4/16 http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007319.htm
go down to "A student e-mails"
If the students had a gun, they might have been able to stop it.
-emarkp
\_ And everyone who talks tough when safely at home is to be taken
seriously now?
\_ If the shooter didn't have a gun, it would have been stopped to
begin with. -tom
\_ unfortunately laws are there to discourage someone from
doing harm to others at the cost of severe punishment
but if the person such as this doesn't care about punishment
because he doesn't plan to survive (suicide) then laws
become meaningless. The deterrent is gone unless there
is the fear of being shot by law-abiding armed citizens
which there were on that campus not to long ago.
The fact that guns are in the 2nd amendment prevents our
government from lining up its citizens along the edge of
a ditch and machine gunning them down for not following
what the facist govermnment wants them to do..
but I take it you didn't believe in the holocaust either..
I believe anyone who listens to tom will one day end
up in a line in from a ditch and get gunned down and buried
easily.
\_ if the Critical mass people obeyed the law then
that incident would not have happened last week.
you have unreasonable fears about people who CCW that
they would shoot each other. Concealed carry people
do not pull out their weapons because that is illegal
(CONCEALment is required) If someone pulls out their
gun and starts shooting people it becomes obvious
who the immediate threat is. Just like in critical mass,
do you have a major fear of a bicycle crash with lots
of bikes together? it should happen more so since they
break the law and pass red lights and they break and
attack cars...
\_ As much as I agree w/ you, the 2d is not an effective
deterrent against federal abuse in this day and age.
What use is a handgun against a tank or a ucav?
\_ Have you seen Iraq lately? A few tens of million
lightly armed citizens can really make a mess of things.
lightly armed citizens can really make a mess of
things.
\_ I had not considered this. I guess if the gov.
is reluctant to deploy its full destructive
might against the opposing force, then small
arms mights be an effective means of resistance.
\_ Well, even in Vietnam, where the US did try to
deploy full destructive force.
\_ No we didn't. Today we bomb, sort of, then
we ask them to talk with us a bit, then it
doesn't go well so we bomb a bit more in some
other unimportant place and whatever you do
don't ever bomb too far north. Can't go
around actually killing the enemy unfairly.
\_ No H-Bombs were used in Vietnam, afaik.
\_ if the Critical mass people obeyed the law then that incident
would not have happened last week. you have unreasonable fears
about people who CCW that they would shoot each other.
Concealed carry people do not pull out their weapons because
that is illegal (CONCEALment is required) If someone pulls out
their gun and starts shooting people it becomes obvious who the
immediate threat is. Just like in critical mass, do you have a
major fear of a bicycle crash with lots of bikes together? it
should happen more so since they break the law and pass red
lights and they break and attack cars...
\_ Damned pesky 2nd amendment. -emarkp
\_ Actually no. It is entirely unclear that the 2d creates
a personal right. Even if it does, the 2d has never been
incorporated against the states, therefore the states
remain free to regulate arms, provided that there is no
state constitutional limit. In this case, Art I Sec. 13
Virginia's State Constitution imposes substantially the
same limit as the 2d. If anyone is to "blame," it is the
people of Virgina, who adopted this limitation in 1776
and have not seen fit to repeal it since then.
I disagree w/ the assertion below that the 2d would not
have been placed in the Constitution if the information
known today was known to the framers. As the Constitution
is derived from Common Law, and this right was recognized
at Common Law since the late 1100s, it is likely that the
framers would have included it. The life of the law is
experience.
\_ England is a common law country, yet they've essentially
banned gun ownership. -tom
\_ Thank god we parted company w/ them.
\_ And they're also the most nanny-statish on-camera
people on the planet, ever. The less we follow
their example the better.
\_ yeah, it's much worse to be shot with a camera
than with a gun
\_ Yes, it is. Shockingly, the founding fathers weren't able
to anticipate 100% of the effects the pieces of paper they
signed might have 200+ years later. It's farcial to assume
that they would write the constitution the same way if
they had the information available to us now. -tom
\_ of course they would,, having a gun+ammo back then
was the only way you could survive, indians, bears,
murderers, rapist.. it's the great equalizer...
but if only the murderer has the gun then it's
a total massacre like yesterday.. somehow.. criminals
(those who do not follow the law) will always find
weapons and kill off law abiding folks..
It's not about gun laws, not about guns... it's about
the stupid way laws are applied to the citizenry..
they are always applied against law abiding citizens..
if some people CCW on that campus then it would have
ended sooner but the laws forced those who obey the
law to not bring their guns to campus.
\_ The shooter was not a criminal until he started
shooting. It is almost certain that if he lived
in someplace like the U.K., he would not have had
the guns and ammo necessary to carry out his
rampage. -tom
\_ The framers included the 2d for precisely this
reasons - they felt less free when the crown
could take away their only ultimately effective
means of resistance.
In their minds the costs imposed on society by
the free access to arms - violent crime - was
outweighed by the cost imposed by restricting
that right - government oppression.
I undestand that you feel that this balance is
no longer appropriate (or was never appropriate).
If you suggest that we should rebalance today,
why? Mere change in technology?
If so, do you think that we should rebalance the
4th to give the police more or less ability to
use things like thermal imagers to look into your
house? Do you think that we should rebalance the
1st for things like hate speech, child pr0n on
the Internet?
The framers seemed to get so many things correct,
that, to me, it is foolish to think they got this
one wrong.
\_ The other amendments are all much more fluid than
the second, which has a large, well-funded group
\_ The others are not at all fluid.
\_ I disagree, the scope of the
1st, 4th, 6th, 14th, &c. have
tended to expand and contract
over the years. For example,
the 4th exclusionary rule is
currently on the wane. As is
the emphasis on a warrant.
The 6th right to assistance
of counsel has also been
significantly reduced in the
last decade. Since the 40s
the 14th has almost never
been used for economic laws,
but its coverage of other
rights continues to expand.
\- not a challenge but an inquiry:
what are the sig changes to 6th amd
right to counsel recently? for 4th,
assume you mean US v LEON etc. ok tnx
\_ Re 6th - I am off on dates
but look at KUHLMANN v.
WILSON, 477 US 436, holding
that 6th requires cops to
deliberately elicit stmt
from suspect. It was long
assumed that the test for
interrogation under the
6th was much less or at
least equal to interrogation
under 5th (MIRANDA) b/c the
6th confers an affirmative
right to assistance of counsel
whereas 5th merely gets you a
warning. Also, TEXAS v. COBB,
532 US 162, holding that 6th
doesn't even apply to related
offenses - the 5th again is
better b/c it is not offense
specific. The trend is toward
weaker 6th. (and weaker 5th,
e.g. DICKERSON v US, 530 US
428 holding only that stmt
in violation of MIRANDA can't
be used in the DA's case in
chief - but DA remains free
to use for impeachment,
sentencing, &c.)
Re 4th - Consider HUDSON
v MICHIGAN, 126 S. Ct. 2159,
holding that MAPP exclusion
not required for a knock
notice violation AND holding
(in dicta) that as long as
the cops could have acted
legally (ie got a warrant)
the doctrine of inevitable
discovery can sanitize a
bad actions. Implication
of the extension of
inevitable discovery is
that once cops have probable
cause they can always search
and arrest w/o a warrant b/c
once they have probable they
could have got a warrant.
\- re: invetiable discovery,
i think the BREWER v WILLIAMS
cases are pretty interesting.
once of those cases where
one of those cases where
you couldnt write a better
screenplay than the real facts.
of ideologues defending against any attempt to
change it or make it relevant to today's world.
The *first* reaction of the President of the
Frickin' United States to a gruesome gun massacre
was to reassert the right to bear arms. Somehow
I don't think that his first reaction to the
most egregious violations related to the first or
fourth amendments would be to talk about how
important free speech is. (And as for the
fourth, we already have plenty of evidence that
he doesn't care about it at all). -tom
\_ To many, the very fact that the courts have
treated the other amendments as fluid is
itself a problem that, if necessary, may need
to be rectified via the rights protected by
the 2d.
Some would also suggest that the 1st and 4th
both have a large, well-funded group of ide-
ologues defending them against any attempt
to change them or make them relevant to
today's world - namely the ACLU.
My concern is merely this - if the 2d can be
reevaluated b/c of a changed factual predicate
what is to stop similar reevaluation of the
other amendments. Even under this administra-
tion, the 4th continues to limit executive
power. But, the executive continues to insist
that these limits are outdated and prevent it
from acting in ways that are necessary to
protect the people.
If we accept the arms controller's arguments,
then perhaps we should accept the executive's
argument as well. This will leave us subject
argument as well. This may leave us subject
to invasive government conduct w/ no means of
of resistance (however ineffective those means
may actually be).
\_ There's a process to change the constitution put in place
by those same founders. If the 2nd amendment right to bear
arms is no longer beneficial to our society then let's drop
it from the constitution. Other amendments have come and
gone, there is nothing so special about this one it can't
be changed through the process provided without resorting
to bizarre and unjustifiable misinterpretations of the
wording. (No, I'm not saying you're doing that but it is
common to say the 2nd doesn't say what it says).
\_ Unfortunately, attempts to undo the 2nd amendment would
be met with much resistance, and those opposed happen
to be the same people who are heavily-armed.
\_ You're right, that is a problem. It would be much
easier to take away people's civil liberties if they
didn't have those pesky guns!
\_ Didn't you see the recently released e-mail
exchange between Bush and Abu Gonzales?
BUSHG: Let's spy on people and read their
e-mails so we can win the war on terra!
GONZALESA: But the people have guns!
BUSHG: Shit, never mind, I forgot!
\_ Yes! This is it! What we need is a War on Guns! That'll be
right up there with the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, the War
on Terrorism, the War on Crime, the War on Smoking, the War on
Bad Eating Habits, the War on Drunk Driving, the War on The
Growing Digital Divide Between the Rich and the Poor, the and war
to end all wars: The War On War Itself! What we need is another
War! Woot!
\_ Hey, drunk driving is WAY down these days. Yes it is still
bad, but it's miles better then it was a generation ago.
\_ How are the other 8 or 9 Wars On XYZ going? I suspect
Darwin has more to do with any slim decrease in drunk
driving deaths than anything else.
\_ Drunk driving fatalities have dropped a significant
amount, by several thousand deaths a year in the U.S.
Smoking is also way down, as are pot and cocaine use
among teens. Some of the things you list, such as the
War on Terrorism, are foils for political efforts that
have nothing to do with their stated goals. And what's
your point, anyway...that we shouldn't try to change
anything? -tom
\_ Since you can't stop him from having a gun, you should let
other people have guns.
\_ I have this magic wand that will make all guns disappear. Then
the same government you trust with your guns will surely stay
out of your bedroom, your lifestyle and your wallet.
\_ Out of curiosity, how does your right to own a gun prevent the
government from intruding into your bedroom, lifestyle, and
wallet now?
\_ Or to take this thought further: when in the history of the
U.S. has private ownership of guns been an effective check
on government power? -tom
\_ Every day. Look at the British. It could be like that
here.
\_ Like what? -tom
\_ Spying on you everywhere you go for starters.
\_ So you think the only thing keeping the U.S.
from spying on you everywhere you go is
private gun ownership? I'd say the two
are completely unrelated. In fact, I think
a lot of the gun yahoos are the same guys
who want to give the government more power
to spy on us. -tom
\_ Until the 40s I would say that private ownership of
guns had been an effective check on government power.
The government hesitates to act against the people,
if it believes the people may take to the streets to
correct its misdeeds. Since the 40s I would say that
if the government decides to truly move against the
people, private gun ownership is of no consequence.
\_ The government would never move completely against
the people anyway. They can usually manipulate and
propagandize to get 30-40% of the people to support
whatever it is, which is enough to maintain the
notion of representative gov't and forestall direct
confrontation. At least since the Civil War. (Private
ownership of guns didn't stop the feds from pwning
the South.) |
http://csua.com/feed/