LAT: Man kills 2 Edison co-workers before turning gun on self

[spin]

123. Thanks for the interesting reply...

As I read your posts I get the feeling that we differ in the sense that you have a more European view of government in that you trust the national government will work wisely for the greater good of the citizens. I favor the American love of independence, freedom and distrust of all government which developed from our Revolutionary War and has always been an inherent trait of our nation.

Distrusting Government: As American As Apple Pie
by Ari Shapiro

April 19, 2010

While a new Pew/NPR survey on trust in government shows intense hostility toward Washington, a study of history shows that the roots of government distrust stretch far back into America's past.

"When you think about the beginning of the country, it was all about throwing off the shackles of the English monarchy," says Vanderbilt University political science professor Marc Hetherington, who wrote the book Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism.

"We set up institutions that were designed to cut down on people imposing their will on ordinary folks," he adds. "Given those circumstances, it's not surprising that we've had a legacy of distrust or mistrust of government ever since the beginning."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126028106

You mention the Federalist Papers in your reply. I would like to point out that there is opposition to the Bill of Rights expressed in these articles and letters. I'll quote from Federalist #84 by Alexander Hamilton:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

***snip***

There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government. And hence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign from the substance of the thing.
http://www.conservativetruth.org/library/fed84.html

Interestingly enough, Federalist #46 written by James Madison (who introduced the Bill of Rights to the 1st United States Congress) does support the right of citizens to bear arms although you will argue that it also mentions a militia.

...Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it....emphasis added
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

Alexander Hamilton had this to say about the militia in Federalist Papers #29:

..."The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." ...emphasis added
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed29.htm

The Supreme Court decision in the Heller decision was split and while you will agree with the minority view, I will agree with the majority. You quote Justice Stevens and claim his statements shows superior scholarship. I will quote Justice Scalia who to me shows the wisdom of Solomon.

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
Justice Antonin Scalia, for the majority in District of Columbia v Heller (U. S. Supreme Court 2008)http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm

I feel the cartoon you posted reflects your opinion on your fellow citizens and your distrust of them as does your statement:

This is what is meant by checks and balances, that they must not allow fear to become the foundation of our government, and the spreading of unreasonable amounts of arms to individuals not participatory in the militia of the citizenry is exactly that: the fermentation of campaigns of assassination and insurrection. We have had our revolution and the Founders never intended for there to be another; such beliefs are sheer mystification of the Constitution. I do not believe that in any way the Founding Fathers conceived the individual right to bear arms as being separated from service in the Militia, and a "well regulated" one at that.

I differ in that I don't fear my fellow citizens and in general I have faith that they will handle their right to keep and bear arms in a responsible manner. I don't believe that firearm ownership fosters "the fermentation of campaigns of assassination and insurrection." While it is true that firearms have caused violence in our nation, the fact that there are over 300,000,000 firearms in our nation and 80,000,000 gun owners demonstrates that the overwhelming majority of firearm owners live up to my expectations. Our violent crime rate has been dropping despite that fact that firearm sales have skyrocketed in recent years and "shall issue" concealed carry has spread across the nation.

Some who post here seriously believe that we should ban and confiscate all firearms and that would solve all of our violence problems and turn the United States into a crime free utopia. I would point out that such efforts would lead to violence on a scale that dwarfs the bloodshed we have today and would lead to an insurrection which could break our nation apart. It is debatable if such an insurrection would be successful but there is no doubt that it would occur and would disrupt our way of life for a considerable time. Banning and confiscation firearms would be a very foolish path to follow.

Others are more reasonable and merely wish to pass draconian gun laws that would impose considerable expense and hurdles in the path of anyone who wished to own firearms. Such "feel good" laws if passed would have little effect on the crime rate or violence caused by firearms as they would be directed at honest and responsible gun owners. No matter how you look at it the Assault Weapons Ban was a total failure and in fact made such weapons popular.

I fall into the category of those who would like to see gun violence decrease and favor the enforcement of existing laws and improving (tweaking) those laws so as to be more effective. I feel that this is the approach we have been using for the last decade and it has yielded results as the crime rate has been declining.

A few who post here believe that most gun laws are oppressive and unnecessary and should be eliminated. I believe they are as misguided as those who wish to ban all firearms. Most of our gun laws are reasonable and effective. However I will agree that in some areas of the nation the gun laws are excessive and should be more like the rational and reasonable laws that exist in states like Florida. Similar laws to those passed in recent years in Florida have spread across the nation. They include "shall issue concealed carry, "stand your ground" castle doctrine and "Take Your Gun to Work" legislation. Florida has been a model for the nation and similar legislation has proved to work in many other states.