yeah, that dude's map is a solid 400 miles off...

Why was the first article when the news first broke deleted by the author???

Who cares that it has the largest gym on campus? And who cares that you're on spring break?

because it indicates that it's a popular area that Pitt students frequent, and because it indicates that Pitt students are not in class and more likely to be out and about on campus you idiot.

Perhaps Pittsburgh has been redefined as the area bounded by Fort Duquesne, Fort Pitt, and Grant Streets while you were out partying it up on Spring Break? FYI, tomorrow the Steelers are going to announce their name change to the more accurate "The North Side, Just Outside Pittsburgh, Steelers."

I hate that "more guns" argument.

Number of Privately Owned Firearms

The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,000. US Population for 2011=311,800,000

Not enough? Maybe we should velcro multiple guns to our body for that "gotta have it" moment.

The NRA is just the marketing arm for firearm manufacturers and we are mired in violence. Hoarding gun nuts are ruining any civilization that this country had.

@ Sandtrich

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Thankfully, the Constitution allows me to purchase "eyes" so no one can rule over me.

(P.S. We'll shamelessly copy and paste together, as a team... a "fun" team.)

What? are you joking....who said the gunman was a law abiding gun toting citizen? Most are obtained through other channels (criminals)

Yeah sandtwitch, lets just tell all the criminals to drop their guns off at their local police station. I'm sure they will line right up. Idiot!

Yes I agree, lets ban guns!!!

You know, like in the middle east where they don't have guns to shoot the people they don't like and make bombs to blow up a city block killing everyone including children. Remember Oklahoma City, he didn't have a gun.

Yeah, lets do that!!!

@ Bob

It's pointless to argue with Sandtrich. He's an extreme Leftist.

He's arguing over the amount of firearms in the Country. But, that's not really his concern. Because, he doesnt have an answer for what would be his "perfect" amount of firearms. One per citizen? Can't do that... not all citizens are legal to own. One per all legal to own? Hmmm, yeah but what of those who need a handgun at the home and a rifle for hunting? More like... no to all of it.

Sandtrich will really only be happy when the Government has 100% control of firearms (save for the criminals) and the law abiding population has none. Then the Leftists can progress further into Karl Marx's guidance.

@ Sandtrich

See how "fun" this is?

Sandtrich Hording guns is what is saving this civilization from a seditious Government. As far as legal citizens go they need to protect themselves from criminals that don't believe in gun laws. No criminal or mentally disturbed person should have guns but no one should drink and drive but what the hell.

sabot,

you said that because you have a gun or guns, no one can rule over you. Have you ever thought about that? Silly question, I know, because the the statement is so profoundly stupid that no one could have thought about it and then said it.

No, he is arguing over the NUMBER of firearms in the country. Ban handguns.

SabotandHeat.

Fewer guns - Fewer people using guns to settle scores.

Too hard to comprehend?

How about this; If criminals will use anything to commit crimes, why can't YOU use ANYTHING to defend yourself?

All guns started out in the hands of "law-abiding citizens."

You bunker dwellers are making this country ignorant and unsafe.

Have a nice day.

People know this.............If someone wants you dead AND they are willing to die to carry out that deed.

They will kill you, gun or no gun.

People are killed in our prisons all the time and not by the guards.

You folks continue to argue about unchangeable circumstances. Nobody, but nobody is going to be able to rid the world of guns. Even if they made laws to ban guns, they will not be done away. This issue will never change.

TXHorseman Just ask Osama Bin Laden and all the rest of the radical Muslims.

shut yer yap Have you heard of bringing a stick or knife to a gun fight. What you say is crap. You are ignorant and full of it.

Bike

I would, but he didn't have a gun and the Navy Seals did.

Shut your yap.............That is so not true dude, but just keep making things up..... we won't notice. ; )

"The NRA is just the marketing arm for firearm manufacturers and we are mired in violence. Hoarding gun nuts are ruining any civilization that this country had."

How completely untrue. The Founders were incredibly intelligent men, and understood that the law-abiding citizen being free to arm and defend himself was vital for Americans to remain free. Americans are unique in all the world, in that, we are free to keep and bear arms. Other peoples in other countries have been subject to assault, attack, and even genocide and the very first step in the march to any government or police state abusing it's people has been to disarm them. NRA, although not as rabidly as in years past, helps to keep politicians in check, and law-abiding gun owners informed of the threats we may face from politicians.

Some, like apparently you, wish for freedom without risks, and that just doesn`t happen. Being truly free means we take risks everyday, and to be certain, some will abuse freedoms and prey on the law-abiding. And that is exactly why the Founders put the Second Amendment in place. A firearm is only a tool, like a hammer, a vehicle, a chainsaw, and just like these other tool, a firearm can be misused, but only a fool has the notion that disarming the law-abiding citizen has any effect on violent crime.

There are two types of anti-gunners in America; there are those who have an insidious, diabolical agenda to disarm American citizens, then there are the liberal sheep, who blindly parrot the anti-gunners empty rhetoric, with no real ability to reason and have independent thought. Fortunately, there are many Patriots in America, good, decent, hard-working, God-fearing men and women. Men and women who know our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Who understand that these documents don`t grant us these freedoms, but simply enumerate these Natural Rights. Good, decent men and women who will actually do what the POS in the White House took an oath to do, but will not: protect and defend the United States Constitution at any and all costs. Those like you, are only a drain on an otherwise great nation.

I say eat whatever you want, don't exercise, smoke, drink all the alcohol you want.
Getting shot by a crazed gunman seems to be overtaking all other causes of death.

@Sandtrich#2.6: Agree with you. Get this. The Georgia legislature just passed a law lowering the age to carry a concealed weapon from 21 to 18 years old. Course, guns don't kill. People do. They nearly always seem to use a gun to do it though. Guns don't require contact with prey, like knives, clubs and frozen cans of beer do. If most killers had to perform physical combat with those they wish to kill, we would likely see fewer killings and a lot of killers becoming the killed. Most who use guns to kill others are nothing but gwaddamned cowards. The interpretation of the 2ed amendment is, at best, shaky today, since it was put there then for the purpose of quickly raising an army familiar enough with firearms to fight an enemy. We keep abusing this very questionable right, and we'll lose it for sure. Maybe we should. Regards old Friend.

Mac Forrester

You make a very important point, People kill people, and choose guns, true. But who are these people.. ask yourself that. You see there laws against crimes are already in place, how is that working for us so far on its own? Would a law banning handguns stop the murderers? There has already been a real time example set, lets have a look.

Handguns have been restricted in Canada since the 60s, do you know what followed? Many citizens get raped, robbed and killed during home invasions, there is NO protection against a criminal with a handgun. and yes... in Canada home invasions are at a much higher rate than the US because we don't have a deterrent to defend its citizens. The Liberal Gov even attempted to take away our hunting rifles the past 10 years, we finally voted them out! When the licensing of long rifles was law, they had less than 50% compliance and the program cost the government over 200 million dollars to initiate. Today, only gangs and criminals can carry handguns, and the murder rate is higher than most US cities, especially higher than states that allow firearms. We have have had handguns banned for over 50 years and we all know too well, it has been a complete failure. I would far rather have the opportunity to defend my family than to what we have here... a large step towards communist control.

I am a gun owner and a liberal and yes I have paperwork on my weapons and I just want to say to anyone who calls a person they disagree with an extreme or far leftist or an idiot should look in the mirror first. After all if you go far enough to the right your right elbow is a far leftist extremist. Show some respect for your fellow countrymen. You might find out you really like the guy you think you hate so much.

Tina,getting shot hasn't been overtaken by getting killed by a drunk in a car crash. Maybe we should give prohibition another go, it worked out pretty good the first time.

Why is this news? Philly in the same state has never had under 300 homecides a year in the past decade. One year 5 philly cops where shot dead on the job but it was local only news. Nevermind I see this is a white area.

Nothing against responsible;e gun ownership but What well organized militia do you all belong to?

Ok so I'm seeing people thinking that banning guns will lower statistics of people being killed with guns. Now comprehend this. If a criminal wants a gun they will find one whether they're outlawed or not, hence criminal. I have hunting rifles and hand guns all locked safely away. Does that mean I'm going to go to down to the local college and start my own firing range? No. Like somebody else said they will find a way to do damage in some way shape or form. Whether it be a gun, knife, sword or bomb. Hell even a spork can be used as a weapon. Shall we outlaw them too? I'm a Democrat but I'm not extreme, I love this country with all it's flaws. I support our constitution and it's amendments. Kinda like the whole Rush Limbaugh thing. Do I like him? No Do I agree with him? No Should he be fined? I think so. Should he be taken off the air? No. It's free speech, still. Yes he crossed the line but he's allowed his opinions. I don't have to like them and I can change the station. Back to topic at hand. We have the right to bear arms and I like that freedom to go to a shooting range and have target practice and to have them to protect my family. Banning firearm will put law abiding citizens at higher risk to be a victim of said guns. The bad guys will find a way to get them whether they're legal or not.

@Steve M - I understand your frustration with that. Remember all the cop killings in WA state? Not far from where I live now. I grew up near Pgh and went to school @ IUP. Believe me I can understand your point.

Ken Trout: I respectfully disagree with most of your points. I certainly dispute your claim about "home invasions in Canada" versus the US. Much, much higher in the US. I own hand guns, rifles, and shotguns. I have used a gun (shotgun) in defense of my person once. My point is simple. Handguns should be very strictly controlled. The less access to handguns, the less violence committed with handguns. This does not mean I would deny the ownership of such to a verifiable responsible person. I do contend however, the control of distribution, sales, and ownership of such weapons should be under a predetermined purview of a designated legal authority capable of verifying that responsible fitness. Moreover, I fear, continued abuse of traditional 2ed amendment rights are likely to bring about the reinterpretation of that amendment, and could, Constitutionally, cause us the loss of the right to keep and bear arms. I cannot consider those outside the law, and neither should the argument. Those are law enforcement matters best left to law enforcement.

@Mac - I understand your thought process, however, law enforcement hasn't been doing a great job getting handguns off the street. I respect law enforcement greatly but whether there is restricted access or not the criminals WILL find them and use them. Restricting access much more will put us law abiding citizens at risk of not being able to defend ourselves against them. It's a catch 22 situation, unfortunately. but they do what they can about background checks and the waiting period to purchase a hand gun.

SabotAndHeat

@ Sandtrich

In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Thankfully, the Constitution allows me to purchase "eyes" so no one can rule over me.

_____

Why is it that gun nuts aqre the least informed and the least responsible? This -- gun nut -- is inn the Constitution you falsely claim to love:

"Art. I., S. 8, C. 15. The Congress (not gun-nuts) shall have Power RTo provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.

You are NOT exempt from the rule of law; and it is only criminals who claim they are.

Moreover, moron, tis is te first draft of tt wich becasme te Second Amendmen(parenticals added for te lobic-challenged). Show us where in it tt falsely alleged protection of individuall private ownersp of gus:

"The right of the people (PLURAL, as in, "We the people"; it is not, "We the individual," or, "I the people") to keep and bear arms (in well reguted militia) shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia (NOT "individual") being the best security of a free country (NOT "individual"): but no person (INDIVIDUAL) religiously scrupulous of (AGAINST) bearing arms (in well regulated militia) shall be compelled (INVOLUNTARY) to render military service (in well regulated militia) in person."

Knowing what one is talking about if one is a gun-nut is not in the cards. It's all about confidently ignorant loud-mouthing.

Do you understand what the term "militia" meant to the people who wrote these words?

if we have lax gun laws, crime will go down because a higher possibility of attacking someone who is armed will discourage a potential criminal who purports to use a gun in that attack.

of course, then, if we legalize all forms of violence, we will end not only gun violence, but all forms of violence, since someone purporting to use a knife or a bat would be immediately beaten to a pulp or shot.

yes. that is what we should do.

hunter480

Outstanding post sir! On the money! Couldn't agree with you more!

Fantastic!

@@Sandtrich--I geuss that means there's only one more thing left to do.Arm our kids and we'll have one for all 311,800,000;)By the way,270,000,000 is an understatement.

@ Wasn't me: I don't and apparently neither did the author. This amendment is one of the weakest and least understood of any appearing in our constitution. I cite you the first of the Militia clauses, and there are several, which all predate the 2ed amendment.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15, grants to the Congress the power to; "Provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the union, surpress insurrections, and repeal invasions".

This is hardly an intention for the people to keep and bear arms in the event they might need to use them against their government, as many claim. Others bear the falsity of those claims that the founders meant this amendment to be a warranty of states rights. Lo, if such was fact, then It would contradict the long assumed right of the Individual to keep and bear arms. As I said at the outset. If we wish to retain this assumed right, we would do well to responsibly assist law enforcement in the distribution, sales and ownership of who can keep these weapons.

Summary: Among Scholars it is rightfully perceived this amendment was inserted due to the absence of a standing Army at the time of the nations founding. Some believe certain of the founders feared the establishment of a standing Army and opted for a militia in its stead. Either way, the preponderance of probability suggests one or both are correct. That being said, we now have a standing Army. Man!, do we have a standing Military! States each have a National Guard. Is there really a need, or, on going Constitutional right for a "Well regulated Militia"? Probably not. We Americans like our guns though. Let us not commit abuse, or allow others to so commit, so that we may keep them.

JNagarya

Nice try, but thats incorrect.
If what you are spewing were capable of holding any water at all, then I can't imagine why the progress of Shall Issue and Castle Doctrine States advancing as it has, or the 2nd Amendment not meaning exactly what it says.

www.kc3.com/CCW_progress.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#cite_ref-9

If you look up militia (DOJ) you will find that it includes ALL able bodied men, both military/ ("organized"), and non military/ UNORGANIZED, including from the citizenry from 17 up. (Women too) .

"Well Regulated"

There is no confusion as to its meaning as you imply. It means what it has always meant, as confirmed many times by the S.C.O.T.U.S. (Washington DC and Chicago decisions determined "INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS")

Well regulated means well supplied and trained. Obviously, you've never heard of the term "regulations" when used in reference to the daily ration of beans, coffee and salted pork that each soldier/ volunteer was to be allotted per day in accordance with army "regulations". When the "UNORGANIZED" militia is called into service, the federal government is required by "REGULATION" to feed, supply ammo, (It was required to bring their own gun) clothe, and train them. Hence the term, "well regulated".

"Knowing what one is talking about if one is a gun-nut is not in the cards. It's all about confidently ignorant loud-mouthing."
Funny you should say that!

Mac Forrester

For your enlightenment sir,

Very interesting read

The Unabridged Second Amemndment by J Neil Shulman

www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

To keep = to have/ own (as ones property)

To bear = to carry/ possess on ones person. Does not limit to open or concealed.

ARMS= Weapons: Not limited nor restrictive to one type, size or shape.

Shall not be infringed= Shall not be violated/ restricted. Absolute!

Couldn't be plainer my friend!

The individual right has been confirmed by the SCOTUS, both in Washington DC and Chicago.

Mac Forrester-

The constitution was written long before the National Guard was formed. 1787 BOR- 1789 And nowhere in the 2nd amendment, or the constitution for that matter, does it in any way say, or imply, until such time as the National Guard is formed... Or when the government has a better idea. BTW The National Guard is run by the Federal and State Governments, meaning that, it can and will be used against ''you''. (See Slaughter at Kent University.) Try You tube as well, they may have a video of it for you.

Mac Forrester-Good posts and you are absolutely right. The intent in the Constitution for bearing arms was to raise a militia against foreign invasion because there was no standing army. There is already a Supreme Court decision on the books banning a firearm because it was not considered approriate for a militia. We are indeed a nation that views its right to own firearms to the point of being self-destructive. For a civilized country, we have the highest incidence of gun violence in the world. It isn't even close. Statistics prove that countries with strict gun control have minimal incidents. No matter who owns guns here, their origin is legal. Illegal weapons are merely legal weapons stolen or used illegally. Take guns out of the equation and you eliminate gun violence and criminals don't have guns either. It is a simple formula. We as a nation have not attempted it and whether we have any interest in that formula is the real question. However, the other societal factors of gun violence are obviously not controllable. So if we do not adopt gun control as a solution, then we accept the consequences of random and growing gun violence. It isn't a question of if a school massacre or community shooting will take place, it is only how often. It is obvious that gun ownership does not make us safe. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and in this country people kill people with guns that are designed specifically to kill people quickly and efficiently. All arguments and equivocation aside, we either opt for gun control or accept gun violence as the norm. It is everyone's right to choose, but let's not be delusional about it. If there is another solution that prevents gun violence, we certainly haven't heard it or tried it with any success as yet.

@Jim-1953030: #2.39-2.40: For your enlightment sir: The constitutionality of the parts and meanings of the 2ed amendment have never been challenged directly to the SCOTUS. Various justices have ventured affirmations of Its meaning, several times in contradiction of their very affirmations of its intent. Fact, to date, when one considers that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms rests solely on the establishment of a well regulated militia, then, since the country bears no such established militia does that logically indicate the head of the responsible body is dead, therefore the body is likewise dead? Remember now, those constitutional provisions concerning the Army, and the very plain separations of each. It is plain enough, the original thoughts of the founders were either a fear of a standing Army, or the fear of not having a standing Army at that time. Additionally, there are some, Justices included, that have affirmed, this amendment was for the purposes of a warrenty of "states rights" to be used if necessary, against the Federal Government. Again, an argument affirming one part, and contradicting the other. When the national Guard and/or the establishment of our mighty military actually happened, are not relevant to my contentions here. The fact that they are, and you agree they are, is sufficient to my claims. Additional to that sufficiency is the absence of any Federally mandated and well regulated militias. Regards Sir

ECOMAN101#2.41: One of the most lucid and practical posts I have read on this subject. Thank you so much for the thoughtful and accurate insights. My best to you.

Mac

Well sir, you are entitled to your opinion, however the SCOTUS, which is far more qualified than you or I, was most certainly challenged by another government entity to interpret the 2A twice now and have ruled in favor of the individual right. Anything else would just not be able to explain just why there are so many weapons in the hands of the citizens for all this time. An oversight perhaps? Under your premise, Government would have been able to disarm "We the People" a very long time ago. But they haven't..... why is that?

@Jim-1953030: Respectfully, that body has been asked, absent direct case challenge, to opine the basis of our assumed right to bear arms under the acceptance of the meaning of the 2ed amendment. Additionally, there have been actual case challenges to the fitness of a particular weapons appropriateness for use as a weapon of a well regulated militia. Rulings have been both pro and con relative to the particular weapons. Again Sir, none of these off target points are relevant to either mine, and many others set of particulars regarding meaning and intent of this amendment of law. It is clear today the intent versus the accepted meaning are at odds. The amendment binds a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The fog is and has been; does the absence of any and all militias being no longer necessary to the security of a free state render the peoples right to keep and bear arms moot? Without legal merit or basis? Irrelevant? This has not been challenged, more probably due to the popularity of firearms with the people, than for any other reason. Additionally, there is a preception, wrongly I contend, among some jurists that this law was inserted as a safeguard or warranty given to the states for use against the possible tyranny of the Federal government. Why has it not been revoked or changed over time? Its speculation, but probably because It has never been challenged. Again, an affirmed opinion of legal muster is just that. A ruling gathered from the particulars of a case challenge is much different. Regards

Take guns out of the equation and you eliminate gun violence and criminals don't have guns either. It is a simple formula.

Except that in order to achieve your "solution", you would have to un-invent them. You cannot "take guns out of the equation" because the criminals ALREADY have them.

Mac Forrester-

"The fog is and has been; does the absence of any and all militias being no longer necessary to the security of a free state render the peoples right to keep and bear arms moot? Without legal merit or basis?"

The Fog? What fog?
C'mon now Mac, if that were true then a complete ban on weapons would be an open and shut case, and it would have happened already, like England and Austrailia no? Why have they not done that? By who's decision are the militias not necessary? The BOR is a list of hands off to the Federal Government. "Shall not be infringed" kinda burns away the fog. I see no mention of an opportunity for whether or not there will be a declaration of "necessity or nullification", past present or future. Real or imagined.

Onward.....

"When the national Guard and/or the establishment of our mighty military actually happened, are not relevant to my contentions here."

"That being said, we now have a standing Army. Man!, do we have a standing Military! States each have a National Guard. Is there really a need, or, on going Constitutional right for a "Well regulated Militia"? "

Then why mention them? By your mention, it seems as though you were trying to insinuate that the birth of the National Guard was as if, or should be a replacement or trump of he 2A and the militias. They do not. Might be for the Feds, but not the for the citizenry.

"Additional to that sufficiency is the absence of any Federally mandated and well regulated militias. "

There are two types of Militia recognized by the DOJ still to this day. The federal (Organized) and the Citizenry (The Unorganized Militia. And they are alive and well in the U.S.A. Recognized and legal. These are not the bad guys that have been selectively reported by the media as anti government. Here's a link to some. http://www.constitution.org/mil/link2mil.htm Many of the links work but some are not working as they may have been changed. If you type in your search engine... Citizens Militia of _State— you'll find many of the missing.

"Well Regulated" (As previously posted)

Well regulated means well supplied and trained. (Also adjudged by the SCOTUS.) Obviously, you've never heard of the term "regulations" when used in reference to the daily ration of beans, coffee and salted pork that each soldier/ volunteer was to be allotted per day in accordance with army "regulations". When the "UNORGANIZED" militia is called into service, the federal government is required by "REGULATION" to feed, supply ammo, (It was required to bring their own gun) clothe, and train them. Hence the term, "well regulated". (I would hope that by today's standards they have changed the menu, and they would feed us better than beans and salt pork! ;o))

States Rights
When the unconstitutional ban on AK47 semi automatic rifles, and the like was in place during the Clinton presidency, it carried the rule of law throughout the entire USA. All states were required to ban them by Federal law (The law of the land) and they did. When the ban expired, it expired in all states. What happened to the "States Rights" you were referring to? If all guns were to be banned nationally tomorrow, as the boot licking sycophants would suggest and favor, all guns would be required to be confiscated and turned in yes? Well, I ask again, what happened to those "States Rights" you were referring to? Here take a look at this map of the NY counties. Green = Shall issue, Yellow = may issue, and Red is No issue. This will give you an idea how well "States rights" work. www.usacarry.com/forums/attachments/new-york-discussion-firearm-news/195d1223393399-county-county-status-countymap.jpg. You can be perfectly legal in one county and a felon in the next. All in the same state. Because if you have a permit from upstate (green) they will not recognize it in the red. Nice huh? !UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

One doesn't have to agree with the Constitution of the United States, and/ or the Bill of Rights. It is a choice to exercise their rights or not. And they are free to move to the gun free country of their choice should they not want to uphold the constitution as written.

Mac if you don't get it or agree then you just don't get it. What can I say. If it was at all temporary it would have been written and implemented by now. It's not going to happen.

Look at these links. All states are moving towards compliance to the 2A. Before you know it, all requirements for permits will be gone, as they too are unconstitutional.

Shall issue --- www.kc3.com/CCW_progress.htm

Castle Doctrine States--- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine#cite_ref-9

Nice talking to you. Got to hit the sack. Take care and God bless.

My prayers to the victims and the families.

Sabot--

Historical context

"The 2nd Amendment, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, became an object of much debate. Concerned with rising violence in society and the role firearms play in that violence, gun control advocates began to read the 2nd Amendment one way. On the other side, firearm enthusiasts saw the attacks on gun ownership as attacks on freedom, and defended their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment just as fiercely. If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate, they might have phrased the amendment differently, because much of the debate has centered around the way the amendment is phrased.

Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual's right to own a firearm?"

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

I don't really care to debate the Constitution, but what qualifications did these group of white men possess? Those slave owners and masters of genocide were the original "copy and paste" artist. The Magna Carta, writings of John Locke and Montesquieu, and British Common Law provided the the "borrowed" concepts. A group, many illiterate, copied ideas from other people. These same men made no provision for women to have the right to vote and allowed slavery. At every turn, it was about the Southern States opposition to any thought of ending slaves. At what point in history do you feel that one human had the right to "own" another human being---or commit mass genocide in the name of expanding an empire.

This country was ripe for gun manufacturers to flourish and make sure that every one is armed--as opposed to a civil society.

I consider those who advocate for more wars and more defense spending, more domestic weaponry enemies of peace. So--the proper amount of guns that should exist is zero. That's where I stand and all the canned NRA talking points like-"Cars kill way more than guns do" and "could have been done with a feather" won't change my mind.

From Wikipedia;

In some 2001 statistics, it is noted that there are about 420,000 semi-automatic rifles stored at private homes, not assault rifles because assault rifles are select-fire (fully or semi automatic) firearms. mostly SIG SG 550 types. Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military pistols exempted from military service in private possession, all selective-fire weapons having been converted to semi-automatic operation only. In addition, there are several hundred thousand other semi-automatic small arms classified as carbines. The total number of firearms in private homes is estimated minimally at 1.2 million to 3 million.

This is in Switzerland by the way....why does everyone assume the USA has the most firearms in homes per capita. Eastern Europe is another great place to shoot your gun in the air after a night of Vodka drinking. And central Africa?????? No such thing as a gun unless it's fully automatic!

My God some folks can just go on and on, large posts dont make your point it just makes people sleepy.

Maybe we should give prohibition another go, it worked out pretty good the first time.

We have been. They call it "the War on Drugs" now. And it's not working this time around, either.

@ Sandtrich

While I applaud you for admitting "zero" as the amount of guns. That will never happen. We can't unlearn technology. So in your mind, 100% control by the Government would be the next best thing...yes or no?

If the authors of the 2nd Amendment could have foreseen the debate...

They could forsee the debate all to well through the lens of history. Past governments, despots and dictators understood that in order to suppress the people thouroughly they had to strip them of weaponry (arms) of any type. Why would despots and dicatators do that? Because they feared as you do...they didn't want everyone with the ability to fight and defend themselves against hostility.

They saw the issue clearly and wrote the Constitution so that all Americans may own arms.

@ Jim

No Jim. I said if I have "eyes" no one can rule over me. It stands to reason that the entire statement was a descriptive. I'm sorry your so arrogant in your beliefs that you can't see we are in agreement.

@ShutYerYap

The criminal in this story didn't use ANYTHING...he used a FIREARM. So by your own logic.... I can use a FIREARM.

Your saying what you say out of terror and fear. You believe (foolishly) if you could take away each successive level of danger, there will eventually be none and you will be safe from your worst fear... confronation. That's a fairy tale.

@ To all posters

Wow, this is a deep discussion. I'm going to excercise my 2nd Amendment rights and go shoot some targets for practice. Just so I can get really good.

@ Jim#2.47: I have presented the weakness of this amendment, which in turn glares the weakness of our claimed right to keep and bear weapons. I have done so based upon points of law. In defense of your desire to be able to keep and bear arms you have chosen a zig zaging path that begins and ends with nothing, save speculation. Right now the citizens of this country keep and bear arms based completly on perceptions, and traditions of those past perceptions. Truth is, there are no tangible constitutional tenents which guarantee such rights.

Why did I mention the military and the National Guard? Do you understand where the word "Militia" originates? Think military. Same with the National Guard. Does the country need or use a militia of civilians, relative to Its need and use of a standing military?

Any militia of today or yesterday is legal only by the mandates of the federal government, or a particular state or states being given that mandate by the federal government.

Nuts, playing war in the woods calling themselves a militia does not present a constitutional,or even legal requirement for the need of such.

Finally, It is a very thin legal fact, no, a legal conundrum, for any to base their rights to keep and bear arms based upon the 2nd amendment.

I suspect, at some time in the future, an amendment to this amendment will be forthcoming. Abuses of firearms within the citizenry are becoming too prevalent.

The second amendment as RATIFIED by the state’s.

“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.”

Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the
independent clause of a complex sentence, A COMPLETE SENTENCE THAT CAN BY ITSELF CONVEY A CLEAR, CONCISE MEANING, has always set the meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)

Yet a literate, but unkopwledgable person now claims the dependent clause, an incomplete sentence, which can not convey a clear precise meaning, and must have an independent clause to have such meaning (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is now the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it einsteins, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim.

Lets see, have you removed the 30 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same thing? No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA.

Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know,
the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to what exists today. Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted? Oh that’s right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again.

original proposed draft of the right to keep and bear arms of the BILL of
RIGHTS (17 TH of 20 amendments)

on display at the Karpeles Manuscript Library Santa Ana, California

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia
composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and
safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are
dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the
circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases
the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil
power."

(original_draft).html

Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti’s always have. They always fail to
prove, that the miltia existed before the armed individual.

Funny how all that was before the 2008 rulings eh?

Funny how in the 2008 Heller ruling all 9 justices agreed that bearing arms was an individual
right. That 5-4 vote was on the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. gun ban, read it, you will see!

So in truth, the US Supreme Court Justices, having the education and understanding of the basic english language, unlike a few wishful anti freedom zealots posting here, recognize that there is no need to rule on the meanings of the words in the second amendment.

Next, the unorganized militia has and always will be part of the US consitutional landscape, yet not one single one of you can show one single legislative bill, amendment or action that rescinded the unorganized militia in ANY STATE OR ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL. So until you do so, it exists.

Mac-

"I suspect, at some time in the future, an amendment to this amendment will be forthcoming. Abuses of firearms within the citizenry are becoming too prevalent."

Yeah well (ahem) good luck with that.

You mean all those existing laws prohibiting murder, felons posessing a firearm, etc, etc, etc, etc, and yet you want to make these abuses more illegaller, uh yeah that takes reall intelligence.

Lets start by reviewing what the police are responsible for.

The courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect individuals:

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to
provide police protection)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no
liability for failure to provide police protection)

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide
police protection)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide
police protection)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police
protection)

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977);
Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to
provide police protection)

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police
protection)

Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide
police protection)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police
protection)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500
(1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for
failure to provide police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police
protection)

“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal
acts of others.” -Lynch vs North Carolina Department of Justice 1989

Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85 1968 where the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Haynes that any law requiring a felon to self incriminate themselves and violate their 5th amendment rights was not
enforceable as a charge for prosecution. Hence criminals don't have to follow 85% of the existing gun control laws that do so, e.g. your stolen weapons, registrations, etc....

Amazing how the criminals don't have to obey these laws yet only law-abiding citizens do? This just validates the hypocrisy that laws affect only the felons!

After all, 20,000 gun laws and we see how effective a piece of legislation is at stopping violence because if it did, there wouldn't be ANY VIOLENT CRIME.

Yet here you are, placing a plea to the 80 million law abiding, when you should be talking to the two groups responsible for more than 95% of the deaths from use of firearms. The career criminals/gang
members and the crazies who commit suicide (suicide is a felony isnt it!).

The government acknowledges in USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment 2009 that 80% of all violent crimes committed in the US each year are committed by career criminals/gang members.

Suicidal people kinda speak for themselves.

Shall we review police firearm discharge studies in Chicago, NYC, and Virginia where between 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident.

www.popcenter.org/problems/drive_by_shooting/PDFs/Block_and_Block_1993.pdf,
www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/public_information/2007_firearms_discharge_report.pdf,
www.nyclu.org/files/nypd_firearms_report_102207.pdf

So when are you going to address those two groups responsible for over 92% of all deaths using a firearm as frankly it is rather stupid not to address the largest reason for a problem, then again, we are talking about progressives here.

Of course we see from the USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer report 2008
://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/html/bcft/2008/bcft08st.pdf Brady Check
report that of the 99 million checks for purchases from licensed sources only, since 1994.

We see a total of 1.67 million valid rejections, a 68% decrease in felons attempting to buy from a licensed source, and 58% of those rejected being felons.

We see that between 2000-2008 only 13,024 were prosecuted, or less than 1%.

We of course see how the anti gun lobby claims such effectiveness of this pathetically useless law with the hard data they can present that the 1.66 million plus who weren’t prosecuted then didn’t go and buy from an unlicensed source?

We also see how the USDOJ survey in 1997 where felons identified purchasing their weapons from 80% street buys, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows. Then that 68% reduction of attempted buys from
licensed sources puts the street buys/theft at 95.52%, 3.64% retail stores, .64% gun shows in today’s numbers. Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001
://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=940.

Amazing how ineffective that poster child of futility is and this trend is similar with ALL gun control laws. Yet more laws will prevent criminals and terrorists from getting a firearm, ROTFLMFAO, uh yeah, and the moon is made of cheese and the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, right!

Whats this, more failures by the BATF & US government to enforce the existing laws, such a common trend.

://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/03/21/national/main280557.shtml

Undercover congressional investigators using fake IDs were able to skirt mandatory background checks and purchase guns in all of the five states where they tried, according to a report issued Wednesday.

The General Accounting Office study concluded that the national background check system for purchasing guns "cannot ensure that the prospective purchaser is not a felon."

The system checks only whether the gun buyer had a criminal history but does not require any check to see whether the name or identification being used by the buyer is real.

All these laws, legal rulings stating the police have no legal liability, the government studies showing how badly they enforce existing laws, lets see how effectively they actually protect people.

Why is it, that the police, whose best response times are 4 minutes, avg 15-20 minutes can only solve 8.75% of all violent crimes committed on a yearly basis?

FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR (Violent Crime Reported) 45.1% solved to prosecution, 80% success rat e.

://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/

But oh wait, we have to remember those 4.8 million violent crimes the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.

://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2224

://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/FederalJudicialCaseloadStatistics/2008/tables/D04Mar08.pdf

://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv08.pdf

So based on that (1.38 mil x 45.1%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.06% of the violent crimes committed are solved each year.

Man the police really suck at protecting people.

By the way, what is the normal police response plan for a shooter on a campus in minutes and how long does it take for a shooter to kill several dozen disarmed victims, get back to us when you have those disturbing numbers.

Shall we compare actual risk of people carrying concealed rather than waiting at the mercy for the cops to leave their donut shop, yeah lets.

We see US Census 2008 18.4 mil students, 42% 21 or older, 4,300 schools.

86 mil / 4,300 schools = 4,276 avg. students per school

US Census 186 mil 21 or older, 8 mil cpl licensee’s BATF 8 mil / 186 mil = 4.3% of population has cpl license.

18.4 mil x 42% = 7.728 mil x 4.3% = 332,304 / 4,300 schools = 77.28 avg. per school.

77.28 / 4, 276 = 1.8% chance of being around a student who is carrying concealed. Oh wow, that is so scary and so dangerous.

Based on these unsubstantiated fear, we should see thousands, uh no, hundreds, uh no, even tens of police reports showing you college students are identifying and assisting police in catching people who are carrying concealed today? Nope, you people can’t even see the criminals carrying concealed today,
yet you are more afraid of law abiding citizens than criminals. Speaks volumes of the prohibitionists mental immaturity.

Now lets compare cpl licensee's to someone supposedly safe, say a doctor.

BATF Max 8 million CPL's US, approximately 186 million age 21 or older or 4.3% of the people licensed for CPL.

Possible deaths from CPL holders in 3 year time span from Violence Policy Center report 2009, 137 or 45 per year equals .00000562 per concealed license holder.

You can also review Florida's data as an example on CCW at ://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html it says the same thing.

JAMA ://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/286/4/415 700,000 doctors in US kill 44,000 to 98,000 by medical malpractice every year or .065 to .14 per physician.

Physician is .065 or .14 /.00000562 = 12,000 to 25,000 times more likely to harm you than
a CPL holder.

So where is the risk from concealed carry holders and why aren't you antis crying to ban doctors?

@ Jim - Jarhead: You guys need to settle down. First, I am not anti gun rights. I am though "anti" exploitation and abuse of those rights. Jarhead even claims the provision is written in a way that conveys a "clear and concise meaning", which it does not , then goes on to say what it has always meant, which is clearly an assumptive meaning which it is. All your links, quotes and ratifications are irrelevant to the basic point of question. It's much like dressing up the roof of a building as per all codes then finding the building has no appropriate foundation worthy of it being called a building. To understand my point you must look at, and cognitively understand that basis. Being so intent on defending your desired rights you are being blinded to the assunptive validity or invalidity of the basis of those rights. The provision says what it says. Contrary and accepted expressions based on assumptive tradition notwithstanding.

"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".

Militias have had little to do with the security of this country since the war of 1812. None from the beginning of the 20th century to the present.

Our right to keep and bear arms is directly tied to the need of the country to maintain a well regulated militia for It's security.

It can't be construed as a right of the states. If it in fact is, then the provision never meant nor intended It's meaning to be the individual.

My contention is, as many; this constitutional provision is a mess. Accordingly, prevalant abuses and misuses of firearms in this country will one day likely bring about great changes to the assumptions of such a constitutional provision that clearly yields both intent and meaning, that run forward, backward, and sideways.

Forrester By your logic, tell me how many USA citizens are Killed yearly by the " misuse of automobiles "? and should then for the " protection of civilians " all aforesaid be banned?

Eagle Averro: Your dipstick indicates dry.

Thank You, but as usual you looking it Upside down typical Sloth style lol

@Eagle Averro: Only way to measure yours.

Guess they read the other comments and didn't like them! Mine was more than likely one of them.

Mac Forrester-Good posts and you are absolutely right. The intent in the Constitution for bearing arms was to raise a militia against foreign invasion because there was no standing army.

You are absolutely incorrect! The entire Constitution was put in place to protect WE THE PEOPLE from tyranny! We are supposed to be vigilant of OUR government before any other! Go back and read the whole thing and tell me where it says that the government should rule the people, please.

Literally. I went to Pitt for college and this building is directly across from the Engineering building and also across from the Peterson event center - a large building used for hosting basketball games and other things. There were always some crazy folks coming in and out and parts of the building have some pretty tight security. So I wasn't shocked to hear this.

I just came in to see a doctor about my schizophrenia, and now this! I'm scared, and so am I.

He said while gazing into the bathroom mirror!

denver bill, with ignorant commentary like that, you bring to light the reason that so many don't seek treatment until it's too late. congratulations-- you're part of the problem.

Serious, How can you say this about Denver-Bill? O'l Denver is absolutely beside himself over this. He was only worried the perp could get off on an Insanity plea. I understand the guy was shooting like crazy...

denver bill 2, that was funny..........and I voted you up so don't get hostile, but schizophrenia is not "split personality".

Still..........lol.

serious breakfast,

Usually I just go for the quick shot, and extra points for double entendre. I'm glad you read deeper meaning into it, but I'm not sure exactly how I have touched you. Please let me know what I've brought to light, and what exactly is the problem that I'm part of.

@ sidecar - Do you think the pigeon lady is still hanging around PPG or possibly she was the shooter?

denver bill 2, I don't presume to know what's in the mind of serious breakfast, but I'll have a go at it. Here's the thing: when one's life is impacted by mental illness, whether yourself or a loved one, one tends to become a bit touchy about mental illness jokes. I have learned and come to accept that mental illness is simply an illness like any other. I believe serious breakfast is saying that people often don't seek treatment due to the stigma of mental illness.

Years ago I lost a loved one to a brain tumor. Amazing how many people joke about "Do you have a brain tumor or something?" I got a little touchy for a while there. And, yes, my life has been impacted by mental illness and I believe we should all work to remove the stigma associated with it.

Many people with mental illnesses are heroes in my eyes every time they get through another day.

Peace........

Imatthebeach,

I believe you are correct in your assessment of serious breakfast, but I wanted him/her to be the one to say it. I am not unaware of the imapct mental illness has on people's lives. Both of my parents are in assisted living and are losing their memories. They are also well cared for and well loved. That being said, you can laugh about it or you can cry about it. It changes nothing. I prefer laughter most of the time, but I have cried as well. Peace to you too.

denver, let me take this opportunity to make two points:

Age-related dementia is tragic, but comparison to a life-long mental illness..............Well, there just is no comparison. Completely different things. My condolences on your parents, though.

Also, this is a good time to touch on what has been an issue with me here on the Vine (and in the RW in some instances): the use of the word "retard" or the slang suffic "tard". I find them both very offensive and very revealing of the character of their users. And, no, my life has not been touched personally by any form of developmental disorder.

Mentally disturbed people?! You are talking like they're not human

If health care system was improved and compliance, it could be solved prior to shooting

improved and compliance?? By who, our Government??? Yeah, like that would REALLY work out! It would work just as well as every other govnmnt run entity, like the schools were speling is teached......

I'm guessing someone was 'discharged' early because their health insurance ran out..........

Well Marty, who do you suggest take lead on this? The private sector? And who pays for it, the mental patients? ...Time for your meds Marty.

learn how to spell marty, LOL

Let em keep the Guns, we need to register and track all the lunatics with keyboards and internet access...

The IQ cutoff for retardation had to be droped from 85 to 70 after they realized how many blacks had an IQ under 85 as they where all getting out of death row.

"as they where all getting out of death row." 'droped" I guess you will still qualify at 70.

BGraves, human or not if you are not mentally fit to own a weapon responsibly you should not be able to buy one legally.

No! We'll just send the 4 pounds of inanimate medal to prison for making the wrong choices. Then we'll shoot all the brainless fecal-head liberals.

Einstein-3156002

No! We'll just send the 4 pounds of inanimate medal to prison for making the wrong choices. Then we'll shoot all the brainless fecal-head liberals.

Why would you want to shoot yourself?

guns'n ammo guns'n ammo guns'n ammo...

is this sung to the tune of black'nyellow, black'nyellow, black'nyellow?

@ Sarcasmo

Now that's funny!

Best comment on gun control I have ever seen.

In the UK they are so anti protection that there are limits on how many lemons you can buy as they are considered weapons http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063954/Asda-tell-chef-You-buy-lime--classed-weapon.html yet the anti black gun crime SWAT team Operation Trident doesnt even have to bench their guys after they kill someone.

guns'n ammo guns'n ammo guns'n ammo

My girlfriend thanks you for that. ;-)

My vote is for marty-309390 ...simply for the amazing insight.

Regina: Maybe you should work on your reading comprehension skills. There is nothing in the article saying "Eastern Pa." It even says it is happening on the U of Pitt campus.

cwlfan, maybe you should check your map reading skills as well as the attitude.

Uh, cwlfan. The articale stated that Western Psych is outside Pittsburgh. The location given at the beginning of the article was Oakland, Pa. The only logical conclusion, the one Regina arrived at, is that the author is mistaking the neighborhood of Oakland with Oakland, Pa - a fact the author has since figured out and corrected.

The original map that was shown had a red dot on Oakland, PA - in the upper Northeastern side of PA. They have since fixed the error, but not before a series of people commented on it (see other comments below).

There is an Oakland, PA in Susquehanna county, right where they are showing on the map, the shooting took place in the Pittsburgh neighborhood of Oakland. Western, PA.

Face it. NBC news and msnbc.com has written the book on how to make journalistic errors. And remember when NBC's Dateline TV show blew up a GM truck and pointed their finger at GM and accused them of product defects. Unbelievable, but it happened. After that TV "news" broadcast NBC's credibility went to zero.

Dave Ford:

..."Face it. NBC news and msnbc.com has written the book on how to make journalistic errors"...

Whereas, FOX never really bothers with all that "journalist" stuff so they don't make those errors.

You can't make journalistic errors if you don't practice journalism to begin with, can you?

Have a nice day.

shut yer yap

..."Face it. NBC news and msnbc.com has written the book on how to make journalistic errors"...

Whereas, FOX never really bothers with all that "journalist" stuff so they don't make those errors.

You can't make journalistic errors if you don't practice journalism to begin with, can you?

Have a nice day.

Oh man whatta burn!

You showed him there!

!!!!!!! Is there a bunch of teacher's here? Correct ALL of the mistakes now! Who cares?? People were murdered......AGAIN!

Interesting how the two liberals who replied to my post totally ignored my comment concerning the fact that NBC actually exploded a GM truck and filmed/reported the explosion as a product defect. An obvious attempt to bring down GM (can you say evil corporation) and their good high paying union jobs. A much more serious action than just basic journalistic errors. So, to quote a liberal I say "Oh man whatta burn!" Oh wait, is "whatta" really a word? Of course not, but to liberals intelligence and reality are way overrated.

I saw that, I was thinking that 200+ miles is a lot outside Pittsburgh!

Thats a long range rifle Ill have to find out what he is using that can shoot 200 miles

It didnt hit 7 people by itself....

It wouldn't have hit anyone if he didn't have it.

A so called gun nut that knew how to use it would have hit more, he must have been an anti-gun nut and a hypocrite.

Nice message. Good advice that more should follow.