The NIU tragedy could have been so much worse.

[IntravenousDemilo]

Just imagine the carnage if the guy had been armed with A SWITCHBLADE! God only knows how many people would have died then.

[YOY]

1. What made this guy flip? Is there any word?

I only heard "Grad Student"...

[BOSSHOG]

2. He was taking medications and then stopped

reportedly some on campus had seen a gradual mood swing in him. I don't recall what kind of "meds."

[YOY]

3. Ughhh...

There is nothing good about this story. and I have a sinking feeling that no single grain of good will come of it.

[sandnsea]

4. He bought the guns completely legally

We should continue trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and kids, but it looks to me like our mental health system might need some attention. In fact, many of the high school shootings involved medication as well.

[Cant trust em]

5. There are a lot of things that need to change

It's not just gun control. It's not just mental health. This is a cultural problem. I don't have an easy answer.

[jmg257]

6. Could still be, many may use this tragedy to try to justify infringement on unalienable rights.

VERY Bush-league. And as sad as such senseless deaths are, it also sad that liberty must again suffer when illusions of safety are at stake.

[fascisthunter]

8. Yeah... Regulating Guns is so Fascist

[jmg257]

9. Not facist - tyrannical. Of course much depends on the extent of such "regulations".

[fascisthunter]

14. Regulating is the American People's RIGHT

especially when someone else's right endanger's society. There is NOTHING tyrannical about it. It's called a Democracy.

[jmg257]

16. As long as they don't infringe on the right - regulation is fine. Again, depends on the extent.

Madison knew that a majority was to be feared when basic rights were at stake...

"In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is cheifly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents...

Altho' it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter sources; and on such, a bill of rights will be a good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community.

Supposing a bill of rights to be proper the articles which ought to compose it, admit of much discussion. I am inclined to think that absolute restrictions in cases that are doubtful, or where emergencies may overrule them, ought to be avoided. The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public; and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases, they will lose even their ordinary efficacy.


So yes - he was well aware how the public opinion could be such as to disregard some rights - so he explicitly made sure to propose only those that were thought absolute - and should never be infringed for the whim of a majority.

Again, the scope of the "regulations" suggested are very important to the strict scrutiny necessary to protect the right. Without a new amendment specifically giving congress intense regulation powers, that right IS secured, as it is VERY important to the freedom of the people.

[beevul]

21. To a degree...

To a degree you are right.

The american people DO have the right, through government to regulate the rights of the people...right up to the point of infringement.

And beyond that too, if the people change thier minds and remove the restrictions on governmental power that were placed ON governmental power...those being the restrictions enumerated in the bill of rights.


"It's called a Democracy."

We do NOT live in a Democracy, thank goodness. We live in a democratic repuclic.


Do you want the same majority deciding on important issues that voted for herr chimp?

[Paladin]

10. In Other Words, You're OK With Slaughters Like This

You view it as an acceptable trade-off for maintaining the sanctity of your firearms.

And as far as whether or not we're talking about "inalienable rights," I'll wait for that pending Supreme Court decision for guidance on that. The opinions of a gun activist such as yourself aren't enough....

[jmg257]

11. You don't have to wait for the courts to decide, just read the words of the framers.

Natural, unalienable, private, personal, inherent, absolute - all these and more have been used by them to describe all the rights they held so dear as to enumerate them in the BoR. I agree with them by the way.

No, I am not Ok with slaughters like this, or any others where innocents die. I am OK with maintaining my rights while actually doing something that will have an impact on such tragedies. Find the way to limit such slaughters AND protect our rights - I am all for it, but in the mean time you are just using the tragic deaths of others to justify intrusions on our liberties.

[Raskolnik]

13. Bush makes an almost identical argument when he advocates for warrentless wiretaps.

If you're against infringing on the 4th Amendment, if means you're OK with the terrorists slaughtering innocent people. You view maintaining your Constitutional rights as an acceptable trade-off for the promise of increased safety.

So the question is this: are you volunteering to give up your 4th Amendment rights if someone promises it might make us all a little more safe, or are you so selfish that you don't want to give your rights away?

[fascisthunter]

15. Sorry...But Regulating is the People's Right

Just as you can't walk into a filled theatre and yell "Fire", society and it's representatives can regulate guns. That's is NOT the same as Bush LYING about terror, but nice try.

[jmg257]

17. So do I get my tongue cut out cause I MAY yell fire in a theater? Or am I just punished if I do so?

I do NOT lose the right to free speech because I MAY yell fire in a theater. I am not restricted from buying a camcorder cause I MAY shoot kiddie porn. Same with the right to arms - I do NOT lose the right to possess a pistol cause I MAY commit murder or other crime, I only get punished if I do so - and rightly so.

It is the MISuse of the right and how it affects others that gets regulated, NOT the right itself.

The thing about unalienable rights is they can only be suspended via due process - that keeps those in power, or an overbearing majority, from arbitrarily abusing the people - from silencing them, from locking them away indiscriminately, from violating their privacy without cause, from violating their freedoms due to bigotry or racism, and from DISarming them just to promote tyranny.

[fascisthunter]

18. Who SAID Anything about Losing a Right? You Did... not Me

Regulation exists in may forms already.

"...and from DISarming them just to promote tyranny."

Dude.... regulation does not = disarming

it also does not = tyranny

[jmg257]

19. My bad - agreed - you are right. Much depends on the extent of the regulations. nt

[fascisthunter]

20. No Prob, jmg257 (nt)

[Cant trust em]

7. It hasn't even been a year since VA Tech

Coming across this thread really took my Friday down a few notches. So sad.

[Midlodemocrat]

12. .

:thumbsup: We need to end the violence wrought by guns, now.