Esquire's "Portrait" Of The NIU Shooter

"We were told that (the shooter), who killed five students and then himself at Northern Illinois University in February, was a sweet, unassuming, overachieving grad student who inexplicably snapped. He was not."

This is the introduction to the David Vann article in the August 2008 issue of Esquire Magazine which I received last week (link not yet available UPDATE: read the story here). The story is captivating, frustrating, tragic and depressing.

The few news accounts about this article (for example, here and here) have focused on the shooter's numerous suicide attempts while in high school -- in December 1996, April 1997, November 1997 (fall of his senior year), and February 1998 -- his sex life, and psychotic episodes.

The rest of the story is just as compelling, and indicative of all the warning signs exhibited by this mass killer:

-- Middle School: "picks (his dog) up by its hind legs and hurls it, hard, against the wall" before shooting his pellet gun at passing cars. Explodes "Drano bombs" under a neighbor's porch.

-- High School: "with his "friends ... [t]hey light chemicals on fire, blow shit up, shoot pellet guns, make out, smoke pot, sneak away to the porno stash in the trees. Whenever they shoot, (the killer) brags he has a membership with the NRA."

-- Post-High School: numerous "escapes" from the Mary Hill Residence group home where his parents had him sent.

-- Army: pulled in for "a psych exam" and then placed in "the Army psych ward as a precaution against any suicide attempts" since they consider him "possibly a danger to himself or others." This is followed by the shooter's "uncharacterized discharge" from the military.

-- College: the shooter's roommate "tells everyone Steve's a psycho." The shooter complains about Illinois' "Firearm Owner ID cards" comparing them "to the days of Hitler's regime" and that "the government is trying to track us."

-- Grad School: "He gets interested in buying guns. He applies for his firearms permit in December [2006] and receives it in January. He's been out of the mental health system for five years now, so he's eligible. (In the fall he'll write a paper titled "(No) Crazies With Guns!" questioning whether people on antipsychotics should be allowed to buy firearms.) In February [2007] he buys a Glock .45-caliber handgun, a powerful weapon. He buys a shotgun and another handgun the next month. Goes to the shooting range instead of school."

-- April 16, 2007: After the Virginia Tech shootings, he's "excited" and "all over this... studying everything" including where that killer "bought his guns."

-- August 2007: after an appointment with a social worker, "... he decides to buy guns. Perhaps it's just a whim. Or maybe he's concerned that his visit to the hospital will go on his mental health record and his gun license will be revoked. He drives to Tony's Guns & Ammo, which is just Tony's house. Steve trades in his Glock .45 caliber, his .22-caliber pistol, and his 20-gauge shotgun. He buys a Sig Sauer .380."

-- Fall 2007: "He starts his new job as a correctional officer at Rockville Correctional Facility in Indiana [...] He enjoys parts of the training. They teach him how to use a Remington 12-gauge shotgun. He has to take a test detailing how to load and unload it."

-- Christmas 2007: "... goes to Tony's Guns & Ammo, buys a Hi-Point .380 and a 12-gauge shotgun."

-- February 3, 2008: "... buys extra magazines for his .380 pistol."

-- February 4, 2008: "... buys gear from Bounty Hunter and Top Gun Supply."

-- February 5, 2008: "... he keeps buying. Two 9mm magazines and holsters from Able Ammo."

-- February 6, 2008: "... back to Tony's Guns & Ammo. He buys a Glock 9mm and a Remington 12-gauge shotgun, a model similar to the one they trained him on at Rockville."

-- February 11, 2008: After he asks his roommate to stay home with him, but she declines because she has to go to work, "he saws off the barrel of the shotgun" and packs up "the two new guns, the extra magazines and holsters" (all the things "he's hidden" from his roommate) but "leaves his old shotgun in the closet. It's for skeet or birds, not designed for killing people." The shooter has also "bought longer ammo clips for the pistols. They hold thirty-three rounds each. But the problem is they're so long, he'll have to carry the pistols in his hands. He won't be able to use the holsters and hide everything under his coat."

-- February 14, 2008: Cole Hall Room 100: "He keeps shooting, a few rounds at a time. Five dead. Eighteen injured. He's shot forty-seven bullets. One more shot. Then silence."

This story raises a lot of troubling issues, one of which is why we make it so easy for dangerous people to get guns.

Those who knew the shooter saw the danger signs, but no one checked with them before the shooter was allowed to accumulate his arsenal.

We should be able to stop foreseeable tragedies like this before they occur. What we're doing now isn't enough.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Comments

[edutilos]

HuffPost's Pick

There seems to be a great deal of attention paid to "who" the Founding Fathers were and then trying to interpret their "intent" when drafting the Constitution. As a set of ground rules, if you will, the Constitution absolutely served its purpose, but as a set of codified rights, and in turn, laws (dependent on those rights), the document itself is not "set in stone" and is open to change, as evidenced by the inclusion of Article 5. If the Constitution was meant to be an immalleable, inflexible set of "commandments", there would be no reason to include a process for change.

Simply put, the Founders had a purpose for this constitution. They then used words to express those ideas as clearly as possible, while still allowing for a changing society to modify it, in order to allow for said changes. If today's society finds that strict obedience to the original purpose, as in the idea behind those words, conflict with modern requirements, then the words must be changed to fit the needs of present-day America. Quite simple, actually.

[muffinman2]

So you're suggesting a Constitutional Convention to repeal the Second Amendemnt, because 2A is "set in stone" unless it's repealed. It ain't gonna happen. Have you already forgotten the Heller decision?

I notice you refer to yourself downthread as an "anti-gunner". Still have that 9mm pistol, Mr. Antigunner?

[djkrlsn]

Leifrakur--your arguments are unconvincing because you acknowledge the natural or G-D given right to self defense, the Heller decision clearly showed your collective right theory of the 2nd amendment is wrong and you have completely ignored one of the main holdings of the case--namely there is an individual right to keep or possess arms. Since the primary emphasis of this case was on whether there is an individual right to own firearms (there is such a right)--all your collective rights arguments are unconvincing.

[Tao21Zen]

Leifrakur,

I have a question for you. If the term "bear arms" in the 2nd Amendment means "render military service", then can you explain to us what the significance and meaning of the term "keep" is, in the context of the 2nd Amendment?

That is, does the term "keep and render military service" mean we have the right, not just to serve in the military, but to form and operate our own militaries as well?

And FYI, you can't just say "keep arms" also means "render militia service" as that would make the wording of the 2nd Amendment redundant and this can't be the case, as the founders we very deliberate with their choice of words.

[djkrlsn]

I don't know about you, but I find it passing strange that the men writing the Constitution and in particular the 2nd amendment would want to enshrine a "right" to serve in the military where many rights we enjoy as civilians are greatly lessened while on active duty.

[Leifrakur]

What the Second Amendment says, in effect, is this:

“Since the security of a free state requires a well-regulated militia, the federal government must not infringe the right of the people to keep arms and to render militia service.”

The amendment says nothing one way or another about the use of arms for self-defense or any other non-militia purpose.

The military idiom “bear arms,” meaning “render military service,” is the key term holding the two clauses of the amendment together as a coherent statement. If that term is misunderstood, each clause flies off on its own mission, as has been the case with the NRA;s use of the second clause without reference to the first.


As to your question on forming your own militia, the organization of the militia was an act of public authority, not a voluntary association.

[Leifrakur]

Early Americans generally believed in a “natural right” to self-defense. George Mason, a leading anti-federalist who argued for amending the Constitution, is an example. He didn’t argue for including a provision for individual self-defense. Rather, he agitated for changes that would protect the ability of the states to defend themselves through their militia. If the Constitution was not changed, he said, “it will take from the state legislatures what divine Providence has given to every individual -- the means of self-defense.” George Mason, Virginia convention on adoption of the Constitution, June 14, 1788)

In Mason ‘s thinking, individuals already had the right to self-defense – through “divine Providence.” What was needed was the assurance that the militia, via state legislatures, would continue their ability to defend the states.

The Second Amendment was the answer to Mason’s fears.

Any present-day “natural right" to individual self-defense should, in my opinion, be defined by democratically elected representatives in governing bodies -- not achieved through a court remodeling of the Constitution.

[djkrlsn]

Leifrajyr--your arguments are passing strange--you are saying that people have to be enrolled in a military unit to be able to defend themselves with a firearm. You keep trying to argue that the 2nd amendment protects a right to be in the military--sorry Charlie. You admit there is a right to self defense and deny the right to the best tools available for self defense--so your argument that Heller is a remodel of the Constitution is in error unless you can establish some expertise that is not in evidence (sorry your claim that the idiomatic military usage is the only possible meaning is unconvincing except as an attempt to justify gun bans).

[Tao21Zen]

"Any present-day "natural right" ... should, in my opinion, be defined by democratically elected representatives in governing bodies."

Wait, so a natural right should be defined by the government? The founders have said, on many occasion (many of which has been presented here) that a natural right is an inalienable inherent right that someone is born with and not a right bestowed by a government.

What you are saying makes about as much logical since as saying that a persons sex should be defined/determined by the state they are born in.

[edutilos]

Leifrakur - As a fellow anti-gunner, I have been extremely hesitant to reply to your posts, as most of them are valid attempts at reasoned discourse, and that is certainly a noble and worthy cause. That being said, I have to point out the dichotomy in your latest post.

If..."[a] "natural right" to individual self-defense" is, in fact "natural" as you've stated, how can it then be "defined by democratically elected representatives in governing bodies"? You seem to contradict yourself within the same sentence.

While I certainly understand arguing with the barbaric personalities present in these forums can cause a full-blown migraine, deception and misinformation is not the way we should go about winning the minds and hearts of the American public, in the hopes of widespread change. We should be willing to accept that, at the time the Constitution was written, society, at large, was very different. There were no computers or internets at the time the first amendment was written, but it has been interpreted to include many of the same rights acknowledged to the individual as those including free speech and freedom of the press. An honest analysis cannot result in any other conclusion.

Revisionist history will not work. The American public can, and will, see through that transparency.

[Thirdpower]

Murder of a family by a person w/:

2 felony convictions.
is an MS-13 member
and an Illegal alien

in a state rated #1 by the Brady Campaign w/ full registration, no CCW, in a city that effectively bans handguns.

According to the Mayor of SF, it's the NRA's fault.

This is how disconnected from reality the Anti's are.

[edutilos]

Suppose a source is to much to ask for? (Or as you lot like to attack Kelli for - not providing a source for the original post?!)

[edutilos]

*crickets* (not surprising, of course)

[MajorTom125]

If I were Paul, I wouldn't be drawing attention to shootings that took place in so called 'gun free zones'.

It only serves to illustrate what an utter failure they are.

[djkrlsn]

I don't know about you--but if I were Paul, I would think very hard about demanding more "gun free zones"--especially with their documented failure at stopping shootings. I would also be careful about supporting gun bans in light of DC vs Heller.

[Tao21Zen]

But the antis say, more guns would have made those situations even worse. They don't have any actual accounts to point to, but could easily see how such a thing could happen.

Look at how those reckless students at the Appellation School of Law made that situation worse by using their guns to apprehend the shooter after he managed to kill 3. Also, look at how the Vice Principal escalated the situation at pearl high school with his handgun stopping shooter after he had killed 2.

Funny, we can cite real incidents where armed citizens save lives and where body counts accumulated in gun free zones greatly outnumber those that occur where citizens are armed HOWEVER the anti-gunners rely only on their IMAGINE incidents where an armed citizen makes the situation worse. It must be nice not to have to confine support for your argument to the real of reality.

[djkrlsn]

Leifrakur--other than a desire to support gun control, is there a logical reason you are pretending that the 2nd amendment was placed in the Constitution to "protect" an imaginary "right" to serve in the military in conjunction with the discredited "collective right" interpretation of the 2nd amendment?

[Thirdpower]

Two down.

Wilmette, Il is expected to repeal their handgun ban at their board meeting tonight.

[molonlabe]

"Despite protestations to the contrary, the U.N. remains quite interested in constricting lawful gun ownership. Consider, for example, the United Nations Disarmament Programme's publication, How to Guide: Small Arms and Light Weapons Legislation. The publication touts the importance of international "harmonisation" of gun laws. According to the United Nations:

Citizens should only be allowed to own guns if they are given a government permit, and the permit should only be issued if there is a "good reason" for posssession or or "genuine need." In particular, permits to own guns for self defense should not be issued unless the applicant proves taht he is in immediate danger.

The law require "safe storage", which means that firearms should be disassembled and the ammunition ammo stored separately.

There should be frequent renewal procedures to assure the owner's continued eligibility. A good example is provided by Australia, which for most gun owners (except farmers) requires membership in a sports club, and participation in a minimum number of shooting events annually.

A firearms license should be contingent on the consent of the person's spouse or former partner.

All firearms should be registered on a centralized computer system.

The home and vehicles of a gun owner should be subject to official inspection "at will."

http://volokh.com/posts/1216681864.shtml


But remember folks. Those of us who still believe in the slippery slope argument are just paranoid gun-nuts.

[ladyshooter]

"The home and vehicles of a gun owner should be subject to official inspection "at will." "

That really does sound like a police state!

Now we know, what the Brady Campaign and their fellow travellers want.

[Thirdpower]

The Brady Campaign is a member of IANSA.

[molonlabe]

"Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

Again, certainly not the decision the Brady Center fought for."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/

Remember folks. The Brady Campaign is not a gun ban organization. They only....er.....support gun bans.

Can we get Doug Pennington back here to clarify?

[Thirdpower]

COme on ML. He made it perfectly clear. The Brady Campaign does not advocate banning guns. They just want to influence the courts to uphold laws banning guns.

That's all the difference in the world. Can't you see that?

[molonlabe]

I do. My dad never advocated grounding me when i was a kid. He only supported my mom's decision to ground me.

Either way, I ended up losing my ColecoVision for a week.

[Tao21Zen]

Don't forget the "official" BC position:

"Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns. Our stand is simple. We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms.

[2 sentences later]

...there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership."

So, the Brady Campaign doesn't support "banning guns" they just thing privilege ownership of some classes of guns shouldn't be allowed by law.

I hope this clears things up for everyone.

[Tao21Zen]

Don't forget the "official" BC position:

"Brady believes that a safer America can be achieved without banning guns. Our stand is simple. We believe that law-abiding citizens should be able to buy and keep firearms.

[2 sentences later]

...there are certain classes of weapons that should be out of bounds for private ownership." [Brady website, about section]

So, the Brady Campaign doesn't support "banning guns" they just think private ownership of some classes of guns shouldn't be allowed by law.

I hope this clears things up for everyone.

[tadees]

A serious question for you Leifrakur (and I address you directly since you seem to have some desire for an intellectual, intelligent debate, even though your stance on the position has been destroyed time and time again, unlike others here who are simply shills for the Brady Campaign)...

Does your steadfast opposition to people's personal ownership of firearms stem from some sort of personal experience that has permanently skewed your stance one-way? I ask in all seriousness. Sometimes, once a person has encountered and survived a traumatic experience (in this case, one involving a firearm), no matter the evidence against them, they refuse to budge on their position at all, but instead will continue to argue their position contrary to all facts, studies, and reasonable logic. (Not the same, but similar, are people's belief in religion(s) or their personal beliefs regarding abortion. Argue all you want, probably not going to sway many, and the ones that were swayed were not very strong in their convictions.) Is there something else you're basing your arguments on or are you seriously basing it on the evidence you are presenting on these forums?

[Leifrakur]

I'm interested in the facts of history.

The Second Amendment took effect Dec. 15, 1791, and with that fact in mind, here's a question for YOU:

In the next three decades following that date can you quote words from any debate in Congress in which any congressman or senator asserted that the Second Amendment had been written to protect the right of individuals to use guns for personal purposes?

[djkrlsn]

Leifrakur--if you read the Dred Scott decision--you will find that one of the reasons for denying him his freedom was that if African Americans were citizens--they were entitled to be armed (including with firearms). And if you look at statements of men like Jefferson, Madison, Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry etc, they all supported the right of the people to be armed. And again--your argument that the 2nd amendment is there to protect a "right" to serve in the military is unconvincing--as a vet--a far stronger argument can be made that military service is a civic duty not a civil right.

[djkrlsn]

In light of the Heller decision--I would say the burden of truth is on you

[Tao21Zen]

"I'm interested in the facts of history."

Then you agree with Scalia:

"Putting all of
these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee
the individual right to possess and carry weapons in
case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed
by the historical background of the Second Amendment.
We look to this because it has always been widely understood
that the Second Amendment, like the First and
Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right.
.

Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution,
the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in
using select militias loyal to them to suppress political
dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents. See J.
Malcolm, To Keep and Bear Arms 31–53 (1994) (hereinafter
Malcolm); L. Schwoerer, The Declaration of Rights,
1689, p. 76 (1981). ...These experiences
caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated
military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their
arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William
and Mary, in the Declaration of Right (which was
codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: “That the subjects which are
Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to
their conditions and as allowed by law.” 1 W. & M., c. 2,
§7, in 3 Eng. Stat. at Large 441 (1689). This right has
long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second
Amendment." [19-20]

[Thirdpower]

Wow. Look at those goalposts get moved.

[WalterHiggins]

No one raised the point after 1791 because it was obvious that it DID protect an individual right.

It wasn't till the 20th century that this "collective rights" BS took hold

[djkrlsn]

Kelli--I asked you and Leifrakur questions yesterday. Leifrakur at least had the combination of courage and courtesy to try to answer (he didn't do very well, but I will give him credit for trying. Kelli--why do you lack the same courtesy, or is it that the lack of courage that makes you unwilling to come up with a a definition of "reasonable gun control" that will pass constitutional muster and is an attempt to compromise.

[molonlabe]

Leif-

So how long ARE you going to harp on the militia argument? Time to get over it; it's moot.

Your arguments are a microcosm of the gun control platform in general: beat illogical and ineffective arguments to death and spend countless time and resources doing so. Why do anti's spend so much time trying to prove how "wrong" the pro-rights side is instead of contributing toward a common good: reduction fo violent crime?

We already know that gun control is a failure (DC, Chicago, the UK, etc...) so why not pursue other avenues? Have we, as a society, really tried criminal control? Or what about rehabilitation? Programs targeting recidivism?

Is it really about controlling violent crime, or is about keeping that Joyce Foundation funding coming in?

[Tao21Zen]

I agree Molon, the "militia argument" he is presenting should be a moot point as it has been shown to be more anti-gun dishonesty.

In the Heller case, Scalia presented what the anti-gun crowd was claiming to be their "militia argument" and then Scalia subjected it to a logical evaluatuion where he determined it was a factually and logically incorrect argument.

But, what Leif is doing is using Scalia's presentation of that argument as if it is Scalia himself endorseing that arguement while failing to acknowledge Scalia's quite thoughrough rejection of that argument.

[Thirdpower]

The same type of thing that people do w/ Darwin. He would present a statement as an argument against his thesis then refute it. The statement is then presented as a "claim" by Darwin.

Partial quotes out of context.

[molonlabe]

I mean, really. Look at what we have seen from the anti-camp subsequent to Heller. Big claims of "Victory!" from Paul Helmke, the BC, VPC (sugar-coating the big s*** sandwich they were force-fed). DC trying to classify semi-auto handguns as machine guns just to thumb their nose at SCOTUS. Repetitive "militia" arguments and an inability to comprehend Scalia's opinion. Riding the suicide argument (Emotionalism 101), etc....

At what point does the desire to whine and complain and stomp one's feet in frustration of the unfavorable Heller outcome begin to define their whole platform? If I was an anti, who argued for anything BUT a repeal of the 2A to support my anti-gun position, I would be, and should be embarrassed.

[Leifrakur]

The meaning of the phrase “bear arms” is important to the correct interpretaion of the Second Amendment. The Heller majority spends most of a 10-page section on the "bear arms" subject, turning it upside down and wrongside out. Here is a quote from page 12 of the 5-4 majority opinion:

“The phrase 'bear Arms' also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: ‘to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight’ or ‘to wage war.’ See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (STEVENS, J. dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition ‘against,’ which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities.”

Those were the words of the majority, who then go on to give an example containing the word "against," taken from the Declaration of Independence: “He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country…”

But the fact that "bear arms" was often followed by the preposition “against” doesn’t constitute a general rule. Anyone who has examined even a small number of American documents from the 18th or early 19th centuries knows that there was no such rule.

[Leifrakur]

(Continuing my last post on the Heller majority analysis of the phrase "bare arms.)


By the time it reaches Footnote 13, the Heller majority appears to have forgotten its rule that the phrase “bear arms” needs to be followed by the preposition “from” if it is to be read as an idiom standing for “render military service." In that footnote, the majority analyzes the meaning of one of Virginia’s proposed amendments to the Constitution, which said:

“That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.”

Looking at the use of the phrase “bear arms” in this proposed amendment, the majority concludes this:

“Certainly their second use of the phrase (“bear arms in his stead”) refers, by reason of context, to compulsory bearing of arms for military duty.”

Does anyone see the word “against” following “bear arms” here? I don’t.

And yet the majority acknowledges that the use of “bear arms” in this case, even without the use of the word "against," refers to military duty, “by reason of context.”

What context? The only military words used in the proposal are the idioms “bearing arms” and “bear arms” themselves. If you don’t already know that “bear arms” is a military idiom meaning “render military service,” you can only guess at what the proposed amendment means.

[Leifrakur]

If the militia argument is "moot" it is so only in the primary sense of that word, which is "open to discussion." The last time someone treated me to the "get over it" routine was when George Bush was appointed president. I (and by this time most of the country) haven't yet gotten over it, and I'm not likely to do so.

Thomas Jefferson subscribed to the militia interpretation of the Second Amendment. I'm with him.

[Thirdpower]

You're still trying to get the Stuarts back on the throne too, eh?

[molonlabe]

Fitting response on the HuffPo. Another "It's Bush's Fault(tm) poster. And here I thought you actually wanted to engage in some sort of civil debate.

By moot, I meant in the more hypothetical term. Like SCOTUS finally confirming the obvious but anti's still wanting to argue it further while our country has an obscene recidivism rate, spiraling social values, and severely disproportionate violent crime in the urban demographic. Hypothetical, as in "Man, if only the 2A really didn't mean what it says we could really round up all those assault rifles and force 2.9% of criminals to use, another implement."

THAT type of moot.

[djkrlsn]

Leifrakur--I see you are not interested in the facts in the 2000 election--the Supreme Court merely stated that since the Florida legislature mandated a particular time frame for the votes to get to the Florida Secretary of State, Florida courts could not impose a different timetable since that was under the purview of the legislature. In my book--Al Gore lost any legitimacy because he claimed that he wanted every vote counted while trying to keep the military absentee ballots from being counted and cherry picking which precincts he wanted to recount.

[muffinman2]

"Thomas Jefferson subscribed to the militia interpretation of the Second Amendment. I'm with him."

Did he now?

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson

[Leifrakur]

The Kazmierczak massacre, and others like it, demonstrate that the insane often have an affinity for deadly firepower. America doubtlessly can come up with better laws and better law inforcement to reduce the effects of that. Individuals, in my opinion, should also be alert to their own safety in this regard. They should try to steer clear of anyone who seems excessively fascinated by guns or is known to pack heat, unless and until some reasonable explanation is revealed. "Because it's my Second Amendment right," is not good reason, in my opinion.

[Thirdpower]

The massacre highlighted by the media and anti-gun groups, encouraging others to do the same, demonstrate that the insane often have an affinity for using failures in Gov't to pursue their actions. America should expect them to actually perform their duty if they want to be taken seriously. They should also be alert for and steer clear of anyone trying to force them to rely on the gov't for their safety as it has been shown time and time again that the Gov't fails in doing so.

[djkrlsn]

Leifrakur--the Second Amendment stated that "the right of the PEOPLE TO KEEP AND bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED' and not just to bearing arms, so your repeated focus on just "bearing arms" strikes me as being willfuly blind. What other parts of the BOR do you read the same way? I am sorry Leifrakur--you have yet to provide any proof that possesion or lawful carrying of firearms is a sign of mental illness--and I take the "right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" to be adequate legal justification to "pack heat" so any jurisdition that does not allow some combination of open or concealed carry for all law abiding adults is in the wrong not the people who choose to be armed.

[Leifrakur]

The 5-4 majority opinion in Heller discusses "keep arms" and "bear arms" separately. I've followed the same pattern. The majority says this:

"Keep arms" was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms for militiamen and everyone else."

I agree with that statement, except to add that it also refers to the possession of arms by govermental bodies. As far as I"m concerned, that leaves little to discuss about "keep arms" as compared with "bear arms."

[muffinman2]

"They should try to steer clear of anyone who seems excessively fascinated by guns or is known to pack heat, unless and until some reasonable explanation is revealed."

Do you realize how many millions of firearms afficianados there are in this country? Do you have any idea how many people lawfully carry guns? That is an awful lot of people to have to steer clear of.

What exactly are you afraid of, and has it ever even happened?

[Leifrakur]

I'm not afraid of the guns. (They're, as you say, inanimate objects). Sorry I can't say the same for the irresponsible, the careless, and the insane who so often possess them.

[MorgansRifles]

Leifrakur:

In your earlier posts you link firearms ownership to militia membership. You might be interested definition of "militia" in this from the 1771 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

MILITIA, in general, denotes the body of soldiers, or those who make profession of arms.
.....In a more restrained sense, militia denotes the trained bands of a town or country, who arm themselves, upon a short warning, for their own defence. So that, in this sense, militia is opposed to regular or stated troops.
.....For the direction and command of the militia, the king constitutes lords-lieutenants of each country.


http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/militia.htm

Please note that it says "who arm themselves, upon a short warning, for their own defence. " This distinguishes them from regular troops who are armed and supplied by the government.

Much is said about what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. Most of them were very educated men. That being said, very likely they would have known of this referrence.

Michael

[Leifrakur]

But when we are talking about the militia with reference to our Constitution and its Second Amendment, we're dealing with the American militia, not that of England or its king. The definition given for "militia" in Noah Webster's 1828 American dictionary is more germane:

"The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations." (Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary)

[djkrlsn]

I have questions for 2 of Paul's supporters: first-for Leifrakur, since you aknowledge a right of self defense--why do you pretend the 2nd amendment only protects a right to serve in the military; and for Shedances--why do you keep insisting gun bans are reasonable in light of the recent Heller decision?

[Leifrakur]

The short answer (and it's not a pretense) is that the Second Amendment says nothing about individual gun use, and its "bear arms" phrase ties the amendment's two clauses together as a militia-oriented provision. That meaning agrees with Thomas Jefferson's description of the Second Amendment as a provision for "the substitution of militia for a standing army." In my opinion, the use of firearms in individual self-defense was not intended to be a subject of the federal Constitution and should apply only within the rules for public safety as determined by democratically elected officials.

[Thirdpower]

And who makes up the "militia"? The "people".

[djkrlsn]

Leifrakur--the operative phrase is in the 2nd amendment "the right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed" not "the right of the militia to bear arms" so your classification of the second amendment of a list of amendments listing various individual rights as a way of encouraging the federal government to utilize the militia instead of a standing army is being willfully blind as well as being in a major state of denial. So your basic argument that the 2nd amendment is designed to protect the right to serve in a militia is unconvincing and I will go with the majority of the Supreme Court that the purpose of the amendment is to limit what rules the democratically elected officials can pass.

[muffinman2]

"The short answer (and it's not a pretense) is that the Second Amendment says nothing about individual gun use, and its "bear arms" phrase ties the amendment's two clauses together as a militia-oriented provision."

That's not the short answer. It's the wrong answer. "The right of the PEOPLE to KEEP and bear arms shall not be infringed. Why is that hard to understand?

And how much longer are we going to beat this dead horse?

[Tao21Zen]

It must be nice not have have to subject your own interpretations of the 2nd Amendment to the same level of scrutiny you require of us. Nowehere in the 2nd Amendemnt does it say that the "bear arms" phrase is a collective right reserved for "the state." What we have that your side doesn't is the logical context the 2nd Amendment as compared to other Amendments and other textual documents.

Well see, the founders, who were very deliberate with the words they chose to use, used the terms "the state" to denote the body of an individual state, yet somehow you think "the people" also meant "the state"? You contend this is the case even though every other occurance of the terms "the people" is used in conjunction with an individual right of "the people." You also continue to stick with your interpretation given the number of quotes from other documents of the time where the founders expressly talk about the individual's right to keep and bear arms and that the militia is composed of "all free men."

So, while you require nothing short of a verbatim text using the words "the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and not a collective right" from us, you attempt to pass off an interpreation of the 2nd Amendment based on a selction of words having a mysteriously hidden "idiomatic" dual meaning.

[LtBromhead]

I asked this once before, but got no reply from the anti-gun folks.

Why has no one from the anti-gun side ever suggested stiffer penalties for violent criminals as a method to reduce "gun violence"?

[djkrlsn]

Probaby because keeping violent criminals in jail would reduce violent crime thereby reducing their ability to drum up support for "neccasary gun laws" like the ones that were declared unconstitutional in Washington DC

[Tao21Zen]

The anti-gun crowd has much of its agenda invested in their message that "gun crime" is due to firearm and not the actor/agent behind the gun. They continue to use the argument that "easy of access" to firearms is what causes "gun crimes" as support for legislation that would greatly restrict firearms ownership.

For them to support stiffer penalties for violent criminals as a method to reduce "gun violence", they would be placing blame of the firearms (where it actually belongs) on the criminal using the gun and not the gun itself. Such a change in focus could very well lead to decreases in violent crimes without furthering their desired agenda of restricting lawful firearms ownership. They how would continue to support their anti-gun agenda if they lost their "necessary to make society safer" argument?

To further see this, ask yourself why you NEVER hear the anti-gun community acknowledge the existence of violent crime in which a firearm isn't used. The pro-gun side believe we need to address ALL violent crime - with and without the presence of gun - collectively. You will never hear the anti-gunners addressing the issue of "violent crime" unless it has the word "gun" associated with it. If people see that something other than "access to gun" is at the root of non-gun crimes, then perhaps they can start to see the same root cause could be behind gun crimes also.

[Thirdpower]

One down.

Today the Village of Morton Grove moved to avoid imminent legal action by the National Rifle Association by amending its Village Code to remove the current handgun ban and incorporate sections of the Illinois Criminal Code.

Final action by the Village of Morton Grove Board on this ordinance is expected at the July 28 meeting. The NRA is committed to restoring the individual Second Amendment rights to all law-abiding Americans, as recently recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Heller v. District of Columbia.