See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: ONE GUN TOO FEW
Source:
NewsWithViews
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 20, 2007
Author: Edwin Vieira
Post Date: 2007-04-20 19:19:58 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 190
Comments: 16
What the Washington Times of Tuesday, 17 April, aptly headlined as the “Massacre at Virginia Tech” is a tragedy that should—that must—teach this country a number of serious lessons. First, that all so-called “gun-free zones” are exceedingly dangerous places. For all “gun-free zones” amount to “self-defense prohibition zones” for honest citizens, and therefore “free-fire zones” for psychopaths, “terrorists,” and other homicidal criminals. If common sense did not, certainly the experiences documented by researchers such as John Lott confirm that the less “gun free” an area is (in terms of firearms in the immediate possession of honest citizens ready and willing to use them), the less violent crime occurs there. Virginia Tech has long been a “gun-free zone” for the purposes of its students’ self-defense. In the name of preventing violence, the university has prohibited every student with a Virginia license to carry a concealed firearm from doing so on campus. Surely debatable is whether such a regulation is even legal—given that such a license is a Virginia statutory right of any individual who qualifies for it (and, I should argue, a constitutional right as well) that no mere administrative body has any authority to deny. Beyond dispute is that events have written in blood just how disastrously that idea worked on Monday, 16 April 2007: Apparently everyone among the student body obeyed the edict, except the killer. The regulation perhaps disarmed students who might otherwise have legally been carrying a firearm with which they could have stopped the killer in his tracks. And the police, who were armed and on the campus, proved ineffective, because they were not on the scene. This points up the second lesson—that police, even when they happen to be close at hand, cannot possibly protect Americans against unexpected homicidal attacks by psychopaths or “terrorists” determined to carry out their plans even if it costs them their own lives. The first fatal incident at Virginia Tech occurred at about 7:15 a.m. Campus police responded, and found a man and a woman shot in a dormitory (West Ambler Johnston Hall). Although the police “locked down” the dormitory, the first incident apparently did not raise any suspicions or concerns about the possibility of further shootings. And it caused no heightened level of general security to be invoked elsewhere on the campus, the only action taken by university officials being an e-mail vaguely informing students that a “shooting incident” had occurred (Washington Times, p. A12). About two hours later, around 9:15 a.m. (according to USA Today, p. 6A) or 9:45 a.m. (according to the Washington Post, p. A1), the killer began methodically shooting people in another building some half-mile across the campus (Norris Hall). And the police could do—or at least did—nothing to stop him. (Eventually, he stopped himself, by committing suicide.) To be sure, it is virtually impossible to “lock down” an entire university the size of Virginia Tech at a moment’s notice. And such a course of action would be especially difficult to justify as a response to what reasonably appears to be an isolated incident in only one building. But what else could the police have done, other than (as they did) to arrive only after the fact to succor the wounded and otherwise survey the carnage in Norris Hall? The third lesson arising out of the events at Virginia Tech will be taught in the very near future: that, in reaction to the rather convincing proof of their own ineffectiveness against a sudden outburst of homicidal violence, university and police bureaucracies—and, inevitably, politicians and special-interest groups, too—will seek to impose ever-more-intrusive police-state controls on colleges and universities, if not all of society, in the name of “safety.” As the Establishment media crank up their disinformation apparatus, Americans can expect to be bombarded with hysterical demands for: more campus police—but never enough to prevent the homicides that will inevitably occur just beyond their presence; surveillance cameras and other 1984ish gadgetry—effective perhaps to record the killings, but never to stop them; reliance on high-tech student ID cards—which a demented assassin or “terrorist” plant who is also a student will of course have; and the ever-flowing political snake oil of general “gun control” to disarm everyone—except the “terrorists,” psychopaths, and common murderers who will obey no “gun bans” in any event. Unfortunately, but predictably, all too many Americans will not notice the illogic of these demands. The authorities at Virginia Tech failed to provide safety with the rather extensive powers they already had. Yet, according to “safety-at-any-cost” school of thought, society must now acquiesce in public officials’ and bureaucrats’ assertion of even more power, trusting them to use the added increment wisely—but never asking whether the reason they proved unsuccessful in the first place was not the insufficiency of the powers they had, but their refusal, neglect, or failure to employ those powers properly. For, in that case, the very last thing they should be given is any additional, potentially highly abusive power to misuse. The fourth lesson from Virginia Tech is that one obvious (albeit only partial) alternative to a police-state solution for campus security would be to allow holders of Virginia permits to carry concealed firearms on campus. This would bring into play the only type of “gun control” that Americans should tolerate, and the only type of “gun control” that might have saved some lives in Norris Hall: an honest citizen’s sharp eye and steady hand in the defense of himself, his family, and his friends. Perhaps some student who could legally have carried a concealed firearm and used it to stop the killing, but in compliance with the university’s regulation did not, will come forward to explain why there was one gun too few at Virginia Tech. Should that turn out to be the case, God help the administrators who adopted such a misguided policy. But even if it does not, the possibility should be precluded in the future, by rescinding such policies—at Virginia Tech and in every other institution of higher learning throughout Virginia and every other State. The fifth lesson is that, although to a significant degree necessary, reliance on holders of permits to carry concealed firearms will probably not be sufficient to provide adequate security for college students, let alone for the general public throughout society, in an era in which homicidal (often coupled with suicidal) violence has increasingly become the tactic of choice to resolve complex personal as well as political problems. Inasmuch as a holder of a Virginia permit to carry a concealed firearm must be at least 21 years of age, whereas many college students range in age from only 18 to 20; and inasmuch as not everyone qualified by age will seek a permit; and inasmuch as even those who do obtain a permit may not carry their firearms regularly—the pool of students actually armed on campus will be far smaller than the population of the university as a whole. Moreover, the university community cannot, in justice or reason, expect holders of concealed-carry permits to assume the primary responsibility for protecting their fellow students, faculty, and staff whenever and wherever the police do not. Especially because, outside of the privilege of self-defense, they have no particular legal authority to do so, and enjoy no clear-cut legal immunity from civil or criminal charges—perhaps specious, but nonetheless necessitous of litigation— if circumstances compel them to use deadly force against aggressors. More is required. But what? The sixth lesson from the Virginia Tech tragedy is that Virginians—indeed, Americans in every State—cannot expect the present gaggle of public officials and politicians to answer this question on their own initiatives and by their own lights. Again and again these people have proven themselves clueless, feckless, and reckless with regard to what constitutes true “homeland security” and how to achieve it. According to the Washington Times, authorities at Virginia Tech decided not to cancel classes after the first homicidal event (in which two people were fatally shot), because they imagined that they were investigating only an isolated incident (page A1). Even if that story truly accounted for their behavior, though, it did not explain why they had never designed, let alone put into operation, a plan to protect against, thwart, or even respond in a timely manner to the type of rampage that took place some two hours later on the same campus. Instead, the Washington Times reported Virginia Tech President Charles W. Steger as saying that “[i]t’s one of those things that no one anticipated.” Yet any competent plan for security in these times of possible “terrorist” attacks should anticipate “the lone gunman,” “the suicide bomber,” or other homicidal fanatic or lunatic, intent for malign personal, political, or delusional reasons on killing large numbers of innocent people in schools, malls, sports stadia, or other crowded public facilities and places, even at the cost of his own life. The university administration having provided no alternative, what could students do, other than to hit the floor; to hold their classroom doors shut, desperately trying to prevent the killer from entering; to jump out of windows—or to be shot? (See the Washington Post, Monday, 16 April 2007, pp. A1, A9.) Given this rather appalling situation, perhaps Virginia’s Governor Timothy M. Kaine was not amiss to declare a “state of emergency” throughout the Commonwealth, as the Washington Times reported (p. A13). But he may have overlooked the real “state of emergency” in Virginia (and, most likely, in every other State in the Union)—that positions of leadership are all too often filled by people who refuse to read and heed the document that they all swear to support as a condition precedent to assuming their offices: the Constitution of the United States. Which brings this commentary to the seventh and last lesson from Virginia Tech—for those with the wit to see it and the will to do something about it. Namely, that the Constitution supplies the most satisfactory answer to the problem, in the Second 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.” As the Amendment makes clear—indeed, as the Amendment requires every American to accept, as a matter of constitutional law—“[a] well regulated Militia” is not simply “a good idea,” or “a suggestion,” or something that “ought to be considered,” but nonetheless remains “controversial” or “debatable.” Neither is it an anachronism. Rather, it is necessary, right now, for a very specific purpose of a very special kind: “the security of a free State.” The Second Amendment forecloses any quibbling on that subject. For, aside from the Preamble, the Second Amendment is the only provision of the Constitution that sets out a reason for the right it guarantees (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”) and the disability it imposes on public officials (“shall not be infringed”)—which highlights the importance, and the imperative nature, of the Amendment’s Militia clause. In each State, constitutional Militia are to be composed of all able-bodied men and women, from 16 to 60 years of age, who are to be armed, trained, and ready to assume certain duties to provide the ultimate form of “homeland security,” by wielding the Power of the Sword in their local communities. This requirement does not stop at the schoolhouse door. As the lamentable incident at Virginia Tech emphasizes, it cannot be allowed to stop there. A university the size of Virginia Tech is a community unto itself, and requires a system of security tailored to its peculiar circumstances and requirements. As even the university’s President Steger recognized: It’s very difficult. This is an open society and an open campus with 26,000 people, and we can’t have armed guards in front of every classroom every day of the year. * * * It was one of those things no one anticipated. * * * Honestly, every situation we face is different. (Washington Post, p. A9.) But flexibility in adapting to local conditions and “different” situations would be one of the Militia’s greatest strengths. So any well-drafted Virginia Militia statute would provide for special Militia units to be formed among faculty and students at Virginia Tech (as well as in every major institution of higher learning throughout the Commonwealth). As most students would be 18 years of age or older, they would already have served two years in the Militia in Virginia or in the Militia of such of their home States as had revitalized those institutions. And they all would be required to continue with their Militia training and service while at school, being encouraged as part of that obligation to take advanced instruction in “homeland security”. Indeed, an institution such as Virginia Tech could assume national leadership in this critical area, by developing an entire curriculum of Militia Science, specializing (say) in the myriad problems of “homeland security” arising in schools, malls, and other public and quasi-public facilities. A university Militia in any major institution could easily supply far more security forces than any economically feasible police department. If, out of its 26,000 students, Virginia Tech mobilized only as few as ten percent on a regular, rotational basis, it could deploy 2,600 Militiamen (and women) overall. It is difficult to imagine that this would not provide more than enough people to patrol the campus intensively at all times, to report to a central Militia headquarters every dangerous or even suspicious situation that arose, and (if there had been any adequate planning and training at all) to provide numerous and competent “first responders” to deal with that situation effectively. For example, if just a few Militiamen had been assigned simply to monitor each of the buildings on Virginia Tech’s campus the other day, and some of them had been properly armed and trained, could the killer (as has been reported) even have started to chain the doors to Norris Hall shut without being immediately observed, accosted, and restrained (if not immobilized in a more permanent fashion)? I have already written a great deal about the need to revitalize “the Militia of the several States” and how to go about it—in many of my commentaries for http://NewsWithViews.com and in my latest book, Constitutional “Homeland Security.” Nonetheless, believing as I do that no man can expect to be recognized as a prophet in his own country no matter how self-evidently true his pronouncements, I do not anticipate being called by Governor Kaine to head a “homeland-security” task force to revitalize the Militia in Virginia; or by any Virginia Legislators to testify before the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety on the necessity and methodology for revitalizing the Militia of Virginia; or by Virginia Tech’s President Steger to advise him on how to promote and then structure a Militia unit in his institution. (Of course, stranger things have happened, although never to me.) But somebody should begin thinking and planning and doing something along these lines, before the next tragedy strikes. That, indeed, will probably be the only way to prevent it. For obvious reasons, Virginia should take the lead in this endeavor. But if not Virginia, then perhaps New Hampshire, Vermont, or Montana. What about your State? Will the horrendous events at Virginia Tech shock and shame the people and political figures where you live into realizing that everyone’s “homeland security” depends upon putting aside “politics as usual,” and instead revitalizing the Militia on constitutional principles as soon as practicable? Will you bring this issue to the attention of your State legislators, community leaders, and responsible persons in the media—and press for action? To everyone who empathizes with his fellow man, the deaths at Virginia Tech were, in human terms, devastating and senseless. But God writes straight with crooked lines. So, in the Providential scheme of things, they must not be without purpose and result. If what happened there finally convinces Americans that they themselves need to take personal responsibility for the defense of their own communities, and compels them to do it, then those who died will have died tragically, but not in vain.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Jethro Tull (#0)
here's one for you to post on the PSU board.
Excellent. Is there a link? I'd like to shove this up their little PC'd asses.
http://www.newswithviews. com/Vieira/edwin53.htm
BREAKING THE LAW. I do every day. I let my CHP expire out of prinicpal and I carry anyway. Fuck em. Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. It is time for all good men to break the law and excercise their Freedoms as a massive group. They can not arrest everyone. It is time for the sheople to say "ENOUGH!" and take it to the streets.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition me too
University Wire
25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA' Crime rate plummeted after law required firearms for residents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kennesaw, Ga., City Hall As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms. In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender. The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law. Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. (Story continues below) By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000. This was not what some predicted. In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show. Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre. Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta. The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer." Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so- called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible. Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.
PSU board?
#2. To: A Well regulated militia BUMP (#0)
#3. To: christine (#1)
#4. To: Jethro Tull (#3)
#5. To: christine (#0)
(Edited)
More is required. But what?
#6. To: IndieTX (#5)
I let my CHP expire out of prinicpal and I carry anyway
#7. To: christine, Virginia Tech President Charles W. Steger (#0)
Instead, the Washington Times reported Virginia Tech President Charles W. Steger as saying that “[i]t’s one of those things that no one anticipated.”
02-14-2003
(Cavalier Daily) (U-WIRE) CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. -- The FBI warned in a congressional statement Feb. 11 that colleges and universities could be targeted in a terrorist attack.
FBI Spokesperson Paul Bresson said universities, like supermarkets and shopping malls, are considered "soft targets" -- places where attacks seem less likely than at high profile monuments and government buildings. Security is lower at these locations, so the FBI has expressed concern that terrorists might try to target them.
The location of an attack "is not necessarily the U.S. Capitol building; it's not the symbolization of something that represents America on its face," Bresson said. Soft targets are an "everyday slice of Americana."
The FBI has no specific evidence that universities are being targeted, he added. Officials based the warning on the nature of overseas terrorist attacks in recent months.
"The types of recent, smaller-scale operations al Queda has directed and aided against a wide array of Western targets -- such as in Mombassa, Bali and Kuwait and against the French oil tanker off Yemen -- could readily be reproduced in the U.S.," said FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III in his statement.
Although colleges and universities are named as "soft targets," terrorists have made no direct threats against them, Bresson said.
"There's no intelligence to date to suggest that any attack against a university or college is imminent or even likely," he added.
University of Virginia officials said they are responding to the FBI's statement and the Feb. 7 heightened terrorist alert with increased security.
"We have ratcheted up our security efforts to a greater scale," University Deputy Police Chief Michael Coleman said. He added that students should expect increased visibility of officers and more frequent bag checks on Grounds.
The University, in partnership with Charlottesville and Albemarle County, established a regional response plan long before Sept. 11, 2001, to deal with any type of disaster. Officials role-play an emergency situation once a year.
"We do have a plan in place and our students are our number one concern," University Spokeswoman Carol Wood said.
Many area police officers are trained to respond to terrorism, as well.
"One of the things that's unique about this region is that, as far as we know, we are the only university that is part of a regional plan," Coleman said. "We are one of the best-prepared areas in the United States."
Coleman and Wood encouraged students to stay alert and informed.
"We are asking people to take this seriously and to be on alert and to be aware," Wood said. "If you heighten awareness it helps people discover problems."
Coleman added students should watch out for "suspicious circumstances or things that don't look right to you."
The University posted an emergency and critical incident Web site on Wednesday that will continue to be updated with information on crises, from a terrorist attack to a situation similar to when cars in the Venable neighborhood were covered in soot last month.
Officials currently are not proposing that individuals take specific measures to prepare for an emergency, but they do advise considering Red Cross recommendations such as deciding on a contact point outside of Charlottesville, Va., and stockpiling emergency supplies.
"Do what seems smart, what seems appropriate, what seems right for those of us living here in Charlottesville," Wood said.
#8. To: Jethro Tull, CAPPSMADNESS, ALL, 25 years murder-free in Gun Town USA Kennesaw Georgia (#7)
#9. To: christine, Jethro Tull (#1)
here's one for you to post on the PSU board.
A new truth movement friendly digg type site: Zlonk it!
#10. To: Critter (#9)
I've been arguing w/the little PSU wankers. I go there to read fotball news, but the little PC bastards are hopelessly lost re; VTech. I'd refuse to pay for their education if they were my kid.
#11. To: Jethro Tull. christine. all (#10)
Excellent thread - thanks.
#12. To: Critter (#9)
Penn State University, I believe...
PSU board?
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#13. To: christine (#6)
me too Cool!
I let my CHP expire out of prinicpal and I carry anyway
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
#14. To: christine (#6)
"me too" I got your backs. I am looking forward to standing in front of a jury, explaining how my rights were "infringed" when arrested and how juries have the right to judge the facts and the law itself. Even a guilty verdict is a win for me... if you know what I mean. "Your honor, members of the jury, a crazed Virginia Tech type murderer may come into this room and kill twenty or thirty-two of us at any moment. Each one of us have the right and moral oblligation to prevent that from happening. Whether we use our wits, or fists or weapons is of no business of the law. We have the right to defend ourselves from those who would do us harm. It could even be argued that the law itelf that brought you and me to this courtroom today is doing us harm. You, the jury, can nullify this law and send me home a free man while sending a message to other free men that some juries know the difference between right and wrong. There is something very right about freeing a man who has done no wrong."
"I let my CHP expire out of prinicpal and I carry anyway"
............
Just a reminder... giving away FREEDOM TO FASCISM dvd's is a wonderful way to help Ron Paul.
Note: All my DVD's now contain two videos. And, I have nicer labels now.
#15. To: All (#14)
"Furthermore, your honor and members of the jury, look around and you will see armed officers of the court. Why may they carry a weapon for protection yet, you and I can be arrested for doing the same? Why is their safety more important than yours or mine? Why do our employees, and I mean community servants and elected officials, have more rights than we do? Who are the servants and who are the masters in this room? Shall those we hire tell us what we may or may not use to protect ourselves?
............
Just a reminder... giving away FREEDOM TO FASCISM dvd's is a wonderful way to help Ron Paul.
Note: All my DVD's now contain two videos. And, I have nicer labels now.
#16. To: christine (#8)
Thanks for that info - I am trying to get the daughter past her fear of guns in order to get her into a shooting class. The child is so very timid - I swear she has absolutely NONE of my genetic material in her!!!
=0)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest