Many conservatives are talking about how these Virginia Tech students would have been better off if they had guns on them.
Some food for thought.
Two members of the Secret Service uniformed division at the White House were injured today in what the department said appears to be an “accidental discharge of a service-issued weapon” in possession of a third agent.
Secret Service spokesman Darrin Blackford said the incident occurred at 2:10 p.m. at the White House southwest gate. One agent suffered a leg injury and the other took shrapnel in the face.
Keep in mind these were trained agents at the most secure building in the world.
I wouldn’t feel comfortable knowing that my fellow college students - you know, the binge drinking “are you looking at my girlfriend” epitome of responsibility types - were packing heat in class, at parties, and at graduation…
Have these conservatives ever been to a frat party? Do they know that half of college students can’t handle their liquor, let alone a weapon of mass destruction??
I mean, come on, really.
They are saying, “this wouldn’t have happened in Texas” because so many people carry guns. But, uh, it did. 15 people died and 31 were wounded.
I still don’t know what my ultimate feelings are on the right to bear arms debate - still have thinking to do about it - but I know I wouldn’t feel safer having more guns around me.
Loading ...
I have a very clear belief about this issue. First of all, I’ve got to say I’m not American, but where I live people can’t get guns as easily as in the USA. In fact, people don’t usually have guns, because getting a firearm licence is really difficult, let alone getting an actual weapon.
I know I wouldn’t feel safer if I had a gun in my house. Some people would argue, “what would you do if a burglar broke into your house?” “How’d you protect your family?”… well, I’d definitely recommend not making them more nervous with a gun, because most burglars wouldn’t kill you or your family (why risk it?, they just want your money and valuables).
Anyway, I think state laws on gun carrying should be toughened in order to prevent this kind of incident from occurring.
PS: great blog!
It is clear in the constitution that we don’t have the right to bear arms unless we are planning to enforce the law, as a militia. We have the PRIVELAGE of bearing arms. I personally think that gun control should be much stricter; look at other countries that have control, they have much less crime, and way less fatalities by shooting.
Wow OK this is an open can of worms. First off it is our right to bear arms. Period. Factions in our government would love to disarm us to make us more passive and less of the threat to those to who would want to strip us further of our rights. Guns on college campuses I think would be a horrible idea. However having enough armed security and police on campuses would be a great idea. Obviously at Va Tech this was not the case as the guy was killing people for two hours. If you look at studies of states that passed conceal and carry permit laws the rate of violent crime dropped. No perp wants to face someone who is armed. I personally have firearms in my home and would not hesitate for a second sending someone to the celestial dirt nap for breaking into my house or trying to harm myself or or boyfriend. I think all gay men in the US should purchase a firearm and a C&C permit. A lot less gay bashing would happen. That being said, remember guns dont kill people, people kill people. If we had no guns the guy would have made a bomb, used a sword or a club or large rocks even. If someone wants to murder someone else they will find a way to do the evil deed. Gun control is nothing more than a ploy to further strip us of the rights clearly laid our by our founding fathers. Rights that for over 200 years has made The United States the greatest nation to exist in the history of humanity.
Tommy, do you not want to acknowledge the first part of this sentence?
Because it clearly grants the right to bear arms to the militia, not to anyone else. We call that militia the military, so unless you are in the military, and are willing to be called to protect the security of our state, then you don’t count, and it is a privilege, not a right.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated in 2001 that:
“there are numerous instances of the phrase ‘bear arms’ being used to describe a civilian’s carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the ‘people’ [or ‘citizen’ or ‘citizens’] “to bear arms in defense of themselves [or ‘himself’] and the state,’ or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage ‘bear arms’ was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_bear_arms
Your sentence has been addressed…
The most important part of that is “the state”; they are the only ones that can grant the right to bear arms. Not the constitution. It is a privilege bestowed by the state.
Thanks everyone for commenting and debating this issue. IT’s giving me some good food for thought.
So it appears that after the killer shot two people he then went and mailed some stuff to NBC and then continued on his rampage. Insane. Just insane.
A thought about having guns in your home to protect you, I was married to a police officer for 14 years, I had guns in the house at all times, but do you know when I truly felt safe in my home, was when my four week old shepard that I adopted from the pound reached 120 lbs. I have felt safe for 10 yrs now. Instead of going to the store and buying a gun, how about the pound and adopting a dog? Jake’s the man!
I love you Justin!
Great Blog!
Another issue that is seemingly ignored is that of the state of mental health care in the U.S. Granted, his ability to own handguns certainly enabled his actions, but it seems to me that if there had been meaningful, serious intervention earlier, when it was obviously needed, then perhaps this (and other) terrible incidents could have been prevented.
That said, I think that we need to reconsider the second amendment and the rights of citizens to bear arms. Just because it was a good idea in 1789 doesn’t mean that it still is today…
Duane, I’d like to point out that the second amendment is not as clear as you paint it. Don’t forget that it says “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The clause describing the importance well regulated militia can easily be interpreted as a justification of the the right of the people to bear arms, not a limitation of it.
Pink Elephant, while you are correct, so am I. We have no true idea how the founding fathers wanted this interpreted, other than to take it literally. If we take it in different context, it is easy to come to the conclusion that you, and the masses, do.
This is obviously not as cut and dry as black and white, but if you break it down to literal interpretation, it does move a little more towards being black and white. But, as you pointed out, this is the cause of, and reason for, debate.