Multimedia Manifesto

It's now known what Cho Seung-Hui was doing in the two hours between the shootings at Virginia Tech. He complied what Brian Williams refers to as a "multimedia manifesto," in which he included videotapes, photographs, and writings mailed to the MSNBC office in New York. The interesting part is that it was delayed a day because of an incorrect street and zip code, but once in New York, it was immediately taken to MSNBC.

MSNBC has taken a lot of hits for showing this material on the national news. There are arguments about the sensitivity of this material, the emotional state of those affected, giving in to the shooter's demands, etc. Well, this is sensitive material, and it may stir up emotions, but that doesn't even matter.

If it wasn't aired, the families/friends of those killed should have been able to access it, actually, everyone in the Virginia Tech community should have. The general public, however, also deserves to see this material. The massacre happened at Virginia Tech, which is a public university; therefore it is in the interest of the public to know more about the situation, the shooter's motives (since, everyone interviewed claimed he was so quiet ad so much of a loner that they didn't know his name, personality or anything about him). I don't know how much this evidence will contribute to the investigation or prevention of future shootings, but I think MSNBC did the right thing. They used good judgment, showed the material properly by expressing their understanding of the sensitivity of the material and its timing but also their responsibility as journalists.

On the other hand, gun control has also been discussed as a way to prevent future shootings. I doubt this will help. There are still irresponsible people out there that will have a decent background in order to access guns, but then give the guns to, or leave them in a place easily accessible to kids. For example, Cho was able to buy the guns because his background check showed he didn't have a history of violence. However, Cho was institutionalized for the possibility of having a mental illness, which is not allowed for people buying guns. Therefore, his background check should have prevented him from buying the guns.

The NRA often takes the heat for crises like VA Tech, and Columbine, etc. I am certainly not a follower of the NRA, but they are just exercising their rights in the Constitution. The Constitution in many cases is very vague in terms of its wording, perhaps this was done intentionally by the Founders, but that is another debate for another time.

The Second Amendment reads: "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."

So, the NRA simply interpreted it to mean that anyone should be able to keep and bear arms. Others interpret it to mean militias only, and since we don't have militias anymore, then people shouldn't have guns. Both make sense, the capitalization of particular words like "People, " adds to the confusion, who are these people? My guess is that they were militia men. There is another version ratified by the states in which different words are capitalized, like "Militia," and "Arms" but not people. Jefferson, Madison and many of the other Founders argued that the Constitution must be changed to reflect the values and ideas of its time. Jefferson went so far as to argue that the Constitution must be dissolved and created from scratch with EVERY new generation. Madison & Hamilton make similar arguments in the Federalist Papers. It could be argued that with the increased gun violence of our time that the Second Amendment and other parts of the Constitution are out of date and should be changed. However this won't happen until the make up of the Supreme Court also changes, especially with President Bush's two recent appointments. Replace Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito with Earl Warren, William Brennan, Harry Blackmun, then Roe will be safe and the 2nd Amendment can be discussed.