't even value their own lives, and we simply cannot allow college campuses to become airports. Someone unfamiliar with firearms will surely say that the death toll would be higher, but I find that highly unlikely. Not everyone is going to rush out and fill out the permit form, do the fingerprinting, take the classes if necessary...to get a legal carry permit. Those who do, are unlikely to start indiscriminately firing their gun. I think Vtech is a tough situation, but NIU could have been legitimately lessened, as the shooter was at the front of the class, and anyone with average handgun experience can do consistent headshots from 30-40 feet (adrenaline not included, of course).

For those who have fear and dislike for guns, I encourage you to find someone responsible and go shoot with them. It isn't a magical weapon of mass destruction, it is a tool many of us use to defend ourselves and our families. In the firearm-owner world, you'll often hear people say things like "there is no such thing as an accidental discharge." Rather, there are usually only negligent discharges, which are fully preventable with practice and safety training.

I realize this is ridiculously long, but a short note on buying/carrying restrictions. While I think safety training and background checks are good, my concern is of the slippery slope form and the chilling effect it may have. I have no problem with background checks. I think most people understand the point of a waiting period or safety requirement, but those two restrictions are still suspicious to gun owners. Look at it from their view for a second. It isn't that we don't think safety is of value, its that we don't trust the people who are proposing such restrictions. Many people on the anti side in this country make it clear that restrictions aren't their ultimate goal. Many suspect that guns aren't even the target, but that the enemy is gun owners, who often vote differently and speak with a different accent than they do. Thus, while we see the virtue of safety classes, our distrust of the people who continuously ridicule us, creates a desire to fight any initiative which would abrogate the right to gun ownership.

www.concealedcampus.com

Shiner--well written. And I can't believe I am saying this--I agree with a great deal of it. As you know, in Texas there are laws that allow people to conceal carry, but then they are prohibited on campus. So basically, a campus gunman could care less about the law--and law abiding citizens could do almost nothing about it.

Ugh. I don't know what the answer is, but I think this is an idea that should be considered.

Rather than worrying about expanding gun rights, why aren't we more concerned about how guns are already being legally purchased and by whom? There were concerns about the stability of the VT gunman before his rampage and his purchase of a lot of ammo didn't give anyone pause. Now it comes out that the NIU guy was both in a psychiatric facility, released from the military for psychiatric reasons and known to go off his meds. Yet he had no problems getting a gun license or purchasing weapons. From this article: http://news.aol.com/story/_a/gunmans...14171009990001

"A former employee at a Chicago psychiatric treatment center said Kazmierczak was placed there after high school by his parents. She said he used to cut himself, and had resisted taking his medications.

He also had a short-lived stint as a prison guard that ended abruptly when he didn't show up for work. He was in the Army for about six months in 2001-02, but he told a friend he'd gotten a psychological discharge."
...
"University Police Chief Donald Grady said Friday that Kazmierczak had become erratic in the past two weeks after he stopped taking his medication."
...
"He never wanted to identify with being mentally ill," she said. "That was part of the problem."
...
"On Feb. 9, Kazmierczak walked into a Champaign gun store and picked up two guns — a Remington shotgun and a Glock 9mm handgun. He bought the two other handguns at the same shop — a Hi-Point .380 on Dec. 30 and a Sig Sauer on Aug. 6.

All four guns were bought legally from a federally licensed firearms dealer, said Thomas Ahern, a spokesman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. At least one criminal background check was performed — Kazmierczak had no criminal record.

Kazmierczak had a State Police-issued FOID, or firearms owners identification card, which is required in Illinois to own a gun, authorities said. Such cards are rarely issued to those with recent mental health problems."

I totally agree.

I have never owned or tried to obtain a gun, so I don't know what kind of background check is done, but based on some things we've read about recently, it is not doing the job!

It's scary how easily people can buy guns.

Thank you for the link


Leslie Anne- OMG I did not hear about that (the boy shooting his sister)

nittanyalum- definately agree

potato chip shooting
 

http://www.wltx.com/news/story.aspx?storyid=58451

one of many links you can find via google. the boy was only 10... his sister was 9 at the time of the shooting

This was recently brought to the Idaho Legislature http://www3.state.id.us/oasis/S1381.html

I am not a fan for a lot of reasons, particularly how it contradicts or causes problems in other areas of the Idaho Code.

Your post was VERY well written!!

^^^This is SO very true...especially regarding what I have read on GC since joining. I will leave it at that.

Thank you ASUADPi;)!!

Not to go all bumper sticker slogan on you all*, but I think that when we worry a lot about more restrictions, we limit our analysis to cases, like the recent college shootings, where we have a shooter who acquired the gun through legitimate means and we think to ourselves, no one should have ever sold that guy a gun.

But we kind of ignore all the instances where people have acquired their guns illegally and use them to victimize others. More restrictions on the the law abiding probably won't really appreciably reduce the amount of gun violence; they just make the rest of us easier to victimize.

I'd be all about more gun safety classes, but even more about good parenting and supervision of children generally. A well-supervised child in a "child-proofed" house doesn't shoot anyone, you know? Good parents generally don't don't shoot their kids or associate with people who are likely to shoot their kids or allow them to shoot themselves. (We had a situation in Georgia recently in which a two year old shot himself with his babysitter's gun which was left where he could reach it while his babysitter napped. Sure without the gun, it couldn't have happened; but there are several other factors that could have been altered in the situation to get the same result without restricting guns.)

I'm not sure that it's the guns that are the main issue in most of these family-based tragedies although they sure aren't helping any.

As far as whether we'd be better or worse off in general if more people could carry guns legally wherever they wanted to, I have no idea, but I think we can be confident there would have been fewer college students dead as part of the most recent campus shootings had other students been well trained in the use of handguns and armed. The shooter would have been taken out quicker.

ETA: I just want to make clear that I'm obviously not in favor of arming the mentally ill in case anyone was tempted to spin my post that way. I do think that it's going to be problematic to figure out exactly how the restrictions will work. Is it a lifelong ban if you've ever sought mental health treatment? ( which is only a problem for me because it might make people less likely to seek treatment rather than just preventing them from buying guns) And with the Va.Tech guy, it seems to me that what needed to happen in that case goes so far beyond just not letting him acquire weapons or ammo. He needed to be institutionalized and seems like it was clear long before the crime.

ETA* It occurs to me that bumper stickers reading "If we make guns illegal, then only criminals will have guns" bummer stickers may not be as common as they used to me, so that's what I'm referring to. The slogan reflects all the usual problems with bumper sticker thinking, I know.

I wish someone would do a statistical analysis of the amount of colleges (two and four year, public and private) by state, and then compare it with the amount of shootings that have happened (I am guesstimating maybe 10 total). I'm thinking the amount is very low, and that a lot of the concealed carry is a visceral reaction to what is very low probability wise.

I imagine shootings on college campuses are low, "percentage-wise," too.

However, shootings everywhere are relatively low, percentage-wise. Why do people who can legally carry almost everywhere else have to abandon that protection to pursue higher education? I have no doubt that the recent tragedies have energized the movement, but I don't think concealed carry on campus should be allowed BECAUSE of the recent shootings. Rather, I think that people who are responsible enough to carry legally in other places should be able to protect themselves and others on a college campus. The status quo simply allows resistance-free targeting.

I fully support the idea of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable and those prone to criminal activity. However, most states have laws on the books which do this (though I think we obviously need to try and bring in more of the mental stability aspect--not sure how this would occur), and it is simply a matter of enforcing the laws. Other than bettering the efficiency and breadth of background searches, I don't see what further regulation would do. Rather, I think we should continue to make it relatively simple for responsible people to purchase firearms, keep those regulations that are practical and simple (Some states I think should have less), and strongly punish those who violate these laws.

Here is a recent Newsweek article about carry on college campuses. I was incredibly surprised to find that it was pretty balanced, as the traditional slant of Newsweek is no secret. http://www.newsweek.com/id/112174

Sounds good to me.

I knew it would. ;)

Those of you who favor more gun restrictions, would you favor repealing the 2nd amendment?

I mean the part about the right of the people to bear arms not being abridged is a pretty broad right. Would you prefer it read something more like, "the right of the people to bear arms should only be abridge when the government, acting of behalf of more progressive people, deems it necessary?"

It seems to be the way a lot of people read it. It might be a more honest assessment of what people expect.

Everyone in this thread seems to accept that the "right" can be abridged in the case of mental illness. How far would you be willing to go?

ETA: this could be an entertaining exercise for the whole Bill of Rights. Just add or subtract what you want:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, unless your ideas are wildly offensive and promote impediments on the rights of others.

You know, one thing that I would love to look at data for, or just get opinions on, why are most shootings in schools ocurring in the U.S.?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

This link has a timeline for the last 12 years in school shootings.

There have been 53 school shootings (K-12; college) in the last 12 years.

11 of them were outside the United States.

Statistically that means that roughly 80% (the exact number is 79.24%) of the school shootings have been in the United States.

Of the 33 shootings in the U.S., 33 were committed by males, 2 were committed by females and the remaining 9 were unknown (at least the website doesn't have the sex listed, or the name).

Why do we think this is?

Me personally, the video games and violence.

Video Games- they have become increasingly violent over the course of the years. Too many of my 3rd graders go home from school and the tv "babysits" them until mom and/or dad comes home.

Violence- this can come from violence in video games, violence in movies. You'd be shocked to know that probably half of my 3rd grade class (and I only have 16 students) have seen Saw. Violence can also be from the area the kids live in. For example, I work in an area that is known for gang activity. We've got gang members at school. It is a very real thing for some of these kids. If you are "breed" to see violence from a young age, it's not going to effect you.

Violence can also be the form of peer violence, bullying. Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the perfect canidates for anti-bullying campaigns. Not that them shooting up the school was an appropriate method for them to deal with the bullying issues, but they were teenagers and teenagers are emotional and don't think rationally, to them shooting up the school, and "getting back" at the bullies, was the last resort.

Now, more recently, we are seeing shooters who aren't quite mentally sane.

I mean as a society, we need to figure out a way to fix this. I find it throughly depressing (the stats that I stated earlier). Even though I work at an elementary school, don't think that the thought of violence doesn't cross my mind every day, but I also realize that I have a job to do and I can't live in fear.

What would some of y'all offer as solutions?

I want to join a militia to defend my 2nd amendment rights. How about you guys?

-Rudey

Following up on those stats, what countries with as large or larger populations than the US have the same degree of personal liberty?

No doubt, we've always been a pretty violent bunch and we've always had a pretty ethnically and economically diverse population, which to me would present more occasions for violence, if we look at history to predict why people don't always get along.

We've also got a ridiculously sensationalistic media which I think has contributed to number of school shootings. I'm not saying other countries don't; I'm sure they do, but I think the media has play a big role in influencing the student shooters in many of the US shootings.

Here are the reports for past 3 years on NUI
http://www.ope.ed.gov/security/InstI...asp?CRITERIA=R
For rest of colleges,start here:
http://www.ope.ed.gov/security/search.asp
Main site is this:
http://www.securityoncampus.org/crimestats/index.html

I first wish to complement everyone on this very interesting exchange of POV's and general thoughts and beliefs.

We could start another thread in R/M on having weapons in a chapter house.

For this thread, I too have some surprising mixed thoughts.

I was a member of the NRA. I was taught gun safety by a retired, U.S. Army Colonel (W.W. II combat veteran). I qualified, long rifle, as a sharpshoot-bar one.
From what I can recall, this is what he told us: "This is NOT a toy. It is a weapon. It can and will kill. Even on a range (which did happen on another range near by-bullets went though a defective back stop and over a mile of trees and hit cars on The Northway.) You have to treat her that way.
At ALL times think safety first.
If you choose to carry a weapon off a range, remember that it will kill. If you use it, be ready to shot to kill. However remember that you too can be killed by her."
Now that stuck in my head. When I had long guns, I kept the bolts far away from the gun.
I sheet shoot sometimes now and if I have ammo around, it too is locked up and far away.

I have never given it a thought that I should keep a weapon near by for "self-defense". While I know how to use them, I never had for lack of a better term combat training. I do know know if I could shoot some one while under pressure. And I do not know if could or would hit them or someone else. And to me, the very thought of hitting the wrong person scares me.

As some, IIRC, have pointed out, things today are very different that the 17 and 1800's. I think we have become perhaps too desensitized on violent acts.
Kids play video games that all one has to do is press reset and a dead person lives.
We have drive bys and road rage.
Some of us have been "raised" on war videos.

On the other hand, there are people, good honest people.
That have good, level headed thinking and thoughts at all times.
Who can control their emotions and understand training and situations.

But just how many are there on school campuses?

One can be well trained on a range and shoot targets real well.
But there is a large leap when the target is shooting at you and many others are around.

As I indicated when I started, I may start re-thinking some positions of mine. Time will will tell.

I was trained to shoot a 22, Glock and Winchester Rifle. Ironically, I cannot target due to a field cut in my optic nerve. So I plan on refraining from ever concealing a weapon. I will leave that to the experts.

Having worked on a campus during a shooting where 3 professors lost their lives, the plan for this kind of incident is always retrospective. We NEVER know when someone will flip out.

The other issue is there are quite a few students who grew up in a "demilitarized zone". Either in the US or foreign. Some of these kids actually can fire of a sub-automatic and hit their targets... Especially the children who are now adults from foreign countries. And let's think about how many kids who are now adults that grew up in gangland.

I do not want to restrict one's access to guns, but I have lost friends due to gun violence for dumb reasons. And to have it concealed weapons on a college campus, the ivory tower, what are we espousing? Higher learning? But to take that lunatic out, the kinds of guns he had--do you all think a Glock would have taken him out before he killed? Just asking?

You're right about us not knowing. I think it is a valid conversation to have, but we have to be careful about assuming one of us with a weapon could have stopped it. That said, I think those who scream that we'd have 20 people dead instead of 6 are even more ridiculous.

Regarding your question about a Glock, sure, absolutely. Now, I don't know that it would have kept everyone alive, but I think under the right circumstances the damage certainly could have been mitigated. I'm not a Glock fan, but 2 in the chest or one in the head from a 9mm, .40 or .45 Glock is going to severely limit the ability of someone to keep up a barrage of gunfire. As most gun owners will admit, adrenaline and stress is different for each person, and who knows how well they'll perform. But a moderately trained individual can make head and center mass shots from 30-45 feet, and well placed (or enough) rounds from a Glock or any other pistol would have a very good chance of impairing the assailant. So I'm surely not saying it is a certainty, but I do wish one of those students at VT or NIU had been a well trained individual carrying a gun. Perhaps some of the loss could have been avoided.

All this Glock-talk makes me think of the Chuck Norris thread.

A Glock would be fine.

In a perfect world two in each knee cap would be sufficient for me. That way that sick motherfucker is still alive and doesn't get to take the easy way out via suicide or having someone else do the job for him.

I do not know about folks responses, even those who are moderately trained.

I would like to hear from my former and current combat military GCers and law enforcement GCers to hear their take on the situation since they are probably the best to answer a very highly inflammatory and lethal situation...

All I know is I could probably EASILY get a weapon, but because I cannot visualize my target, even after breathing, I would miss it by 1 foot. It is the oddest thing that I have. So, I would be one in danger when a person would lose it.

My opinion, at best, the poor untrained folks stay calm to not draw attention to the assailant and/or play dead; and if possible SAFELY AND QUIETLY attempt leaving the premises. Of course I know it is 20/20, but IMHO...

Now, the universities and colleges could impose a lockdown of the school with restricted access through their streets and everyone has to show an identification, also they can impose a neighborhood curfew around the surrounding area... That is a Homeland Security kind of thing and everyone would feel they are part of an "institution"--yes, just like prison... I am not saying that I would advocate that, but a university or college could do that...

Gun dealer sold to both Va. Tech & NIU Shooters.
 

Geez.

I didn't even think it was possible to sell GUNS over THE INTERNET.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...shooters_N.htm

In regards to your accuracy it might be an issue of having your dominant eye on one side of your body while having your dominant hand on the other.

As far as “playing dead,” I would only suggest that if you have been seriously wounded. It would be very difficult for anyone in that situation to suppress their natural reactions to a life threatening situation to convincingly play dead. Let the flight response take over and escape the situation; it’s much more difficult to hit a moving target. Of course the NIU Gunman had a shotgun at close range so his shooting prowess wasn’t a major issue.

You can purchase firearms online but the delivery must go through a licensed firearms dealer.

Depending on what state you reside in, you may be a member of the militia.

Many states (I'm away from home and using a borrowed computer, so don't have research time) have codes which define the militia as all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and some number, 45 or 50 is common. Ticks me off that I'm excluded, but I carry everywhere I may, legally, anyway.

Be very careful in the discussion of SCCC and in other discussions of students (or faculty, or staff, or visitors, etc.) carrying weapons. This would NOT be a barrier. No law-abiding citizen carrying a gun would fire before believing a person is in mortal danger - that is, that the shooter has already fired or is about to.

At VT, had someone CHOSEN (it's always about choice - no one should be required to carry) to be armed, it's likely (not 100%) there would have been fewer fatalities. I can't imagine anyone arguing no one would have died. Guns are not bullet-stoppers.

At NIU, given the number hit and the speed with which it ended, it's not likely anyone's life would have been saved. But as it was, the students were fish in a barrel.

At Columbine, had a teacher or staff member been armed, fewer would LIKELY have died.

I recall one of my first experiences after I started learning to shoot - my father, who carried always, whether legally or not, I don't think he cared, reminding me of the McDonald's shootings years ago in San Diego. I remember him saying "If someone like me had been there, there would not have been 12 deaths. Some would have died, but not 12."

Ask Suzanna Hupp what she thinks.

He didn't buy his guns over the internet; he bought accessories (magazines)

Any handgun sold via the internet (for that matter in a state-to-state transfer) must be handled through a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer (FFL), as most of the unwashed masses do not have access to the appropriate databases to perform the required background checks. Even transshipping (I sent a handgun to my daughter in another state, for example) must be done (to be legal) from FFL to FFL, with sender responsible for safe shipment and receiver responsible for the background check.

Correct about FFL's. Buying over the internet is no different from buying in a store...except that it takes longer.

See, under most circumstances I agree with the bolded part. If you were to scan the internet for boards on concealed carry, a huge portion of the discussion is when to do nothing. Unfortunately for these school shootings, you're dealing with someone who is already indiscriminately taking life, and obviously doesn't even value his own. I think it is a much different situation where there is an armed robbery in process or a hostage situation. But for those who feel they're capable, I don't think many would hesitate if the situation was right in a NIU type scenario.

From my perspective, I have no idea how I'd handle myself in that situation. I strongly suspect my target acquisition would be pretty impaired, but I also (perhaps wrongly) think that from a normal distance I could make contact with the assailant. Thinking as an unarmed student, If I'm stuck in a room with a shooting gunman, I'd certainly rather someone try and take him down, nerves or not. In my situation, I also have confidence in a few people I take classes with that they'd be up for the task (I also have had the benefit of seeing these people shoot and knowing their life experience). I have little doubt that at VT or NIU, the killers wanted to take as many people as they could. Thus, aggravating the assailant wouldn't be a concern of mine, and if someone had a weapon in such a scenario, I'd rather them use it if they were willing.

Thanks Kevlar. Really, it's been put through MRI. So, I doubt I can improve my targeting anytime soon.

As far as what to do for untrained folks, what would you suggest? Just asking?

I remember a shooting at a McDonald's in San Ysidro, CA in the early 1980s. After that, "powers that be" put closed circuit TV into all stores. Don't know if it changed anything in the long-term, however, it did take a sharp shooter to take the lunatic down...

I guess, once this kind of thing happens, it will not happen ever again on that campus. There must be "FBI profilers" who can give the taletell signs of someone on the "brink". But, you never know...

The government can restrict folks who are mentally ill to obtain guns... I don't know how well that would work.

I think restricting firearm sales to mentally impaired people seems obvious. However, my problems are feasibility and the slippery slope argument. Having a couple of mental health professionals in my family, they're constantly concerned about the lack of some sort of comprehensive database and the lack of institutional space.

Another question that comes to mind in this: if there are mental impairments that are so volatile that we need to restrict their access to firearms, should they be walking around unmonitored anyway? There are certainly other dangerous weapons, cars for example, that are likely to remain available. Frankly, I'm not sure we'll be able to make much of a dent in crime committed by the mentally impaired, because I'm not convinced our sense of humanity will allow the things that would truly make a difference.

Since my opinions regarding 2nd Amendment rights are vastly different from yours Tess, I fully expected to disagree with everything you said. However, you proved me wrong... I completely agree with this statement:

Exactly.

I think it's possible (not, as you've claimed, "likely") that some deaths (at VT and NIU) may have been prevented had someone chosen to break the law and carry. It's also possible that more deaths would have resulted. It's all speculation. We'll never know what could have happened differently on those days. All we know is that, on these two days in particular, guns on campus resulted in many deaths.

And I'm not ready to say that more guns on campus will result in fewer deaths.

The day guns are allowed on my campus is the day I quit my job.

Nobody is going to change anyone's mind about carrying weapons. However, to keep the record straight, at Columbine, there was a serving, veteran Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy assigned to, and at the school, who exchanged gunfire with one of the shooters as the incident began just outside before losing him when he went into the school building proper.

The scene was total chaos, as this link shows:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/col...UTIES_TEXT.htm

I'm sorry, but I just can't imagine that additional armed students or faculty might not have caused more damage than good.

In addition, if you watch the news coverage of the event, you will see that as the students were evacuated, they had their hands on their heads so that officers on the scene would not have to consider them as potentially dangerous.

Police made mistakes at Columbine, resulting in the "Active Shooter" training they now receive, but can you imagine what the reaction might be if an officer came upon an innocent student or faculty member with a pistol in her/his hand in this kind of chaos? Or if the untrained person with the gun had shot the wrong person or persons? Frankly, I think that is more "likely" than saving lives, unless the student/faculty member was highly trained.

Well, we'll know soon, I guess. The Supreme Court is set to decide that very question this term. The question presented in District of Columbia v Heller is: "Whether the [D.C. laws] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

If not I'm not mistaken, the "all able-bodies males" definition in 10 U.S.C. 311 is, essentially, the definition of the "unorganized" militia. The "organized" militia is the National Guard and the naval Militia.

Perhaps I'm leaning toward strict constructionism, but I think you have to consider "militia" as understood by the framers of the Constitution. The reality is that few people today think "National Guard" when they hear "militia," although it is the present-day incarnation of what the framers were talking about. You're right that they think of the nut-jobs that call themselves "militias."

I'm not sure what the "federal ties" have to do with anything, given that the militia clauses of Article 1, § 8, of the Constitution, which was ratified before the Second Amendment, clearly give Congress broad authority to organize and call up the states' militias for the militias' traditional purposes: defense and emergency law enforcement. Likewise, Article 2, § 2, again ratified before the Second Amendment, makes the President the Commander-in-Chief "of the Militias of the Several States." If the underlying purpose of the Second Amendment is destroyed by limiting its application to the National Guard due to "federal ties," then it could be argued that the underlying purpose of the Second Amendment is undermined by the Constitution itself.

I think a reasonable argument can be made that because the Second Amendment speaks specifically of the "well-ordered militia" as the reason for the right to bear arms, the right to protect your home is not encompassed within the Second Amendment. Whether it falls under the "penumbra" of that or some other amendment, I don't know (although I think it unlikely that the current Court will take to "penumbras" too much), but I can see a constitutional determination that whether one has a right to own firearms for reasons other than militia service is (1) not encompassed in the Second Amendment, and therefore (2) left to the determination of the individual states.

Again, maybe SCOTUS will sort it all out for us by this summer. Maybe.

I don't have many strong feelings on the larger subject. I wouldn't call myself pro- or anti-gun. I don't own one and don't want one, but it doesn't threaten me if my neighbor does have one. What, I suppose, I do have strong feelings about is the simplistic arguments made by both sides. Neither banning guns nor having the widest possible conceal-carry laws are the answers -- it is all, I think, more complicated than the bumper-sticker arguments one sometimes hears. I'm glad to see your posts and the other posts in this thread go beyond those simplistic arguments -- it makes the discussion more interesting and thought-provoking for me.