An American tragedy

The universities throughout America should have classes in the use of arms for self defense. When the students have passed their training they should be allowed to carry arms for their own safety.

Those universities who choose not to do this should at least have armed guards in their dorms and classrooms. It is just like 9/11 demanding airlines to ban arms on their passengers and we are playing into the arms of liberals who believe only our government should be armed. Wake up!

Things are changing in America. Our citizens and our students are filled with rage over the decisions being made by our government. Don’t kid yourself that Bush is against gun control. Read the Patriots bills where he shows that we can be disarmed when the White House feels is it necessary.

We must stop drugging our kids with Prozac and Ritalin as it changes the chemistry in their brains.

Many articles have been written on this subject but when a massacre like this one and Columbine happen, look a little deeper into the drugs given to the murderers. The combinations of these drugs and the video games and television/movies shown, have added a new dimension to their violence development.

Why do we allow our children to be dragged into the society of hatred and rage? When their brains have been drugged, their self esteem and decision making is wiped out.

The average American child today in America spends thousands of hours in front of the television and then introduced to violent video games. These will do no harm if that child has been properly given guidance in respecting others and that must be done with a clean brain and done in the family home.

Our kids who attend universities at this time are sitting ducks and it is up to the Universities to allow them to protect themselves from anything that comes their way. But in America the people will whine and demand gun control and expect the people to obey the law. Sure like they quit doing drugs and got out of their street gangs.

The government cannot teach character building and neither can the television. We are breeding a generation of rage and anger.


  1. SammyG

    Madisons original words which he wanted inserted in the main body of the Constitution were “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

    The wording went through at least 5 changes by committee before the current wording was selected and they were added as an amendment rather than Madison’s suggestion of inserting them in to the main body.

  2. AustinRanter

    (I just posted this in RR, sorry for repeating it, but this article really reminded me of why I felt it important to post it)

    Snipe hunting

    When I was a kid about 7 or 8 years old, my grandpa took me snipe hunting. He took me out to a dark isolated area, armed me with a deadly B-B gun and a flashlight and told me to sit and wait for the snipe to walk by and blast away.

    Well…there were two problems for me. Firstly, I had no clue what a snipe was or even looked like and secondly I didn’t have a taste for killing anything, not even an ant if I didn’t have to. I tried to ask my grandpa what a snipe looked like, but he ignored me and just left me sitting there in the dark. I just did what my grandpa said to do…even though I had decided that if a snipe walked right up to me, I’d just scare it away and say I shot and missed.

    Hours later my grandpa came back and woke me up from my hard night of hunting. He asked me if I shot a snipe and I said, “No, I don’t even know what one looks like.” My grandpa said, “Snipes come in a lot of forms and shapes, you’ll know one when you see it…your life depends on whether or not you know when to shoot.

    I hope I never have to come face-to-face with a snipe…but if I do, well…”I hope I have a choice” to take the appropriate action, if it means my life or death.

    Moral to My Story…

    I’ve discovered that when I don’t make choices and decision for myself…others will. I don’t want it to be the government or an outraged mob who is going through a knee jerk reaction to a crisis and has decided to make a national movement out of it.

    Thanks again Sandy…

  3. Thomas Bonsell

    The Militia Act of 1903 organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system, so the old state militias are the present national guards. Got it?

    The Fifth Amendment, that prevents confiscation of property without “due process of law” also states that government can take private property with “just compensation.” Got it?

    I never said the 2nd Amendment grants anything. I said the phrase “well regulated militia” refers us back to the main body of the Constitution that says Congress arms the militias. The phrase “right of the people” indicates a community right, not an individual right; that would have said “no person’s right to keep and bear arms.” The 2nd Amendment prevents states from outlawing guns, because of the need for militias in a time there was no professional standing federal army; once again Congress power of arming the militias. Got it?

    Don’t take a quote made before or during the Revolution to claim they define the 2nd Amendment. That amendment is defined by what it says, but you have to be able to understand it. Got it?

    The goal of “anti-gun organizations” is to keep guns out of the hands of crazed individuals who will go on a rampage and kill dozens of people at a time. Those organizations are not “anti-gun”, they are “anti-maniacs with guns”. Got it?

    All this may be too difficult for a gundamentalist to understand.

  4. issodhos

    The aptly named “Dick Act” of 1903 did indeed transfer authority over the ORGANIZED militia from the states to the Federal government. The UNORGANIZED militia remained as defined in current US Code: (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. “

    You falsely claimed that the US government could not confiscate firearms because they are property and fall under the protection of the 5th amendment. I pointed out a couple of examples (gold and eminent domain) that contradicted your claim. I could have also included the government decision in 1913 to confiscate a portion of a wage earner’s property by taxing his and her income. Even more evident that the government can confiscate property is its taking of one’s person in the form of involuntary servitude (a.k.a. conscription or draft). Is there any property more sacred to a person than his own body? Catching on?;-)

    And again, I reiterate, the 2nd amendment recognizes a pre-existing right, granting nothing. You claim that it was meant to prevent the states from banning firearms. This turns history on its head. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drawn up and ratified by the states to create a federal government and to limit its authority and powers. In other words, the federal government is a creation of the states, so it is not the federal government that is restricting the states from disarming the citizenry – it is the states restricting the federal government from doing so. Catching on?

    As to your attempt to present “the people” as being some sort of collective rather than individuals – good luck with that one. The wording would have been something like “the arming of the militia shall not be infringed”. Instead it speak of the “right”. Collectives do not have “rights”. They have privileges, powers, license, and authority, but only individuals have “rights”.;-)

    If you want to try to make your case, do so in the GUN forum in the ReadersRand forum, because this article will not be here much longer.

    By the way, point number 5 still stands: 5. The goal of anti-gun organizations is to severely limit or eliminate the right to private ownership and use of firearms by their neighbors. Nothing less. I guess it is only fair to acknowledge that most of them cannot help themselves. It is very difficult for some, especially goal-oriented and aging ’60’s New Left influenced modern ‘liberals’, to control their inner fascist when they see a way of using the government bayonet to force their neighbors to give up a right that has long been enjoyed by themselves and their ancestors. So, don’t give me this “crap” about wanting to just have a little bit more’ reasonable’ gun control over what we already have.;-)

  5. April-May

    Sociologists have been warning about “anomie” for decades. That’s the depersonalizing miasma of an over-crowded, anonymous social milieu.

    Do you know the name of your neighbor across the stret? Do you know the name of your neighbor’s children?

    Do you know the name of the person who checks you out at the grocery? Do they know who you are?

    “Anomie” — literally French for “without a name.”

    Not only can I cash a check locally without any ID, if for some crazy reason I got into town and forgot my wallet . . . I can get what I need, get it home, and pay the tab next time I’m in town. Jim, the Sheriff is not concerned that I forgot my wallet and don’t have a license . . . Hell . . . Jim and I take turns whippin’ each other at the skeet shoot every Sunday. He knows I’m legal to drive.

    Fred knows me. So does Cheryl, Margo, Wayne, Tammy, Glenn, Bob . . . Feed story, grocery, hardware, John Deere . . .

    The “American Tragedy” is that we’ve become disconnected from the things that support life. I have dirt, pastures. There is livestock in the pastures around me. Not a lot of asphalt, no billboards, no malls, no traffic. It’s deer, elk, eagles, grass, sun, wind, the ocean.

    The kids like to fish off the bridge down at the end of the road here. I know who they are. They know me.

    We’ve lost that in America.

    There’s the tragedy.

  6. Sandy Price

    I’m 74 years old and grew up in a small beach village in California called Santa Monica. I was the third generation to be born and raised there. We all knew each other because we shared the fear of WW2 and the San Andreas Fault. We set up safe homes long before it became popular. None of our homes were ever locked and the children knew which would welcome them during a crisis.

    Over population destroyed my village and brought in too many people who had no respect for what our village was all about. I simply moved up the coast 200 miles and found another village. That too was taken over by people who put bars on their windows and alarm systems on their cars and businesses.

    California has alway been known as an open and friendly place to live and now it is designated as a hole of hell catering to drug addicts and homosexuals.

    Even on the internet the religious right spend many hours and words insulting the state they probabaly can’t even find on a map.

    Americans need to be armed. Our neighbors are not here to live but to make money on real estate. They want their anonymity as they want no roots to be set in anyplace they live.

    America is going to need another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor to wake us up that we are a nation of free people. We need our teams of people we can trust. The lack of these teams is the tragedy.

  7. Thomas Bonsell

    You state that “The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were drawn up and ratified by the states to create a federal government and to limit its authority and powers. In other words, the federal government is a creation of the states,”

    Totally false.

    John Marshal, the driving force behind ratification of the Constitution in Virginia stated in 1918, when he was Chief Justice, that your argument is false. He and the other Founders maintained that the Constitution and the federal government were created by the people, not the states. Try reading the preamble of the Constitution, then try wading through the McCulloch v Maryland decision.

    I expended considerable time, effort and money in the graduate school at one of America’s finest universities to become one of the top constitutional “experts” of American journalism. Please don’t insult my intelligence by claiming your uneducated opinion is equal or superior, to my knowledge.

  8. Thomas Bonsell

    You stated:

    “I could have also included the government decision in 1913 to confiscate a portion of a wage earner’s property by taxing his and her income. Even more evident that the government can confiscate property is its taking of one’s person in the form of involuntary servitude (a.k.a. conscription or draft). Is there any property more sacred to a person than his own body?”

    Taxing to provided for the defense and general welfare of this great nation is not “confiscation of property.” In fact, when the Founders got around to listing specific powers of government in Article I, Section 8, paragraph 1, the first power they listed was “Taxation.”

    Of course the 13th Amendment outlaws involuntary servitude (military draft) but try reading the 1918 SCOTUS decision of Schenck v. United States in which Oliver Wendell Holmes said that the government must be able to do some things in time of war that would be unconstitutional in other times, because of the “clear and present danger” that the nation could be destroyed by the enemy if it didn’t.

    If you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t talk.

  9. issodhos

    Thank you for proving my point for me, Thomas. The government can indeed confiscate to its heart’s content. Your claim that it cannot confiscate firearms because they are property is demolished by your own hand.;-)

  10. issodhos

    The Constitution was drawn up by state delegations and submitted to the people of the several states for ratification through convention. In other words, and for example, the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia through convention voted to accept the Constitution. Unless you are arguing that Virginians are not the Commonwealth of Virginia, it is safe to say Virginia ratified the US Constitution. When enough States did so, working agreements between the states ceased to have validity (exempli gratia, the Articles of Confederation).

    Perhaps you should speak with “one of America’s finest universities” about a refund.;-)

  11. Sandy Price

    I will stay out of this and leave it to the gentlemen to clear it up. Slowly backing away! (sound of tip toes)

  12. Thomas Bonsell

    You are no fun anymore because you know nothing of which you speak.

    Taking private property through condemnation for GOVERNMENT USE is not confiscation. If government buys weapons from Americans through condemnation, they must be for government use, not for destruction. Buy a dictionary.

    The Constitution was not drawn up by state delegations, it was drawn up by a federal constitutional convention manned by representatives sent by the people. When it was ratified, it was ratified by conventions of representatives chosen by the people. Thus it was ratified by Virginians, not Virginia, by New Yorkers, not New York.

    It is frightening that you claim to know more about the creation of the Constitution than did the men who actually created it. It is obvious from your statements that you have never put butt into a chair in a constitutional law class.

  13. AustinRanter


    You said, “The government cannot teach character building and neither can the television. We are breeding a generation of rage and anger.”

    I so agree, but I would like to say that while many are claiming video games, TV, and movies are driving our children to become desensitized to violence and become rage-aholics and candidates for anger management classes, in the last few years, the annual FBI reports are making claim that violent crimes across the nation like murder are on the decline in all age ranges.

    Is it possible that these games, tv, and movies…might reduce anger and need to act out in a violent manner? In other words the desensitation process is actually doing the opposite of what current theories postulate?

    I’m not at all advocating that any child is allowed to endulge in all of these activities for endless hours….but I am suggesting that not all of the data is in as it relates to the correlation of violent behaviors by a statistically significant number of our youth.

    I just think we need to be careful at quickly making assumptions about the cause of juvenile violence.

    I think, and will always think that it’s because of the basic nature by which our society has evolved. In other words…parents are failing way short of meeting the needs of their kid’s foundation in morals, values, and traditions. Parents today, for the most part, are struggling to muddle through a world that now thrives on consumerism…which in turn makes stringent time demands on adults…who just happen to be parents.

    I like to state to all that anything and everything I voice opinion on…”COULD BE COMPLETELY WRONG”.

    Sandy, thanks again for another mind challenging article.

  14. Sandy Price

    My opinions also may be dead in the water wrong. I have not had television in my home when my kids lived there and certainly no video games as my kids are old and more into reading than playing games. As a family we did a lot of animal rescue work and then as they grew older it was with the Red Cross. We helped save people not maim them. I felt that no one would read let alone agree with my morning commentary. Thank you for taking the time to do so.

    I read your Kinky Friedman quote on RR and loved it. I just think he is so neat!

  15. neondog

    And just who do you recommend gets shot when the police show up on campus looking for a gunman. The black guy saggin with his hat askew, the hispanic in the wife beater shirt, how about the cowgirl or the fella in the Tommy Hilfiger shirt. If you’re the student how do you decide?
    Allowing students to arm themselves is not a solution, it is ammo conversatives use to take shots (blank shots) at liberals. So much for finding common sense and common ground from Sandy Price.

    As long as we strip common sense from the laws that govern how guns are sold and purchased we will always lose. It took 20 minutes for a kid with recently documented psychological problems,including stalking, to purchase two hand-guns. Part of any solution has to be common sense gun laws.

  16. Sandy Price

    That my friend, is common sense. Gun laws allow government to take over common sense. I remember Hitler disarming his citizens and Mussolini doing the same thing. Our founders wrote the 2nd Amendment to guarantee that this could never be done in America. That is where America gets its freedoms and commmon sense.

    The solution comes from the individual families who must raise their children to love and respect all others living on this planet.

    It is amusing that most people who reply to me call me a dirty liberal for my desire for individual freedoms and now I’m an “ammo conservative?” I’m an American sir, and a devotee of individual freedoms.

    Patrick Henry is my idol and always will be.

  17. neondog

    Even you must know that there have always been gun laws on the books, even in 1776.

    Your comments that the government is going to take away weapons from all citizens is the ultimate strawman in this case. It may be a valid point when it comes to the Patriot Act but using such an argument in regards to my point of selling a gun to the mentally unbalanced is downright ludicrous.

  18. Thomas Bonsell

    To say the answers to our gun-violence problem is more guns is like saying the road to good mental health is more insanity. Won’t work.

    And it is obvious that Americans have no idea why we have a Second Amendment. Here’s what the man who wrote that amendment, James Madison, had to say about it:

    “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.”

    That’s it. The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to provide for national defense, and for no other reason. It wasn’t there so the people could rise up in rebellion against a future tyrannical national government, as righties falsely claim, and it wasn’t included for self-protection or for shooting birds and lawyers in Texas. Those are just side benefits of an armed society. The reference to a “well regulated militia” refers us back to Article I, Section 8, paragraph 16, that says Congress has power to arm the militias, now renamed National Guard.

    And this crap about liberals wanting to disarm everyone or confiscate all weapons is likewise idiotic. Here’s why: The Fifth Amendment says that no one can be deprived of “life, liberty or property “without due process of law.” A firearm is property. If gundamentalists could read competently, they would see that “due process” involves indictment, trial, conviction and punishment. That means no gun confiscation is constitutionally possible unless someone has been convicted of a crime and surrendering of a gun is part of the punishment.

    Had Congress done its job in years past and required gun ownership to be related to militia-National Guard obligations, someone as mentally unstable as the Virginia Tech murderer would never have had the guns. That’s the answer.

  19. Pennville Bill

    Department of Justice: Second Amendment Is Individual Right
    Jeff Johnson,
    Tuesday, Dec. 21, 2004

    The U.S. Department of Justice has declared that the Second Amendment explicitly recognizes the right of individual Americans to own and carry firearms. Gun rights advocates call the statement a “good first step” but cautioned that it is not the end of the gun control debate.

    The “Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General” released on the Internet last week is titled “Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right.”

    The 103-page report, with 437 footnotes, concluded that “the Second Amendment secures a personal right of individuals, not a collective right that may only be invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to those persons who serve in organized militia units.”

    That conclusion is based, according to the authors, “on the Amendment’s text, as commonly understood at the time of its adoption and interpreted in light of other provisions of the Constitution and the Amendment’s historical antecedents.”

    The Aug. 24 memorandum stated that it did not consider the “substance” of the individual right to own and carry firearms or the legitimacy of government attempts to limit the right. The document also declared that the authors were not calling into question the constitutionality of any particular limitations on owning, carrying or using firearms.

    Joe Waldron, executive of Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), told Cybercast News Service that the memorandum was “a good start, a good first step.”

    “What this does,” Waldron explained, “is it puts the federal government – the U.S. Justice Department, which is the nation’s chief law enforcement agency – on record as recognizing that the Second Amendment, without question, is intended to apply to individuals and not to collective organizations such as the National Guard or any kind of lesser militia.”

    The memo does not protect individuals from being prosecuted under gun laws, Waldron acknowledged, but he said it did require a fundamental change in how the government approaches those cases.

    Civil Rights

    “It changes the courts’ view of the issue, and it applies a stricter standard of scrutiny as to whether or not a given law does infringe on an individual’s constitutional rights,” Waldron said. “They have to look at it from a civil rights perspective now instead of just [whether] the individual violated a given law.”

    Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence did not return calls seeking comment on the Justice Department’s determination, but the organization has spoken out against the “individual rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment frequently in the past, including in an amicus brief filed in federal court in 1999.

    Gun Grabbers: Second Amendment ‘Depleted’

    “The fact that militia members are no longer required to supply their own arms when reporting for service has depleted the Second Amendment of most of its vitality,” Brady Center stated. “And, in fact, the Second Amendment remains relevant today because the rights it protects are held by the National Guard.”

    Dennis Henigan, director of Brady Center’s Legal Action Project, also spoke against the “individual rights” interpretation of the Second Amendment at James Madison University in 2002.

    “Both the language and history of the Second Amendment show that its subject matter was not individual rights,” Henigan said, “but rather the distribution of military power in society between the states and the federal government.”

    The Justice Department rejected Brady Center’s argument.

    ‘A Right of Individuals’

    “A ‘right of the people’ is ordinarily and most naturally a right of individuals, not of a State and not merely of those serving the State as militiamen. The phrase ‘keep arms’ at the time of the Founding usually indicated the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals, not the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers, and the phrase certainly had that meaning when used in connection with a ‘right of the people,'” the Justice Department’s report stated.

    “Moreover, the Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights amid amendments securing numerous individual rights, a placement that makes it likely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms likewise belongs to individuals,” the document continued.

    Waldron expects the opinion to be introduced in support of the individual rights of gun owners in several cases working their way through the federal courts. His hope is that one of those cases will reach the Supreme Court.

    “Is this the end, is this the Omega? Absolutely not,” Waldron said. “The Omega will come when the Supreme Court begins to overturn selected gun control laws based on the fact that they do infringe upon the individual right protected in the Constitution.”



  20. Sandy Price

    Our neighborhoods should put together a well- armed militia to protect our lives, liberties and properties. This might lead to several states wanting out of the United States of America who have currently been forcing many citizens to be taxed at the time of their deaths and many minorities to be made into second class citizens. The Federal government is not well respected in these last 18 years and that came from both political parties wanting more from the citizens than is called for in the Constitution.

    You want to nitpick on our current Government intrusion into our lives, liberties and properties?

    I do not believe this is a liberal movement to disarm us but a likely extension of the Patriot’s Acts with every intention of removing our only source of self defense.

    Had the University done its job and required an action after so many complaints regarding the shooter, he would have been under close investigation and likely not been able to buy the guns that shot up the school.

    Amnesty is in the middle of becoming our new Immigration laws allowing 13 million illegal aliens to be allowed to stay in America and they will be armed! Well my friend, so will my neighbors.

    America is becoming a third world sewer and every American citizen will have to be armed to the teeth to protect ourselves. Our National Guard is being decimated in Iraq leaving many states open to shooting gangs of armed criminals.

  21. issodhos

    1. The 2nd Amendment simply restricts the federal government from infringing on the pre-existing right of a person to privately own and use firearms. It grants nothing.

    2. There is amply written evidence to show that the Founders and their contemporaries were fully cognizant of the fact that the private ownership and use of firearms was a right of free men.

    3. The National Guard is not and never has been the militia which is defined by US Code in TITTLE 10, Subtitle A, PART I, CHAPTER 13, ~ 311

    4. Roosevelt outlawed the private ownership of gold and confiscated it without resorting to “indictment, trial, conviction and punishment”. Eminent Domain takes without “indictment, trial, conviction and punishment” as well. Compensation may be made, but regardless, the property has been forcibly taken. So, let us not pretend that the government cannot confiscate property.

    5. The goal of anti-gun organizations is to severely limit or eliminate the right to private ownership and use of firearms by their neighbors. Nothing less. I guess it is only fair to acknowledge that most of them cannot help themselves. It is very difficult for some, especially goal-oriented and aging ’60’s New Left influenced modern ‘liberals’, to control their inner fascist when they see a way of using the government bayonet to force their neighbors to give up a right that has long been enjoyed by themselves and their ancestors. So, don’t give me this “crap” about wanting to just have a little bit more’ reasonable’ gun control over what we already have.;-)