Seven die in Chicago warehouse shooting

[Tony]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/08/28/chicago.shooting/index.html ..full article

CHICAGO, Illinois (CNN) -- Salvador Tapia returned to the Windy City Core Supply warehouse where he had been fired six months ago and killed six of his former co-workers, police said Wednesday.

Tapia, 36, was then shot and killed in the last of three gunbattles with police, said acting police superintendent Phil Cline.


Another tragedy for the gun-phobes to exploit in their endeavor to burn the constitution. :(

[Zep]

The last paragraph of that report reads:"The problem here is easy access to a firearm," [acting police superintendent] Cline told reporters. "Here is someone who never should have had a gun that had a gun."Whoops.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Tony
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Midwest/08/28/chicago.shooting/index.html ..full article

Another tragedy for the gun-phobes to exploit in their endeavor to burn the constitution. :(

First and foremost, it is a tragedy for those who have lost their loved ones.

Second, "gun-phobia" has nothing to do with it. "people-killed-unnecessarily" has everything to do with it.

[AlH]

At least this guy is getting punished (put to death) for his senseless killings.

Seven girls and a boy between the ages of six and eight were killed as Takuma went from classroom to classroom.

Thirteen other children and two teachers were injured when Mamoru Takuma stormed Ikeda elementary school near Osaka

Takuma admitted the killings and is said to have shown little remorse, reportedly telling the court in June that he could have killed more children if he had attacked a kindergarten.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/asia-pacific/3187157.stm

[Tony]

I didnt know they had the death penalty in japan.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Aren't brothels supposed to have some sort of security sys... oh, I just reread the thread title... Never Mind...

[Charlie Monoxide]

Hand guns facilitate the killing of other human beings. To use an example of the killings (using a knife or sword IIRC) in Japan, especially of kindergarten age victims is very disengenuous.

Charlie (I'd say a prayer for the victims if I was religeous) Monoxide

[c0rbin]

Tony, it is my opinion that the technology of the time the 2nd Amendment was penned was such that it made sense, since a state militia was necessary in place of a national guard.

Today's technology has created a need to re-examine this "right."

Imagine any of the mass killings that have taken place in the past 20 years...now imagine them with 18th century technology.

You would probably still get the nut-job who went into a school with a sword or a big knife, but the needless death toll would be greatly reduced. I would even venture that people would be less motivated to do it if it weren't as easy as squeezing a trigger.

In this country you do not have the right to kill another person Yet you do have the right to own several hand-guns, tools designed and manufactured for the express purpose of killing people.

Isn't it time to re-examine this "right"?

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin

Isn't it time to re-examine this "right"?

By all means, if you want to re-examine your right to own a weapon im not going to force you to own one.

[c0rbin]

I think you are dodging the question. I'll restate it.

Don't you think, in light of what I posted, that this nation should re-examine the meaning of the second amendment and its relationship to handguns or assault-rifles--again, given that the technology has gone far beyond what was available in 1792?

If not, why not?

[AlH]

Deaths from claw hammers. I didn't realize how many there were until I googled for them, I was just looking for a link to a story about a couple of years ago in Omaha where a man killed his family using a claw hammer, and the one about a girl killed by a mugger a while back in England using a claw hammer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2306729.stm

Paul Hull, 47, attacked 36-year-old Roberto Corrado with a claw hammer at the victim's home in Letchworth, Hertfordshire, in February.


http://tampabaycoalition.homestead.com/files/928FamilyFightPrecededKilling.htm

Police contend Ian Bishop, along with his 15-year-old friend Robert Laskowski, planned for three days to murder Adam Bishop and his parents.

http://www.thisisbrightonandhove.co.uk/brighton__hove/archive/2002/09/28/NEWS130ZM.html

Mr Cherrill said Gander had gone to her home with the rope and hammer intending to cause serious harm.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/anne_scripps/10.html?sect=12

"We'd all like to have a swing with the claw hammer," said Sue Boles, one of Anne's neighbors. "This man has got to pay for what he did."

Not to be insensitive but it seems to me that there are a number of ways to kill or groups of people either pre-meditated or on the spur of the moment. Like driving a car repeatably over a cheating husband or drowning children in a bathtub or attacking someone with a baseball bat, dragging a person behind a car. Or a kitchen knife.

The second to the last paragraph of the news story reads:

Tapia has been arrested 12 times, Cline said. He has an arrest record dating back to 1989, including counts of domestic battery, gun violations, aggravated assault and driving while intoxicated.

Thus, I believe, that it was already illegal for him to possess a gun in addition for it to be illegal for him to kill someone. Why would another illegality on top of those deter him from his actions?

Not to belittle the tradgedy, but would it be more acceptable to you if he had run them over with a car as they left the building at the end of the workday, or went from room to room using a machette and hacked them up, or laced their coffee pot with cyanide in a visit to say goodbye to them?

I will admit that guns are used in over half of homicides committed (66%) but the argument that if no guns are in existence, then no murder would occur or if no gun was available a person would not consider killing just doesn't seem valid.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm

Homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2000, 52% of homicides were committed with handguns, 14% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 15% with other weapons.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm

Like the homicide rate generally, gun-involved incidents increased sharply in the late 1980's before falling recently

What anti-gun programs have occured to produce this recent drop in gun-involved incidents?

I believe that anti-gun laws would be a band-aid fix not addressing the real causes of the problems. Sort of like banning alcohol to eliminate drunk driving accidents which probably cause comparable numbers of deaths each year as hand-gun homicides.

the United States has seen no substantial change in drink-driving fatalities over the past few years. In 1995, traffic fatalities involving a drinking driver represented 42 per cent of road fatalities (17,732 deaths); in 2000, they represented 41 per cent (17,380 deaths).

http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/impaired/stats.html


Doesn't Australia have very strict anti-gun laws?

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/09/1057430266220.html

Australians rank among the world's most heavily armed citizens despite the federal government's efforts to tighten gun laws.

Australia's gun legislation was the most up-to-date in the Pacific region, the survey said, with average annual firearm imports dropping 66 per cent since gun laws were tightened in 1996/97 after the Port Arthur killings.

However in the 2001/02 financial year Australian customs officials seized 812 illegally imported firearms with hundreds of thousands believed to have made it onto the market.

And from 1999 to 2002 the number of robberies involving firearms in Sydney's most populated areas rose by 34 per cent, while handgun homicide has grown from 13 to 50 per cent since Martin Bryant killed 35 people at the Port Arthur tourist site in Tasmania in April 1996.

Of the two countries, New Zealand has more permissive gun laws but there is little difference in Australia's rate of gun crime and injury.

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't ownership of assault guns, i.e. M-16, AK-47, Uzi, by a private citizen, already illegal in the US?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by c0rbin
I think you are dodging the question. I'll restate it.

Don't you think, in light of what I posted, that this nation should re-examine the meaning of the second amendment and its relationship to handguns or assault-rifles--again, given that the technology has gone far beyond what was available in 1792?

If not, why not?

Why not?

Because this man did NOT have a right to own a handgun, and it didn't stop him..

Because he was a convicted felon, Tapia was prohibited from owning a firearm. Investigators were trying to determine how he obtained the weapon used in Wednesday's shooting.

Explain how it makes sense to suggest, that denying this right to everyone, will reduce the criminal use of firearms.

[Tony]

Originally posted by c0rbin

Don't you think, in light of what I posted, that this nation should re-examine the meaning of the second amendment and its relationship to handguns or assault-rifles--again, given that the technology has gone far beyond what was available in 1792?


No

If not, why not?

The founders had the foresight to understand that technology would advance. If the 2nd amendment was myopic and referred to 18th century weapons, as you contend, it would say "..the right to keep and bear muskets..".

Why don’t we examine and address the root causes of violence?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Aren't brothels supposed to have some sort of security sys... oh, I just reread the thread title... Never Mind...

The ones around here have a locked gate and a camera. I assume they wouldn't open the gate for a gun weilding man.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Tony, it is my opinion that the technology of the time the 2nd Amendment was penned was such that it made sense, since a state militia was necessary in place of a national guard.


"Amendment II --

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 Militia was just the reason given for originally instituting the 2nd Amendment. It protects the right of the people, not just the "militia".

The second amendment is composed of two parts: the Justification clause, and the Rights clause.

Justification clause: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Rights clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."

"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

The Second Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right:

The Supreme Court has listed the Second Amendment in at least two rulings as an individual right. -- Dred Scott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood and U.S. v. Cruikshank

The Supreme court specifically reaffirmed that the right to keep and bear arms did not belong to the government. -- United States v. Miller

"We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not thay are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training".
"We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment."
"All of the evidence indicates that the 2nd Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans."
"The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard." -- U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

"62% of those likely voters sampled believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right, while only 28% believe it protects the power of the states to form militias." -- Associated Television News Survey, August 1999

"There are 23 state constitutions with "right to keep and bear arms" clauses adopted between the Revolution and 1845, and 20 of them are explicitly individual in nature, only 3 have "for the common defense...." or other "collective rights" clauses."
"Of 300 decisions of the federal and state courts that have taken a position on the meaning of the Second Amendment, or the state analogs to it, only 10 (3.3%) have claimed that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right. Many of the other decisions struck down gun control laws because they conflicted with the Second Amendment, such as State v. Nunn (Ga. 1846)." -- Clayton Cramer, historian, author of For the Defense of Themselves and the State_(Praeger Press, 1994), cited as an authority in USA v. Emerson (N.D. Texas 1999)

James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was "calculated to secure the personal rights of the people". -- Stephen P. Halbrook, "Where Kids and Gun Do Mix", Wall Street Journal, June 2000.

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respectingthe rights of property: nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people: or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. -- Tucker's Blackstone, Volume 1 Appendix Note D., 1803 - Tucker's comments provide a number of rare insights into the consensus for interpretation of the Constitution that prevailed shortly after its ratification, after the debates had settled down and the Constitution was put into practice

"The signification attributed to the term "Militia" appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." -- U.S. v. Miller -the Miller case specifically held that specific types of guns might be protected by the Second Amendment. It depended on whether a gun had any military (militia) use, and they wanted some evidence presented, confirming that citizens have a right to military style weapons.



Originally posted by c0rbin
In this country you do not have the right to kill another person.

Wrong. I can think of two instances.

1. Self Defense

2. The use of deadly force by law enforcement

[c0rbin]

Thanks to all. You make excellent cases.

Regarding the "right to kill someone." Is it still against the law? Don't these people face the exceptions in light of a judgment from the state or jury if they commit a murder (under any circumstance?).

Thanks again.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Tony, it is my opinion that the technology of the time the 2nd Amendment was penned was such that it made sense, since a state militia was necessary in place of a national guard.

Today's technology has created a need to re-examine this "right."

Imagine any of the mass killings that have taken place in the past 20 years...now imagine them with 18th century technology.
To supplement Kodiak's excellent post, here's what I said on a different thread: (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21585&highlight=amendment+question)
Back then the term militia meant any able-bodied male adult citizen. It seems to me that the Founding Fathers had two types of militia in mind.

From Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power:
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Later, in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
The above clearly define a militia organized for the defense of the nation.

Now, on to the famous 2nd Amendment:
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.

Now, the militia composed for national defense was clearly defined in the original constitution. The first 10 amendments (the "Bill of Rights") were ratified soon after to define the rights of individuals against the power of the government. It seems clear to me that the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment was a People's militia, there to protect against abuses by the government, as is every other amendment in the Bill of Rights. This is the only logical conclusion, IMHO, given it's context in the Constitution.

If you disagree, and think this amendment refers to the army/national guard, then what is it doing in the Bill of Rights? Especially when national defense had been thouroughly covered in the original Constitution.
Also, the Illinois Constitution has a virtually identical clause, and it was rewritten, I believe, in 1972.

[WildCat]

BTW, Chicago has had a ban on handguns since 1982. It's now the murder capital of the US.

The individual who shot up the warehouse had multiple felony convictions and a police record a mile long, and wouldn't have been able to legally buy a gun anywhere in the US. Such is the folly of gun control.

[The Fool]

Its really not a problem for me.... If Americans want to have their country awash with firearms that is their business. Its also their business to constantly reassure themselves that each time one of these tragedies occurs the massive number of freely available firearms had nothing to do with it....

[WildCat]

Originally posted by The Fool
Its really not a problem for me.... If Americans want to have their country awash with firearms that is their business. Its also their business to constantly reassure themselves that each time one of these tragedies occurs the massive number of freely available firearms had nothing to do with it....
And yet the US (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/viortrdtab.htm) violent crime rate is lower than Australia's. (http://www.aic.gov.au/) (Click on the "Evaluation in Crime and Justice: Trends and Methods" link, then under the The Australian Bureau of Statistics header (NOT the link) click on the "National Centre for Crime and Justice" link, then "the "Crime Statistics" link, finally the "Crime and Safety, Australia" link, complicated but I can't get the actual page to link correctly!)

From the above links
Crime Rates for 1998:

Rape: US - .09% Aus. - 1%

Assault: US - 3.1% Aus. - 17% (:eek: )

Robbery: US - .4% Aus. - 1%

Note the decimal places in front of the US Rape and Robbery stats.

But if Australians want to live in a land awash in violent crime, that's their business. ;)

Edited to correct link

[a_unique_person]

I can't find anything like those figures. You have also left out homicide, it is an interesting story.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I can't find anything like those figures. You have also left out homicide, it is an interesting story.
You have to follow the links as instructed, the actual page cannot be linked to as it keeps changing.
There's no info on homicide on that page.

[WildCat]

And now that I look more closely, the rape statistic I gave for Australia is probably incorrect. The term on the Australian web page is "sexual assault", probably includes but is not limited to rape. It doesn't seem probable that Australia's rape rate is 10 times that of the US.

[WildCat]

Interesting side note to the warehouse shooting, one of the co-owners was late to work (http://www.nbc5.com/news/2441579/detail.html) because of a traffic jam on the Eisenhower Expy. The traffic jam was caused by an accident in which 2 people were killed. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0308280260aug28,1,6125821.story?coll=chi-printmetro-hed) (registration required). This guy must have one hell of a guilt trip going on.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
I can't find anything like those figures. You have also left out homicide, it is an interesting story.
Neither can I.... If these figures are true Australia has become the most violent country in the world with daylight second and I didn't even notice??

Been raped lately A_U_P??? We must all be exhausted from raping and assaulting each other:roll:

[Zep]

Chance would be a fine thing!

[The Fool]

Originally posted by WildCat
And now that I look more closely, the rape statistic I gave for Australia is probably incorrect. The term on the Australian web page is "sexual assault", probably includes but is not limited to rape. It doesn't seem probable that Australia's rape rate is 10 times that of the US.

and it also seems that you are directly comparing figures with wildly different scales.....rates per 1000 population as compared to % of overall population etc and numerous other differences in methods and terminology....

you are not even trying to compare apples and oranges, at least they are both fruit..... this is apples and baseballs stuff.....

I think you had better write this one off and start again.....

[WildCat]

Originally posted by The Fool


and it also seems that you are directly comparing figures with wildly different scales.....rates per 1000 population as compared to % of overall population etc and numerous other differences in methods and terminology....

you are not even trying to compare apples and oranges, at least they are both fruit..... this is apples and baseballs stuff.....

I think you had better write this one off and start again.....
The rates were adjusted accordingly. It's quite simple to convert rate per 1000 (US crime statistics) to rate per 100 (Australian crime statistics). You simply move the decimal point over 1 place.

I combined the US rate for agravated and simple assault to match the Australian data, which did not differentiate between the two. I've already commented on the rape vs. sexual assault comparison.

And the figures are from the Australian gov't, not me!

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by WildCat
Interesting side note to the warehouse shooting, one of the co-owners was late to work (http://www.nbc5.com/news/2441579/detail.html) because of a traffic jam on the Eisenhower Expy. The traffic jam was caused by an accident in which 2 people were killed. (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0308280260aug28,1,6125821.story?coll=chi-printmetro-hed) (registration required). This guy must have one hell of a guilt trip going on.

You lost me here..... Why would he/should he feel guilty?

[CapelDodger]

Quoted by WildCat:
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Presumably any gun control enacted by Congress could be drafted as part of this "discipline prescribed by Congress". After all, the regular Army has regulations on the handling, storage and use of firearms and other weaponry. So gun control legislation passed by Congress would not be unconstitutional.

Quoted by Kodiak:
"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause.

Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis."

The First Amendment reads:
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
(Sorry about the caps, that's the way it came)

There is no justification clause, so of course it could not be denied on the same basis. That hardly takes a moment's thought. And you quote this jerk?

Given the example of the First Amendment - a lawyer's nightmare in its simplicity and directness - why not do the same with the Second? Try it:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Seems to work.

[Babylon Sister]

Originally posted by Diogenes


You lost me here..... Why would he/should he feel guilty?

Maybe survivor guilt. Very common in cases like this.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
There is no justification clause, so of course it could not be denied on the same basis. That hardly takes a moment's thought. And you quote this jerk?

To might want to learn to read better before to start throwing around the term "jerk"...

Originally posted by Kodiak
"The justification clause does not modify, restrict, or deny the rights clause."

"Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis." -- Eugene Volokh, Prof. Law, UCLA See http:/www.law.ucla.edu/faculty/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

Did you catch it the second time??

...many state constitutions...


"Jerk" indeed...

[CapelDodger]

From Kodiak:
Did you catch it the second time??
...many state constitutions...

To re-quote:
Justification clauses appear in many state constitutions, and cover liberties including right to trial, freedom of the press, free speech, and more. Denying gun rights based on the justification clause means we would have to deny free speech rights on the same basis
Free speech rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. State constitutions have nothing to do with it. This guy gives stunt logic a bad name.
"Jerk" indeed...
Indeed.

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
Free speech rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Not in dispute...

Many, if not all, of the States of the Union also guarantee free speech and many other rights. Quit obfuscating and address the point that the justification clause does not limit or modify the rights clause, and to try and do so would nullify many other rights, including free speech, guaranteed in many State constitutions.


Originally posted by CapelDodger
State constitutions have nothing to do with it.

Tell that to the states... :rolleyes:

[CapelDodger]

Kodiak:
How can you hold that the First Amendment guarantees free speech yet it can be taken away by the states? Unless I'm seriously misunderstanding the role of the Constitution.

Quit obfuscating and address the point that the justification clause does not limit or modify the rights clause
If you look back you'll notice that I was addressing the argument that was made. This was that allowing the justification clause to limit a right would have an effect on free speech, which is guaranteed by an amendment without a justification clause. It's just the old "Where will it end?" argument.

Why the states have their own subsidiary (as I understand it) freedom of speech clauses I don't know. It's understandable if they were written before the First Amendment, but I don't know if that's the case.

And why mention the militia at all?

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
How can you hold that the First Amendment guarantees free speech yet it can be taken away by the states?

Whoa! :eek:

We are really misunderstanding each other!

No one said the states can take away rights found in the US Constitution.

Eugene Volokh, in the quotes I cited, said that the Second Amendment of the US Constitution is not the only place justification clauses are found. They also exist in many State constitutions, and that to deny the right to bear arms based solely on the justification clause found in the US Constitution is to also deny many other rights guaranteed in those State constitutions that also include justification clauses.


Originally posted by CapelDodger
If you look back you'll notice that I was addressing the argument that was made. This was that allowing the justification clause to limit a right would have an effect on free speech, which is guaranteed by an amendment without a justification clause. It's just the old "Where will it end?" argument.

I hope what I've posted above clears up the point I was trying to make.

Originally posted by CapelDodger
And why mention the militia at all?

Many of the founding fathers believed that the Second Amendment should have been listed first, as it provides the means to protect and defend all the rest. They settled for second, but asked that this very justification be codified to guarantee this amendment's special importance. Who knew that it would only end up confusing so many?

[CapelDodger]

from Kodiak:
Many of the founding fathers believed that the Second Amendment should have been listed first, as it provides the means to protect and defend all the rest. They settled for second, but asked that this very justification be codified to guarantee this amendment's special importance. Who knew that it would only end up confusing so many?
I don't care what number's on the damn thing, why mention the militia? To guarantee the special importance of A2, you say. Now the justification is to be discarded as so much verbiage; presumably the special importance goes with it?

What exactly is the logic chain that leads from the mention of the militia to the special importance of the amendment? Why does mention of the militia stress the importance of the remainder?

[CapelDodger]

from Kodiak:
Many of the founding fathers believed that the Second Amendment should have been listed first, as it provides the means to protect and defend all the rest. They settled for second, but asked that this very justification be codified to guarantee this amendment's special importance. Who knew that it would only end up confusing so many?
I don't care what number's on the damn thing, why mention the militia? To guarantee the special importance of A2, you say. Now the justification is to be discarded as so much verbiage; presumably the special importance goes with it?

What exactly is the logic chain that leads from the mention of the militia to the special importance of the amendment? Why does mention of the militia stress the importance of the remainder?

[CapelDodger]

from Kodiak:
Many of the founding fathers believed that the Second Amendment should have been listed first, as it provides the means to protect and defend all the rest. They settled for second, but asked that this very justification be codified to guarantee this amendment's special importance. Who knew that it would only end up confusing so many?
I don't care what number's on the damn thing, why mention the militia? To guarantee the special importance of A2, you say. Now the justification is to be discarded as so much verbiage; presumably the special importance goes with it?

What exactly is the logic chain that leads from the mention of the militia to the special importance of the amendment? Why does mention of the militia stress the importance of the remainder?
I hope what I've posted above clears up the point I was trying to make.
And I hope I've made mine - that the threat to free speech has been thrown in to muddy the waters by Eugene V. Subsequently quoted by you but hey, we're all mortal.

[WildCat]

The gun used has an interesting history. (http://www.nbc5.com/news/2444346/detail.html?z=dp&dpswid=2265994&dppid=65195)
Chicago police department spokesman Pat Camden said the original owner of the semiautomatic pistol sold it in 1994 to a Chicago police officer who is now dead. The gun was later sold to another Chicago police officer who died last year.
Curiouser and curiouser...

[WildCat]

Well, now they arrested the original owner of the gun (http://abclocal.go.com/wls/news/083003_ns_gunbuyer.html) for not keeping proper records of the sale. Never mind that he sold it to a police officer! Or that he apparently was able to recall who he sold it to, since there was no trouble tracing the gun. Or that they still don't know who sold the gun to the shooter, although there's circumstantial evidence that it was either the 2nd police officer who bought it or his family (the officer has since died). Can't blame the police, so just make this guy the scapegoat.