0

Then what are we supposed to do? Sit back and do nothing?

What can we do? Does it even matter? There is no purpose to anything that we do..

0

Well I still think guns should be illegal. Too much violence. And I don't care what people think.

That's fine, people can have their own opinions.

0

What can we do? Does it even matter? There is no purpose to anything that we do..

Then let's just kill ourselves, if nothing matters what is the puspose of life?

0

Then let's just kill ourselves, if nothing matters what is the puspose of life?

haha.. exactly, there is no point in life.. we live simply to live.

-1

Well I still think guns should be illegal. Too much violence. And I don't care what people think.

I don't care what you think. And I'm right.

(I know this is an idiotic post. I'm making a point about yours.)

Votes + Comments
learn how to be respectful
0

haha.. she is opinionated and a little stubborn.. But we all are sometimes.. She lived right around where this incident happened, so I'm sure it's had much more of an affect on her than any of us..

0

Has anyone seen the photos of the shooter? What about the video clip he sent to NBC? Is it me or did his anger seem alittle theatrical? This whole incident just seems alittle fishy to me.

0

It's amazing how somebody could do that... Just taking out 32 people for no good reason is, quite frankly, stupid and quite disgusting.

As for his "theatrical" anger, I think he was styling himself as a revolutionary, a saviour. I think the idea was that he thought if he killed all those people, then nobody would pick on other people like him ("Like Moses, I split the sea and lead my people... The generations of the weak and defenseless"). I'm pretty sure he was reading from a script, and wanted to make an impact, to be remembered as some glorious figure. He wrote plays, and I'm guessing he was making a sort of death monologue there, so the whole tape was theatrical.

0


As for his "theatrical" anger, I think he was styling himself as a revolutionary, a saviour. I think the idea was that he thought if he killed all those people, then nobody would pick on other people like him ("Like Moses, I split the sea and lead my people... The generations of the weak and defenseless"). I'm pretty sure he was reading from a script, and wanted to make an impact, to be remembered as some glorious figure. He wrote plays, and I'm guessing he was making a sort of death monologue there, so the whole tape was theatrical.

Thats true I forgot about his strange, morbid plays they talked about him writing. What's weird about the shooter though is that he never mentioned the fact that the reason why he was commiting this act. He never mentioned it was because he was "picked on" (not to my knowledge anyways). Thats what makes this so confusing. He mentioned something about how he could of fled, and how he did this for his sisters, and brothers. Did he mean that in a relative way, or a in a broader meaning? Is this something bigger than what we think it is? I don't think anyone still knows what is motive was, I even think the media is fishing. I could be wrong though.

0

Please forgive me for dredging up older parts of the conversation from previous pages, but this is my first chance to be able to respond to them; I tend not to visit Daniweb at all hours.

the NRA is stupid. they went to columbine town the same week of the shooting to promote guns... I have no respect anyone who would belong to the NRA. period

1. I vaguely remember hearing about that incident; I believe the actual NRA meeting was in fact on the eleventh day after the shooting occured. I'm not totally certain about that date, though.
The NRA meeting in Columbine was a pre-scheduled event, and I believe an annual one. Its time slot was decided far in advance of the actual date. It is my understanding that, under the NRA's bylaws, and possibly the state laws they were founded under (can't recall offhand which state that would be), they were required to give a ten-day notice to all members before any change of venue. This basically means that every member, across the United States, would have had to have been notified that day in order for them to cancel or reschedule that event. Given that, I find it difficult to believe that it would have been possible for them to do so. And if you are correct, and the event was, in fact, within a week of the shooting, then it would have been physically impossible for the NRA to have rescheduled in time, unless you are suggesting that one or more of the members of the NRA have possession of a time machine. The meeting was held, yes. However, all that was held was the bare minimum required by the NRA bylaws; all of the socializing-type events that would normally have been held were canceled. If they couldn't legally cancel the event, and then did no more than the bare minimum legally required while there, I hardly think that falls into the 'stupidity' bucket you're trying to paint them with.

@Christina > you
I have not, I admit, actually seen any of Moore's works, from Roger and Me to the present. However, I have heard and read somewhat about his films. Bowling for Columbine, if I recall correctly, has a sequence where Moore has captured Charlton Heston giving a speech before the NRA. If it's not too much trouble, would you please tell me what Heston is wearing in this speech?


And let's look at DCC's interpretation of the second amendment, which he claims is bolstered by court hearings.

According to www.usconstitution.net, the actual text of the amendment reads as follows-

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

All possible legal matters aside, my understanding of the argument at hand is that DCC's contention regarding this amendment means that only the members of a state-defined militia are permitted to keep and bear Arms, and not the general public at large. Given that the entire amendment package we call the Bill of Rights was ratified on the same date, I believe it is reasonable to assume that those who wrote it, and those who ratified it, would have had a common, constant idea of what terms such as 'the people' or 'the state' meant. So lets take a look at some of the other amendments which use these terms.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

Assuming a common understanding of the term 'the people' across the amendments, and working under DCC's logic, it would appear that the right to peaceable assembly, at least, belongs not to the citizenry as a whole, but only to those citizens who are members of a state-defined 'assembly militia', let's say. In theory, then, anyone not a member of such a group is in fact not guaranteed this right. In addition, a case could be made that the entire body of rights enumerated in Amendment 1 also belong to 'the people', and therefore that only state-sanctioned 'speech militia' members are permitted the freedoms guaranteed by these rights. Under this logic, anyone not so sanctioned could quite easily be forbidden to gather, or to speak on certain topics, etc...

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized..

Based on the above-stated logic, and the wording of the fourth amendment, it would appear that only state-approved 'freesearch militia' members are permitted the freedom of security from unreasonable search and seizures. I guess everybody else just has to take their chances on the cops not noticing anything suspicious...

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Following the 'people = militia' argument here, it would appear that the states are permitted to create a 'newrights militia' and grant whatever rights they may please to its members, and only to its defined membership.

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Again, any specific powers not granted to the US as a single entity, nor forbidden to the separate states, are reserved either to the states, or to their appointed 'rights militia' groups. Ordinary individuals are told 'tough luck, you don't get any rights'.


In other words, it seems absurd to assume that the rights of the people as enumerated in amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10 are relegated to a state-defined militia. It would seem to be equally absurd to suppose that, in this one instance(Amendment 2), the both the drafters and the ratifiers of the Bill of Rights would allow the use of the word 'people' to mean something other than the citizenry as a whole. Thus, the right to keep and bear Arms must be applied to the entire body of citizens, not merely to state-defined militia groups.


As to the court case backing, there have been three cases directly relating to the Second Amendment brought before the Supreme Court since the end of the American Civil War (War between the States) ended.

1876:United States v. Cruikshank.
1886: Presser v. Illinois.
1939: United States v. Miller.

I acknowledge that I'm not an expert on gun law, and I haven't studied the rulings in detail, but the gist seems to have been: US v. Cruikshank - Individuals cannot bring suit against other citizens in federal court for the violation of their rights. Presser v. Il: Second Amendment rights guaranteed to all citizens, not merely militiamen. (May not have applied to females, not certain.) US v. Miller: Some weapons not covered under Second Amendment. (In this case, it was ruled that a sawed-off shotgun didn't qualify as a militia weapon.)

For those interested in a bit more detail, feel free to browse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law. It appears to have some interesting information relating to the topic. I freely admit to having hit this page for information regarding the three rulings above, although I hit it because I had heard of the Miller ruling before.


As to the immediate topic at hand, the shooter's actions, I haven't yet had the chance to hear anything myself, only to see the picture emblazoned on the front page of the local newspaper. I'm not that good at reading visual cues, so beyond some kind of sullen anger, I'm in the dark. I'll try to catch the article that went with the picture before I post again.

0

Wow, nice post.. Glad you cleared the 2nd amendment up, I was becoming confused by what dcc was saying.. I haven't seen the video or heard of any new information about the shooter either, but I'll go look it up right now.

0

Actually, what DCC was referring to may have been the following cases-information again drawn from the Firearm Law page of Wikipedia.


1. 1905, Salina v. Blaksley. Ruling was issued by the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas, rather than SCOTUS.
2. 1977, United States v. Oakes. In an echo of the Miller decision of nearly four decades earlier, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (CoA) ruled that the Second Amendment did not, in fact, apply to the defendant's machinegun, even though the individual himself was a member of a militia organization.
3. 2001, United States v. Haney. The Tenth Circuit CoA declares that the Second Amendment does not apply, as it does not affect the State's ability to maintain a militia.
4. 2002, Silveira v. Lockyer. The infamous Ninth Circuit CoA declares that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals.

It should be noted, however, that in 2001, United States v. Emerson, the Fifth Circuit CoA upheld the Second Amendment rights as belonging to the individual, as apparently did the District of Columbia Circuit CoA in 2007, Parker, et al. v. District of Columbia.

0

I don't care what you think. And I'm right.

(I know this is an idiotic post. I'm making a point about yours.)

Okay, you DON'T know the kind of affect it had over here. I am just minutes away from Blacksburg. I go there a lot. And I'm sorry but there was a guy from right here, where I live, that was shot. So don't be a complete jerk about this situation. Stop being immature and grow up!

0

let's just put our differences aside. The shooter did something wrong that could have been prevented, and the government needs to start enforcing laws more. Also, if you have suicidal of violent thoughts, go see a doctor or somethig.

Does everyone agree on this?

0

let's just put our differences aside. The shooter did something wrong that could have been prevented, and the government needs to start enforcing laws more. Also, if you have suicidal of violent thoughts, go see a doctor or somethig.

Does everyone agree on this?

yea, for the most part.

0

Okay, you DON'T know the kind of affect it had over here. I am just minutes away from Blacksburg. I go there a lot. And I'm sorry but there was a guy from right here, where I live, that was shot. So don't be a complete jerk about this situation. Stop being immature and grow up!

I truly am sorry about what happened over there. And I believe I did mention that there was an [obviously smaller] shooting at the school I attend. I was on campus when it happened. No, we didn't have 30 people killed, so our story didn't make the sensationalist national media, so it hardly gets attention outside of local media. That was the second gun related crime incident in about a month and a half here (the other being armed robbery, nobody was hurt), not to mention another shooting that occured last spring (those are the incidents I remember at least). And I'm just talking about stuff within 3 blocks of my school and where I live. Don't tell me to be mature about it, don't tell me to grow up, and don't tell me that I don't know what it's like to be that close to a shooting.

My point was that just because you've been shaken up by an incident (very understandable), doesn't mean that you suddenly have the power to affect the rights of others. And I'm certainly not going to forfeit my right to defend myself with the best means available to me.

0

I truly am sorry about what happened over there. And I believe I did mention that there was an [obviously smaller] shooting at the school I attend. I was on campus when it happened. No, we didn't have 30 people killed, so our story didn't make the sensationalist national media, so it hardly gets attention outside of local media. That was the second gun related crime incident in about a month and a half here (the other being armed robbery, nobody was hurt), not to mention another shooting that occured last spring (those are the incidents I remember at least). And I'm just talking about stuff within 3 blocks of my school and where I live. Don't tell me to be mature about it, don't tell me to grow up, and don't tell me that I don't know what it's like to be that close to a shooting.

My point was that just because you've been shaken up by an incident (very understandable), doesn't mean that you suddenly have the power to affect the rights of others. And I'm certainly not going to forfeit my right to defend myself with the best means available to me.

Okay, then you should know how I feel.

Well, my point was just the fact that I hate the gun control in this country. And it's hurting innocent people.

0

Okay, then you should know how I feel.

Well, my point was just the fact that I hate the gun control in this country. And it's hurting innocent people.

...but who killed all those people? Not guns.. It was the south korean dude. If he hadn't abused the gun control laws, then those people would still be alive. Why should everyone who owns a gun be punished for what some korean did?

0

...but who killed all those people? Not guns.. It was the south korean dude. If he hadn't abused the gun control laws, then those people would still be alive. Why should everyone who owns a gun be punished for what some korean did?

Well maybe if people would have realized that he shouldn't have had any ownership of guns, then this wouldn't have happened. He was admitted into a mental health facility in 2005.
(please don't say stuff like 'what that korean did' ... I kinda feel awkward because I'm half Korean.)

0

...but who killed all those people? Not guns.. It was the south korean dude. If he hadn't abused the gun control laws, then those people would still be alive. Why should everyone who owns a gun be punished for what some korean did?

I agree It's not gun control we should be worried about. Rather the person controlling the gun.

0

Well maybe if people would have realized that he shouldn't have had any ownership of guns, then this wouldn't have happened. He was admitted into a mental health facility in 2005.
(please don't say stuff like 'what that korean did' ... I kinda feel awkward because I'm half Korean.)

Sorry.. I don't know the guy's name b/c its korean lol.. Don't feel bad as you haven't done anything wrong.. I guess I'll call him Cho now..

I never realized he was admitted to a mental health facility in 2005.. And I was almost positive that you could not obtain a gun in any of the states if you had been admitted to an institution..

0

I agree It's not gun control we should be worried about. Rather the person controlling the gun.

And how are we supposed to fix that problem? We can't control who gets a gun... as long as they pass a background check and such, they get one. I mean come on, the rules have to be changed one day, before it's too late. And to me, it has already become too late.

I want you guys to know that I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I understand completely that it is in the control of the person holding the gun in their hand. But I'm just not a big fan of guns... they scare me. :S I feel that the amount of death tolls in this country would decrease without the possessions of guns... I mean, why wouldn't it? I know everyone says that people would just start making bombs, but seriously...? I don't know, maybe I'm just flat out wrong.

0

Sorry.. I don't know the guy's name b/c its korean lol.. Don't feel bad as you haven't done anything wrong.. I guess I'll call him Cho now..

I never realized he was admitted to a mental health facility in 2005.. And I was almost positive that you could not obtain a gun in any of the states if you had been admitted to an institution..

Ok, thanks. :)

Yeah I know, I thought so too... it's weird... =/

0

And how are we supposed to fix that problem? We can't control who gets a gun... as long as they pass a background check and such, they get one. I mean come on, the rules have to be changed one day, before it's too late. And to me, it has already become too late.

I want you guys to know that I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I understand completely that it is in the control of the person holding the gun in their hand. But I'm just not a big fan of guns... they scare me. :S I feel that the amount of death tolls in this country would decrease without the possessions of guns... I mean, why wouldn't it? I know everyone says that people would just start making bombs, but seriously...? I don't know, maybe I'm just flat out wrong.

Yes, in our fictional utopias guns and killings would not exist. But we've got to be REAL here. Guns will never be outlawed; We should be thinking of ways to better the current gun control laws.. Such as no one with disabilities can own a gun.. or no foreign immigrants can own a gun (I'm just throwing ideas out there). This was a terrible incident... But we've got to realize that it has happened before, and it will happen again... (Hopefully not as many people will die next time, though)

0

Yes, in our fictional utopias guns and killings would not exist. But we've got to be REAL here. Guns will never be outlawed; We should be thinking of ways to better the current gun control laws.. Such as no one with disabilities can own a gun.. or no foreign immigrants can own a gun (I'm just throwing ideas out there). This was a terrible incident... But we've got to realize that it has happened before, and it will happen again... (Hopefully not as many people will die next time, though)

Right.
But what will the government do? They need to do something soon.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.