... continued from the main article above.  Thanks for continuing here.

If, on the one hand, the liberals had their way, and the purchaser of a gun had to submit to more thorough background examations, including thorough investigations of the types that are supposed to be done for security clearances -- where friends, relatives, neighbors, and others around the individual are interviewed to compile a more complete profile of the individual -- then perhaps, just perhaps, this individual would have been prohibited from buying a firearm.   It might not have stopped his rampage, and in fact, based on the information that has come out about the individual, most likely wouldn't have stopped it.  Even based on relatively sketchy information, he seems to have been someone that planned the destruction that he caused and took actions to be able to make his plans to destroy others go as smoothly as possible.  If not firearms, then perhaps pipe bombs, or other destructive materials would have been used.

What level of investigation should be done before letting someone purchase a weapon?  Should they have to be interviewed before they can purchase ammo for the firearms?  Should their personal privacy be severely compromised because they desire to purchase a weapon?  There has to be some sort of trade off, a trade off that liberals normally won't make.

I support reasonable efforts at gun control.  The State of Virginia, which is still one of the easiest places in the country to buy a weapon, has toughened things a lot over the last many years.  Limiting purchasers of guns to one gun a month took a while to get passed in Virginia, but it did pass.  There are background checks (limited) required before a prospective gun owner is permitted to purchase a weapon.  So, there are somewhat reasonable gun control laws in effect now that should have, and did (realistically) help to keep the shootings at Virginia Tech to a smaller number than otherwise could have happened.

While liberals like Mr. Tony will point at the events at Virginia Tech and cry for tighter gun controls, will they be ready to sacrifice the personal privacy that would be gone for some of those controls to be put into place?

but... but... but...  that can't be true!  The liberals have told us that other countries don't have these problems at all, and that other countries of the world are far more advanced in these areas than we are!?!

As a more realistic, and more local perspective on these problems, we might also consider Washington D.C., where only criminals could have guns (until a recent court decision, which is still to be fought over, overturned the trampling of D.C. citizen's second ammendment rights).  D.C. was for many years the "murder capital of the world" even though guns were illegal to own by citizens.

Consider also New York City with similarly restrictive gun laws which were again ignored by the criminals and typically only problematic for normally law abiding citizens.

To go even further, consider that though the weapons used by the shooter at Virginia Tech were legally obtained, that they were carried onto the campus by the shooter was a clear violation of the rules of the University.  In other words, it was basically a criminal act to carry the weapons onto the campus to begin with, much less use the weapons to inflict harm (which is also illegal) on anyone.

As some say -- guns don't kill people, people kill people.  Or perhaps, at times, people with guns kill people.  But there are also times that people with drugs kill people, or people with cars or trucks, or with boats, etc., that kill other people.  When push comes to shove someone that wants to harm others can and will find ways of doing it.  If they want to do so that badly, they will find a way.

Also as some say, if you make gun ownership illegal, only criminals will have and use guns -- for more details, just look at D.C. 

Bzzzt, still doesn't support your statement that unless you are in a militia you shouldn't have the right to bear arms.

It says quite clearly, after giving reason why the rights shouldn't be infringed, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.  The rights are those of the people, and no additional requirements for those rights exist.  There's some reason why those rights shouldn't be infringed, but that is it.

Such is what most judicial scholars would find in reading the constitution and the ammendments to same.