It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

[BoMac]

Very few compared to the US. Very few.

Not to mention, the majority of the illegal guns in Canada are courtesy of the US gun market.

Agreed. My point is they still occur despite our gun laws therefore it would be impossible to completely avoid these tragedies altogether.

 

[Irvine511]

i don't see how tighter gun control could have prevented this particular tragedy; i do see it preventing potential tragedies like the one joyfulgirl posted.

i do think that if, say, the professors had been armed, this guy could have been stopped. it is true that sometimes the possession of handguns prevents crimes from occurring. but i'd also think a fully armed armed citizenry would cause many, many, many more deaths than we already have. there is a right in the constitution. i don't have a problem with hunting (though i'd never hunt myself) and i don't have a problem with legitimate self-defense. but i do have a problem when people pretend that guns aren't the issue, or that they are the whole issue.

ultimately, focusing just on the guns -- pro or against -- is little more than a quick-fix solution. we need to examine a rat race culture, a culture that views violence as an acceptable means to solve problems, the sometimes excessive individualism that can cut many adrift, feelings of isolation and detachment, as well as proper health care that should include mental health check-ups as well.

this is a multifaceted problem we have here. sure, no one is going to knife 33 people in a classroom, but if there were no guns, what's to stop someone from a suicide bombing (which is, basically, an equivalent to what just happened)?

it has to be said that there's an ethos and mythology of violence that does permeate American culture, and it's not all bad. there was a violent Revolution that was, i think we can say, A Good Thing. it was, and in many places still is, a wild and unkempt piece of land filled with bears and moose and other animals that can and will kill you. there is something about the empowering of the individual to defend his life and property with the deadliest means reasonably available (a gun) that i do find somewhat noble -- would you not shoot an intruder? would you not shoot someone about to rape your daughter? and i can agree with the ideology that, should a government become oppressive, it is up to ordinary citizens to overthrow that government (though it works better in the abstract -- the government has Stealth Bombers these days).

but there's something about a country that expanded through the genocide of the Native Americans, still has the death penalty in a majority of States, still has the NRA as one of the most powerful lobby groups, still thinks that violence is an acceptable foreign policy.

and say what you will. Blacksberg was safer yesterday than Baghdad.

in fact, only 33 dead. that's a pretty good Monday morning for Baghdad.

 

[yolland]

i do think that if, say, the professors had been armed, this guy could have been stopped.

Not sure I agree with this. I believe he shot the professor first in every classroom he went into, and for sure he would have if he'd known they had guns. Futhermore, if I were armed and heard gunfire in a nearby classroom, my first priority would be to immediately begin directing and assisting my own students in taking whatever measures they could to protect themselves, not to sprint next door and attempt to shoot the gunman, which could just as easily result in me getting shot and him proceeding on to my own classroom. Perhaps what you had in mind was more a posse of professors converging with guns drawn all at once, but in a typical classroom building that's not a very realistic scenario--occupied classrooms are often spaced quite far apart, we don't have "panic buttons" specialized for communicating with each other (or anyone for that matter, though I suppose that much could be changed) and based on the eyewitness accounts I've read, many of the students and professors simply did not register what they were hearing as the action unfolded. I would gladly risk my life to protect my students, but I am a scholar, not a security guard charged with looking out for the safety of all students collectively. And frankly, if colleges actually tried to implement a measure like this, it would only be a question of time before some disturbed prof opened fire on his students or colleagues, at which point you'd have cries to repeal it.

ultimately, focusing just on the guns -- pro or against -- is little more than a quick-fix solution. we need to examine a rat race culture, a culture that views violence as an acceptable means to solve problems, the sometimes excessive individualism that can cut many adrift, feelings of isolation and detachment, as well as proper health care that should include mental health check-ups as well.

I agree this is relevant (although cultural factors too can be overstated, and I've heard more than enough gruesome tales while researching in rural India to be quite certain that criminal sociopathy is alive and well in the most idyllically community-oriented little villages), but how do we go about addressing things like this? This student had already been referred for counseling, so apparently it hadn't gone unnoticed that he seemed "troubled." Not sure what any college could do to ensure that no one ever falls through the cracks socially.

Gun control won't prevent a black market, you're right about that, although I'm not sure how comparable isolated disturbed individuals are to, say, gang members (who often live in neighborhoods where black market sources are entrenched, and are well-versed in using them) in terms of how likely they would be to seek out such networks.

 

[deep]

and say what you will. Blacksberg was safer yesterday than Baghdad.

and what if we added to the mix
the same ratio of guns and munitions ratios to Blacksberg that Baghdad has?

 

[BVS]

There's no way to every guarantee this won't happen again.

But would have a waiting period made him reconsider? Who knows?

Would he have had the connections to buy a gun off the black market? Who knows?

Will tighter gun control evenutally reduce the guns out on the black market? Hopefully, if done right...

 

[onebloodonelife]

You raised some very good points Ormus.

However you must remember that a war is going on and the enemy is watching everything that is going on. Don't think they don't rub their hands with glee when they see the level of disention(sp?) within the American public. They see this as a sign of weakness on America's part and use it as an excuse to intensify their efforts against America.

By all means, criticize George Bush, impeach him and even put him on trial if warranted.....but do it AFTER the war is over. To do so now would play right into the hands of the terrorists and undermine the efforts to defeat the enemy and end the war as soon as possible.

Thanks.

Oh, please...this is all a bunch of bullshit. Freedom of speech and dissent is what got the U.S. out of an unnecessary war in Vietnam. You can't honestly expect Americans to just sit by idly and in silence as a idiot like Bush leads thousands of men and women into harm's way.

I'll continue to say what I feel about the current administration because I have the right to do so. And, even if I didn't have the right, I'd still be out there screaming about the faults of Bush and his cronies.

 

[yolland]

Let's keep the objections civil please.

 

[Irvine511]

Not sure I agree with this. I believe he shot the professor first in every classroom he went into, and for sure he would have if he'd known they had guns.

it's a slightly exaggerated point, and i take your logistical concerns. but the point i was trying to make, as surreal as it is to me, is that unarmed people are totally defenseless against the armed. the case that is being brought up by the pro-gun crowd is the January 2002 shooting at Appalachian Law School where a disgruntled student shot and killed a dean, a professor, and a student, before being gunned dwon by two armed students.

the same argument surfaced during Columbine where some stated that an armed security guard or teacher could have stopped Klebold or Harris sooner rather than later.

it repulses me to think of weapons of any kind in institutions of learning, but i think the Appalachian Law incident does warrant some attention.



[q]Not sure what any college could do to ensure that no one ever falls through the cracks socially.[/q]

not sure either. i was the equivalent of an RA where i went to college, and to be sure there were a few kids i was mildly concerned about, but i was lucky as i'd heard horror stories from other RAs. what i do think my college did well was making sure that people don't fall through the cracks. and, for the most part, people didn't. but that was a small community-oriented school. i think these things get harder to do at a larger university. and i agree, there's no evidence, yet, that there were credible warning signs to justify the student's removal from campus (which did happen where i went to college -- if anyone seemed a remote suicide threat, they were immediately removed from campus, which struck me as little more than institutional CYA).

i think a real conversation has to take place.

i've been combing through the British and Australian press the past 24 hours, and it does strike me how incomprehensible this is to virtually everyone else. it's one of those things about the US that no one else understands, along with our excessive religiosity and belief in our ability to one day be rich.

it baffles me too. i don't understand the appeal of guns. my best friend on earth is a gun owner. he keeps trying to get me to go shooting with him on the weekends. and i won't do it.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Interesting that these sorts of massacres happen in places where theres nobody to shoot back; Port Arthur, Columbine etc.

 

[Irvine511]

Interesting that these sorts of massacres happen in places where theres nobody to shoot back; Port Arthur, Columbine etc.

agreed. i also wonder why these things always happen in the middle of April (Columbine, OK City, Waco).

but the conclusion i'm feeling comfortable enough to draw is that this is precisely the wrong case to use as an argument either for or against gun control. this psychopath was going to figure out a way to kill a whole bunch of people no matter what, legal guns or not.

the argument about gun control is probably best served in the incident joyfulgirl has mentioned. we should examine the amount of what would be small incidents that escalated into murder due to the presence of a gun against the amount of crimes that were thwarted due to the presence of a gun. it's the ease and availability of guns that should be addressed, not such an outlier.

at least that's how i feet at 4:48pm today. tomorrow, who knows?

 

[Diemen]

However you must remember that a war is going on and the enemy is watching everything that is going on. Don't think they don't rub their hands with glee when they see the level of disention(sp?) within the American public. They see this as a sign of weakness on America's part and use it as an excuse to intensify their efforts against America.

By all means, criticize George Bush, impeach him and even put him on trial if warranted.....but do it AFTER the war is over. To do so now would play right into the hands of the terrorists and undermine the efforts to defeat the enemy and end the war as soon as possible.

Thanks.

Explain to me how dissent plays into the hands of the terrorists and undermines our effort to defeat the enemy. I'm serious - I'd very much like to hear this explained, because I certainly don't agree with it on face value.

For me, what I would see playing into the terrorists' hands is this: Not having the courage to stand up for our beliefs. Being too afraid of our enemy to speak out when we feel WE are doing something dreadfully wrong. Staying silent while our country goes off in the wrong direction.

If I believe that our current direction is wrong and is hurting our country and aiding the enemy's cause, and if by chance I am right, then by staying silent I am helping the enemy win. I may even believe our cause, but disagree with the methods used. If I believe our current methods aren't working well enough, don't you think I should be able to voice that opinion so it spurs the leadership to explore other methods that might be more effective?

Besides, if we all just shut up and don't challenge our leadership and their decisions, how is the leadership to know when they've made a mistake? Do you think they'll just recognize it on their own?

 

[yolland]

I believe those Appalachian Law School students were both former police officers who'd run to their cars for their guns (as guns weren't allowed on campus), and also that the 'random firing' phase of that incident was very brief--as I recall, the shooter took aim at several students in a hallway as he exited the building where he'd just shot the two faculty in their offices, then was cornered outside by the two armed students. It may be true that he would've wandered on into a classroom elsewhere and shot more students if they hadn't done that, but the fact is that the same laws which in principle make it easy for almost any student to purchase a gun for self-defense also made it easy for Cho Seung-Hui to buy the gun he used yesterday, no questions asked. And you have to think long and hard about the implications of all students being allowed to have guns on campus...how many drunken dorm fights, lovers' spats, conflicts with administrators etc. might blow up into something much worse if guns were around, and would that offset the number of lives potentially saved on the off-chance that a mass shooting should ever happen. I can see where it makes somewhat more sense to say, OK, let's not let students have guns, but let's let faculty have them; but there too (and setting aside the fact that most faculty would resist that tooth and nail) you have to weigh the potential benefits of that against the inevitable risk of a prof using their gun for revenge in some moment of rage or distress. Simply arming them and providing them with a little training would not give them the mentality towards, nor the expertise with, their guns that a police officer has. And how far are you going to expect them to go should an incident like yesterday's happen? Setting aside the fact that the doors to Norris Hall were chained, and that there was no way to instantaneously relay across campus what was happening--if faculty had come running from all directions with guns drawn, might there not have been confusion as to which armed person "the bad guy" was in the chaos of the moment? I know probably only a fifth, if that, of my fellow faculty members by sight.

what i do think my college did well was making sure that people don't fall through the cracks. and, for the most part, people didn't. but that was a small community-oriented school. i think these things get harder to do at a larger university.

I've never either studied or taught at anything but a large school, but my guess is there's some truth to that. Even small schools are going to have their impenetrable cliques and poor-fit students who feel pissed on, but at least it's in principle easier (or so I'd imagine) to find and seek comfort with your fellow angst-ridden malcontents (to put it cynically). It probably is easier to get overwhelmed by the sheer size of the "community" around you and withdraw altogether when you're at a really large school.

 

[Irvine511]

I can see where it makes somewhat more sense to say, OK, let's not let students have guns, but let's let faculty have them; but there too (and setting aside the fact that most faculty would resist that tooth and nail) you have to weigh the potential benefits of that against the inevitable risk of a prof using their gun for revenge in some moment of rage or distress. Simply arming them and providing them with a little training would not give them the mentality towards, nor the expertise with, their guns that a police officer has.

just to reiterate, i'm not disagreeing wtih you, i'm just trying to present a different side (one that is starting to echo loud and clear in the right-wing blogosphere). i think the argument is less, "let's arm students and train professors to shoot-to-kill," and more that in a zone that is gun free you are utterly defenseless should someone break the law and violate that zone as we saw today. it's not so much that all students should be encouraged to have guns for personal safety reasons; rather, those who so choose should be entitled to the same rights of self-defense permitted to all citizens of Virginia and when those rights are suspended, as they are on college campuses, people aren't free to defend themselves.

that is the argument i am hearing.

bluntly, i've never touched a gun, but i'd rather have one, than not, should, say, a Katrina-style disaster befall Washington DC and it's 48 hours before law and order is restored.

It probably is easier to get overwhelmed by the sheer size of the "community" around you and withdraw altogether when you're at a really large school.

that was one of the reasons i loved my school, and still do. i've felt a part of it since i showed up for orientation, and even though i outgrew it, i would never have wanted to go anywhere else, given my personality.

 

[STING2]

Yesterday's massacre in Virginia was the last straw as far as I'm concerned.

The U.S. constitution was written in the 1700's after the U.S. won it's independence from Britain in order to make sure that the citizens of the newly-formed nation will never again suffer the opressions of monarchy and that they will be granted freedoms that were denied them during the British rule.

These freedoms included the right to free speech, assembly, religion, the right to bear arms....etc., and were instituted as a remedy for the previous opression the citizens were under.

For the past 220 years, the U.S. has been an independent nation and is no longer subject to the rules of any other country. The wording of the constitution was suitable for the 18th century and, apart from various amendments that were added throughout the centuries, the basic structure hasn't changed.

There have been constitutional amendments which have come and gone (such as slavery and prohibition) and I see no reason why the constitution can't undergo a revision to suit these dangerous times we live in.

I'm talking specifically about freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. The ease in which anybody can get his hands on a weapon is frightening....and yesterday was a shining example. The facts of yesterday's massacre aren't yet completely known but I have no doubt that something has to be done about gun control. You can give the old ARA argument that "guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people" but the fact remains that the lax gun laws in America have made it so easy for anyone to purchase a firearm with almost no questions asked.

As for free speech - I'm very sure that the founding fathers didn't mean the freedom to insult or incite. Don Imus and Rosie O'Donnell are textbook examples of how freedom of speech has gone too far. Rosie O'Donnell calling for the impeachment of a sitting president during a time of war would be considered treason in some countries. Don Imus calling a group of women by a racial slur in a live radio broadcast is totally unacceptable.

The lunatics who subscribe to the 911 conspiracies are perhaps the BEST example of why 1st amendment should be revised. In this case, freedom of speech equals freedom of STUPIDITY. People who use their free speech to insult the memory of the innocent people killed on 911 shouldn't even be allowed any forum. People like Cindy Sheehan (who downgrades her son's sacrifice to his country by calling Bush a murderer) should be denied access to a microphone.

Here are perfect examples of the right way and the wrong way to use free speech: let's say I'm at an anti-war rally and I have a megaphone handy, I am deeply disappointed in the way the war is being waged and wish to express my views to the crowd.

One way:
"Please stop the killing, bring the troops home and negotiate a peace....don't let any more innocents people on either side be killed. George Bush, please hear our cries and bring the troops back home".

Another way:
"Let's send George Bush's children to Iraq so they can die in the war that he started. All he wants is oil and world domination. George Bush is a killer and he should suffer the same loss as we do.....he should be put on trial for war crimes and hung in the Hague and burn in hell forever".



Do you think that both statements should enjoy the same 1st amendment rights equally? I don't.........you can clearly see the difference between them.

To summarize, the U.S. constitution is outdated and needs to be revised to meet today's challenges and today's threats.

I welcome your comments on this matter.

Thanks.

I disagree with the ideas about "free speech", except when such speech somehow infringes on the freedoms, security, and rights of others.

As for the 2nd amendment, I agree that it is outdated. It was introduced at a time when the country really did not have a significant standing army or police force which is obviously not the case today. Comparing the number of murders in the UK/Ireland/Canada to the USA shows that the wide availability of guns to civilians in the United States is not effective in reducing the murder rate and is probably a key reason as to why the USA murder rate is so high. Over 12,000 US citizens are murdered by firearms every year. Despite the lower populations of Canada, United Kingdom and Ireland, firearms deaths per year are often only in the dozens, well below the US rate once you adjust for population.

I think only the US military, Police and other members of security organizations should have firearms, not civilians. This is the firearm policy in many countries and the greatly reduced rate of murder in those countries is evidence that suggest very strict gun control or a total gun ban for civilians would help to reduce the overall murder rate substantially. The UK, Ireland and Canada all have plenty of crime, but the big difference is the murder rate. What seems to probably be the biggest reason the murder rate between the USA and these other countries is the availability of guns to civilians.

 

[STING2]

and say what you will. Blacksberg was safer yesterday than Baghdad.

in fact, only 33 dead. that's a pretty good Monday morning for Baghdad.

Actually, that is false. Baghdad has a population of over 5,000,000. Blacksberg VA has a population of 39,500. For Baghdad to have an equal death rate as Blacksberg yesterday, it would need a little over 4,000 killed. Baghdad's single worst day in the past 4 years is not even 15% of that.

 

[Dreadsox]

I bet my wife that this thread would go in this direction seeing the last name who posted.

Actually Itvine, your sense of humor is lost on me. Allow me to put a human face to what happened yesterday and quote statistics about the dead in Bagdhad over the last four years. By the way , Iraq is much safer now that we are there protecting them from Al-Qaeda. Statistically we have them outnumbered by 10 to the nth power.


Christ all mighty, he was not making a statement of FACT....but a statement of EMOTION.

 

[Diemen]

What is this "emotion" you speak of? I cannot find a statistic for it anwhere.

 

[deep]

Re: Re: It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

 

[deep]

Re: Re: It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

As for the 2nd amendment, I agree that it is outdated. It was introduced at a time when the country really did not have a significant standing army or police force which is obviously not the case today. Comparing the number of murders in the UK/Ireland/Canada to the USA shows that the wide availability of guns to civilians in the United States is not effective in reducing the murder rate and is probably a key reason as to why the USA murder rate is so high. Over 12,000 US citizens are murdered by firearms every year. Despite the lower populations of Canada, United Kingdom and Ireland, firearms deaths per year are often only in the dozens, well below the US rate once you adjust for population.

I think only the US military, Police and other members of security organizations should have firearms, not civilians. This is the firearm policy in many countries and the greatly reduced rate of murder in those countries is evidence that suggest very strict gun control or a total gun ban for civilians would help to reduce the overall murder rate substantially. The UK, Ireland and Canada all have plenty of crime, but the big difference is the murder rate. What seems to probably be the biggest reason the murder rate between the USA and these other countries is the availability of guns to civilians.

sting

you make some very good points about the second amendment there

The "so-called founding fathers" never intended this to be applied the way the NRA argues it.

 

[Irvine511]

Actually, that is false. Baghdad has a population of over 5,000,000. Blacksberg VA has a population of 39,500. For Baghdad to have an equal death rate as Blacksberg yesterday, it would need a little over 4,000 killed. Baghdad's single worst day in the past 4 years is not even 15% of that.

you are so shameless, it's actually kind of sad at this point.

 

[Dreadsox]

Re: Re: Re: It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

sting

you make some very good points about the second amendment there

The "so-called founding fathers" never intended this to be applied the way the NRA argues it.

So if the founding fathers had been disarmed....how do you tihnk they were going to fight the revolution?

I STRONGLY disagree with the intent. If the British empire had succeeded in disarming the colonists, America may very well not have been born. What the hell was Lexington and Corcord about? Disarming.

 

[STING2]

Re: Re: Re: Re: It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

So if the founding fathers had been disarmed....how do you tihnk they were going to fight the revolution?

I STRONGLY disagree with the intent. If the British empire had succeeded in disarming the colonists, America may very well not have been born. What the hell was Lexington and Corcord about? Disarming.

In 2007, US citizens are not allowed to legally purchase weapons that would be necessary to even have a small chance of overthrowing the government. So in this sense, US civilians were long ago disarmed.

The 2nd amendment was necessary in the late 1700s as there was no real police force or significant standing military to provide for the security of the country.

Prior to the events surrounding the US Revolution, colonist militia's were necessary to defend towns from Indian attacks and were used to help the British military secure the frontier. By 1775 though, the militia's had become rebel forces to the British and the British were a foreign army of occupation to the militia's. With the exception of cannon, colonist militia's were essentially as well armed as the British military. In contrast, there is a massive disparity between what the US military is armed with compared to the weapons citizens are legally allowed to obtain in 2007. US citizens long ago lost the legal weapons capability that colonist in the 1700s, and into the 1800s, had to potentially overthrow some hypothetical tyranical government.

 

[Dreadsox]

So the mini journey the British took to Concord was about what exactly?

 

[Rono]

Interesting that these sorts of massacres happen in places where theres nobody to shoot back; Port Arthur, Columbine etc.

Where would be more murders and accidents whit guns ? In places with gun control or in places without guncontrol,....time to find that out.

 

[indra]

Really Indra? Would you really prefer to live in a country where your next door neighbour could suddenly decide to harm you just because he CAN???....Wouldn't you rather have laws that protect you from that kind of violence??

Like it or no every single person in this world lives in countries where his or her neighbor can "suddenly decide to harm you just because he CAN???" Do you really believe that if your neighbor suddenly decides to harm you he/she can't? There are already laws in this country against harming other people. All I see the changes you propose doing is to further restrict the people who have no intention of hurting anyone else anyway.

And to answer your question more bluntly -- No, I'm not willing to give up my freedom to have cotton batting-like security. In this life shit happens and it happens to good people who don't deserve it. That is just part of life. You can't eliminate all risk and still have a life worth living.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I *think* I've got my maths right here? Someone else check. This is using homocide statistics off Wikipedia for the financial year 2003-4, against current population. It roughly does line up with what I've read elsewhere.

AUSTRALIAN POPULATION: 20,804,000
TOTAL HOMOCIDES 2003-4: 405
OF THOSE, WITH A GUN: 53

US POPULATION: 301,529,000
TOTAL HOMOCIDES 2003-4: 16,138
WITH A GUN: 10,654

So, correct me if I'm wrong, that equals:

AUSTRALIA: 1.9 homocides per 100,000 people
US: 5.4 homocides per 100,000 people

AUSTRALIA: 0.3 gun related per 100,000
US: 3.5 gun related per 100,000

 

[STING2]

So the mini journey the British took to Concord was about what exactly?

To try and weaken the Massachusetts Militia's ability to threaten the British army in Boston by seizing or destroying ammo and supplies that had been stored at Concord. Concord was not the only storage area for ammo and supplies and the largest storage area was further west near Worcester I believe, but General Gage did not think he had enough troops to pull off an operation of that distance. The British army in Boston was facing a deteriorating situation and was technically heavily outnumbered if one combines all the town militia's in Massachusetts. General Gage wanted to strike a blow against the militia's without getting into a serious fight, one that would set the militia's back somewhat and at least buy them more time before their situation in Boston became untenable with the size force on hand. General Gage thought he could send up to 1,800 troops all the way to Concord in the middle of the night, destroy the storage area, and have the entire force safely back in Boston by late morning or early afternoon with little or no fighting. It was a tactical move to weaken the strength of the militia's which they now viewed as a hostile military force rather than a supporting force which was often attached to their own in the past. War was essentially a certainty at this point and it was hoped that the mission could at least buy them some time during which Gage could get more specific orders from England as well as reinforcements.

 

[Dreadsox]

My question was rhetorical. Having been a revolutionary war reinactor, and a history major, I am pretty sure I understand what was going on. And I would add to your impressive understanding, that the British did indeed launch a few successful operations seizing the sotred arms in other towns. They also targeted foundries down by the Cape of Cod, where there was quite a cannon ball making facility.

I would again state that it was important to the colonists before, during and after the war, to protect their right to bear arms, for the very reason that they feared a strong central governement.

[Q]"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson[/Q]

Yep, very worried about the Native Americans. I wonder, in the Federalist Papers, does it mention that argument?

 

[intedomine]

Simplistically, the aim for any society is to create a community in which none of it's citizens need or feel the need to "bear arms." And only at such a utopian stage will the overwhleming majority of Americans feel ready to revise the Constitution

The 2nd amendment (right to bear arms) for me, as much as I don't want it to be relevant to American society, is as relevant today as it was in the days of the founding fathers. It's just the reasoning behind embracing the Amendment that has changed.

If anything, the massacre at Virginia Tech will only make more Americans feel insecure, and will trigger many Americans to actually embrace the amendment in the fear that they too might one day be confronted by someone in the same frame of mind as Cho.

A depressing thought if ever there was one, cause it means more guns in circulation and probably easier access to them...

 

[Ormus]

However you must remember that a war is going on and the enemy is watching everything that is going on. Don't think they don't rub their hands with glee when they see the level of disention(sp?) within the American public. They see this as a sign of weakness on America's part and use it as an excuse to intensify their efforts against America.

They "rub their hands with glee" over everything and anything that they can fabricate, so this doesn't matter all that much. Back when Israel was fighting Hezbollah in Lebanon, Israel's task to declare victory was to permanently eliminate any and all traces of Hezbollah. Hezbollah's task was just to survive. You can see why it doesn't take much for them to generate propaganda for their cause.

By all means, criticize George Bush, impeach him and even put him on trial if warranted.....but do it AFTER the war is over. To do so now would play right into the hands of the terrorists and undermine the efforts to defeat the enemy and end the war as soon as possible.

Congress has no reasonable chance of ever impeaching Bush, so whether or not Rosie O'Donnell says what she says, she is not a prosecutor, nor do her views represent Congress' views. This makes her views all the more irrelevant and meaningless.

There's no reason to amend anything over these meaningless comments.