Walter, well said.

Well said, and I hope the rest of us are not clamouring for more details with hits on all sorts of web sites to get more "details".

I'll agree with the first part - I once cancelled a subscription to a news magazine that put a full size picture of a young shooter on its cover. There are many instances where I'd like to see the media restrain themselves.

But given that this example involves a total lack of restraint relevant to the Second Ammendment, it seems odd, if not tasteless, to suggest that standard. Of course, this perp was not part of a well-regulated militia, so his right to bear arms is debatable.

SkepticAl, no one has ever claimed that the Second Amendment granted the right to randomly shoot up the place. No one has presented a case for a subordinant clause reversing the main clause, either. You are taking a shot in the dark.

Classic Walter response...

A. That first "no one has ever claimed..." includes me not having made the claim. What's your point? I just said this guy had no restraint, and the issue here is relevant to the Second Ammendment - you brought it in, not me.

B. Technically, the opening of the amendment does not contain a "subordinant" [sic] clause, but rather, an absolute phrase. However, of course these subordinate elements can restrict the main clause - that's often their purpose! For example, "After you've eaten your vegetables, you will be served some dessert." Or, "Until you've mastered your spelling and grammar, don't tangle with the professor!" But, regarding the amendment itself, you may not agree with the interpretation placing the militia at the forefront, but you lose credibility if you dismiss it that blithely. Mine was hardly a shot in the dark (though I like that pun!). Legal minds sharper than ours have gone back and forth on this for decades.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

And Al, the legal minds that used to think like you are have changed with a reading of the rest of the historical context of the amendment. We must always remember that at the time of the writing, every person was considered a part of the "militia", and therefore every person had the right to bear arms. In other writings, the point was made that a free people need to bear arms to defend themselves against a government gone amuk. Note that the first thing any dictator-to-be does is remove guns from every household.

This will be debated at length, again, in our highest court this summer, and I am greatly looking forward to it. Context and intent are everything, and too much import has been given to that comma, and not enough to the writings and historical realities surrounding the 2nd Amendment.

As written elsewhere on another blog, it is like interpreting Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness to mean Life, Liberty and the pursuit of doing anything that makes me happy (wrong). Happiness was defined as the ability to work at the job you wished and care for yourself and your family, not the ability to party day and night and let others care for you. Such a thought was inconceivable in that time, just as it was inconceivable to any American that any govt would think it had the right to take away his/her guns, the very weapons necessary for food and self-defense.

Perspective, yes, that was my point. It's open to interpretation. The one Walter would prefer has not been the prevailing one so far. I'm open to the argument either way, though you might guess which way I lean.

With freedom comes responsibility. I wish the media would act resposibly when it comes to covering--and hyping up--this sort of atrocity.