Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Time to stand up against the gun lobby

By
April 20, 2007

Missing from the incredible outpouring of grief in the tragedy at Virginia Tech was the one ingredient that might provide a measure of assurance that it won’t happen again — unrelenting public outrage over the gun culture that has brought us to this excruciatingly sad place.

As the pieces of the killing field puzzle and the profile of its deranged perpetrator unfolded, authorities announced only that he had bought the two murder weapons legally under the laws of Virginia, among the most lax in the nation, absolving the Roanoke dealers who sold them to him of any criminal responsibility in the matter and certifying just how disruptive the commonwealth’s lack of gun control is to human life.

The absolution granted the dealers and the state were about the only uttered references in the first 48 hours to the real issue paramount in the minds of caring, sane people. What is it going to take to convince the nation’s intimidated lawmakers that this is a society on the verge of becoming the most violent in history, a place where a clearly disturbed person like Cho Seung Hui has easy access to weapons to satisfy his delusions?

Certainly, the tragedy at Columbine High School and a half dozen other similar incidents before this one didn’t do it. The potent lobbying of the firearms industry supported by huge amounts of money supplied by those who believe God and the Constitution give them a right to bear arms no matter what the cost to fellow humans saw to that. One can only wonder what nightmares might have enveloped the National Rifle Association’s utterly uncompromising Wayne LaPierre had his son or daughter been among those killed by this maniac.

Ironically, the very day Cho was rampaging through Tech’s Norris Hall, a Harvard School of Public Health study was documenting that the 15 states with the highest number of gun owners have nearly twice as many suicides as the six states with the lowest gun ownership although the population of the two groups is about the same. The study said that in a nation where half of the suicides are gun suicides and where more than one in three homes have guns “one cannot talk about suicide without talking about guns.”

In reality suicide is exactly what Cho was bent on accomplishing but not before he redressed his imagined grievances. He succeeded in both objectives.

The standard NRA argument in defense of unrestricted access to firearms is that when one is packing heat one is less likely to be a gun victim. There is statistical refutation of this, but to carry the twisted logic to its conclusion, if everyone on the Virginia Tech campus had been armed, Cho would have been quickly put down; that is, of course, if half the student body wasn’t busy eliminating the other half.

Gov. Timothy Kaine announced that he was naming a commission to conduct an independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the massacre, one of the worst of its kind in American history. He was asked whether that would include the gun problem and he replied that the commission would be authorized to examine every aspect. It might seem proper for an investigation to probe whether the university should have been notified by a firearms dealer that one of its students — if in fact Cho had revealed that — was in possession of two semiautomatic handguns. It would have been helpful considering Cho’s mental history, which was no secret to administrators and professors. But don’t hold your breath waiting for that issue to be raised.

Sadly, President Bush seemed unwilling, even as a lame duck with no political consequences to worry about, to acknowledge that the wholesale distribution of guns had anything to do with the tragedy. He merely mumbled something about gun owners having to obey the law.

But it would be naive to expect anything startling on guns from him or any other politician in the face of the NRA’s wrath. True courage is in short supply from Capitol Hill to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue when it comes to this issue. Congress wouldn’t even renew the ban on sales of assault rifles, and some nitwit congressman from Indiana has led the charge to overturn the District of Columbia’s strict firearms laws.

Barring a revolutionary court ruling that puts the Second Amendment in proper perspective or sustained public outrage, we must live — or die — with the prospect of a repeat of this horror somewhere down the road. It’s inevitable.

–DAN K. THOMASSON

(Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.)

40 Responses to Time to stand up against the gun lobby

  1. Justavoice

    April 21, 2007 at 11:27 am

    Let’s talk about gun violence. The City of Philadelphia just hit 81 homicides as of yesterday (3-16-07), and the Mayor in all of his infamous wisdom wants to create more gun laws; such as limiting the number of guns you can buy, etcetera. This is a typical response from politicians. Why? It’s easier to force “law abiding citizens” to abide to new laws, then to figure out a way to keep criminals, who could care less about laws, from committing violent crimes.

    OK, the real problems are CRIMINALS. Let’s deal with them for what they are, “Criminals”. People are born in to this world as good honest people for the most part, minus a few that are born with some sort of mental deficiency and unless on their meds, end up being serial killers. Society as a whole teaches our criminals that it’s OK to be what they are; How? We tell them that even if they commit a crime against society, we will treat them with kid gloves and make it all better. Well, its time we open our eyes, jump the white picket fence and realize that we are in a downward spiral toward a violent society. 2006’s violent crime rate went up 3.7 percent, and it’s not going to get any better if we continue on the same course.

    Gun Laws; Hmm, we have plenty in place; however, no one wants to enforce them. I can’t say no one, I for one being a Police Officer would love to enforce the laws, but society will not let us. I say this due in part that when a person is found with a gun, and commits a crime, because the court and prison system is so backed logged, the person gets to plea out to a lesser crime and he is back on the street victimizing society once again. Our system is backed logged because we have no place to put the people if and when they are convicted. why? No one wants a prison in their back yard. Well, I for one would rather have a prison in my back yard, then a criminal pushing a gun in my face because he is back on the street.

    Another idea is to take guns away from everyone, make them illegal to own. Boy, that’s a brilliant idea. First off it violates our Second Amendment Right, a right that was put in to place by our forefathers; Men who had greater insight then any of the following politician could only imagine having. So, that is not an option, period. Second, if you take guns off the street, make them illegal, huh, let’s see, who will have the guns? Criminals! That is why they are called criminals, because they do not abide by the laws of society, thus engage in illegal activity. So, that will be great, violent crime is on a rise, legal and law abiding citizens give up their guns and can’t defend themselves against the criminals or a rouge government, yea that works!

    How about this; we treat criminals as the scum they are. Criminals in today’s age are nothing more then home grown Terrorist. They victimize people and hold entire neighborhoods at bay. Why should law abiding citizens have to live in fear? They should not, and will not.

    Did you know that it cost approximately 40 thousand dollars (dont hold me to this figure) to house one inmate for one year in a prison? Hell, I know law abiding citizens who don’t even make that much money and are trying to support and raise an entire family. Why in hell are we spending that much? I’ll tell you. We treat our criminals better then our law abiding citizens. We arrest them; we take them to jail, if in fact they get convicted. We remove them from the streets where they were most likely sharing a house with the entire family in a section 8 housing project, sleeping on the floor, and we give them a nice bed, three hot meals, a nice gym to work out in, a yard to play in outside, a nice sofa to sit on while watching a nice big TV, and on top of that, they get to socialize with their friends who are also in Jail. Doesn’t sound to bad for someone who didn’t have much on the street. We provide them with programs to “better” themselves, which from my experience do not work. I worked for a prison system that had the most advanced programs, and also had one of the highest recidivism rates (Repeat Offenders), go figure.

    So, going to prison is not that bad, and does not offer enough discouragement if you ask me. Prison should be just that, prison. Life is all about choices; you can abide by the laws of society and live happy and free, or you can go to jail. Its not rocket science. Prison should be a deterrent, not a place to go and socialize or network with other criminals, or a place to workout and get stronger, so, that when you do get out you can over power your victims and the police.

    I feel if prison sentences were shorter, but actual punishment, people would not be inclined to go back. No gym, no TV, just a Cell. People can visit, but only people such as teachers, clergy, and counselors, NO Family. Prison should be a place to reflect on your problems and better yourself, not used as a social status in today’s criminal culture.

    The money saved on housing inmates could be used for numerous programs; such as education, housing, police, and assisting parents with their children today, instead of dealing with them later as inmates. Teaching our children while they are in their pre-literate stage has to be established, and they need to be shielded from violence, if not, we are only teaching our children to be violent. They can’t distinguish between fiction and reality at that stage, and will follow the actions and reactions of their adult counterparts. Basically, Parents need to step up to the plate and do their part, and raise their children to be productive members of society, not thugs and criminals.

    So, push your politicians to start treating criminals as they should be treated, and definitely do not settle for them taking your rights away or imposing more laws on law abiding citizens as a solution.

  2. Wayne K Dolik

    April 21, 2007 at 3:53 pm

    Firstly, you owe Mr. LaPierre an apology for the inference that things would be different if his children were involved in this tragedy. You’re inference implies that your readers lack qualities of logic and reason.

    There are procedures put in place when there is a shooting on campus. They were not followed on the day of the shooting. Had access been cut off to VT the shooter would not have been able to get back on campus, period. Instead, he killed went to his dorm, then went to the post office and returned to campus and killed again. Do you see that there is something wrong with this picture? The campus was not locked down by law enforcement, nor was the response swift.

    Secondly, it has troubled me greatly that our Health Care System is so broken that no one referred this troubled person for mental help or if necessary institutional help for schizophrenia.

    Lastly, the Second Amendment is one of the few Rights we have left. After Habeas Corpus, Search and Seizer, The Patriot Act and The Military Commission Act, I have just a few words for those who wish to disarm this law-abiding citizen.

    “From my cold dead hands”. Besides that, my pistol fell in the river last spring and I haven’t seen it since!

    One last point about our system of Checks and Balances; as the Second Amendment is in fact, part of our founding Checks and Balances. It was brilliant for our Founding Fathers to give we the People a check on a tyrannical Government. You see we the People have a God given Right to keep and bare arms. And, our Constitution says we do have that right. Also, the Congress was given the right to put down rebellions in our Constitution. You see, it’s a Peoples Congress.

    A new update as of Saturday morning. Several sources report that the Federal authorities ordered the VT and local Police to stand down, and wait for Federal Police to come on campus.

    Now you will not see this reported on the Main Stream Corporate Controlled Media!

  3. geyser

    April 20, 2007 at 4:04 pm

    When the NRA says, Guns don’t kill people, People kill people, to me, they are saying to fix everyone in the country with a Mental Health problem. The NRA doesn’t give a clue or hint, how we going to do that? Wait until every new born comes without the emotion of Anger or Bad Temper? There are other Cho’s out there, there is little to none any warning when the Anger breaks free and and the next rampage takes place.
    If anybody believes a Gun Control Law will happen, you’re dreaming. Gun Control will happen when the NRA stops giving gifts to Law makers and helps them get reelected. Not even a Son or Daughter killed by a Gun in the hands of a lunitic, will change any minds. Congress and bush allowed the Assult Rifle back on the streets, you think Gun Control is on their agenda?
    IMO, the only Gun allowed to be sold and owned is a Hunting rifle. There is no need for any other type of Gun, in the hands of any citizen. When this ever takes place, then the NRA will be correct saying, Guns don’t kill.

    Taking One Day at a Time

  4. Dr Who

    April 20, 2007 at 6:02 pm

    First, Mr. Cho had a 9mm pistol. This is not a minor caliber weapon. It is standard issue of the US army and NATO.

    Now some comments on the original article:

    Ironically, the very day Cho was rampaging through Tech’s Norris Hall, a Harvard School of Public Health study was documenting that the 15 states with the highest number of gun owners have nearly twice as many suicides as the six states with the lowest gun ownership although the population of the two groups is about the same.

    What is the point? Gun ownership leads to debilitating depression? When you remove suicide from “Gun violence” statistics (people WILL find a way to kill themselves if they are so bent), there is little correlation between gun control laws and gun violence. Vermont has NO gun control laws. You can carry a pistol concealed, open on your hip, around your neck on a rope, it’s all legally. They have very low gun violence rates. Michigan has fairly strict gun laws and high violence rates. 2 states vs. 6 sounds like rural states vs. ones with major urban centers. There IS a tight correlation between the amount of gun violence and whether it is an urban center or a rural area. Rural areas also tend to have higher suicide rates. Sorry that this is NOT politically correct, but inner cities account for the majority of non-suicide gun deaths. Get over it!

    What is it going to take to convince the nation’s intimidated lawmakers that this is a society on the verge of becoming the most violent in history, a place where a clearly disturbed person like Cho Seung Hui has easy access to weapons to satisfy his delusions?
    What is it going to take before this country takes mental illness seriously? Would we all prefer that he blew up 32 people rather than shot them? Mr. Cho was found mentally incompetent, as well as a danger to himself and others, by the courts and released the next day to the streets! Why? there was no program and money to give him help! Please try to keep in mind that he was insane on Monday. After Wilma, some teenage thugs tried to break into my house. Because a madman goes on a killing spree, I need to wait for the police to show up, when there is no power, no street lights and no phone to call for help? How did waiting for the police work out on the VT campus?

    Should Mr. Cho have been able to go to a store and buy a gun? NO, he was insane, he should NOT have been on the streets. Does that mean I should be barred from being able to protect myself?

    We live in the real world kiddies. Gang bangers DO NOT go the the local gun range to get their weapons, but they will still kill with them. Since the police do not, yet, sit 7×24 in my living room (scary thought at that), it IS my responsibility to remain safe. I can not do that bringing a baseball bat to a gunfight.

  5. Bill Robinson

    April 20, 2007 at 9:54 pm

    Let’s face facts. This recent slaughter will not make a difference in any of the gun laws in the forseeable future. Nothing will change because those who want change don’t want it hard enough to out-vote the NRA (No Rational Activity) Lobby. So we go on with the status quo and some kids and teachers get killed now and then, so what?
    A friend of mine whom I have known for a very long time says the solution is to arm all the citizens. He was a Thoracic Surgeon and gave it up to sell machine guns, legally of course. I don’t know for sure, but I assume he earns much more selling guns than he did as a very competent MD. He says that if the Professors had been carrying weapons the death toll would have been lower. I can’t argue with him any longer. I don’t agree, but I think he has a good point.
    I have a child who is a Professor at a University. I have suggested that they begin to carry the snub nose .38 Smith & Wesson loaded with hollow points that I left behind when I moved. They are considering it. This idea is abhorrent to both of us, yet I am suggesting it and my child is considering it. What a sad state this world is in.
    To those who claim protection under the second amendment to the Constitution I say the following: The second amendment speaks to a well armed militia. If that is what you claim as your authority, and if that is what you claim to be a part of, then you would immediately be shipped to Iraq with your weapon in hand to be the militia that our Constitution envisioned when the amendment was appended. You do not have any recourse. Either go or give up your weapon. You can stay in Iraq until the USA is safe or you are dead. You will have fulfilled the mission and intent of the amendment and the militia. Off you go.
    To the criminals who have guns I offer the following: You have 31 days to surrender your guns. As of June 1, 2007 any person who is not in the military or police will be arrested and given 3 days to prove that the weapon is not theirs. If they cannot prove this they will be executed by a firing squad. There will be no appeals.
    This may be anarchy but it will work and we will be gun free by August. It will ease the load on the prisons, empty some of the seats in Congress as the supporters of the gun lobby go off to Iraq along with Cheney and Bush, and probably end the war in Iraq as a minor side benefit.
    Stealing guns will no longer be appealing because of the threat of death. Using them will create an immediate reaction–death by firing squad on the spot. No trial, no jail, no waste of public funds or time.
    I would propose a similar solution for drug possession, but I believe I have given the readers enough to mull over for one day.

  6. jean-claude

    April 20, 2007 at 11:33 pm

    The post A SIMPLE SOLUTION Submitted by Bill Robinson is a scary diatribe. The post spews bile and venom at guns, gun owners, gun-rights advocates, gun-rights associations. It’s a form of bigotry, and has striking similarity and direct parallels with the racial bigotry pre 1960’s.

    This Gun Bigotry is the notion only miscreants, red necks, and other nasty-named people would own guns. There’s an inability to distinguish honest people from criminals. The notion that you can only vote, OOPS! I mean have a firearm if you are government approved.

    Particularly scary is the way he tiptoes around the fact that really he wants to see all gun owners DEAD!

    Bill Robinson’s screed drips with hate, and from a person who in polite society, away from the keyboard and it’s anonymity, would likely claim he is anti hate. His diatribe speaks for the people who believe you have little or not right to defend yourself if attacked, because social order may only be imposed by an authority, and that authority is superior to your right to exist (if push comes to shove!)

    The kind of gun control that we are hearing lately is really synonymous with “disarming the public.”
    Read carefully when you see the term “gun control.” You will always find they are talking about controlling you. These ideas that seek to regulate and demean honest people in the false name of security is actually tyranny. A tyranny that is backed by an elitist bigotry. Very Scary indeed.

  7. Tango7

    April 21, 2007 at 12:54 am

    Bill – you regurgitate the standard “gun control” myth that the “militia” referred to in the Constitution is the “National Guard” of today.

    How can this be, when the Constituion was written in the 1790’s, and the National Guard didn’t come into existence until the 1920’s?

    In addition, please note the following:
    US CODE,TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
    311. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    Why don’t you try addressing the issue at hand (guns, the failure of the school, the judiciary, and our society) without using the bodies of the dead as a battlement to wave about your anti-Bush, anti-Iraq liberal banner?

    And as far as only the police having weapons? In case you’re unaware, the US Supreme Court has held (in several cases) that the police cannot be held responsible for a failure to protect individuals from attacks . If the police are under no obligation to protect me and my family from those intent on doing us harm, then why should we trust them as the only ones with arms?

    Doubt me? Please feel free to Google the following:

    Castle Rock v. Gonzales, Bowers v. DeVito, or South v. Maryland. And that’s only three of at least 10 cases.

    All of them provide that the Police have no affirmative obligation to protect the individuals, and instead operate to protect the society as a whole.

    I thought that when only the police had guns, it was called a police state?

    And while I, with the nation, mourn the deaths of these young adults, I would sooner take my chances with a potential mass killer out there rather than live cozily crushed under your Orwellian boot, no matter how well-intentioned.

    After all, as Benjamin Franklin so adeptly said: Those that would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security

    I know my ancestor, Solomon Peirce, who is named on the Minuteman statue in Concord MA would have felt the same way.

  8. Tango7

    April 21, 2007 at 12:56 am

    The kind of gun control that we are hearing lately is really synonymous with “disarming the public.”
    Read carefully when you see the term “gun control.” You will always find they are talking about controlling you. These ideas that seek to regulate and demean honest people in the false name of security is actually tyranny. A tyranny that is backed by an elitist bigotry. Very Scary indeed.

    Very well put, Jean-Claude. As folks once put it… it’s not about guns, it’s about control.

  9. Tango7

    April 21, 2007 at 1:03 am

    Congress and Bush didn’t “…allow the Assault rifle back on the streets”. Only new production was banned – the ones already “on the streets” were allowed to stay there. And even the much ballyhooed but truly ineffective “ban” would not have stopped this event.

    If you believe otherwise you are an unwitting tool of liars.

  10. Tango7

    April 21, 2007 at 2:25 am

    Once again, Dan Thomasson isn’t letting a little thing like the truth stand in the way of his free use of a horrific tragedy to foment his pre-existing agenda of control.

    He bemoans the “lax” laws of Virgina, and their “lack of gun control”; yet the state already had several of the “standards” demanded by the Brady Bunch, Handgun Control et al, in place, such as:

    – A mandatory proof of residency and a criminal background check, which the “controllers” demanded was a necessity for public safety back in 1993.

    – The “one gun a month” law, which Cho complied with, since he purchased his guns over a five week period.

    -The declaration of the Virginia Tech campus as a “Gun Free Zone”.

    They’re your “gun control” standards, Dan.

    Some of the best ideas “gun control” had to offer were already in place, yet, once again, a criminal failed to be stopped by them.

    While I am shocked (both at the Virginia Tech tragedy and the efforts of the “gun control” folks to use the pile of bodies as a battlement to wave their banner from, I doubt it shocks Mr. Thomasson.

    Mr. Thomasson has a history of misrepresentation and falsehoods, alternately attacking the various articles of the Constitution in his works as “archaic and outdated” or wrapping himself in it when it suits him.

    In past articles, he has accused the NRA of “terrorizing it’s political opponents, and playing on paranoia”, yet he turns a benevolently blind eye to the terror and paranoia broadcast by the Brady group and Handgun Control… assumably because they’re pursuing the same agenda.

    He willingly regurgitates contrived statistics presented by the “gun control” folks like the inclusion of 19-24 year olds as “children”; the knowing omission of the backgrounds of violent felons killing other felons in “preventable firearms death” numbers, and the inclusion of juvenile felons killed by police while committing crimes as “innocent victims of gun violence”.

    Yet when he must begrudgingly acknowledge that the NRA may be correct it its assertion that CCW holders are less likely to be victims of crime – he then proceeds to follow the standard liberal process of relegating gun owners to sterotypes of idiocy and ineptitude, asserting that any CCW holders present would have been “busy eliminating the others”.

    This, even though CCW holders have been shown over the past 20 years to mistakenly identify a person as a criminal in less than 2% of all civilian shootings, compared to the Police, who run about an 11% mistake rate for theirs.

    But remember, according to Mr. Thomasson and the “gun control” folks, the Police are the only ones who need guns, right?

    And yet in closing, Mr. Thomasson still clings to his liberal ideology, bemoaning the “attack” by “nitwits” on the “strict” firearms laws in the District of Columbia. So effective are these laws, in fact, that there were no reports of armed assaults in D.C. in 2003.

    Oh, I’m sorry… I was looking at the rate for Kennesaw, Georgia, where every resident is required by law to own a firearm, not the “safe haven” of Washington D.C., where murder occurs at 5.75 times the national average, and aggravated assault occurs twice as frequently as the rest of the country. Wow, those laws are obviously working well, Dan. I can understand why you feel that only “nitwits” would attack them.

    Keep blaming the guns instead of the criminals, and continue to suggest that the mere presence of an inanimate object is capable of turning saints into slaughterers, simply due to it’s inherent evil powers.

    What a sterling example, Dan. You’ve proven you’re true to form as usual.

    It’s a shame you don’t understand that that form is a model for a failed ideology, and flawed reasoning – one that uses feelings instead of logic, emotions instead of statistics, and superstitions instead of science, to advance an agenda of “control” that will only effect those that are willing to obey the laws.

  11. DVL666

    April 22, 2007 at 8:31 pm

    What part of “a well regulated militia” does the NRA not comprehend. Because our forefathers hated Standing armies and had no money to have one the Gun Nuts want no restrictions. Well boys and girls take your guns and get on the next plane to Iraq or shut-up. While every other American has been stripped of countless freedoms post 9/11 the NRA and gun lobby go on business as usual. Time for the “Gutless Wonders ” we call politicians to step up to the plate.

  12. Ardie

    April 21, 2007 at 11:11 am

    My solution: take the bullets away from the gun owners. Encourage reloading of bullets which would be legal as well as the purchase of reloading equipment, etc. If a gun owner needs bullets–reload your own. Simple as that. (imagine Cho having to buy reloading equipment; reloading bullets in his dorm!)

  13. yarply

    April 21, 2007 at 2:40 pm

    So according to the above rocket scientist we (law abiding) people should disarm and that will stop people from killing people.
    What a joke. Criminals won’t disarm so we would be defenseless. In ALL countries which have banned firearms, violent crime has sky rocketed. You just do not hear about it much any more because the press in thoughs countries are ran and controlled by the state, Like ours is getting to be.
    More people are killed in this country each year by cars than by guns, more from pools, yet where is the call to ban cars? or pools? More people are killed each year by baseball bats than by “assault” weapons. Yet where is the outrage and the massive call to ban baseball bats?

    Well if just a few other people in that class had been armed I bet the killer would NOT have killed so many,, If any.

  14. yarply

    April 21, 2007 at 8:16 pm

    I’m sure the idea of living in a totalitarian police state will appeal to some “people” as a way of keeping themselves safe.
    While the idea that Every citizen should be a soldier as was the case with the Greeks and Romans, is a must for every free state.
    As Thomas Jefferson says:Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny, and also; No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
    Because as he said;The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
    That is the BEST reason one can think of why people should struggle to remain armed.
    People are free or at least can feel safe in the illusion of freedom as long as they remain armed.
    So to thoughs who say take EVERYONES guns away,,,, If you do not like living in a supposed free country. Get the hell out of this one and go live (hide) somewhere else…..

  15. Carl Nemo

    April 21, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    People best open their eyes and pay attention! Visualize a totally disarmed AmeriKa except for the military and law enforcement. Think again of how well our elected disappointments have been taking care of business in the past 30 years or so. We are currently in a war based on “cooked” intelligence courtesy of the Wolfowitz-Feith-Cheney rogue intelligence pipeline. The House, The Senate, and the Executive branch are already dissing the greater American electorate’s wishes. To quote Bush on his first bid for office when he told a questioning citizen/reporter “who cares what you think”. When the guy identified himself and that he worked for some news org, then “Mr. Snarky shouted”, well then “just get it right”…?! The point being is evidently what “we the people” think doesn’t count to this collective cabal of “republicrats” who are all marching to the beat of their NWO/MIC/AIPAC controllers.

    We’ve all witnessed how law enforcement treats protestors at recent political conventions; i.e., the Republican convention and peaceful protests in “anywhere AmeriKa”. It was revealed that NYC law enforcement personnel fanned out across the country infiltrating groups for “intelligence” gathering purposes…huh?! Mind you city based law enforcement is engaged in the HUMINT (Human Intelligence) business by fanning out nationally…?! No doubt, the Bushistas would give Blackwater Security a contract to clean up domestic insurgents; i.e, Americans who might care to resist the implementation of an overt police state imposed upon it’s citizenry. Just visualize the terror of hearing the black choppers relentlessly pounding the the skies with with the throb of their turbo-prop engines as they land in parking lots even private property rounding up designated targets against the NWO/MIC/AIPAC crowd. If you think I’m being melodramatic, then I advise you to think again. Again, you’ll have lit candles and flowers to protect yourselves from tyranny…! :O
    There’s a current case Colorado where some folks were thrown out of a gathering that was hosting Bush as the featured speaker. They didn’t act up at the gathering but some “volpo” spotted some “End the War” type stickers on their cars, so they decided to pre-emptively expel them from King George’s presence…?! I could go on and on how these elected mattoids trample our rights everyday and push it to the envelope.

    Now think for a just a minute what might keep them from declaring martial law at the drop of a hat and overtly enslaving Americans. They’l allow America’s tabloid-brained citizens to shop until they drop, but they darest not question the State. We see how Russia treated protestors recently. All they have have is bottles and rocks to resist an incredibly well-armed bunch of statist criminals that control Russia. Yes, the citizens are very “safe” indeed without having arms to protect themselves from massive government intrusion if the need should come. I guess they’l all carry flowers and lit candles while they march around in front of Putin and his cronies who fear no serious resistance from “law abiding” civilians… :)) Russia has for all practical purposes reverted back to it’s old Sovietski self. It’s now a hybrid of Communism and “pirate capitalism”; i.e., the absolute worst traits of both “isms”.

    I’m not preaching revolution, but as long as elected mattoids have it in their ever-grasping heads that mayhem would occur if they try to pull something off they’l tread lightly; i.e., a fairly well-armed citizenry. I’ve always like the old colonial battle flag showing a coiled, ready-to-strike rattlesnake, with motto “Don’t Tread on Me”…!

    I’m not an NRA member, nor am I a “gun nut”, but I do believe in “concealed carry” being allowed for law-abiding citizens who have been trained to use and maintain their weapon of choice. So once certified and they’ve gone through an appropriate program they can apply for a “concealed carry” permit. It’s a proven fact that crime both property and personal attacks have dropped dramatically in those jurisdictions that allow such disposition of a weapon. These classes should also discuss the use of deadly force and the legal ramificatons if they should use such force. To me a gun is a tool, no different than a good shovel, axe, or a chainsaw and used intelligently for what is designed; i.e., hunt for game which might be “needed” for tablefare, or to terminate a deadly threat, then it has a place in the land of the “free” and the home of the brave. It’s mandatory that every Swiss household be armed. Switzerland is the longest standing democracy on the planet, at 700 years. If the arabs entrust the Swiss to hold most if not all of their gold, then that’s testament alone to what it means to be a nation that’s ready to protect itself from all aggressors both foreign and domestic. Every Swiss citizen is also “required” to participate in their government processes. No whiners, slackers and butt-sliders there.

    For the bleeding heart, feelgood types that think disarming Americans is the answer then you best do a pre-signup for your UPC tattoo and your micro-chip implant immediately if not sooner! Any politician especially the disgusting likes ot Ted Kennedy and others that might pander to this tragedy in Virginia for voter appeal, needs to be summarily kicked out of office for once and all. They need to focus on getting our butts out of this criminal engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan asap.

    Gun control is nothing but hype. Australia had one of these similar mass shooting tragedies about 15 years ago and guns were outlawed. Armed crime soared because criminals don’t follow the law they “break the law”…get it! Only peaceful law-abiding citizens end up being enslaved. Are there any questions…?! Carl Nemo**==

  16. jerry huddleston

    April 21, 2007 at 11:02 pm

    Here is a shocker for the anti gunner’s The second amendment of the constitution is the enforcement clause for the entire constitution. The second amendment is the only guarantee that a government of the people by the people and for the people does not become a government of the government by the government and for the government.
    The government did not give the people the right to keep and bear arms. The second amendment is a rule set down by the people which forbids the government to infringe on that right.
    In this country the people are the ultimate enforcers of the law. Disarming the people does not insure peace and safety. It guarantees havoc and crime.
    It is just as illogical to think that if you take away the sheep dog the sheep will be safer as it is to assume that a disarmed citizenry will be safe from the government or the criminal element.
    The US supreme court has ruled that the police are not responsible for your protection. The police have never prevented a school shooting from occurring.
    Who will? 22,000 gun control laws have not prevented it either. Does any body honestly believe that one more will do the job.
    If you do, your sanity is seriously in question.
    If television ,movies and video games do not influence people why are there so many commercials? THINK AGAIN.
    The problem is with the TV,Movie and Video industry. Our so called entertainment is composed of murder ,slaughter ,rape incest and pornography. This is interspersed with Viagra and lavitra commercials that are
    sanitized. Then there is Anna Nicole Smith or any other low life trash they can find to help deteriorate the mind of our youth. If your lucky you can find a sex change operation, live.
    There is no evil inanimate object. Evil people use whatever they can to commit evil. Some people are born with brain defects. Most Evil people are conditioned to be that way. If a young person is bombarded with crap that tells him his problems can all be solved by killing everybody who he dislikes or distrusts he is being conditioned to do just that. You cannot train a dog to kill and hate and then expect him to be gentle.
    In the name of free speech we are allowing this profanity in the form of entertainment to ruin our civilization. You cannot yell fire in a theater but it is OK to preach slaughter, rape and immorality in the form of entertainment. If you continue to bury your heads in the sand, someone who has been conditioned to do so will shoot you . blow you up, burn you to death , gas you, cut your throat or exterminate you just as they have been conditioned to do. The most puzzling part to me is not why the VT shootings took place but how people can be so stupid as to not see the cause of these rampages.
    To me it is as plain as day. They are sons and daughters of the God of trash. Our politicians are blinded by the campaign funds of hollywierd and they cannot get elected with out the TV. Unrightfully so, free speech is only attacked when someone says something objectionable to a black person. You can call white Christians anything you wish. Since the 60’s there has been a concerted movement to eliminate any moral guidelines ,such as the ten commandments. Now that the results are beginning to be manifested you are mystified. Well not me. You haven’t seen anything yet. If the second amendment is repealed what will insure the others?
    NOTHING.

  17. yarply

    April 21, 2007 at 11:48 pm

    Amendment II

    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.

    This statement, which is based in two parts states that 1. Well regulated militias and
    2.People, have the right to Keep AND bear Arms, and that the right to do so shall NOT be infringed upon.

    Arms as a term used in a legal document, which the constitution is,, has a Broad meaning. And can mean any weapon used in the art of warfare or self defence. For a long period of time in this country, people in this country could legally own, by the rights granted under the 2nd amendment all kinds of weapons. Cannons, swords, machine guns, etc. Until at some point in history the cost of such items meant ordinary people could not afford to “arm” themselves to the teeth. Of course the government later banned (infringed) or regulated (infringed) by laws, what weapons that citizens and which (infringed) citizens could own and carry (bear) arms by supposed right to carry laws, concealed weapons permitting, gun safety courses, and other laws. Which are all infringements to our rights to bear arms.

    Of course now they say, if you have committed a fed crime or hit your spouse or broken some other disqualifying law you cannot (infringement) own or carry (bear) a gun (arms), whether or not you have paid your time and served your sentence for your crime as mandated by law, in all reality being punished twice for the same crime and in a sense getting a lifetime punishment. (But that’s another subject).
    Now they (the government) and
    government sponsored groups (gun grabbers)
    are trying to take what little we have left, so we (US citizens) will be totally defenseless and enslaved. All laws which regulate (infringe) who, when, why, and how we as citizens carry (bear) are infringements of our rights. In strict interpretation of the 2nd amendment the 2nd amendment “IS” our concealed weapons permit, it IS our right to carry law.
    Do not be fooled by its for the children’s sake or its for our safety that we do this.
    Its about power, Their power and our lack of it.

    Our Forefathers fought revolutions,
    and two WORLD WARS to safe guard these principals and people now want to “piss”
    them away. Might as well go and urinate on their graves too. So much blood spilt to protect the freedoms we have and now people would like to GIVE them away for their own safety (cowards). What a waste.

    When we no longer have a way to defend ourselves against criminals (governmental and civilian) we are slaves.

  18. Carl Nemo

    April 21, 2007 at 11:56 pm

    Jerry Huddleston, well stated and “on-the-mark”…Carl Nemo

  19. yarply

    April 22, 2007 at 12:06 am

    Good post, well stated…

  20. jarrodlombardo

    April 23, 2007 at 11:27 am

    Learn the law:
    US CODE,TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
    311. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    --Jarrod

  21. yarply

    April 23, 2007 at 8:04 pm

    It never ceases to amaze me that when the Gun grabbers quote the 2nd amendment they always seem to quote just the first part and then fail to mention the part after the second comma.
    Its like they just will not admit that there are two statements being stated here.
    Maybe numbers would have made it more plainer.
    1.A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, 2. the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    To me it is plain, they state that 1. A well regulated militia is essential to the security of a free state,, And 2. the right
    of people (that’s you and me)to keep arms and to bear them shall not be messed with. (regulated) Look up infringed…. Aw heck
    I’ll do it for ya; infringe: To encroach or trespass; to affect (a person’s rights, freedom, etc) in such a way as to limit or reduce them.
    Really people if gun rights in this country and the right to keep them scare you or bother you so much. Move somewhere else. It was this way before you got here.
    Its not like someone changed the rules on you. People have immigrated here knowing that guns and the freedom to have them is part of this country. So if you do not like the freedoms of this country go somewhere else.

  22. yarply

    April 23, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    Kennesaw, GA’s
    Mandatory Gun Law
    A Proven Success

    11-6-99
    The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia’s ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes.

    The city’s population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997).

    “After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.”

    With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn’t. The fact is I can’t remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story.

    What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city’s crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed.

    The bad guys didn’t force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don’t have a death wish. There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired. Yet, in both cases the thugs bent on criminal mischief decided to take their ambitions elsewhere and my family remained safe. Only God knows what would have happened if a firearm had not been handy.

    Yes, there are times when gun accidents occur. There are many more accidents involving automobiles, airplanes, bathroom shower stalls and backyard swimming pools, however. And let’s not forget that freedom is risky business. Freedom allows people to make mistakes recognizing that the alternative is worse.

    A local newspaper columnist recently said that other nations are free without possessing firearms. He fails to see the obvious fact that people who are not free to own firearms are not free. Many people live their entire lives and never know a day of real freedom. And, while I’m sure that there are those who would choose to live without freedom, there are some of us who would rather die free than live enslaved.

  23. CheckerboardStrangler

    April 23, 2007 at 10:53 pm

    I guess the next logical step is to make sure that everyone is forced to wear gigantic overstuffed mittens on their hands because it is possible to kill with your bare hands if you have the right training or just a touch of bone crushing homicidal rage.

  24. April-May

    April 29, 2007 at 7:38 pm

    “Militia” when the Bill of Rights was written referred to any military group — typically organized and directed by the government.

    What the Second Amendment says — in its Ciceronian ornament and periodic syntax — is that militias need to be held in check (well regulated). The powers of the government need to be held in check.

    Indeed the whole premise of the Bill of Rights is that it checks the powers of government to obstruct the rights of the people.

    The people need to hold the militia in check because it’s “necessary to the security of a free state.” — We’re not talking Kansas or Maine here. “Free state” means “in a condition of liberty, freedom, justice.”

    So, how do we ensure that the govt. militia is held in check and that the state of the lives of the people are free?

    — We ensure that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    This is the current legal thinking about the meaning of the Second Amendment. It’s called the “insurrectionist reading.”

    Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Franklin, Washington all write in their papers that a free people must have access to arms and the means to control their government.

    From the Declaration of Independence:

    “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it . . . . ”

    ———————————

    But let’s get back to the issue at hand.

    Criminals and whack jobs don’t obey laws. When we turn our campuses into gun free zones, infringing upon the right of law abiding citizens to have the means to defend themselves, we may as well hang a sign on the gate:

    “We’ve systematically, as a matter of administrative policy, thoroughly disarmed ourselves. We are defenseless. Come get us.”

    I don’t subscribe to the notion that perhaps some witness to Cho who had a permit and was legally armed might have stopped the carnage by using lethal force.

    What I do believe is that had the school not been declared a “gun free zone” and thereby systematically disarmed, that nut jobs like Cho may not have viewed the campus as a defenseless target.

    What’s the common attribute of ALL school shootings? They all take place on campuses where guns have been removed and the occupants rendered defenseless.

  25. Jerry

    April 20, 2007 at 8:09 am

    The NRA’s argument is that guns don’t kill people; people kill people. Taking the logic of that argument overseas, one might propose that nukes don’t kill people; people kill people, and Iranians should be allowed to have a nuke to snuggle up with in bed and feel good about how safe their nuke keeps them. (Heck, Joe’s Guns’n’Rods shop in Virginia would sell Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a nuke tomorrow if he could produce a driver’s license and the money.) Since the weaponry is not the problem, according to the NRA’s logic, why couldn’t we just sell Egypt and Saudi and Turkey and the Gulf states a bomb or two and make a profit?

    But when reality hits even a third-rate mind like Bush’s, he realizes that the weapon DOES matter, and that weapons need to be regulated, and that an arms race in the Middle East is not a good idea. It’s not about people, most of whom are our allies. It’s about the weapon. Even Georgie kinda realizes that.

    Back in the States, too, it is the caliber of weapon that matters. There is no way that a homicidal-suicidal nutter can enter a crowded lecture hall and kill a dozen people with a knife or a baseball bat. One-on-one, sure, a knife can kill, but not in the way one can with a gun in a crowd. A gun multiplies 33-fold the power of a nutter to kill. It’s *about the weapon.* Guns are wildly efficient at killing, just like nukes.

    But other nutters in the US are convinced it’s all about the person and nothing to do with the weaponry.

    Someone’s been sniffing their gun oil.

  26. Specop_007

    April 20, 2007 at 3:32 pm

    I’m curious. What law do you propose to protect people from law breakers? Think about it for a minute. Canada has had school shootings. Britian still has crime problems. France had that little incident with riots.
    What law do you propose to protect us from law breakers?

    Automobiles kill far more people then guns. Should we ban cars? Maybe we should repeal the First Amendment right while we’re at it. Where should we stop? I’ve heard fast food is bad, lets ban that too.

    Or, lets look at facts. The stats posted by the anti-gun organizations also include suicides and gang deaths. Gang members WILL find a way to kill each other, and posting suicide stats hardly matters. You can kill yourself with something as simple as aspirin. Should we ban aspirin?
    DC has a gun ban. Flat out no pistols. Period. They have one of the highest crime rates ANYWHERE. Obviously the gun ban isnt working there…..Well it is, for the law abiding citizens. Law breakers dont seem to bothered by it.
    What law do you propose to keep us safe from law breakers?

    States that have passed concealed carry bills have seen a reduction in crime.

    Banning guns doesnt stop crime, it simply makes it easier for criminals.

    I’ll patiently await the calls to ban those dangerous cars. Might as well move to ban alcohol too while we’re at it.

  27. Dr Who

    April 20, 2007 at 6:11 pm

    Why do these killings always seem to take place at schools and federal buildings? Why do they always seem to “happen” in “Gun Free Zones” ?

    When was the last time you heard of an NRA, VFW or Ducks Unlimited meeting being shot up?

  28. anthny

    April 20, 2007 at 8:41 am

    anthny
    This guy had to be shooting people at very close range to be effective. These two small caliber guns were meant to be used as target pistols.
    He was more than meets the eye, seems very well trained to have completed this task without training. Somethings fishy in Virginia. They the powers that be found his knapsack with the gun receipts in it, during all this camotion.
    Sounds like that was a plant, we saw the same thing in the 9/11 thing when they found the terrorists passports outside the airport in Boston.
    I’m not convinced this was a one man job……..

  29. Dr Who

    April 20, 2007 at 6:05 pm

    is a lethal caliber. NATO and the US Army agree.

  30. Sandy Price

    April 20, 2007 at 9:13 am

    It is not the law at fault but the people involved. We can train people to behave or we can build a police state.

    Apparently it is still a popular request to have the federal government take over our social and state laws. Look how effective the government educated our children.

    Americans need to take control of their children and their borders.

  31. Steve Horn

    April 20, 2007 at 12:11 pm

    You know what I blame for this tragedy? The self absorbed money grubbing all for me people who are now calling for gun control so THEY can be safe and not have to worry about life. The cheap bastards who’d cheat on their income tax and deny universal health (physical and mental) care. Those who support “no child left behind” with hot air but no funding. Those who don’t get politically involved because it’d take time away from important things – like botox parties and golf outtings.

    The gun is no more to blame for this tragedy than the airplane was for 9/11 – both are tools that can be used for good or evil – it was the individual who made the choice on HOW to use the tool.

    In the case of 9/11 it was predicated on our treatment of groups of people around the world. In the case of Virginia Tech it was our societies treatment, or lack of treatment, of a tortured individual, just like Columbine, just like OK city, just like Waco, just like Ruby Ridge …..

    Drag your tushies out of your gated communities and posh SUV’s – look at this nation for what it is – more divided -less caring – more impoverished than at any time in its history – if you’ve got the guts to do so (which, for the most part, I doubt that many of you do).

    Peace

    Steve

  32. Sandy Price

    April 20, 2007 at 9:20 am

    I could not do as well as this writer has done.

    http://tinyurl.com/23wyoe

    Now, can I link it successfully?

  33. Razor

    April 20, 2007 at 9:46 am

    Cho must have taken shooting lessons to be so effective at killing so many with the weapons he had. Every shot must have hit the heads or hearts of the victims, which is not likely for an untrained marksman. This story stinks of Multa Project influence. Sirhan was in a wierd state when he killed Kennedy. He has no recollection of doing it. Hinkle, same thing. These shooters were mind control experiments which respond to signal words and become an alter personality and perform the task that they were programmed to do. I know, you think that is too bizzare, but don’t be so quick to say its not possible. The Monarch Project has lots of available facts that prove these government mind control studies have existed since the second world war. This tradgedy at VT is perfect ammo for those who are pushing the police state type system we see taking over america.

  34. Steve Horn

    April 20, 2007 at 12:23 pm

    it takes very little skill to kill someone at point blank range – windage, trajectory, velocity loss – none of these factor in when you’re less than 20′ from a target. Both the thorax and head are easy and obvious targets. He fired “follow up” shots into the bodies (dead and living) which he’d hit earlier as he walked through the rooms.

    The reported manic laughter he exhibited, which apparently increased as his rampage progressed, would indicate that he was not in a calm state. He, after 22 tortured years of not fitting in, of not being in control, was at last in charge, he decided who lived and died – for a moment he had all the power of God.

    Wealth, popularity, intellect, class standing all ceased to matter once he pulled that trigger, for a short period of time everyone was paying attention to HIM. For someone who’d been a misfit his whole life, the intoxication must have been incredible. This would also explain why he killed himself in the end – he knew that he’d never – never be able to get that high again – so why would he want to exist any longer?

  35. GrndLkNatv

    April 20, 2007 at 10:22 am

    Control Guns, Control Speech, Control Thought.. Communism, that’s what it is all about….. When will you gun control freaks get a life, guns are not the problem, the lack of family and support structure in this country coupled with the lack of moral values is what is causing the problem and taking away guns is no better than prescribing aspirin for cancer…

    Generation X Virginian

  36. Steve Horn

    April 20, 2007 at 10:45 am

    If you want something positive to come from this tragedy, might I suggest that you focus on the availability of mental health treatment for all citizens, without stigma, rather than the further errosion of our constitutional rights?

    Blaming the gun industry for the tragedy at VT is like blaming the aircraft industry for 9/11.

  37. jarrodlombardo

    April 20, 2007 at 11:50 am

    Steve said exactly what I was thinking much better than I could.
    –Jarrod

  38. WaltervdH

    April 20, 2007 at 10:59 am

    A conservative who believes in the values and ideals set out in the Declaration of Independence, and who served The People of the United States for forty years, swearing allegiance to The Constitution—-not the Government, nor the person of the Reichs President, George W. Bush..

    What I see happening each time there is a call for more stringent gun control is that there is no/none/zero recognition of the true purpose of the 2d Amendment.. That
    The People have ready at hand the arms necessary to defend their Liberty from their own government.. The Founding Fathers foresaw that there might be a need for another Revolution by The People to restore the Republic, and that
    The People needed the guns to be able to do it, if needed..

    I support reasonable gun control—who wants crazy people running around killing young students?? And the 2d Amendment speaks of a well regulated militia, so the Constitution explicitly provides for controls of some sort..
    The problem is that some States have virtually NO controls,
    and others make it IMPOSSIBLE to have a firearm of any kind.. There has to be some strict requirements on ALL states, or the gun traffic in “easy” states will simply continue to flow to the strict states..

    I think there should also be NATIONAL firearm licenses,
    valid anywhere in the US, so that a lawabiding person is
    not going to be arrested because of some off-the-wall,
    totally unknown, weirdo law in Podunk, Pigstate, that
    nobody knows nothing about.. The entire firearms law situation is nuts, and impossible to comply with..

    For a jewelry salesman carrying 1–2 million in diamonds in a briefcase in the greater New York City Area, within a
    radius of 25 miles, which would include some towns in Connecticutt and New Jersey—-he has to obtain something like 27 different pistol permits in order to protect himself.. This is INSANE..

    So maybe a little historical context, and some common sense
    might temper some of the arguments—-but I doubt it..

    WaltervdH

  39. Unicorn

    April 20, 2007 at 1:54 pm

    Unicorn
    Last night, disgraced former Representative Tom Delay was on the “Charlie Rose Show.” In discussing the massacre at Virginia Tech he said Virginia needs to enact a concealed carry law and that if several of the students had been carrying their ‘concealed guns’ that the massacre probably wouldn’t have happened.

    It’s hard to believe that a rational person would make such a ridiculous statement.

  40. jarrodlombardo

    April 23, 2007 at 11:14 am

    A rational person looks at the data and comes to a conclusion. The data clearly show that concealed carry laws reduce violent crime:
    http://www.kc3.com/pdf/lott.pdf

    –Jarrod