this thread is way off topic…suggest to split it and form one to discuss the basis of constitutional rights to bear arms and rights to self defence of nations etc. etc. …
there hasn’t been a mention of the virginia tech shooting for several pages…
A logical extension of Taiwander’s rabid obsession with the ‘RIGHT’ to bear arms would be that we should be ALLOWED to carry guns onto planes. you know; JUST in case. Of course, it would make for a somewhat tense journey as everyone hopes that the everyone else is suitably balanced enough not to use them but nowadays a PRE_EMPTIVE’double tap’ would be acceptable, you know; just in case. Why wait to UNTIL it is too late? KILL people in advance if you don’t LIKE them.
Tom Sharpe’s ‘Kaffir-Killer’ Constable Els looks relatively harmless compared to Taiwander’s pushing of guns as he solution to ja, will ivverything, yew know.
BroonArmalite
I’m totally in agreement with you on the apparent contradiction as we see it by the way on a moral level, but I disagree that the law doesn’t apply. At least the law of nations and between nations applies, because we have made it apply.
Note: I agree with Bear that threads discussing nations/arms/defense should be split off, but the 2nd amendment right conversation belongs here in this thread to my mind. This massacre, reasonably, would include both discussions about alienation and socialization in the US as well as gun control, safety, right to bear arms, etc.
In this hypothetical don’t these States pursue their right to aquire arms already. It is only stronger States that try to impose their sphere influence on these States.[/quote]
Yes, but should the US govt criticize other countries for doing something that they consider an essential freedom (albeit on a smaller scale) for their own population.
But there are restrictions in the USA. So the argument is a straw man. Basically the spirit of the right to bear arms is based on the eventual conflict of people vs. government. So the ideal is that enough people who are dissatisfied with the government have the ability to overthrow it with force. That would require quite a majority of citizen to mobilize with small arms. The right to bear arms is not so a minority group with a nuke can hold the State hostage.[/quote]
Ok, shows I don’t know enough about the spirit of the amendment. But there are a lot of gun owners who oppose restrictions of any kind, aren’t there? Including the NRA? Or am I wrong again? (I probably am). What if Iran, Syria, Saudi etc developed a joint nuclear program, thereby placing nuclear weapons in the hands of the majority of the region?
Isn’t that the case in reality?[/quote]
Yes, but any and all means, by definition, would include WMDs.
[quote=“BroonAle”]A logical extension of Taiwander’s rabid obsession with the ‘RIGHT’ to bear arms would be that we should be ALLOWED to carry guns onto planes. you know; JUST in case. Of course, it would make for a somewhat tense journey as everyone hopes that the everyone else is suitably balanced enough not to use them but nowadays a PRE_EMPTIVE’double tap’ would be acceptable, you know; just in case. Why wait to UNTIL it is too late? KILL people in advance if you don’t LIKE them.
Tom Sharpe’s ‘Kaffir-Killer’ Constable Els looks relatively harmless compared to Taiwander’s pushing of guns as he solution to ja, will ivverything, yew know.
BroonArmalite[/quote]
It would be kinda cool to live in the Wild West again. I could leave the house packing a revolver, shotgun, and long-range rifle. Like CS, only for real.
The gene pool could use a little shuffling. Take out people at the mall. Fat and old people would make easy targets. Solve the obesity and Social Security problem quickly.
JackTheGoodTheBadTheUglyBurton
[quote=“Rascal”]
Being the supposingly greatest of democracies on the planet what exactly is there to fear from your government today?[/quote]
typically, you miss the essence of the thing, we are the greatest democracy on earth, precisely because at any time we can go out, gas up, get some beer and a couple of handguns and blow up a campus, i mean overthrow the government.
[quote=“Taiwanderer”][quote=“the bear”]this thread is way off topic…suggest to split it and form one to discuss the basis of constitutional rights to bear arms and rights to self defence of nations etc. etc. …
there hasn’t been a mention of the virginia tech shooting for several pages…[/quote]
For once I agree with you Bear.[/quote]
past expressing sympathy for the terribly unfortunate victims, what else is there to discuss? i think it’s important to note here that a total, evaluated by a court as suicidal and dangerous nutcase was allowed to buy a couple of automatic handguns like they were cotton candy. it seems natural to discuss in connection with this that gun control in the commonwealth of Virginia at least might be too lax.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“Taiwanderer”][quote=“the bear”]this thread is way off topic…suggest to split it and form one to discuss the basis of constitutional rights to bear arms and rights to self defence of nations etc. etc. …
there hasn’t been a mention of the virginia tech shooting for several pages…[/quote]
For once I agree with you Bear.[/quote]
past expressing sympathy for the terribly unfortunate victims, what else is there to discuss? i think it’s important to note here that a total, evaluated by a court as suicidal and dangerous nutcase was allowed to buy a couple of automatic handguns like they were cotton candy. it seems natural to discuss in connection with this that gun control in the commonwealth of Virginia at least might be too lax.[/quote]
Sure,OK.But as Bear said,split the thread…
[quote=“BroonAle”][quote=“Taiwanderer”][quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“Taiwanderer”][quote=“the bear”]this thread is way off topic…suggest to split it and form one to discuss the basis of constitutional rights to bear arms and rights to self defence of nations etc. etc. …
there hasn’t been a mention of the virginia tech shooting for several pages…[/quote]
For once I agree with you Bear.[/quote]
past expressing sympathy for the terribly unfortunate victims, what else is there to discuss? i think it’s important to note here that a total, evaluated by a court as suicidal and dangerous nutcase was allowed to buy a couple of automatic handguns like they were cotton candy. it seems natural to discuss in connection with this that gun control in the commonwealth of Virginia at least might be too lax.[/quote]
Sure,OK.But as Bear said,split the thread…[/quote]
Hier, ben ik met je eens. 
BroonAgrees[/quote]
Gun control is very relevant to this shooting massacre. Are you guys taking a crazy pill? Cuz I feel like I am when I read this stuff.
[quote=“Jack Burton”][quote=“BroonAle”][quote=“Taiwanderer”][quote=“Tempo Gain”][quote=“Taiwanderer”][quote=“the bear”]this thread is way off topic…suggest to split it and form one to discuss the basis of constitutional rights to bear arms and rights to self defence of nations etc. etc. …
there hasn’t been a mention of the virginia tech shooting for several pages…[/quote]
For once I agree with you Bear.[/quote]
past expressing sympathy for the terribly unfortunate victims, what else is there to discuss? i think it’s important to note here that a total, evaluated by a court as suicidal and dangerous nutcase was allowed to buy a couple of automatic handguns like they were cotton candy. it seems natural to discuss in connection with this that gun control in the commonwealth of Virginia at least might be too lax.[/quote]
Sure,OK.But as Bear said,split the thread…[/quote]
Hier, ben ik met je eens.
BroonAgrees[/quote]
Gun control is very relevant to this shooting massacre. Are you guys taking a crazy pill? Cuz I feel like I am when I read this stuff.[/quote]
Of course,I agree that there needs to be MUCH stricter gun control,specifically co-operation between all forms of authority & especially liaison between mental health institutes & law-enforcement.It is clear from this tragedy & what we have now learned subsequently that there was NO liaison between the relevant bodies to have prevented this troubled young man from doing what he did.
I’m creating this thread so as to have a place to discuss the gun control issue (as opposed to the news story itself, or what went wrong procedurally), and for thread cleanup purposes.
Truant wrote: (moved for thread cleanup purposes)
[quote]The US has the most relaxed gun control laws in the western world - obviously they feel the right to own a weapon outweighs the consequences. However, assuming every citizen has the right to own a weapon it’s inevitable that these sorts of things will happen. Frankly in a country of 300 million with their fair share of social issues combined with ever increasing dissillusionment as to the value of life displayed by their government at war, I’m surprised VT type slayings don’t happen more often.
You have to ask yourself, WTF does any citizen NEED an AK-47, M16, 9mm glock etc etc for? Hunting? I believe it’s absolute stupidity to fight for blanket civil rights for anyone to own assault weapons. To own such weapons in NZ, you need to first get a firearms owners licence which involves fairly comprehensive testing and education in order obtain the ability to own a basic firearm. To own an assualt weapon or hand gun is damn near impossible and requires further ratings on your licence which includes demonstrated long term membership of a firearms club.
So, if you want to fire an assault weapon or hand gun, you do it at the range. Anywhere outside of the range is not the place for these weapons anyway, IMHO. If any joe public person ever sees hand gun or assault weapon outside of the club’s compound in NZ (i.e. someone’s house or just on the street), there is a fair chance it will be recognised as illegal and reported to the cops.
NZ has had it’s share of firearms slayings, but the government paid attention and made tighter restrictions on how to buy weapons, what sort and by who. I wonder if any gun laws will be changed in the US, and if so how long it would take? You can’t stop people losing the plot, but you can at least try to slow them down from wrecking havoc. I mean shit, even if last week someone spotted Cho with an arsenal in his school bag, nothing could have been done cos it was his legal right to own the equipment. He had to actually pull the fucking trigger before anyone can do anything :loco:
Unfortunately, due to the lack of better judgement, the US has given most of their citizens the right to own blantant human killing weapons without question. The horse has bolted from the gate already, so the law abiding citizens who have now rushed out to buy their OWN handgun in the wake of this (I wonder how many US uni students are considering carrying a weapon now) will fiercely fight for their right to own that weapon.[/quote]
Truant wrote
[quote]
Unfortunately, due to the lack of better judgement, the US has given most of their citizens the right to own blantant human killing weapons without question. The horse has bolted from the gate already, so the law abiding citizens who have now rushed out to buy their OWN handgun in the wake of this (I wonder how many US uni students are considering carrying a weapon now) will fiercely fight for their right to own that weapon.[/quote]
Many are quick to argue that if students had had a gun, this would’t have occured. So, it would fair to guess that one or two of those VT students did get a gun in this past week.
In the Virginian tragedy much is now being made of ethics concerning the videos released, but none with being a member of the NRA, the backbone of the gun culture. As long as this organization has strong political influence mass killings will continue to be part of life in America. It doesn’t have to be that way. Everyone in elected office who’s a member of this gun club including the President should resign from it or be voted out. Politicians are elected to protect us not make our lives more dangerous.
I think only registered hunters should be alowed to own a gun that works.
If the gun laws in us where more strickt this would not hawe hapended since to buy a ilegal gun would moust likely be too exspensive for a student and he would end up killing 2 people with a knife instead of 30.
[quote=“Namahottie”]Truant wrote
[quote]
Unfortunately, due to the lack of better judgement, the US has given most of their citizens the right to own blantant human killing weapons without question. The horse has bolted from the gate already, so the law abiding citizens who have now rushed out to buy their OWN handgun in the wake of this (I wonder how many US uni students are considering carrying a weapon now) will fiercely fight for their right to own that weapon.[/quote]
Many are quick to argue that if students had had a gun, this would’t have occured. So, it would fair to guess that one or two of those VT students did get a gun in this past week.[/quote]
Not disagreeing, but it’s one thing that people can carry guns and it’s another that people walk around on a campus armed and bring the guns into the classroom. I just can’t picture the latter. How would e.g. the teacher feel if he has to discipline a trouble-maker that he knows carries a gun?
As to those that think if other students had been armed it may have prevented the high death toll - probably, but at the same time you also have to assume that guns then could be used under different circumstances, e.g. when people get into an argument etc.
Though I lean towards gun control (read: not a total ban) I believe the root cause of all those problems is not gun ownership.
[quote=“Rascal”]
As to those that think if other students had been armed it may have prevented the high death toll - probably…[/quote]
I think that is far from certain, Rascal. Even trained police officers sometimes injure or kill innocents when they are taking down the bad guys. I can’t imagine the bedlam of a bunch of scared students trying to do so.
Agreed. College students are big bundles of raging hormones. I don’t think I’d want to go to school with armed bundles of raging hormones.
Think again!
The U.S. forefathers, my distant uncle included, the imminent Benjamin Franklin, DID NOT lobby a Bill of Rights to secure our hunting rights. They had just fought a decisive and costly victory to secure their freedom from (sorry to my Brit friends) a rule a tyranny. They secured this right to protect them from their government. They knew, and history has shown that governments can not be trusted. They wanted the government to be afraid of the people. Not the other way around. How many countries can you name where the government is afraid of the people? I can’t think of one these days. As the rights to carry and show a weapon are diminished, governments gain power.
All that being said, and as noble an idea as it was, I also wonder how our forefather’s desires can be reconciled with the modern world and the crazziness that it entails. Maybe not at all. For example, In Ben’s day, a flintlock rifle was state of the art and he thought every good citizen should have one or two. Now with some countries having a nuclear weapon, would he now advocate these for the citizenry. Ludicrous. No way would he suggest such a development. Yet, how can the people of a free world protect themselves from tyranny with the right to protect themselves with force? VT, Columbine, others? DAMN! If they hadn’t used a gun because it was unavailable, would we be seeing bombs made from grocery store ingredients. Probaly.
As a conclusion, I really don’t know the answer but I do know that governments use whatever bad publicity they can get to further restrict the rights of freedom loving individuals to protect themselves. Isn’t it strange that the very individuals that do these horrendous acts take away from our rights to protect ourselves?
What is the answer? I welcome anyone’s opinion that can explain, how I and others can protect oursevles from a tyrranical governmet without risking the lives of innocent citizins. Is it a cost of freedom? Or should we all bow to the government, give up our rights to protect ourselves and hope for the best?
There’s a reason why some people are so adamant about the right to possess a gun. According to the constitution, there is a system of checks-and-balances that prevents one part of the government taking control, but the power, according to all but a select few uneducated people, should remain with the people. With the guns in the hands of the people, what can the government do if the people get tired. Nothing! The government must agree with the people. There are 270 million plus civilians and only a million or so military personnel.
A case in point happened in Texas about 10 years ago. The police were brutalizing youths. They were caught by several citizens of a town roughing up, in a serious way, several of the young people. When the investigation ended, the people of this community determined that the police must leave. So, they held an emergency session of the city council and voted to fire all the police officers. The police officers refused to leave and said they were still in control. About 300 armed citizen with rifles and pistols loaded surround the police station as certified deputies under the new orders of the council and demanded that the police leave. They blocked the roads and told the state troopers to stay away because they could become targets in the onsuing battle. Guns were cocked and the safeties were off. At the very last minute, the police officers walked out of the police station in their civilian clothes and they were told never to return. Thus, the people had the power.
If we consider China and other numerous countries (and I do mean numerous), the people are subjected to inhumane and barbaric practices and the only thing that they can do is protest. Hopefully, a TV crew will see them and maybe a country like the U.S. will embarrass the evil government for doing something bad. Still, those people are dead and their organs are sold. What do their protests do? In real terms, they do very little. It takes a lot of pictures before anyone will take notice and a loss of money before anybody will do anything.
If the people had the power, would things or could things be different? Let’s give some of these people guns and give them real peace! 
To sum it up= difficult. It’s hard enough to get rid of students due to possible lawsuits for simple things. For example, Cho should have been IMO put on academic probabtion for his behavior if it was such a concern, but I bet they didn’t because of the possible lawsuit.