Thursday, April 19, 2007

plezWorld on the Virginia Tech Massacre

First and foremost, my heart goes out to the family and friends of those students who were so brutally murdered on Monday morning at Virginia Tech.

I almost went to Virginia Tech to study engineering (I chose Georgia Tech instead) and I had a number of good friends who received their degrees from there. I cannot imagine the agony and sheer disbelief that must be running through the minds of the students who survived the ordeal nor the parents who will never see their children again. I can only imagine the heartache associated with losing a loved one through such a senseless and unprovoked attack.

The gun man (I will not give his name any space on my blog) was a distraught and deranged individual who was intent on creating his own immortality. The media, bloggers, newspapers, and the like do an injustice to the 32 people who died at this monster's hand by showing his face, displaying his name, and playing his sick video. He didn't earn any infamy and most certainly doesn't deserve any. He took innocent lives in a calculated yet cavalier manner, so I will dishonor him by leaving his name blank: "____________".

The Media
On the morning news, it was reported on ABC's "Good Morning America" that ________ sent a videotape of himself to NBC during a break in the killings (how morbid was that). It is a rambling and incoherent diatribe (some had the audacity to call it a manifesto) about what drove him to kill. It was a sick attempt at immortality. Robin Roberts interviewed a psychologist after viewing the homemade video made by the shooter. The psychologist was incredulous that ABC, NBC, CNN, or anyone would be showing this video (especially, only a few days after the murders). He said that it was a gross injustice to the families of the victims, made thousands of Virginia Tech students re-live the events of Monday in graphic detail, and gave immortality to the gunman. He said that they were irresponsible and no good would come out of the viewing.

plez sez: I agree wholeheartedly with the psychologist. In this age of instant news coverage and sensationalism, the media is constantly falling over itself to "report" newsworthy information. Well, some information is not newsworthy and some information is downright damning! Imagine the horror of a parent having to watch that "monster" basically boast about murdering their child in cold blood, imagine the students who heard the gunfire having to re-live those moments while watching imagines of that vile excuse for a human being, imagine the unstable minds around the country who now have a blueprint for misery and despair as a way out of their pitiful and pathetic lives by destroying the lives of others. How many more sociopathic souls are currently plotting their own "Virginia Tech Massacre" or "Columbine" because of seeing this video?

I have no doubt that by the time you read this, the scenes of school and campus evacuations as a direct result of some sick person trying to emulate this event will have already started. School officials will be dealing with this issue through the end of the school year.

That tape should've been repackaged by NBC and sent to the FBI as evidence for their investigation. Period. We did not need to know that it even existed. It is not fit for human consumption.

The Constitution
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States in 1789, reads:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was written and debated over the summer after the inauguration of George Washington. The populous, especially those Antifederalists, was a wary group: the country had gained independence from Great Britain a few years earlier and the French were fomenting rebellion, as well. The Antifederalists were especially wary of transferring the strong central government of Great Britain to the newly formed United States of America. James Madison proposed a Bill of Rights that would protect these "new Americans" from the government abridging their rights and taking their property (which they had taken from the Indians, but that's for another topic!). This was a time when there were few police powers being exercised by the states, one could hunt and shoot anywhere (remember, there weren't that many people in the New World), and one needed "arms" to protect his family and property and slaves (oops! that's for another post, too.) from bandits and pirates.

plez sez: Fast forward about 230 years. In 230 years, there has never been a need to thwart the advances of the US Military by a "well armed militia" in any state; the militia argument didn't even come up during the Civil War in 1861 because the Confederate States were the aggressors! So I ask you, whose rights are being protected by the Second Amendment? The rights of people who use guns to hurt and kill other people. Personally, I don't like guns. I see no need for guns, because they can only carry out the will of someone who is too unstable to use their mind to do something else.

I was speaking with a colleague of mine from Norway earlier this week; they don't have many guns in Norway. The police don't even carry guns in Norway. They have only one or two murders per year in Norway. As of April 15, Philadelphia, PA (nickname: Killadelphia) has already had 114 murders! On April 16, Virginia Tech had 31 murders! If you do the math, it just doesn't add up. I have not heard a good reason for anyone to have/possess a gun in this day and age... I welcome it!

I know that it is not politically expedient for someone in Congress to even have someone think that they are thinking of tampering with the Bill of Rights, but I think the 32 lives that were lost on Monday morning in one selfish act of revenge is more than enough ammunition to change that stance.

Repeal the Second Amendment!

14 comments:

Terrence said...

The homicides in Philly are disturbing to say the least. That is almost 1 homicide a day.

I personally don't know about gun control. I used to be for it, but honestly think there are sooooo many guns out there now, the crooks will always find ways to get guns. What's to stop another mass murderer or the thugs/gangs in Philly or St. Louis, for that matter, if they really want to kill? Some way and some how, guns would get smuggled into this country.

What we need to do is clean up some of brothas, demand that they get jobs, go to school, open businesses and take care of their children. That way, homicides will decrease and black males would become a force to be reckoned with in due time.

plez... said...

terrence,
i think you'd stand a better chance of getting rid of all the guns than trying to "clean up some of the brothas"! but that's just my opinion.

i don't really advocate taking away guns, but i do advocate stricter gun control laws and getting rid of an amendment to the constitution that basically enables any nimwit or mass murderer easy access to one.

David Sullivan said...

I agree with many of your points on gun control.

Check out my post for other ways this could have "possibly" been prevented

SullsBlog: Virginia Tech.

Dave said...

Plez,

Once again it's like we occupy the same thought pattern. Could not agree more with everything you said.

Chris Rock once said: 'We don't need gun control, we need bullet control! Make every bullet cost $5000 dollars, then see how many innocent bystanders get hurt.'

My wife and I have been talking about this for a few days now, and she made a point last night that I think is definitely worth retelling.

The media takes a thing like this and assigns huge importance to it. "Oh my gosh, golly gee shucks can you believe that a thing like this could happen?"

Well, yeah, considering it happens every single day in Iraq, Israel, Somalia to name a few. Suicide attacks are being perpetrated everywhere day and night. But if it happens here, once, we act like its some crazy tragedy that we preciously innocent Americans just find incomprehensible.

We need to wake up, immediately, as in, yesterday. This is an issue that we humans face globally right now. Violence, man killing man, this is the product of a world which places not enough emphasis on love, and healing. It's all about power and control, and this system is creating more and more killers everyday.

plez... said...

dave,

that guy fired over 200 rounds... at $5,000 a bullet, he would've had to spend the tuition for his entire time at Virginia Tech and the mortgage for his first house... talking about being cost prohibitive!

maybe that's the answer?!?

on another blog, the author asks the question, what if 30 to 50 white Americans were killed everyday by senseless violence?

LLR said...

When getting rid of the 2nd amendment are we just going to stop there? The 1st amendment guarantees freedom of the press. When the constitution of the US was written they had no idea that we would have TV, radio, blogs, the internet, etc. All of those things are still cover under “the press.” It’s the same way with guns. An AR-15 is covered the same way a .22LR revolver is covered.

Katrina shows us that when things get bad, some cops will run. Who is going to protect you from the criminals? When we have riots in the US and cops are rushing to the riot areas, who is going to protect the people on the other side of town? If a criminal has a crowbar and he’s running at you, a gun can be a great equalizer.

For the most part gun-free zones are a joke. It’s just an opportunity for a criminal to know where he can rob or kill a bunch of unarmed law-abiding citizens. Just today a guy went in a federal building that’s a gun free zone and killed someone. I’ll be glad when the criminals start obeying the laws and respecting these gun-free zones.

plez... said...

LLR,
i don't really see your parallel between "freedom of speech" and "the right to bear arms". of course the founders had NO IDEA of the technological advances of the last 20 years, as they were lucky to have access to the Guttenheim press and a musket!

but Madison's (he was the author of the Bill of Rights) very reason to bear arms was based on the extreme paranoia of the times ... a paranoia which has never come to fruition.

today, there are a number of gun-free zones (Virginia Tech's campus being one of them). i don't consider Blacksburg, VA to be a bastion of criminal, the massacre on Monday notwithstanding.

in your zeal to defend something that is defenseless, you seem to fall back on your outdated NRA propaganda.

and i'm not sure where Katrina fits into your argument.

LLR said...

i don't really see your parallel between "freedom of speech" and "the right to bear arms". of course the founders had NO IDEA of the technological advances of the last 20 years, as they were lucky to have access to the Guttenheim press and a musket!
What I mean is that though the framers had NO IDEA of what a TV was, Television programs as well as other means of communication like radio, blogs, etc are still covered under the 1st amendment. They had no idea that today we would have guns like the AR-15 and AK-47, but they are still covered under the 2nd amendment.

but Madison's (he was the author of the Bill of Rights) very reason to bear arms was based on the extreme paranoia of the times ... a paranoia which has never come to fruition.
Maybe the paranoia never came true BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment.

in your zeal to defend something that is defenseless, you seem to fall back on your outdated NRA propaganda.
What’s so defenseless? Are you saying that the constitution of the US in its present form is defenseless? As of today citizens have a RIGHT to bear arms. Yes I am a member of the NRA, but I think that a lot of times the NRA gives in when they should not. Now the GOA is doesn’t play at all! They oppose almost any new anti-gun legislation and they should!

and i'm not sure where Katrina fits into your argument.
Katrina is a perfect example of why the 2nd amendment is needed. During Katrina a lot of cops were MIA, so the only means of protection for citizens were there own firearms.

You are arguing that guns are unnecessary, but what about the Black Panthers and the Deacons for Defense that had firearms and exercised their 2nd amendment right during the civil rights era. What about the blacks that used guns to protect themselves from the KKK and other organizations that wanted to lynch them? Did they not need guns?

plez... said...

LLR,
i'm glad that you have come to my little corner of the world to share your thoughts. i respect where you are coming from, but i do not agree with your stance on the 2nd amendment.

you wrote: What I mean is that though the framers had NO IDEA of what a TV was, Television programs as well as other means of communication like radio, blogs, etc are still covered under the 1st amendment. They had no idea that today we would have guns like the AR-15 and AK-47, but they are still covered under the 2nd amendment.

plez sez: the framers of the Constitution and more importantly the Antifederalists who fueled the development of the Bill of Rights did their work almost 250 years ago. i contend that some parts of the Constitution and some amendments to it are woefully out of touch with the realities of TODAY. in reality, you only have the right to "bear arms" in very special and specific circumstances AND by-and-large that "right" should be abridged and limited by the government (you can't carry guns in schools, hospitals, etc.). i contend that gun ownership is not necessary and poses a greater danger to the public-at-large than it protects.

you wrote (in reference to my comment about James Madison): maybe the paranoia never came true BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment.

plez sez: i contend that there has never been a viable test for the 2nd Amendment (i'm suprised that an NRA member such as yourself would not have dredged up the Ruby Ridge incident in support of your position) and i also contend that most people who run to the defense of the 2nd amendment are generally bolstered by the type of wacko extremists i cited earlier (Ruby Ridge extremists)!

you wrote: What’s so defenseless? Are you saying that the constitution of the US in its present form is defenseless? As of today citizens have a RIGHT to bear arms. Yes I am a member of the NRA, but I think that a lot of times the NRA gives in when they should not. Now the GOA is doesn’t play at all! They oppose almost any new anti-gun legislation and they should!

plez sez: i didn't say that the entire Constitution was defenseless, but i have not heard (nor have you presented) a tangible reason for the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. and if i looked hard enough, i'm sure there are some other things in the Constitution that needs modification (there have been close to 20 amendments to the Constitution, so the framers didn't think of everything AND they got a few things wrong, as well). if memory serves me correctly, a number of the framers were slave-owning elitists, they made sure that the Constitution and its natural rights did not extend to those slaves, nor the indigenous people of North America, either! so the document is not infallible.

you wrote: During Katrina a lot of cops were MIA, so the only means of protection for citizens were there own firearms.

plez sez: surely you jest! Katrina was the most analyzed (and overanalyzed) natural disaster of our times. can you cite ONE example when someone with a gun protected himself/herself from the "hordes of marauding rioters" after the Hurricane as a result of the lack of police protection? i do recall some POLICE in Gretna, LA using their guns to prevent Black people from crossing the bridge into their city after the hurricane.

i guess if those folk had guns, they could've BLASTED their way in, huh?!?

you wrote: You are arguing that guns are unnecessary, but what about the Black Panthers and the Deacons for Defense that had firearms and exercised their 2nd amendment right during the civil rights era.

plez sez: correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the police state (also known as the United States of America) squash and imprison the leadership of the Black Panthers. weren't their guns taken from them "before they could do anything with them"? i don't recall the Black Panthers and their right to bear arms being used to create a militia to overthrow the government that was abridging their rights.

are you implying that the Black Panthers' "right to bear arms" was abridged?

you wrote: What about the blacks that used guns to protect themselves from the KKK and other organizations that wanted to lynch them? Did they not need guns?

plez sez: my education in history may not be as deep as yours, LLR, but from what i learned, it appears that the KKK (and other organizations) used the 2nd amendment much more to their advantage than the Blacks who were subjugated by their actions. i don't recall too many successul Black uprisings in the last 300 years where gun play played a role!

the one successful uprising by Blacks was the non-violent civil rights movement of the 1960's... and not one shot was fired!

plez... said...

Anonymous, please get an account... i'm deleting your post, but i'm going to respond to your reply.

you wrote: You could look at it the other way. Allow more people to carry guns. If this was the case, how long would it have been before _____got shot by another student defending himslef.

plez sez: i guess you've never been on a college campus in the last 30 years. do you know how much drinking and drug use occurs on our college campuses on the weekends? would you want a bunch of drunken fratboys roaming YOUR campus with guns and semi-automatic rifles? do you know how much carnage you'd be inviting?

oh, ok, so after _______ has gunned down 5 or 10 of his classmates, someone who happened to be "packing" blows him away? and what about the other student who was packing and mistook him for ______ and decided to blow him away? and so on? and so on?

sounds like the lawlessness of the wild west that you see in the movies. there's a reason that universities do not want guns on their campuses!

you wrote: Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

plez sez: you are just spouting soundbite pablum from the right-wing fringe neo-con NRA wackos. it is just a propaganda ploy... it's cute, but you words hold little meaning!

you wrote: A deranged indiviual will just find another way.

plez sez: OK. let the deranged individual find another way.

LLR said...

i'm glad that you have come to my little corner of the world to share your thoughts. i respect where you are coming from, but i do not agree with your stance on the 2nd amendment.
Thanks for the welcome. I’ll pull up a chair if you don’t mind.
We may not agree on the 2nd amendment but it is the law of the land and has been for centuries. You probably don’t like guns. There is no compulsory gun ownership. The gov’t doesn’t require that you exercise your 2nd amendment rights any more than they require that you exercise you other rights. I do see that you’re exercising you 1st amendment rights by having this blog that the framers had no idea would exist. I wonder if we should not shelter blogs under the 1st amendment. LOL


the framers of the Constitution and more importantly the Antifederalists who fueled the development of the Bill of Rights did their work almost 250 years ago. i contend that some parts of the Constitution and some amendments to it are woefully out of touch with the realities of TODAY.
Please share with me what you think needs to be changed about the constitution? Well besides the 2nd amendment. You may be right, but also a lot of the constitution is being wrongly interpreted by the SCOTUS. The Kilo case is a great example of this.


in reality, you only have the right to "bear arms" in very special and specific circumstances AND by-and-large that "right" should be abridged and limited by the government (you can't carry guns in schools, hospitals, etc.). i contend that gun ownership is not necessary and poses a greater danger to the public-at-large than it protects.
I think that you’re wrong. You have the right to bear arms, but it’s actually more regulated in certain areas like federal buildings, churches, etc. It’s not the other way around. Those laws vary by state. I contend that the 2nd amendment is necessary and probably will never be repealed. I’m not saying that some politicians won’t try and regulate it to death, but it won’t be repealed.

The funny thing is that a lot of the law makers and journalists don’t even know what they are talking about. The law makers write laws and ban certain things and they don’t even know what those things are. How ridiculous. The journalists either know very little about guns or are just flat out lying. They are calling handguns fully automatic and automatic firearms have been banned for decades. They are call guns “assault weapons” w/o even defining what an assault weapon is.


i contend that there has never been a viable test for the 2nd Amendment (i'm suprised that an NRA member such as yourself would not have dredged up the Ruby Ridge incident in support of your position) and i also contend that most people who run to the defense of the 2nd amendment are generally bolstered by the type of wacko extremists i cited earlier (Ruby Ridge extremists)!
Hey not everyone with a gun is defendable. Gotta pick and choose your battles…LOL

Let’s not also forget that beside the fact of overthrowing the gov’t. The 2nd amendment is also about self defense. Now you don’t want me to start posting articles about how people have used firearms to defend themselves. Let’s not also forget about the people that may not have to shoot to use a firearm to scare off a criminal and their stories never make the paper.

What about grandmothers that live alone in bad neighborhoods. All a criminal needs is a crowbar to break into her house, rob her and possible kill her. He has no need for a gun. All she needs is a .38spl and a criminal can be caught and put in jail. Let’s not also forget about the future victims that this criminal may have hurt.


if memory serves me correctly, a number of the framers were slave-owning elitists, they made sure that the Constitution and its natural rights did not extend to those slaves, nor the indigenous people of North America, either! so the document is not infallible.
Check out the Scott Supreme Court decision. It has 2nd amendment elements in it. The judges were like “If we call these black citizens/humans we’ll have to let them own guns.”

surely you jest! Katrina was the most analyzed (and overanalyzed) natural disaster of our times. can you cite ONE example when someone with a gun protected himself/herself from the "hordes of marauding rioters" after the Hurricane as a result of the lack of police protection?
Here’s an example of how a law-abiding citizen protected himself from the "hordes of marauding rioters.” Registration is required so I just pasted the important part!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/national/nationalspecial/01lawless.html?ei=5070&en=599e7118f3cdf3bb&ex=1177473600&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1177370244-7FHAI8NykPkpEUsVrSyfbA

Some frightened homeowners took security into their own hands.
John Carolan was sitting on his porch in the thick, humid darkness just before midnight Tuesday when three or four young men, one with a knife and another with a machete, stopped in front of his fence and pointed to the generator humming in the front yard, he said.
One said, "We want that generator," he recalled.
"I fired a couple of rounds over their heads with a .357 Magnum," Mr. Carolan recounted Wednesday. "They scattered."
He smiled and added, "You've heard of law west of the Pecos. This is law west of Canal Street."


I can also recall the gov’t illegally seizing guns from law-abiding citizens. It was the NRA and other gun rights organizations that can to their defense and told the gov’t to return the guns.


correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't the police state (also known as the United States of America) squash and imprison the leadership of the Black Panthers. weren't their guns taken from them "before they could do anything with them"? i don't recall the Black Panthers and their right to bear arms being used to create a militia to overthrow the government that was abridging their rights.

are you implying that the Black Panthers' "right to bear arms" was abridged?

They didn’t overthrow the gov’t but they helped change the gov’t right along with the non-violent people of the CRM. What about the Deacons for Defense?

plez sez: my education in history may not be as deep as yours, LLR, but from what i learned, it appears that the KKK (and other organizations) used the 2nd amendment much more to their advantage than the Blacks who were subjugated by their actions. i don't recall too many successul Black uprisings in the last 300 years where gun play played a role!
Do you have to have an uprising for someone to defend the 2nd amendment? Thank God that there were no gun databases because no blacks would have had a gun after purchasing it. A lot of black would not have been able to scare of people that were trying to lynch them in the middle of the night.

I noticed that you keep mentioning uprisings like the 2nd amendment is just about overthrowing the gov’t. It’s kind of like the people that talk about the 2nd amendment and hunting. The 2nd amendment is also about protecting both the country and yourself from enemies both foreign and domestic.

plez... said...

LLR,
you are more than welcome to make yourself comfortable, because "my blog is your blog"! *smile*

you wrote: You probably don’t like guns. There is no compulsory gun ownership. The gov’t doesn’t require that you exercise your 2nd amendment rights any more than they require that you exercise you other rights. I do see that you’re exercising you 1st amendment rights by having this blog that the framers had no idea would exist. I wonder if we should not shelter blogs under the 1st amendment.

plez sez: you are correct! i don't like guns and i don't see their value in today's society. as such, i find the need to bestow rights for something that i find abhorrant quite needless (to say the least)! since you obviously "like" guns, it is your imperative to find favor with the 2nd amendment. i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, huh?!?

you wrote: Please share with me what you think needs to be changed about the constitution? You may be right, but also a lot of the constitution is being wrongly interpreted by the SCOTUS. The Kilo case is a great example of this.

plez sez: i'm not familiar with the Kilo Case, but i agree that because so much law is interpreted in relation to the Constitution, it may call the entire document into question. with activist judges (like Scalia, Thomas, and now Alito) on bench of the SCOTUS, i think there should be a Constitutional Convention on the entire document every 10 or 20 years. like the by-laws of any organization, it shouldn't take a court case to examine the relavence of the Constitution, it should be reviewed and updated periodically... and i'm surprised that the notion of making it a living document never entered the minds of the founders.

you wrote: I contend that the 2nd amendment is necessary and probably will never be repealed. I’m not saying that some politicians won’t try and regulate it to death, but it won’t be repealed.

plez sez: i concede that it would be political suicide for the legislator who proposes such heresy. and as i stated earlier, i don't think that the two of us will ever come to an agreement on the need for the second amendment.

you wrote: The law makers write laws and ban certain things and they don’t even know what those things are. How ridiculous. The journalists either know very little about guns or are just flat out lying. They are calling handguns fully automatic and automatic firearms have been banned for decades.

plez sez: i plead ignorance, too! i know nothing about guns. even though there is an old (and i mean OLD) single fire rifle that hangs above the fireplace in my parents' home.

you wrote: Let’s not also forget that beside the fact of overthrowing the gov’t. The 2nd amendment is also about self defense.

plez sez: most gun owners will never be in a position to use a gun to protect themselves unless they keep one in a holster on their hip. most responsible gun owners keep them under lock and key somewhere hidden in their homes. i don't see that as being a viable means of protection.

and those who choose to keep them out and "at the ready" probably stand a better chance of having it used against them or worse yet falling into the hands of someone who inadvertantly uses it on themselves or some innocent child. the news is littered with stories about kids who accidently kill their siblings or friends because of an unlocked (and accessible) gun. to be honest, that's what scares me the most about those things.

you wrote: What about grandmothers that live alone in bad neighborhoods. All a criminal needs is a crowbar to break into her house, rob her and possible kill her. He has no need for a gun. All she needs is a .38spl and a criminal can be caught and put in jail. Let’s not also forget about the future victims that this criminal may have hurt.

plez sez: my only answer to that is 92-year old Kathryn Johnston of Atlanta - a grandmother who lived alone in a bad neighborhood. she had her gun "at the ready", but she was no match for the overzealous police who burst into her home in November 2006 and shot her to death during a botched drug raid.

most people have neither the wits nor the training to properly prepare to use or defend themselves using a weapon with such deadly force. in my Utopia, i would be more intent on criminalizing the possession of such.

I WILL JUMP TO YOUR LAST STATEMENT.
you wrote: I noticed that you keep mentioning uprisings like the 2nd amendment is just about overthrowing the gov’t. It’s kind of like the people that talk about the 2nd amendment and hunting. The 2nd amendment is also about protecting both the country and yourself from enemies both foreign and domestic.

plez sez: my good friend, LLR, this whole debate about the 2nd amendment does hinge on interpretation of what the founders where thinking when they made it a part of the Constitution. i contend that James Madison (and his cronies) were wary of a strong central government that could cavalierly decide to abridge the rights of the states (i.e. the whole states rights argument around the civil war, etc.), so they added this little provision so that individual states could quickly raise militia to defend their rights against the feds.

personally, i don't think the founders' intention was about foreigners invading the country, as it is the federal government's responsibility to defend the country against foreign aggressors. i also don't think it was added to protect our personal property, because i believe property rights are a natural right, so you wouldn't need an amendment to the Constitution to protect it!

those are just my views, but of course, they are open to interpretation! *smile*

LLR said...

i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, huh?!?
Yeah I guess so! I gotta go out a buy a gun to make myself feel better…LOL

i'm not familiar with the Kilo Case, but i agree that because so much law is interpreted in relation to the Constitution, it may call the entire document into question. with activist judges (like Scalia, Thomas, and now Alito) on bench of the SCOTUS, i think there should be a Constitutional Convention on the entire document every 10 or 20 years. like the by-laws of any organization, it shouldn't take a court case to examine the relavence of the Constitution, it should be reviewed and updated periodically... and i'm surprised that the notion of making it a living document never entered the minds of the founders.

I’ll give you a summary of the Kelo case. It basically says tha the gov’t can take you land under eminent domain and give it to a private contractor to develop condos, a strip mall, etc. Now it was the “liberal wing” of the court that was in the majority with Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, and O'Connor dissenting.
How can you call Alito, Thomas or Scalia activist judges? Wouldn’t you call gov’t taking of land for PRIVATE use the doing of an activist judge?

i plead ignorance, too! i know nothing about guns. even though there is an old (and i mean OLD) single fire rifle that hangs above the fireplace in my parents' home.
Please hurry and take that thing down. It may grow hands, arms, legs, feet and just start killing people. Send it over here. I’ll put it to good use! LOL

most gun owners will never be in a position to use a gun to protect themselves unless they keep one in a holster on their hip.
You must not have a lot of knowledge because tehye are concealed carry laws that allow people to carry a gun around every day. There are millions of people that carry one on a daily basis and you would be surprised who they are. It’s concealed so you wouldn’t know that your co-worker or the guy walking down the street had a Glock on his/her hip.

plez sez: my only answer to that is 92-year old Kathryn Johnston of Atlanta - a grandmother who lived alone in a bad neighborhood. she had her gun "at the ready", but she was no match for the overzealous police who burst into her home in November 2006 and shot her to death during a botched drug raid.
Because I don’t want to litter up your blog, I won’t post them but there have been countless cases of old people that have used guns to shoot or hold criminals that intend on doing them harm. My granny has some guns and she will use ‘em.

most people have neither the wits nor the training to properly prepare to use or defend themselves using a weapon with such deadly force.
And you know this how? In some states in order to get a concealed carry permit you have to pass a shooting test with the gun that you plan on carried. You license is “married” to that gun and in order to carry another gun you have to qualify with it too.

plez sez: my good friend, LLR, this whole debate about the 2nd amendment does hinge on interpretation of what the founders where thinking when they made it a part of the Constitution. i contend that James Madison (and his cronies) were wary of a strong central government that could cavalierly decide to abridge the rights of the states (i.e. the whole states rights argument around the civil war, etc.), so they added this little provision so that individual states could quickly raise militia to defend their rights against the feds.

personally, i don't think the founders' intention was about foreigners invading the country, as it is the federal government's responsibility to defend the country against foreign aggressors. i also don't think it was added to protect our personal property, because i believe property rights are a natural right, so you wouldn't need an amendment to the Constitution to protect it!

those are just my views, but of course, they are open to interpretation! *smile*

What about self-defense. I don’t know of a much greater right than the right to life and the 2nd amendment is there to protect that.

plez... said...

LLR,
i called those judges activists, just to get at you! the right wing loves calling liberal judges that, i just thought that i'd turn the tables on ya! *smile*

i will only comment on your last comment, as our little back-and-forth almost deserves its own blog entry.

you wrote: What about self-defense. I don’t know of a much greater right than the right to life and the 2nd amendment is there to protect that.

plez sez: to my way of thinking, the right to LIFE implies that you have means at your disposal for defending it (i.e. self-defense). there is NOTHING in the 2nd amendement that speaks to right of gun ownership as necessary to preserve your right to life. a gun is not the only way that you can defend yourself, i don't see how the right to gun ownership would be necessary to preserve your right to self-defense!

this goes back to my INITIAL and ONLY reason for opposing the 2nd amendment: the 2nd amendment was proposed to enable states to well-armed men who they could mobilize quickly to form a militia in the unlikely event that the federal government overstepped its bounds and infringed on the state's rights.

i contend that the gun crowd has taken the state's rights argument and extended it to the individual's right. i feel that the only way to sort this MESS out is to do away with the 2nd amendment since it has never been used and is unnecessary in this day and time.

i have NEVER proposed or advocated taking away your guns, but i would like to see more restrictions on gun ownership and possible criminalization of the ownership of guns in the future.

that is my position. i welcome your response and i will let you have the LAST WORD in this discussion. i've enjoyed it!