Alluding to a greater concern. We are victims of our own complacency. In our constant struggle to try and make the world a better place and life have more meaning and value, I think we have softened the standards for being human a great deal, allowing the proliferation of ever more abberrant behavior. We seem to be at our best, and have the fewest social problems, when our survival is more directly tied to our environmnet, our natural world, and not isolated, processed and classified like it is for so many these days. It is no wonder that people such as Cho are able to get so disconnected and to fester in their own delusions, having so little else to challenge them and draw them into the tribe that they create these artificial worlds and realities that seems to satisfy some missing, undefinable need they have.

For so long mankind's existence was driven by very mundane and very real external forces. We were physically and mentally challenged, and most folks succombed to a life of toil and want. Now we are in an age of instant gratification, where most folks either have more than they will ever need to get by on or can do nothing and still manage to live relatively easily. Life loses it's flavor, and as we madly sprint through the shopping malls with plastic in hand buying up every convenience and frill to try and add a little color to our daily routine, we become increasingly more dissatisfied with what we have, and increasingly more isolated from each other. The word family loses it's meaning, and how many of us have life-long friends that are as much a part of our lives today as they were 10, 15, or 20 years or more ago? We lose the connection with each other, and our connection to our world, and then are surprised that some of us feel so left out and isolated that the only way left to find a connection to anything is diabolically.

I have a lot of respect for the founding fathers of our great nation. They produced a social model that was as practical as they could imagine for a nation to grow and prosper with. I believe that if they could see what we are becoming it would surely break their hearts, but they would still leave us with the liberties they agreed to because even now it is still better to be free to choose between the positive and the negative.

I'd have to agree with them. Having the right, even though some will abuse it, is by far the more preferable condition.

Of course it is. Change the words and make a comparison.

A well made pizza, being necessary to the enjoyment of monday night football, the right of the people to keep and use tomato sauce shall not be infringed.

Would that mean only Pizza Hut and Dominoes can have tomato sauce?

Think about this:

Laws already in place and broken at Va. Tech.
1. Carrying a gun on school grounds- 2 counts-felony
2. Carrying a concealed weapon without a permit-2 counts- misdemeanor
3. Destroying/ altering serial # on a gun- 2 counts- felony
4. Blocking fire exits in a occupied building-several counts-felony
5. Firing a gun inside city limits-47 or more counts- misdemeanor
6. Attempted murder-15 counts-felony
7. Murder-32 or more counts-felony
8. Suicide- 1 count-felony

So we are to believe that he had no problem committing at least 50 felonies and 60 misdemeanors, but the thought of breaking the law over a gun ban whould make him shudder, wet his pants, and go back home?


I also believe the media frenzy about this only fuels more people into trying a copycat crime. The media can't even get their facts straight anyway. This is NOT the worst mass-murder in U.S. history... Not even close

Anyone remember the Murrah federal building? The Bath school disaster?

Civilians have used guns to stop school shootings, sadly, it doesn't fit with the major media's socailist agenda, so it doesn't get reported as such.

I'm all for training and proficiency, but there are several problems with that. What standards do you adopt, and, more importantly, who decides? I can see it quickly becoming a vehicle for some bureaucrat to enforce their own agenda. One other profound flaw is that just because a person can sit there and punch holes in paper doesn't mean they will be worth a crap when TSHTF. Similarly, I can see an 80 year old Korean war veteran trying to qualify with his shaking hands and failing, and yet when the chips are down that same man may be cool as a cucumber. But he has been denied a weapon because he couldn't pass the test.

I have yet to see proponents for mandatory training, testing, and licensing point to any problems in Vermont or Alaska, which require none. There are no bloodbaths occuring there that would lead me to think that such requirements are necessary.

Now voluntary training and testing is another matter. As others have suggested, I think it would be an excellent idea to offer voluntary firearms training in schools. Up until at least the 60's such training was common. Another idea: offer government-sponsored training to all willing adults through the DCM. We have the resources. What we lack is the political will.

I think that speaks well of a state. We probably have similar numbers here in Utah. Of course, the important thing is that we can carry if the need arises. Frankly, most people don't arm themselves because they are afraid of mass shootings. They arm themselves because they are afraid of a vengeful ex-spouse or a mugger. And they are right--mass killers are extraordinarily rare, while the latter are all too common. That's why it is unimportant to me if a lot of people carry. It's more important that people can if they need to without hassle from the government.

[/quote]

Three words: "well-regulated militia." It's not a blanket right.

/quote]

The District of Columbia Circuit of the Federal Appeals Court held last month that 2nd Amendment rights are NOT reserved for a militia, they are the rights of all citizens.

Gator pointed out the 2nd District ruling, so I won't. I'm going to talk about why that ruling was made.

The phrase, "the people", is also used in the 1st, 9th and 10th Amendments, and either the 4th or 5th, I misremember. It has been the interpretation of these Amendments for over 200 years that the rights reserved for "the people" are individual rights. The theory of it being a "group right" rather than an individual right for decades, and it has been struck down every time. And when you read the writings of the men who wrote that document indicated that surely was their intent, even if it's full effect was beyond what they could see through their own prejudices against everyone who wasn't white, christian, male and of means. Instead, they have been hoisted on their own petards by their own words.

Or did the writers of the Bill of Rights make a foot note that the 2nd Amendment is the only exception to this doctrine, and only the ancestors of the current crop of those who oppose the human right to self defense were clued in this and kept it a secret for 170 years? For some reason, I just can't believe that. Neither could the judges who made that ruling. They upheld that the right to self defense, unarmed or armed, is an individual right protected by the Second Amendment, and as such no state may take steps to limit it by legislation or deny the means of self-defense to any of it's people unless they have either committed a wrong against society or are mentally or physically unwell to the point that they can no longer legal exercise their right and responsibilities as a citizen.

There was another, similar ruling back in the late 19th century. Back then, in parts of the South, a black man couldn't own a gun. But at that time, a bunch of rich old white men, including one from the South, confirmed that a poor, black ex-slave could own a gun, and in particular, not only as a hunting tool but also as a means of self defense. That was based not only on the 2nd Ammendment but also the 14th.

I actually expect that ruling to be used a grounds to challenge restrictive and discriminatory laws and practices concerning concealed carry over the next two or three years. You might not always like it, but the Constitution is the Highest Law of this land.

regrets to the families.....
but im all for a law that allows the citizens the rights to defend itself against its government. and im probably only repeating whats been said already but cars, smoking, drugs and crime in general kills more and costs u.s citizens more then any madman with a gun ever could.
peoples choice to choose should never be taken away for a few idiots behavior!!! otherwise whats the reward for the civilised joe in the street? its sad and lets hope that it wont happen again too soon.
more ammo for the anti freedom n.w.o squad.

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant… and quite funny!

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson

I haven't had a chance to look up the whole quote but it seems clear to me what their intentions were when they wrote the second amendment. The ellipsis were added by a columnist at the campus paper.

Was rather surprised to see an editorial that most of us would get behind & push in the campus paper & taking up almost half a page. If I see a link to the on line copy I'll post it.