Wars of Nerves *gun grabber alert*

ny times ^ | October 13, 2002 | By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

[dennisw]

Wars of Nerves By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Living in Montgomery County, Md., these days with a sniper on the loose is an unnerving experience. We've all gotten to know our police chief, Charles Moose, through his news conferences during the past two weeks of random shootings. We've also gotten to know our pizza deliveryman better. Last Monday night my wife ordered pizza from the California Pizza Kitchen. When the deliveryman arrived, I was in the living room watching President Bush address the nation about Iraq. As my wife paid the pizza guy, she remarked to him that the pizza smelled great, "but I don't think my husband will get up because he's watching the news conference."

"Oh," the deliveryman said, "has there been another shooting?"

No, no, no, my wife explained, my husband is watching the president speak about Iraq.

But who can blame the deliveryman for assuming that I must be watching a news conference about the shooter. If you had to drive around here at night, standing on people's doorsteps with your back to the street, all you'd be worried about would be the shooter, too. But he's hardly alone. There is something about these shootings that is touching deeper nerves in us all.

The fact that the president speaks only about Iraq, while his neighbors down the street speak only about the shooter, reinforces the sense that this administration is so obsessed with Saddam it has lost touch with the real anxieties of many Americans. Mr. Bush wants to rally the nation to impose gun control on Baghdad, but he won't lift a finger to impose gun control on Bethesda, six miles from the White House.

Personally, I'm glad Mr. Bush is focused on disarming Iraq's madman and tracing Iraq's Scud missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It's a worthy project. I just wish he were equally focused on disarming America's madmen, and supporting laws that would make it easier to trace their .223-caliber bullets and their weapons of individual destruction. A lot of us would like to see more weapons inspectors on the streets here, and in the gun shops here, not just in Baghdad.

What's also frightening about this shooter, with his high-powered rifle, is that he could be the first real domestic copycat of 9/11, in terms of technique. That is, this shooter doesn't seem to be a serial killer with a political agenda or the perverse lust to look into the eyes of his victims before he snuffs out their lives.

No, like Osama bin Laden, this shooter seems to get his thrills from seeing the fear in the eyes of the survivors — after he randomly kills his victims as if they were deer. And like bin Laden, this shooter is a loser who combines evil, cunning, technical prowess, a world stage and a willingness to kill everyday people doing everyday things to magnify that fear. By gunning down people pumping gas, mowing lawns and walking to school, the shooter is making America's capital area squirm. That's power. No wonder the note he apparently left said, "I am God."

And no wonder the Bethesda Gazette, which normally covers school board meetings, carried a big headline that I never thought I'd see in my local paper. It said, "In the Grip of Terror," and the article included little bios of all the people killed. It could have been The New York Times on 9/12: "A County Challenged."

Finally, whether or not this shooter is a twisted copycat, he is part of a larger post-9/11 trend. That trend is the steady erosion of our sense of security, our sense that while the world may be crazy, we can always crawl into our American cocoon, our sense that "over here" we are safe, even if "over there" dragons live.

Well, "over here" is starting to feel like "over there" way too much. Over there, they just shot up U.S. marines guarding Kuwaiti oil fields, but over here, when I filled my car with gas the other day, I ducked behind a pillar so no drive-by sniper could see me; others hide in their back seats. Over there, Saddam terrorizes his people, but over here, my kids are now experts in the fine distinctions between Code Blue and Code Red. Code Blue means they're locked in their public school building because a potential shooter is in the area, and Code Red means they are locked in their classroom because there may be a gunman in the building.

Frankly, I don't want to hear another word about Iraq right now. I want to hear that my president and my Congress are taking the real steps needed in this country — starting with sane gun control and sane economic policy — to stop this slide into over here becoming like over there.

[tpaine]

I see you've turned into roscoe, sappy 'stalker' accuser.

I don't 'stalk' you roscoe. -- It's my duty to counter your anti-constitutional efforts on FR. You have your assignment, I have my pledge to protect & defend.

[Roscoe]

deliberately misquoted

False. Exact quote.

[tpaine]

False says roscoe, false, false, false.
- Pitiful pitter-patter.

[Virginia-American]

I wonder if GWB would ever have the cojones to call out the unorganized militia ...

He should have declared that every airline flight was a mustering of the militia, that if you don't have a gun with you, you can't board.

Sigh

[Dick Bachert]

Isn't "Friedman" -- er -- Jewish?

Tom, there's a FREE LIFETIME MEMBERSHIP waiting for you at the "Will Call" booth at the main gate -- along with a complimentary copy of an excellent history of Europe between 1929 and 1945. (We urge you to read it. There WILL be a test!)

CAMP GUNFREE.
A common sense and historically proven way to keep those dangerous and destructive GUNS out of YOUR life.
MEMBERSHIPS AVAILABLE NOW!
Details below

Concerned about the easy availability of guns in our society?

Alarmed about the "gun nuts" and other freedom wackos the government allows to run loose?

Wish the government would just repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all the guns because you believe sensible people shouldn't suffer because of some idiotic notion about some antiquated “right?”

While we can't take the guns away from the people, we CAN take the people (or at least SOME of them) away from their guns.

At CAMP GUNFREE, we have created an atmosphere of near-total tranquility where you and your family will experience the benefits of a GUN FREE environment.

The unique main gate at Camp GunFree. Most arriving camp guests never see this view from their comfortable rail cars.

Each of our camps is a gated community designed to keep guns away from camp guests. Firmly enforced security measures ensure that these dangerous and destructive devices are kept outside. Each camp boasts 24 hour, 7 day a week sentries and state-of-the-art enclosure systems, guard dogs, trenches and surveillance equipment to absolutely GUARANTEE that no firearms enter the facility. Rigidly controlled access ensures that no guns can ever be smuggled in.

No cost has been spared to ensure that Camp GunFree remains gun free.

All camp members are given distinctive uniforms to distinguish them from any gun-toting barbarians who might attempt to evade our security measures. Each camp member is also assigned a distinctive ID number to ensure that only the right people are allowed within the camp.

Room and board are provided to each member in exchange for rewarding tasks designed to provide a sense of accomplishment and to demonstrate that large numbers of people CAN exist in a gun violence free community.

Camp members engaged in one of our many fun-filled organized work activities.

The current headlines prompt us to remind you that there has NEVER been a shooting by a student in any of the camp schools and we can GUARANTEE that there never will be!!

For more information, call 1-800-GUNFREE
OR visit our new website at
http://www.privategunsareabadthingandwe'llseethatyouare”safe”.batf.gov

(This idea from a pamphlet originally created by The Minnesota Center for Individual Liberty, PO Box 32170, Minneapolis, MN 55432-0170)

[Whilom]

Like most Socialists (and Liberal Democrats), you keep painting yourself into a corner. When flushed out, you merely paint yourself into another corner. I'll keep flushing because it's important to reiterate that Socialists get on FR and pretend to be libertarians in order to sow discord and disinformation. We can soon spot them for what they are, though, when they start preaching about how conservative it is to legalize marijuana and how they'll decide for the rest of us what the Constitution really says.

[tpaine]

How weird.
-- You claim that the USSC can prohibit guns, and when I protest, you call me a socialist.
You are very confused about our constitution, and about my politics.
You claimed:

"The Supreme Court can decide that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms only as part of the militia; in other words, the judges decide what the Constitution means. Further, the Constitution provides a way for the Constitution itself to be changed by amendment. A constitutional amendment through the elected (where numbers count) Congress and a vote of 3/4 of the states or through a Constitutional Convention (membership appointed by the state legislatures, where numbers count) could remove the Second Amendment and replace it with "no citizen has the right to keep or bear arms." That would be devastating, but it still would be "legal" and within our constitutional process." - whilom

[Whilom]

You are very confused about our constitution, and about my politics.

You've already painted yourself into that corner twice. And I'm still clear about our Constitution -- and your politics.

[tpaine]

You are very confused about our constitution, and about 'painted corners'.
You claimed:

"The Supreme Court can decide that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms only as part of the militia; in other words, the judges decide what the Constitution means. Further, the Constitution provides a way for the Constitution itself to be changed by amendment. A constitutional amendment through the elected (where numbers count) Congress and a vote of 3/4 of the states or through a Constitutional Convention (membership appointed by the state legislatures, where numbers count) could remove the Second Amendment and replace it with "no citizen has the right to keep or bear arms." That would be devastating, but it still would be "legal" and within our constitutional process." - whilom

[Whilom]

You're misinformed, ill-informed, and probably chloroformed.

[tpaine]

"The Supreme Court can decide that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms only as part of the militia; in other words, the judges decide what the Constitution means."


Misinformed? -- The above is MORE than 'misinformed', it is sheer autocratic idiocy from an erstwhile supporter of a free republic. - It violates every precept of our inalienable individual rights.

[tpaine]

Marshall, from Marbury v Madison seems to think that a constitutional principle, if it is deemed 'fundamental' enough, is 'designed to be permanent'.

- Individual rights to life, liberty and property seem pretty fundamental to me.
If they were violated by amendment, would not the constitutional contract be void?

Marshall:

"The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it."
"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future govern-ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent."

[Whilom]

Which institution is the final arbiter on whether or not a legislative act -- national, state or local -- is constitutional? Which institution is the final arbiter on what any constitutional provision means?

[Whilom]

Whether or not "it" violates every precept of what you, or any individual, deems his "inalienable individual rights," the final arbiter on what the Constitution, and any of its provisions, means is the Supreme Court, qualified only by the power of citizens in the admendment process -- either through the Congress and State Legislatures or through a called Constitutional Convention. You and I may disagree with any particular Supreme Court ruling but it's view becomes law of the land, not yours, not mine.

[tpaine]

"Which institution is the final arbiter on what any constitutional provision means?"

Justice Marshall:
the people have an original right to establish, for their future govern-ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent."

IE - The people have established that their right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
-- No 'institution' is authorised to 'arbite', - judge, - that such a fundamental inalienable right can be prohibited or amended.

Why do you advocate that these institutions have such powers to abridge your own liberty? It violates self interest & common sense.

[Whilom]

Why do you advocate that these institutions have such powers to abridge your own liberty? It violates self interest & common sense.

Far from it. Tell the court, any court, that John Marshall says that any law you don't like you can violate with impunity by declaring that it does not fit your view of the Constitution. That question has been settled even for folks who deny it. We have a chosen system for defining what the Constitution means, and we'll defend it with the majesty of the law against those whose unlawful conduct declares that the Constitution means whatever they, as individuals, say it means.

[tpaine]

"Which institution is the final arbiter on what any constitutional provision means?"

Answered by Justice Marshall:
-- "The people have an original right to establish, for their future govern-ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent."

IE - The people have established that their right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

-- No 'institution' is authorised to 'arbite', - judge, - that such a fundamental inalienable right can be prohibited or amended.

Why do you advocate that these institutions have such powers to abridge your own liberty? It violates self interest & common sense. - 95

Far from it. Tell the court, any court, that John Marshall says that any law you don't like you can violate with impunity by declaring that it does not fit your view of the Constitution.

Marshall doesn't say that, nor do I. That's not the issue here.
You claim that courts can establish principles. They can not, as is outlined by Marshall.

That question has been settled even for folks who deny it. We have a chosen system for defining what the Constitution means, and we'll defend it with the majesty of the law against those whose unlawful conduct declares that the Constitution means whatever they, as individuals, say it means.

The 2nd amendment is a basic, fundamental principle. It cannot be infringed upon by USSC decisions, or by amendments. It is a permanent liberty, an inseparable part of our free republic. If it is substantially violated, our constitutional contract will be broken.

Your insistence that the 2nd can be amended is against all reason.