VA Tech killer Cho was armed with 377 rounds..

police speculate he had intended to kill many more...:cry:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/21/AR2007052100390.html

BLACKSBURG, Va., May 21 -- State police officials disclosed Monday that Virginia Tech killer Seung Hui Cho was armed with at least 377 rounds of ammunition when he began his deadly rampage in Norris Hall last month, causing officials to conclude that he planned to kill far more people if he had a chance.

Col. W. Steven Flaherty, testifying before the panel investigating the April 16 massacre, said police recovered 203 live rounds on Cho or scattered on the second floor of Norris Hall. Within nine minutes, Cho, a senior from Fairfax County, had fired 174 rounds, killing 30 people and wounding 24 others, at Norris before apparently sensing police were pursuing him. He shot himself in the head at 9:51 a.m.

But there must have been something gone wrong, because all the brilliant conservative scholars in the country say if students are armed then it will make the campus safer. Well, here was one student with enough rounds to protect a whole bunch of students. What happened? Guess I'll just wait for another brilliant conservative mind to explain it.

and if you have a CCW permit, the state has deemed you to be responsible enough to do so.

just what the second amendment intended. Every student should be armed with at least two semiautomatic handguns and a backpack full of handgrenades for the purpose of campus safety - just what the second amendment intended.

some might want to depend on the mercy of a murderer and that's their right too.

I would rather have a gun I don't need than need a gun I don't have.

Let me share with you the second amendment in my words:

- I have the right to own a gun for the purpose of defending the country.

I don't see anything there about mercy or not needing or not having. The second amendment has become a tool. I suggest we have a reworking of the amendment to bring it into the 21st century. I know that will be very painful since gun advocates (and handgrenade advocates) would never contemplate any change of something they can so easily manipulate for their own purposes.

Give me a break. You leave me with the impression you scorn conservative minds for their interpretation of this amendment, yet you resort to ridiculous examples that have, in my opinion, no bearing on this issue. At all. And frankly, your interpretation is manipulated to serve your views and purpose. It's pretty easy to do:

Here's the text of the second amendment:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Let me break that down as I read it: The federal government shall not infringe upon the right of the people to have 1) a militia
2) the right to keep and bear arms.

Having done that, that supports my belief I have the right to keep a weapon if I so choose (state laws notwithstanding), and it also supports my belief that I have the right to defend myself against someone who wants to take away my life.

As you said "as I read it." Kinda shaky huh??

And what pray tell is the purpose of the militia? Ya know the part you left out? "The security of a free state."

Why should an amendment "support a belief?" What if someone has a different belief and chooses to reintrept? Misintrept? Overinterpret? Interpret it merely to support a business? or a political cause?

So from the second amendment, that one little sentence, it tells you you have the right to defend yourself against someone who wants to kill you. I'll add that to my list of reasons why the amendment should be brought post-haste into the 21st century.

You and I have the right to bear arms to defend the country. Unless of course you want to "read it" differently.

Oh and the second amendment is way down the list of why I scorn conservative minds.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Don't you want to interpret the 2nd amendment that would give credence to your argument? The NRA doesn't want an amendment that can't be "interpreted." Is he free to do as he wishes after he is caught using that handgun in the commission of a crime? Or do we write the laws so crimes can be interpreted to the benefit of criminals?

glock 23s all around. We need to ensure the safety of the campus, just like the second amendment says.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

what you believe is irrelevant. A constitutional amendment should not be open to beliefs or interpretations. It was written in the 18th century and no doubt understood by those who lived in the 18th century. So lets update it so there is no chance of it being interpreted or "believed" into someting it isn't. You "want" the amendment to say that you can protect yourself. That's fine. I want an amendment with zero ambiguity and one that you and I can not possibly have an argument about its content.

In the meantime, lets open up the free gun zones so all college students are safe. Some might believe that's what the second amendment intended. Hell throw in the handgrenades. They can be used to defend yourself right?

Compare a university campus to a REAL gun-free zone like the secured areas of an airport, or an urban courthouse.

Without metal detectors, X-ray machines, and guards a declared gun-free zone is obviously a target-rich environment for a wacko. That's exactly why shootings happen at schools!

The second amendment should not be open to interpretation and should be changed to ensure that it isn't - end of my argument.

I offer sarcastic arguments based on the plethora of arguments that more students would be safe at VT if more, if not all, were armed. I find that nonsense. But there I go, getting off track again. Refer to my first paragraph.

Madison and Jefferson et al most likely did not consider metal detectors and x-ray machines as they put pen to parchment. An update is a good idea but the NRA would oppose such a move because they don't want such an amendment that is not ambiguous and open to interpretation thus the perpetuation of their inglorious conferences praising the weapon and all that it may do.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you have more problems than I could ever imagine.