cnsnews.com — After two armed southwest Virginia law students stopped a campus shooting rampage in January 2002, a Second Amendment group at a northern Virginia law school decided it was time to change their own school's ban on guns.
Apr 16, 2007 View in Crawl 4
jigorokanoApr 17, 2007
"The statistics in right to carry states being incontrovertible."Actually the correlation between crime and gun freedom is insignificant in comparison to the correlation between crime and poverty. The NRA likes to state that the national (or a particular state's) violent crime rate has gone down as gun rights have gone up. This is true. What they do not state is that we have also come out of a recession. If you look at the crime rate changes on a state by state basis and correct for the poverty correlation by fitting to both poverty and gun rights, your incontrovertible statistics vanish into thin air.Unfortunately, it is no more reasonable to argue that the lack of pirates is causing global warming.
codmateApr 17, 2007
@adamwebsDo you ever *question* your constitution.I'm sure the founding fathers never meant it to be static.Gotta move with the times...
yakskiApr 18, 2007
@tkstockOnce again you fail to read!!!! You are the one that took the 'logical extreme' position, not me.... nowhere will you find the extremes you post in your writings anywhere in mine. Your idea, however, that the weaponry of the citizens in any way, shape, or form matches the armed forces weaponry is ABSURD. Not a single reply to my post answered the issue. All were nothing more than .."let's not think about this too hard, let's just spout some bulls**t NRA message" and go to the 'logical extreme' position. Too bad you seem unable to respond to the issue at hand. Taking all issues to their 'logical extreme' positions leads to learning nothing, changing nothing and improving nothing. The continual reality of everyday live in America is that democracy exists and flourishes due to the ideas planted and manifested in the people who live here. Your .45 or .22 or shotgun is not what keeps the country a democracy.
curthowlandApr 18, 2007
@ yakski,"Once again you do nothing but deny the facts"I have denied no facts. Rather, I have presented the fact to you that the laws broken were not state laws, but Federal laws."the facts are that NY police have gone undercover to Virginia to buy guns due to their lack of laws governing the sale of firearms and the lack of enforcement of the few laws they do have."Again, the lack of enforcement is a _Federal_ problem, not a state one. The laws broken were Federal laws, not state laws."The fact is that both state and federal regulations cover the sale of firearms NOT just federal."Only in a state with state laws concerning the sales of firearms. The existence or lack of such laws has no effect on the Federal laws being broken."That is one of the huge problems in this country since there is nothing but a patchwork of completely different laws in this country at the state level and minimal regulations at the federal level"Obviously you have never bought a gun. If you had, you would know that there is no lack of regulations concerning the infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.Talking to extent on a subject you are not educated on is not a wise idea."(the NRA wants states to legislate individually... the old divide and conquer strategy... with the other idea that money/graft at the state level is a much easier and cheaper way to buy legislative votes)."Get a clue. The Federal government is a government of _enumerated_ powers. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments, which explicitly put that theory into writing. Legally speaking, the Fed.Gov has _no_ power to regulate firearms at all. The individual states do, because all powers not explicitly granted to the Fed.Gov are reserved to the states."The crossing of state lines with weapons is not enforced at any significant level and is impractical as you well know."Are you really advocating what it seems you're advocating? Armed borders, Berlin-style walls, crossings with searches of every vehicle for prohibitted items?Is that really the country you _want_ to live in?"That is why this patchwork of state laws is so insane, anybody can drive a few hours to a nearby state with less lax laws and buy any weapon for sale."Again with breaking laws you do not understand. Or are you trying to make my own point that criminals will break whatever laws there are, no matter how many, to commit their crimes?I don't see how pointing out the impossibility of prohibition to me is going to do anything other than reinforce my assertion that....prohibition doesn't work."The fact that you have to be a resident is only material if they require you to provide documentation."Again you have never tried to buy a firearm if you think doing so is so easy. Providing documentation is _Federal_ law."In Virginia undercover operations were shown that the old wink and nod method was used. "You're a resident of Virginia, right?" wink, nod says the salesman on the undercover video I saw."Which, obviously, is the entire extent of your experience in the matter.Now, go to a gun store and _learn_ something. You don't even have to buy, just ask the man behind the counter to explain the process.
tkstockApr 18, 2007
@yakski"You are the one that took the 'logical extreme' position, not me.... nowhere will you find the extremes you post in your writings anywhere in mine."Yes, that's called extrapolation. I extrapolated your position to the logical extreme to show that since our weapons (guns) are so helpless against the governments weapons (tanks, apache's, etc) that we may as well be unarmed. That is the logical extreme of your argument. I know you didn't say this explicitly, but that is called extrapolation."Your idea, however, that the weaponry of the citizens in any way, shape, or form matches the armed forces weaponry is ABSURD."Hence, you've arrived at 95%+ of the logical extreme right there! :) Thanks for proving my point.In reality, in the extreme viewpoint I mention about the government shooting people in the streets as a form of population control would not get that much support from the troops, methinks. Thus, any battle against an out-of-control government wouldn't be that one sided. Also, you forget that even 50 million armed Americans would put a significant dent in an aggressor governement force, and could successfully revolt against out government if they were to completely get out of control. This is the point with Egoist's argument WRT the forefathers: "Being able to fire two shots a minute or 60 shots a second doesn't matter. Their meaning is that every man who believes in what this country stands for should be ready and able to rise against their government using any means necessary if required to do so."Just because we might lose means we shouldn't try if the extreme need arised?
tkstockApr 19, 2007
@yakskiI've come to the realization that you don't understand the concept of logical extreme - have a look at it in Wikipedia<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_extreme">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_extreme</a>Have a nice day.
curthowlandApr 19, 2007
It is human nature to try to bury uncomfortable truths.
yakskiApr 19, 2007
@curthowland"There is no lack of laws." Wrong once again. Virginia is considered one the nearly no gun law states with minimal requirements and practically no enforcement of those minimal requirements. This would explain why other states send undercover police to document the breaking of the few laws they do have by dealers when selling."Can you please explain how making someone break 20 laws will prevent a crime when they are already breaking 19?" This statement makes absolutely no sense in the discussion which was ongoing. This is an obvious sign of the lack of intelligent thought on your part."No, I have specifically pointed out that what you are asking for (more laws) hasn't worked in the past, and will not work in the future." You have proved nothing about how laws work in any of your prattling. Not a single proof backed by factual evidence anywhere in your writings. Not a state by state comparison. Not a valid statistical analysis backed by independent (non NRA sources). Practical laws don't work now according to you?? Lets all just drop all the laws in this and every country because they just do not work says you?? So we should have no gun laws?? No speeding laws?? No laws of any kind cause they just don't work?? How moronic."If a Federal law is being broken, such as buying a firearm across state lines, presenting false documentation, falsifying the forms concerning legal eligibility, are all problems of Federal enforcement because those laws are Federal." And your point is??? That the fed laws are insufficient or unenforceable. Hey, that's what I said isn't it?Your apparent inability to understand that both federal and Virginia laws can both be insufficient at the same time indicates your inability to process logic."I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, that your ignorance was simple lack of information, not deliberate blindness."Blindness would represent your unfounded belief system where a 1 minute wait time to obtain a deadly weapon is some sort of horrible injustice against all of mankind. Your ignorance and devaluation of human life is one of the causes of the tragedy which just occurred."I was pointing out that that system of legal separation of powers is what we have in the US because of the explicit effort to do just that by those who established this system of government.""As much as I don't like how the Fed.Gov has already centralized power in the US unconstitutionally, calling for yet more of it is not what I consider progress." This part of the conversation is not directly concerned with the ongoing issue. Federal power vs. state power is another conversation all together. Just remember that the southern states are the ones that would still have slavery as one of their 'rights' given their history. But I digress from the main issue, this is a completely different conversation, although related, it is not the issue at hand. "The fact that you repeatedly mention the NRA is pure straw-man argumentation. My money goes to Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, <a class="user" href="http://www.jpfo.org/">http://www.jpfo.org/</a> I suggest you try them out." Using one propaganda organization over another propaganda organization does not a better argument make. It was obvious that you were repeating/spewing some common propaganda from someone. I assumed that it was the NRA, I apologize for my assumption but not for the ability to recognize propaganda when I read it. "More laws don't make any difference, prohibition doesn't work." The discussion was about the poor quality of laws and the lack of enforceability, not about the quantity of laws.!! Can you read?? Once again prohibition was never proposed by me (Straw man set up again)."You make this comment you still cannot understand how I would conclude that you _know_ the only way for such a law to be enforceable would be with guarded borders, checkpoints and searches, between states?" You make absolutely no sense here. You set up this straw man and then wish to continue discussing it as if it was something other than the straw man you set up in the first place. I never ever proposed this. You can continue to talk to yourself like this but it only makes you look even more foolish."In order to effectively prohibit private firearms ownership, privacy cannot exist. Freedom of travel cannot exist." HUH... you are wacko.. we prohibit illegal drugs and the ownership of tanks and the ... etc.. Besides the fact, if you actual can read and comprehend that is, that I NEVER proposed the prohibition of firearms, the fact is that we have many many different prohibitions in every free society in the world. DUH!!! "Let me make a wild guess: you think the word "prohibition" means not being able to buy alcohol." Obviously you need help. Nowhere did I ever propose prohibiting firearms. That was you that set up the farcial choice. Straw Man seems to be your only line of thinking."So you either lose the prohibition, or you lose your freedom." Prohibition never entered my discussion. Another continual lie on your part. And as far setting up the farcial either black or white dilemma, hey that's just your artificial boundaries. Anyone logical would know that the extremes you recommend with the "its either anarchy or tyranny" red herring is an attempt by you to present only the ridiculous choice and not one that is being asked of anyone."You choose to have a firearm, but you want to prohibit other people from having them."Once again you lie and set up the old straw man. Nowhere in any of my writings will you find me in support of prohibiting people from having a firearm. Your lack of honesty or inability to read or think clearly is apparently preventing you from understanding anything other than your own narrow view.You are either incredibly dense or just mentally deficient.
curthowlandApr 20, 2007
@ yakski,It's obvious that you have disregarded JPFO as a "propaganda" source, without reading any of their materials. I'm sorry for you. I'm even more sorry that you can be so deliberately ignorant, and still vote."Nowhere in any of my writings will you find me in support of prohibiting people from having a firearm."Then please explain, if you do _not_ want to prohibit people you don't like from getting a firearm, why are you saying the laws that prohibit the people you don't like from getting firearms are not being enforced, and that this is a bad thing?Over and over again, you have stated that people get firearms that "should not" have them. How are you going to prohibit them from getting firearms without prohibiting them?This is why I asked if you thought the word "prohibition" meant only alcohol. When you advocate the prohibition of a firearm, you object to it being called "prohibition". Yet above you repeatedly use the word "prohibition" in terms of preventing the ownership of things like narcotics and tanks.Your assertion that lots of "free" societies around the world have prohibitions, and they are still "free", is an interesting definition of "free". Just like your purchase of a firearm while denying that same right to others, this is hypocrisy on your part.What you call "free" is freedom for yourself to do what _you_ want. I'm sorry that you do not allow others that same freedom.
curthowlandApr 24, 2007
@yakski,"So you now support the legalization of all drugs and all weapons and all things now considered illegal."Yes. If there is no victim, there is no crime.The murderer, the rapist, the mugger, the thief, all aggress against the rights, property and lives of others. There is a _victim_.If you choose to own a machine gun, you have harmed no one. If you choose to smoke horse s**t, you have harmed no one. Well, no one else anyway. Same with suicide, so long as you harm no one else you have committed no crime.Which means your straw-men of robbing a bank and such are just that: Flimsy, grasping-at-straw-men argumentation that means nothing."Obviously you prefer no balance between anarchy and tyranny approach and wish to put your vote in the anarchy box."How very astute. In fact, I do consider myself an anarchist, since I have seen no evidence that government can do anything through coercion more efficiently (other than kill) than can voluntary cooperation.Voluntary cooperation is the definition of anarchy, did you know that? An-archy, rules without rulers. Cooperation without coercion."I however, think it is possible to balance somewhere in between the two and attempt to protect society while preserving individual freedom."That is a delusion. Ludwig von Mises pointed out 70 years ago that there can be no stable "middle way". All socialist schemes, such as yours, tend toward totalitarian means over time. Or they fail and revert to voluntary cooperation, but historically that hasn't happened except when the totalitarian means become so utterly overbearing that the empires fall. All empires eventually fall."Regulation is not prohibition except to the groups of people that would not be allowed to own a firearm. That is what we have now is it not?"When did I say that we didn't have prohibition? There are many prohibitions in the formerly free United States, and the death toll to prove it.It is _you_ who have continually railed against the word prohibition, calling me a liar for pointing out your demand for prohibition, while simultaneously demanding that some people, those you don't like but not yourself, be prohibited from posessing a firearm. That is hypocrisy.I am not insensitive to the desire to prohibit someone who has demonstrated a disability of self control from having a firearm, neither would I desire a madman to be at the controls of the 2-ton guided missile often called a "car". But if someone cannot be trusted with arms for their own self defense, what are they doing out of prison? A firearm is the least of my worries when someone has already demonstrated a penchant for harming others. It would seem in your fantasy world, people only hurt each other with guns, and for some reason such people also obey laws against owning a firearm while ignoring the laws against murder.What you do not understand is that I am not a hypocrite. I demand for everyone the same rights and liberty I demand for myself.
Closed AccountMay 11, 2007
dixta hey i wanted to clarify i value your opinion but all u did was criticize my opinion and didn't provide a solution, what would u suggest be changed. and for the record if i had a son in one of those classes and one of his classmates put a bullet in the head of the criminal before my son was shot id be concerned of course, but f**k my kids still alive thanks to him. sure is a better outcome than having my son killed too. like i said since guns are here. the only thing to stay at least relatively safe is fight fire with fire. i think most robbery victims and wacko cereal killings dont have any specific target, in this case, id be glad my kid or myself had a gun. im not saying its right, its just the only legitimate solution. maybe in a way its vigilantly justice. but im curious as to what u think. plz replyps want to blame something? blame parenting* and a violent society.
skiddlesMar 22, 2008
Fail. Switzerland has one of the HIGHEST rates of gun ownership in the world.
MangalmayMay 11, 2011
mba and pgdm college.http://www.mangalmay.org