"Boyda: No new gun control laws needed" by Congressional Briefing / LJWorld.com

Blogs home Staff blogs Congressional Briefing

Boyda: No new gun control laws needed

Here are today's headlines from the Kansas congressional delegation:Rep. Nancy Boyda (D) ![][1][(AP) Lawmakers resist gun control revision:][2] Democrats traditionally have been in the forefront of efforts to pass gun control legislation, but there is a widespread perception among political strategists that the issue has been a loser in recent campaigns. It was notably absent from the agenda Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi unveiled earlier this year when the party took control of the House and Senate. Many of the party's victories in November occurred in rural states, where Democratic challengers such as Nancy Boyda of Kansas' 2nd District took moderate stances on an issue important to hunters. "As tragic as this incident was : I don't think we need additional federal gun laws," Boyda said Tuesday. "We need to enforce the laws we have."[(Bloomberg) Donnelly, New Democrats Urge Pelosi to Seek Compromise on Iraq:][3]Representative Joe Donnelly, a freshman Democrat from Indiana, voted with his party last month to tie funding for the Iraq war to a timeline for withdrawing troops. Now, with President George W. Bush vowing to veto the measure, Donnelly is ready to compromise. The Democratic-controlled Congress and Bush need to try to find that middle place, work together, get the troops funded,'' Donnelly, 51, told constituents last week at a town- hall meeting in Logansport, Indiana. If the withdrawal timelines are waived or eliminated, he said,so much the better.'' Donnelly, who is among 30 House Democrats elected in districts previously held by Republicans, said Congress must avoid a showdown with the White House that will cut off funding for Iraq. While a majority of Americans now oppose the war, according to polls, the House bill setting a withdrawal date passed the House by a slim 218-212 margin. Some new Democratic lawmakers, including Donnelly, Nancy Boyda of Kansas and Nick Lampson, are wary of any timeline plan that could leave them open to charges they are endangering the troops or creating greater chaos in Iraq.Sen. Pat Roberts (R)![][4][(Galen Institute commentary) Unhealthy, slippery slope:][5] Last week, after defeating about a dozen amendments, the Senate Finance Committee approved a bill that would allow, but not require, the administration to interfere in Medicare drug price negotiations between private drug plans and the pharmaceutical companies. ... One amendment that went down to defeat is particularly puzzling: Offered by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), it would have restored language prohibiting government interference in drug price negotiations that was introduced in an earlier Congress by former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle and cosponsored by 33 Senate Democrats. The Democratic majority on the committee in this Congress voted it down.[(WIBW) Sen. Roberts Unveils Re-Election Team:][6] With former Sens. Robert J. Dole and Nancy Kassenbaum Baker serving as the honorary chairs, Sen. Pat Roberts announced the team that he hopes will help win a third term serving Kansas. About his re-election team, Sen. Roberts said that he, "could not ask for a more outstanding team of Kansans to support my re-election effort as we join together to build a better Kansas." Adele Hall of Mission Hills and Russ Meyer of Wichita will lead the efforts as co-chairs. [1]: http://ljworld.com/specials/election04/primary/boyda.jpg [2]: http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/74582.html [3]: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aCwt2LJStHEU&refer=home [4]: http://roberts.senate.gov/Roberts-020405-18060-080-CFFflipped.jpg [5]: http://galen.org/pdrugs.asp?DocID=1021 [6]: http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/7063527.html

By Joel Mathis

April 18, 2007

Congressional Briefing

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

18 April 2007
at 7:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

I agre with Boyda. This debate rages whenever a high-profile shooting occurs, with the right-wing pundits stocking paranoia among those who are afraid of gun control. We do not need new gun laws. Someone determined to commit mass murder can do so without a gun.

This tragedy is not about gun control. If it calls for a debate, that debate is about mental illness in the richest country in the world, where the mentally ill are mostly invisible and do not get help. The situation is worse since Reagan shut down the mental hospitals and turned the mentally ill out on the streets, where they now populate the homeless shelters.

Did the shooter at VT have access to treatment for mental illness? Did he know where to go? Did he have health insurance? A way to pay for treatment? Did he have someone to make sure he got it? Did anyone care that, before he inflicted this horrible suffering on others, he was suffering? Would anyone have noticed him if he had not committed a crime?

This could have been averted, and not with gun control. A severely ill person did not get help, with terrible consequences, and that is what we must try to prevent.
18 April 2007
at 8:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

One thing that must be remembered is that only very rarely do really crazy people seek help as such folks do not believe that they ARE crazy!

It is only AFTER the loon in question commits an act for which he or she might be locked up for observation that anything can normally be done.

It is not against the law to be crazy.

This is a very real problem in a free society.

Thanks.

Marion.
18 April 2007
at 8:17 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

zzgoeb (Anonymous) says…

Ah yes, such guts from the Dems….”the issue…is seen as a loser…” Let's hope that we don't have to pass laws on a really important subject, huh?

This simply proves that as long as we have professional politicians, we will get this kind of gutless leadership. Boyda is obviously a coward. We need term limits, and a lot more than two parties to help resolve this problem.

As for guns laws and control, how can someone being treated for depression, on meds, buy a hand gun? The simplest law says everybody can have one firearm; a muzzle loading rifle…a REAL hunting gun…think about it!

Shame on you Nancy; I won't vote for you again with this kind of political pandering on your agenda!
18 April 2007
at 8:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

zzgoeb:

No law on the books in the USA says any such thing and the Constituion makes NO reference to hunting.

Stop your LYING!

Medical records are protected for reasons of privacy.

ARe you suggesting that we now establish a database of all US citizens' medical records which could be accessed by law enforcement?

Will YOU be the first to put YOUR records into such a database?

Thanks.

Marion.
18 April 2007
at 9:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

The shooter at VA Tech purchased and used high capacity magazines that were illegal under the Clinton assault weapons ban that Congress allowed to expire in 2004, despite support from W and more than 2/3 of the polled American public.

The shooter was a legal permanent resident, not a citizen. I have a problem with non-citizens being able to legally purchase firearms.

The Todd Tiahrt amendment is public law. It makes it illegal for jurisdictions to share ballistics information about a gun used in a crime without permission from ATF first. In fact, if an officer in KCK gives ballistic information about a weapon used in a crime in his jursidiction to an officer from KCMO seeking information about a weapon subsequently used to commit a crime there, the officer sharing the information has committed a felony. It cripples law enforcement.

Common sense, right?
18 April 2007
at 9:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

EXks (Anonymous) says…

Marion, as usual…..your clouding the real issue and misiterpreting (or NOT understanding) what is being said.

NO one is suggesting the stupid notion that a separate medical database be established for gun purchasers, (but you do realize that your insurance company does share your medical information…BUT that's a different issue)

The issue here is that this clinically depressed, suicidal person, under laughable, lax Virginia guns laws, walked into a gun store, and one minute later was the owner of a gun! No waiting period whatsoever!! This is insane!!!

stricter gun laws are needed, but of course as zzgoeb indicated in his post, this won't happen because politicians are gutless on gun control issues. The whole world thinks we're gun loving NUTS, and I agree.
18 April 2007
at 10:05 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blackwalnut (Anonymous) says…

Marion said:
“ARe you suggesting that we now establish a database of all US citizens' medical records which could be accessed by law enforcement?
Will YOU be the first to put YOUR records into such a database?”

Didn't you read the newspapers about this shooting? They said the government database does not have evidence that he took antidepressants and that it is a very complete database. Big Brother apparently already knows what you've been eating and how you've been sleeping.

18 April 2007
at 11 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Easy_Does_It (Anonymous) says…

It does appear that Nancy received the DNC email on talking points.
18 April 2007
at 11:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

The VT campus was a gun free zone. That didn't stop him. Is what it did do though was stop honest law abiding citizens from defending themselves against a nut. Had one person had a gun early on, this may have only been a one or two person shooting. Case in point, about 10 years ago a lunatic opened fire at the University of Richmond. A student did have a gun and subdued the gunwo/man quickly. While liberals are quick to jump on the gun control band-wagon, they ignore the Constitution. This incident does not expose a need for more gun control. It manifests underlying problems in our culture. The gun is just a convenient tool for the lunatic. The question to ask and pursue is why is our culture producing lunatics with seemingly increased frequency. It should cause each of us to evaluate what the root forces are that allows a person to stoicly kill 30 people. Taking away guns, or new laws, will not solve the root issue. A lunatic will simply find other ways to inflict their hatred on society, whether it be another Oklahoma City, arson, etc. Lawrence should know better than anyone about that. It is time we face the tough questions, the real cause, rather than resort to the scapegoat, gun control.
18 April 2007
at 11:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

Easy:

Wha???

DNC? No, it appears that she received the NRA talking points.
18 April 2007
at 11:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

RA-

If he had only possessed a single shot rifle, this would have been a one-person shooting, right? :) I know my logic is completely unacceptable to you, but what the hell? I figured I'd toss it out there anyway…
18 April 2007
at 11:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

This was a tragic situation. There is no way to know if another student with a gun could have helped or hindered the situation. What if another student with a gun had been on another floor, in another classroom? Would you suggest that student hunt down the shooter?
The chances of even having a registered permit holder in one of the classrooms was very small. Someone even suggested having the professors carry weapons to protect themselves and their students in this situation. But again, we don't know what would have happened. Chances are, the students would know the teachers were carrying and would shoot them first. And then the question again, would you want the professors hunting down the shooter, and would they even do it in order to protect the students in the classroom?
Advocates from both sides of this issue are going crazy about this.
I think it is a mute point in this tragic case.
18 April 2007
at 11:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

I don't want to debate this today, so say what you will.

If someone else have carried a gun, it may have been different, or may not have.
18 April 2007
at 11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

mom_of_three (Anonymous) says…

Just one more question/thought…

When someone takes the gun training course, does it prepare you for this type of situation? No, probably not, because nothing can prepare you for this situation, unless you are a peace officer or in the armed forces.

I don't want to carry a gun, and I never will. Would I feel safer if I knew someone else had a gun in a hostage situation? Unless it was a police officer or armed forces, probably not.
Because there are no guarantees when guns and/or violence are involved.
18 April 2007
at 11:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

bd (Anonymous) says…

I remenber a single shot rifle being used in a tower on a texas campus years ago-16 dead!

18 April 2007
at 11:28 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jace (Anonymous) says…

Okay, Mom, we won't debate with you.
18 April 2007
at 11:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Donny_Burgess (Anonymous) says…

If gun control is a scapegoat, then what is the root cause of the issue, RationalAnimal? Are you wondering why some people are chemically imbalanced? or why some people are clinically depressed? Or maybe you are trying to solve a much larger and epic delimma since the beginning of mankind? - why does evil exists?

These are all good questions, plato. Thanks for pointing us to the “tough questions.”
18 April 2007
at 11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

drake (Anonymous) says…

Well Mom3 there is one gaurantee. If you are defenseless you are more vulnerable than not.
18 April 2007
at 11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“Had one person had a gun early on, this may have only been a one or two person shooting.”

No, probably not. Frankly, it could well have been worse. The most likely outcome - after being shot dead by the shooter - is being shot dead by some response official, closely followed by multiple people with guns shooting each other and by-standers in a confused, adreniline-fueled panic.

It never ceases to amaze me that some guy (almost always a guy) thinks that shooting cans in the backyard or hunting qualifies him to exercise the carefully trained, evaluative and controlled response of law enforcement personnel. Frankly, its insulting of these dedicated men and women and their practiced skills.
18 April 2007
at 11:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

That's interesting bd, because Charles Whitman used a shotgun, an M1 Carbine (semiauto), a remington 700, a remington .35, and a handful of handguns.

Frankly, I don't consider anything that doesn't have to be reloaded between shots to be “single-shot.”
18 April 2007
at 11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

drake (Anonymous) says…

Jamesaust,

Can you provide one example of this happening?

I can provide many examples of shootings or rampages that have been ended by a responsible armed citizen.

Your uninformed hysteria is comical.
18 April 2007
at 12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ImpactWinter (Derek Dodson) says…

no law is going to stop this kind of thing from happening, and its frankly irresponsible to try to address this kind of tragedy from a legislative standpoint. The kid had a clear record, there was nothing in his past to suggest this, and any speculation to the otherwise is treading a very treacherous slope;

sure he wrote somewhat disturbing literature, so do many bestselling authors.

He was treated for depression, but if thats a criteria to start restricting rights a strong percentage of america is in trouble.

he bought a couple guns, legally and from qualified merchants;

the worst part of this tragedy is that because the killer took his own life, he denied dozens of grieving families the answers to so many questions that will hang above them for weeks, months, likely forever.

The media and those close to the incident may try assign blame;
The school didn't close fast enough, the laws should have stopped this, god himself should have intervened.

its an awful tragedy, and if theres one thing we, as a nation, should learn is that sometimes there are no answers that will bring comfort, and nothing could be done to prevent it.

it's simply horrific.
18 April 2007
at 12:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

The simple fact is…
As long as there are crazy, psychotic, murderous people there will be tragedies like that at Va Tech. As a community we need to come to a real solution for gun control.

My view is that handguns are designed for one purpose — to kill people. At the very least injure someone. Before I go any further, I know there are those out there who say there is a sportsman qulity to handgun ownership. To that I say, no one hunts with a 9mm, and if they do then they should have their hunting liscense taken away. In my view, the only people who should own and possess handguns are Military and Law Enforcement Personel. However, I believe civilians should still have the opportunity to own rifles and shotguns for hunting and other sporting purposes. Not to mention semi automatic and fully automatic weapons.

Let's recap…

Hanguns should only be liscensed and sold to current military law enforcement personel. It's practical and reasonable.
Private citizens should be allowed to own rifles and shotguns for hunting and sporting purposes. In essence, handgun ownership should be restricted among private American Citizens.

As an attorney, I am tired of talking to random people around the country who feel that the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment not to be abridged. They always throw their hands in the air and say you can't do that it says so in the Constitution. When in fact we have laws all over the books placing limitations on all of the Amendments. Look at the 1st Amendment, there are a numder of restrictions placed on the most precious of our RIGHTS, yet you better not hinder my right to bare arms.

While I know that I will be labled a leftist liberal, let it be known that I am a Democrat and still an NRA member. I also am a relatively intelligent person who knows that to save more people from this type of tragedy we need people to recognize that handguns are made to kill — nothing more.

18 April 2007
at 12:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notme (Anonymous) says…

There is no reason for a person armed with a pistol to kill 30 people at close range. Had 2 or 3 of the victims initially rushed the shooter, and then 2 or 3 more joined in the fight 30 people would not have died.

The fundamental problem is we expect others to protect us.

You need to protect yourself. That doesn't mean you need a gun. It means you have an attitude that says 'I'm not going to make it easy for you to hurt me.' Everything is a weapon..chairs, books, knives, whatever it takes. Expect to be shot, but keep up the fight, others will finish the attacker off.

The hero's of United Flight 93 understood this.
18 April 2007
at 12:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

drake (Anonymous) says…

Preebo,

Do you honestly believe that if handguns were illegal to own that gun crime would end?

Your relative intelligence should tell you otherwise.

Bad guys don't care what the law is.
18 April 2007
at 12:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

Keep in mind that the Constitution was changed or SKEWED to include the 2nd Amendment. That is why it is called an amendment.

Collusion, if it was ok to change the Constitution because the times demanded it then, why isn't it okay to change it if the times demand it now?

Good argument!
18 April 2007
at 12:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

“Sir, surely you do understand why our Constitution was written?”

HA! I genuinely laughed out loud!
18 April 2007
at 12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (Anonymous) says…

I'm with the gun control advocates on this one. There is a need for greater gun control. Make it illegal for anyone to own a handgun, that way all criminals will be forced to get rid of their guns and there will be no more bank robberies, carjackings, etc. Guns kill people, plain and simple. Maybe the government can give honest citizens a tax break if they sign up for karate lessons instead of buying a gun. That way they can still feel that they are able to defend themselves without a handgun. It's real simple, people. No guns=no murder. Know guns=know murder.
18 April 2007
at 12:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notme (Anonymous) says…

Staff04,

I understand what Mr_Collusion means by skewing the constitution.

Current gun laws are laws and not amendments. If we want to change the constitution we can and have a process to do so. But we cant enact laws that contradict the constitution and have the courts let it slide….that corrupts or system.
18 April 2007
at 12:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

Mr_Conclusion,

Actually limiting Constitutional limits does not indicate flawed logic.

Sir, I assure you that I am well informed on the original intent of the Constitution.

That being said, you have indicated to me that you are one of those people who feel that your 2nd Amendment right is untouchable and there should be no limitations on it.
18 April 2007
at 12:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

notme-

I see what you are saying, but last I heard, it was the Supremes that interpret the Constitution, not the gun-toting public. While you can interpret the Contitution by saying anything that isn't specifically named illegal IS legal, you can also interpret as saying ONLY things that it says are legal are legal, and anything NOT mentioned is legal (read that carefully). Most folks in this country benefit from a careful blending of the two.

Saying what TYPE of gun you can own doesn't conflict with the 2nd Amendment. Saying you cannot own firearms does. The Supremes must have agreed with me when they determined that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban wasn't unconstitutional.

18 April 2007
at 12:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

Drake,

…to address your comment, no, I do not think handgun crimes would immediately decline, but I pose a question that over a few years wouldn't it be logical to assume that there would be a decrease in violent crimes, particularly involving handguns.

It may seem like a stretch, but I think it does deserve a debate.
18 April 2007
at 12:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notme (Anonymous) says…

“They recieved they're wisdom through the experiences they encountered with guidance from the the Bible. What does God say about adding or changing his word.”

You need to brush up on your biblical history…the bible has been amended several times…for example: the 'new' testament….
18 April 2007
at 12:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

For the record limiting an Amendment does not involve “skewing” the Constitution. To those who disagree, study up on your Constitution Law and precendent.
18 April 2007
at 12:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

Mr. Conclusion,

The defend your stance. Convince me of your position.
18 April 2007
at 12:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

See, even I got confused.

Should have read “…things that it says are legal are legal, and anything NOT mentioned is illegal.”
18 April 2007
at 12:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

You've obviously convinced no one.
18 April 2007
at 12:52 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

Thanks drake, I'll try to keep my “hysteria” under control here. Better take away my gun - I'm too “hysterical” to be trusted.

No, I don't believe you'll have any evidence as no state issues concealed weapons permits in such quantity as to provide any statistical likelihood that a given classroom at a university will contain at least one concealed weapons holder - the premise of others' comments (= more guns save lives).

Starting with a university population of 26,000 and, needing at least one weapon per classroom, assuming a class size of 5 (which should cover 98% of all classes), one would need 5,200 weapons carrying students on each day at the university.

The idea that in such a situation of confusion and panic multiple persons out of those thousands might shoot each other or unarmed persons is hardly “hysterical.” But then, outside of NRA conventions, where else would you find such a concentration of gun-nuts? I realize that re-runs of “Gunsmoke” don't exactly show much in the way of collateral damage - let alone, unintended death in general - but that doesn't make the realty any less real.

Please focus on the actual argument made and not the one that you find easier to question. And, again, stop insulting the professionalism of law enforcement.
18 April 2007
at 12:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notme (Anonymous) says…

“For the record limiting an Amendment does not involve “skewing” the Constitution. To those who disagree, study up on your Constitution Law and precedent.”

Its my understanding that not even our supreme court justices agree on how the constitution should be interpreted. One camp is strict while the other camp treats it as living.

(I am not a lawyer)

18 April 2007
at 1:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

drake (Anonymous) says…

Preebo,

Washington, D.C.'s ban on handgun sales took effect in 1977 and by the 1990s the city's murder rate had tripled. During the years following the ban, most murders—and all firearm murders—in the city were committed with handguns.

Do you want the stats from Chicago also?
18 April 2007
at 1:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

staff

“RA-

If he had only possessed a single shot rifle, this would have been a one-person shooting, right? :) I know my logic is completely unacceptable to you, but what the hell? I figured I'd toss it out there anyway…”
======================================

I see your point and it is appreciated. The problem is it assumes a person bent on mass murder will only ever use a gun. So your logic that if we only allow muzzleloaders (a single shot which is what they had way back then), then the damage will be mitigated to a single casualty. A lunatic bent on mass murder is likely to use whatever means they can create to accomplish their design. Timothy McVeigh is a good example that people bent on mass murder will accomplish their designs regardless of what laws they might be breaking or what means aren't available.

Secondly, muzzleloaders use blackpowder (in case you lack experience in this area, black powder is highly explosive and easily adaptable to making bombs). Essentially you'll be replacing bullets with bomb-making materials in the hands of lunatics.

Third, the argument that only muzzleloaders are constitutional under the Second Amendment since that was all they had back in the day commits one to the view that the First Amendment free speech rights don't apply to television or the internet since those weren't around back then either. The protections of the Constitution adapt to the technology of the day, it does not function to stagnantly protect only the technology of the 18th Century. That is part of the genius of the Framers.

Finally, to say that the Second Amendment really isn't an important part of the Constitution since it is an amendment (paraphrasing) commits one to say with equal force that freedom of speech, religion (I know some liberals don't think this freedom is very important but I thought I'd throw it in anyway), search and seizure (you all complained about the drug seizures at the Wakarusa Fest), right to effective assistance of counsel, and the holy grail of all amendments, equal protection, are disposable vestiges of days gone by. But, hey, these are just amendments right. Let's burn everything not strictly in the body of Constitution. itself. This is more of an extreme strict constructionist view than even Scallia could imagine.
18 April 2007
at 1:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kubacker (Anonymous) says…

You can argue this back and forth forever, but every damn one of you will wish you had a gun and plenty of ammunition when:

- There is another major terrorist attack or series of attacks on the United States or a neighboring country.

- The Bird flu, SARS or any other deadly fast moving epidemic hits this country or a neighboring country.

- Global Warming comes to pass and millions of people start to run out of water and food.

- The 12-20 illegals (mostly Mexicans) in this country don't get given amnesty by the U.S. Congress.

End of Story!!
18 April 2007
at 1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

Collusion

Can you point out in the Constitution where it expressly states a woman has a right to privacy and therefore can have an abortion. I thought women were property back then.
18 April 2007
at 1:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

drake (Anonymous) says…

James,

In the finest tradition of armed citizens who take on crime in their communities, Texan Travis Neel helped save a wounded Harris County deputy sheriff`s life. Witnessing the shooting by one of a trio of Houston gang members after a traffic stop just west of Houston, Neel—who was on his way to his pistol range—pulled his gun and fired, driving the officer`s assailants away. An off-duty sheriff`s deputy also came on the scene and joined Neel in covering the deputy, whose life was saved by his body armor. The trio was captured after a manhunt.
(The Post, Houston, TX, 1/22/94) (AR 4/94)

Miami, Okla., motel owner Oba Edwards witnessed two policemen struggling with a man they were attempting to arrest and saw the man wrest away one officer`s revolver, shoot and kill him. Edwards armed himself and fired a shot that allowed the remaining officer to recover his partner`s revolver and fatally wound the attacker. The dead man was on probation for assault of a Texas police officer.
(The Daily Oklahoman, Oklahoma City, OK, 6/7/88) (AR 9/88)

I have hundreds more if you would like.
18 April 2007
at 1:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

“I'm so sick of people not reading and not wanting to understand the writings of our Founders.”

And I'm sick of people like 'Collusion' not reading what the Founders wrote into the Constitution — nothing close to the untouchable, unregulated possession of firearms.

Like most other constitutional rights, the restrictions need only be reasonable - or as the Second Amendment puts it “well regulated.” And like most other rights, I (and most other Americans) find very few restrictions to qualify as “reasonable.”

(Collusion - I'm fairly positive that there's nothing in the Bible about gun ownership.)

And look at Collusion's delusional quote from Madison: “The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals.”

The full, truthful quote is: “The right of self defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals, and whether the attack be made by Spain herself or by those who abuse her power, its obligation is not the less strong.”

SPAIN? Uh, yeah. The statement concerns the U.S. relations to Spain over disputes in Florida (then a Spanish possession). Florida was ceded to the U.S. by Spain several months after this quotation.

So, no, I don't think “he is talking about Karate.” I think he is talking about spain!
18 April 2007
at 1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

Conclusion,

All you have stated is that self defense is a right, but that does not convince me of the necessity of a handgun. I own a shotgun and two rifles, but not one handgun. I don't know about you, but I feel complete secure.

All you have showcased here is your ability to Google.
18 April 2007
at 1:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

thanks drake - and there's 35,000 gun fatalities in the U.S. per year. I got all the “ammunition” anyone could need.

18 April 2007
at 1:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

“SPAIN? Uh, yeah. The statement concerns the U.S. relations to Spain over disputes in Florida (then a Spanish possession). Florida was ceded to the U.S. by Spain several months after this quotation.”

Jamesaust, even though I disagree with you much of the time, I appreciate your arguments and logic. However, Collusion is on point here. Absent a quote qualifying the language “self defense never ceases” the best inference is that Madison intended this principle to apply specifically to Spain and generally, otherwise why would he use the language “never ceases.”
18 April 2007
at 1:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Donny_Burgess (Anonymous) says…

rationalanimal -

i am a liberal-democrat who loves gun control, is anti-iraq, and belives in golbal warming. what are you going to do about it?

please see my earlier comment in response to your lame statement.

LOVE,

DON
18 April 2007
at 1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

Conclusion,

Again, I have not asked that all arms be restricted, so the standard defense of Government oppression does not apply. On pure face value your quotes are valueless, because at this time in American history there was Militia and Continental Soldiers, first of all, and second, handguns were a rarity. If you recall, the argument was for the possession of handguns by private citizens. Relax. I said nothing of repealing the 2nd Amendment.
18 April 2007
at 1:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

“My view is that handguns are designed for one purpose — to kill people” Preebo

If this insane attack at VT had been done with a so-called assault rifle, there would be someone else posting here saying how they are just made to kill people and should be illegal. Truth of the matter is, there are plenty of people who both types of weapons for sporting purposes as well as protection. There are also people who collect weapons as a hobby that are seldom if ever fired at all. I happen to have a few of these that were given to me by my father. One is a Colt model 1911 that he used in the Pacific Theater in WWII. Do you think I would ever want to see a law that would make it illegal for me to hand this piece of history down to my kids?
18 April 2007
at 1:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Mr_Confusion says:

“People need to quit trusting their government and quit treating it as if it were God.”
___________________________________________________

Amen!

I'd also like to ask those other people to quit treating their “God” as if it were everyone's “government”…

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
18 April 2007
at 1:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

drake (Anonymous) says…

James,

I see your up to your exaggerations again. Please remember when you are trying to scare people about gun related deaths that of the total number at least half are from suicide. Are you saying that if there were no guns people wouldn't kill themselves anymore?

Of your magic 35k number less than 12k were murders. This is still sounds high but you must realize that there are 300 million people in this country.

What about the 45,000 annual deaths due to automobile accidents? Outlaw cars?
18 April 2007
at 1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

I posted this yesterday

The killer here was a coward. He took advantage of the defenseless in an area that should have been “safe” according to those in favor of gun regulation. These gun-free zones simply create a safe zone for criminals instead of the innocent. Now there are 32 dead to prove it. If some of the students or teachers had a gun for defense it is possible that some of those killed would still be alive today. At the least having your own gun gives you a better chance at surviving an assault like this.

Most who carry a concealed weapon legally are just as capable as law enforcement officers and military personel to deal with situations like Virginia Tech.
18 April 2007
at 1:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

Wow,

Mr_Collusion has showed his continued prepensity to miss the point yet again.

Maybe this will work better, as I will not be able to play anymore ( I have a meeting to attend). no one here is advocating complete gun control. i was simply stating handguns are designed to either kill or injure, and therefore would serve society better if they were in the hands of current and military personel. that is the basis for the argument, but you went of on the same tyrade that many do over our constitutional right to bare arms.

do you understand? if not, then hopefully someone else can explain it to you.

good day.

18 April 2007
at 1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

preebo (Anonymous) says…

I misspelled tyrade. I meant tirade.
18 April 2007
at 1:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

Donny Q,

You are committed to agreeing with me that forces behind these tragic events are much more complex than a gun control law will solve. What do say to the fact that deranged lunatics will use something other than guns to fulfill their mass murder intentions? Surely you don't dispute that point.
18 April 2007
at 1:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

Preebo, the students at VT probably felt completely secure with out a handgun right up until the point when a mad man stormed into thier classroom.
18 April 2007
at 1:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

“just give everyone in the whole damn country a gun.” Yes, that would just about solve it.
18 April 2007
at 1:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

“Does it look like I have a gun to your head telling you to worship my God.”
__________________________________________________

Not… yet….

Should we wait until it gets to that point before we start addressing that concern, though?

—Ag
18 April 2007
at 1:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

On the Today show this morning a student said exactly that. He stated he wished he had a gun to take this wacko out. A nearly identical thing played out at the Univeristy of Richmond about 10 years ago, except another student did have a gun and contained the gunwo/man.
18 April 2007
at 1:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

I don't think it is a good idea to give everyone a gun. I think it is a good idea to let those with concealed carry permits to carry them without restriction.
18 April 2007
at 1:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

—Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18

Something worth considering:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constto…

—Ag

18 April 2007
at 1:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

“Not… yet….

Should we wait until it gets to that point before we start addressing that concern, though?

—Ag”

At the rate liberals on here are shredding Constitutional Amendments we could have a total free-for-all within the hour. Stand by.
18 April 2007
at 1:54 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Katara (Anonymous) says…

And “bear” arms, preebo. The right to wear sleeveless clothing has never been addressed by the Founding Fathers or the Constitution.

:P
18 April 2007
at 1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

As opposed to the rate at which conservative extremists like yourself have thrown together a bandwagon of sensationalism and alarmism?

Typical of an extremist. People like you, Rationalanimal, railed against the “libs” for years because they favored gun control; today, a Democrat **verbally and publicly supports your position**… and you're still mad?

What, you can't be angry unless you're angry?

How utterly sad… and pathetic…

My condolences…

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
18 April 2007
at 1:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

“Do you think the Government agrees with Christians because I assure you most real Christians are very anti-Government. So I'm not understanding you're arguement.”
_________________________________________________

I'm assuming this is directed towards me…

Many “real” Christians (noting that it is becoming increasingly difficult to define such people) might be anti-government… but many zealots want a government based exclusively on religious law.

Specifically, the laws of *THEIR* religion.

The Truth, meanwhile, is somewhere between the extremes…

—Ag
18 April 2007
at 1:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

Here is a blast from the past from preebo -

Posted by preebo (anonymous) on March 28, 2007 at 9:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

“I find it particularly interesting that you all have labeled me a hippy, while I am a card carrying member of the NRA. Yes, that's right I am liscensed gun owner, but I strongly disagree with the conceal and carry laws.”

Sure you know a lot about guns, buddy. You don't have to have a “liscense” to own a gun and belonging to the NRA is not a prerequisite. And if you disagree with the CC laws you may belong to the NRA but you certainly don't support its views.
18 April 2007
at 2 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

Ouch.
18 April 2007
at 2:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

“Typical of an extremist. People like you, Rationalanimal, railed against the “libs” for years because they favored gun control; today, a Democrat **verbally and publicly supports your position**… and you're still mad?”

Actually, its causing me to reconsider the possibility of voting for Boyda in the future. But, look AG, Ryun would most likely have held the same view. I know, I know, I am an extremist as charged. I believe in following the Constitution. I believe that you have the right to contradict yourself on a public forum, I believe that law enforcement must follow the Constitution in executing a search, I believe in everyone's right to worship some type of diety according to their conscience, I believe the accused should have the right to an attorny, and mostly, I believe all man and women regardless of color are created equal. I believe in these regardless of the whims and emotion of the moment. Yes, I am about as extreme as they come. Oh, and hateful to for all of the above.
18 April 2007
at 2:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

“Do yourself a favour - get a gun, touch it, caress it, learn how to strip it and reassamble it's hard, dirty bulk with your fingers. Take it to bed with you, put some music on, get naked and make sweet love to it.”
============================================

Of the people on here that should have a gun based on merits of emotional stability, I'm concerned for you greyheim. You are disturbed and overflowing with angst and obviously feel threatened by people who can defend themselves.

18 April 2007
at 2:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

Greyheim, didn't the moderator remove that post yesterday?
18 April 2007
at 2:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

“you're right, ra. but have you made sweet love to your gun today? if you ignore it, it may get angry and fail to function when you need to defend yourself.”
===========================================

Greyheim, you assume that b/c you are distrubed and full of angst that everyone else in the world is the same. That is factually wrong. Based on your increasing level of being disturbed it is not surprising you take such issue with people capable, ready, and willing to defend themselves. Isn't the world a much easier conquest for lunatics if we are all sheep?
18 April 2007
at 2:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

“Actually, its causing me to reconsider the possibility of voting for Boyda in the future. But, look AG, Ryun would most likely have held the same view. I know, I know, I am an extremist as charged. I believe in following the Constitution. I believe that you have the right to contradict yourself on a public forum, I believe that law enforcement must follow the Constitution in executing a search, I believe in everyone's right to worship some type of diety according to their conscience, I believe the accused should have the right to an attorny, and mostly, I believe all man and women regardless of color are created equal. I believe in these regardless of the whims and emotion of the moment. Yes, I am about as extreme as they come. Oh, and hateful to for all of the above.”
__________________________________________________

That may all be true.

You didn't list, however, that you believed in one's right to change their mind, or change their position on an issue after researching things a bit more. Or, maybe just “mellowing with age.”

Somebody initially supports the “Red” approach to some problem, issue, or action; then, maybe three or four years later, after new information has surfaced, and new evidence has come out… that same person now supports the “Blue” position on the problem, issue, or action.

[Molasses-thick Sarcasm]Golly gee willikers…. where have i heard that before? Doesn't that sound like something else? But Land'O'Goshen, I can't fathom what that could possibly be…[/Molasses-thick Sarcasm]

Research. Learning. Information. New ideas.

Conservative extremists, apparently, are allowed to enjoy that kind of “growth”; everyone else, is not.

—Ag
18 April 2007
at 2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

rational - I believe the best interpretation is any rational one drawn from the text.

The text is here:
http://www.millercenter.virginia.edu/…

(The subject matter is our relationship with various foreign powers including a long portion on matters related to (present day) Florida and various Latin American efforts to declare independence.)

Why self defense “never ceases” should be self-evident. No nation can disband its army and assume that no foreign threat exists, most especially one recently independent and militarily at a disadvantage to several nations with proven territorial ambitions.

Sorry, the sentiment in the quote may be genuinely intended, it might even be smart, but it doesn't mean what it is put forward to mean, and the attribution to an authority figure - like some man “gun” quotes - is merely intended to deceive. And anyone who needs to take quotes out-of-context or even make up quotes as Marion did on this subject several days ago betrays a desperation in the weakness of their argument.
18 April 2007
at 2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Jamesaust (Anonymous) says…

drake - I believe you are missing my point entirely. I have no desire to ban guns, at all.

The point is to question the assertion that putting even more guns in people's hands would allow one (or several) of those persons to stop other persons from taking innocent life.

That's true and untrue. Yes, it would, and yes, it would also result in additional innocent life taken as I “hysterically” (= common sense) explained. (It would also probably inspire an “arms race” where the “crazies” know that they have to come even better armed than some mere handgun.)
18 April 2007
at 3:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

greyheim, the central issue is not and has never been about self-protection. The central issue is about a Constitutional Amendment for the citizenery to keep and bear arms. So, your arguments commit you to the view that the Framers had an unhealthy infatuation with lethal weapons.

James, in the abstract your arms-race argument is appealling. In practice it is contradicted. The states with the strictest gun laws typically have the highest gun related crime problems whereas the states with the most liberal gun laws typically have the lowest gun related crime problems. In any event, the discussion is moot since bearing arms, that shoot real bullets, is a constitutional guarantee.
18 April 2007
at 3:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Donny_Burgess (Anonymous) says…

Rational - ” What do say to the fact that deranged lunatics will use something other than guns to fulfill their mass murder intentions? Surely you don't dispute that point.”

There are lots of ways to kill someone besides using a gun. (agreed) BUT
ie - people with guns kill more people.

If he had a knife, a vechicle, or a maltov cocktail he might not have killed so many people so easily. It is a gun issue, man.

If he walked into a pawn shop to buy a gun twice in as many months, the question shouldn't be what was wrong with this poor disturbed man?- the question should be why did he have that option in the first place?

The constitution says yes to personal arms, but we both know the correct answer is “no”in this particualr case.

Everyone is saying “Well if the students could carry weapons this wouldve have happened” Umm - I thought he was a student. I guess everyone really means OTHER stundents who arent crazy who passed a rigorus backgroud check who could carry thier own guns couldve stopped the death toll.

Guns need to be very limited in their avaialbility. I think it should be 10 times as hard to get a gun as it would be to get an abortion. Surely you agree?
18 April 2007
at 3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

“If he had a knife, a vechicle, or a maltov cocktail he might not have killed so many people so easily. It is a gun issue, man.”

Over 150 were killed today in Baghdad when four IED's were set off.

18 April 2007
at 3:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

arizonajh (Anonymous) says…

I may not be as smart as some of you feel you are but I don't get one thing. How is it that students with guns would have stopped this? The senerio I envision in this case would go something like this:

Say there is a class of 25 with 10 CC students in it. They hear the dreaded, pop - pop - pop from the floor below. They draw thier weapons and head for the door. they split up, a few taking the stairs, a few the elevator and a few go out a window. With the best intentions in the world they set out to find the evil doer(s). Reaching the first floor they encounter the shooter ( a student) and 20 other CC students from other classes. One student sees the actual shooter and fires at him, another student sees the CC student shooting and assumes he is the real shooter (he just watched him shoot at someone) and shoots the first CC student. Meanwhile another group of students has just exited thier classroom, seeing the shooting opens up on CC Student no. 2. The elevator opens and the students from the first classroom sees the group firing on the 2nd student and assumes that it's a group of evil dooers and opens up on them, etc, etc ,etc, untill the police arrive and find ten students with weapons, injured and fires on the rest of the students holding weapons. How is this the prefered situation? Without uniforms or some sort of descriminating feature to indentifiy the protectors from the perpetrators how does anyone know who to shoot. I can see a rational for armed guards at the Halls, I can see justification for metal detectors at the doors, I can even see required secondary escape methods from all rooms, but un-uniformed, untrained and un-informed students running through the halls making snap life or death decisions seems like a reciepe for disaster in and of it's self.

Don't get me wrong, I live in Phoenix and it is far more dangerous than any town in Kansas (I lived in KS for 30 years). I don't have any problem with people owning guns and have owned quite a few myself. But the idea of a bunch of 19 year olds running around a campus taking matters into thier own hands sounds like a reason alone to pull my kids out of college.
18 April 2007
at 3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

What do you mean when you say “gun nut”. The idea I have in my head when you say that is these guys at the local gun shop that sound like they are just waiting for the day when they will have the chance to kill someone justifiably. Kind of like Tackleberry on Police Academy.

“Whats wrong with this man?” “There was gunplay sir, and he missed it”

I agree these guys seem a little different, but even so, they are the kind to murder someone in cold blood. They would sure be nice to have around in a situation like the one at Virginia Tech. All the people I know with the exeption of some of those guys down at the local gun shop are simply wanting to have the ability to defend themself against someone who has a gun and wants to hurt them or thier family. You are helpless just like those at VT when the bad guy has a gun and you don't. Randy Couture vs a 98 pound weakling with a gun is a bad situation for the UFC heavyweight champ. I am not for vigilante justice. But it's not being a vigilante when you are defending your life or the lives of others. So according to you does supporting concealed carry make me a “gun nut”?

Or is it my F-16 fighter jet and the cashee of grenades and rocket lauchers under my house? Kidding….. I'm just kidding, calm down.
18 April 2007
at 3:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

AZ - interesting scenario. Here is another way to look at it…

http://boortz.com/nuze/200704/0417200…
18 April 2007
at 3:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Donny_Burgess (Anonymous) says…

Is an IED a gun?
18 April 2007
at 3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

We have 19 year olds that we send to carry guns around in Iraq. Most of them do well enough. Are you telling me 19 year old collegiates are less competent than our soldiers?
18 April 2007
at 3:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

Improvised Explosive Device. Its a homemade bomb.
18 April 2007
at 3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Preebo:

You are what is wrong with the legal profession in this country and nothing more than a useful idiot.

Thanks.

Marion.
18 April 2007
at 4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Donny_Burgess (Anonymous) says…

What the hell does an IED have to do with this?

SURE - This kid could have used many different methods to kill.

I suppose he could've used the darth vader force choke hold on his victims. - but he didnt, did he? he used 2 guns. Guns that shouldnt have been sold to him.

18 April 2007
at 4:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

In hindsight he should not have been sold the guns. In hindsight the 9/11 hijackers should not have been sold box cutters.
18 April 2007
at 4:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

staff04 (Anonymous) says…

It isn't hindsight. The kid was legally barred by a judge in 2005 from purchasing or possessing firearms. That information never made it into the state's background check system. That is why there is a need for a mandatory national system.
18 April 2007
at 4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Additionally, the so-called “Assault Weapons” ban, prhoibited the new manufacture of magaizines or “clips” of over TEN round capacity.

In this instance of violence perpetrated by a MADMAN, the magazine capacity used would have made little difference.

He could have very well done the same with a six-shot revolver using speed loaders.

This is NOT a firearms issue but rather an issue of a freaking NUT who was known by even his own school to be a NUT!

There is little that we can do about NUTS!

There was not waiting period because the perp passed the Instant Background Check emplaced by the democrats!

Unless we choose to make available to anyone who wants to access them, our personal medical records, there is no way to prohibit the sale of a friearm to someone taking prescription medications or who may have been diagnosed as “depressed”.

There is much more involved here than the issue of firearms and some of the things involved concern just how far we want to go in allowing our privacy to be invaded.

In a free society there are penalties to be paid for the freedoms which we enjoy and some of those penalties involve people who should not necessarily be able to do certain things being able to do them.

The victims of this crazy a++hole are martyrs to our way of life and our system of law.

There was absolutely nothing that could have been done to prevent this tragedy and allow us to keep our Freedoms.

Over 70 million Americans own firearms and ONE of them perpetrated this event.

Freedom always comes at a price and those who may give their lives so that those freedoms may continue are not always on a “battlefield”.

Thanks.

Marion.
18 April 2007
at 4:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

I don't think there is a big difference. Are there not “trained professionals” in our military who have killed innocents as well as thier own soldiers?
18 April 2007
at 4:35 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

I have no problems with improving the background check. All I am saying is that the clerk that sold him the gun had no reason not to with the information he had available.
18 April 2007
at 5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

as_I_live_and_breathe (Anonymous) says…

I say thank God he did have access to guns… Considering the extent of his insanity and desire to kill, if he couldn't have gotten a hold of a gun he might have unleashed poison in to the water or food or planted bombs that could have killed 10 times or more than he did.

Evil killers will kill regardless of how they have to do it.
18 April 2007
at 5:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Greyheim:

Please take the time to educate yourslef!

Handguns may only be purchased by those twenty one and older!

Halfwit.

Thanks.

Marion.
18 April 2007
at 5:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Marion, your 4:34pm post was excellent.

18 April 2007
at 5:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

arizonajh (Anonymous) says…

RE: We have 19 year olds that we send to carry guns around in Iraq. Most of them do well enough. Are you telling me 19 year old collegiates are less competent than our soldiers?

That's exactly what I'm telling you. The 19 year olds in Iraq are trained for months, they wear uniforms, they operate in tight knit squads, they operate under a strict command and control structure, they carry radios to know where to go who they are looking for. That is a totally different case than a bunch of individuals running around trying to, on the fly, figure out who is who and what is what and dealing out justice (from thier stand point) with the barrel of a gun. If that isn't blatantly obvious to you I think you may need to stop and think this through a little more. Again, I am a gun owner but I feel that there limits on how we as the public can be allowed to carry and use those weapons. We do not need everyone running around with a gun being the arbitor of justice in thier own mind. If everyone carries a gun it can only lead to heartache, for every fight will be a gun fight. I'd bet if you got in an arguement with a stranger and it came to fists, and you got the worst of it, you would pull your gun rather than get your butt beat. Then if the other guy has a gun he draws his and it's a shoot or be shot senerio. There may be the rare case of a citizen that saves an officer, or stops a robber but there will fifty times the number of cases where if no gun was present people would still be alive. In more cases than not the possesion of a fire arm in the hands of an average (not you guy's cause you seem to be perfect in thought process and judgement) citizen will cost more lives than it will ever save. Do you really want every butthead in town who drinks too much and thinks that you are the problem, to have the right to brandish a weapon every time your kids are being too noisy or your dog is barking or your wife is driving to slowly down the street? keep your guns, nobody is asking you to give them up, just don't send your kid to school, with my kid, armed to the teeth or don't show up at my grocery store with your weapon on your hip, just waiting for an excuse to play cop for a day. I didn't ask for your protection and I'll take my chances that in this lifetime I will never have the need to save the world from a bad guy. I have a better chance of hitting the power ball than ever finding myself in that situation. We have a CC law in Phoenix and the only peole I know that I have ever carried a gun are ex-gang members and people who were picked on as children and now carry the gun to make sure that no one ever picks on them again, two groups who definately have no business carring loaded weapons.
18 April 2007
at 5:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

beatrice (Anonymous) says…

I suspect the people killed yesterday probably wouldn't support the pro-gun stance some are taking on this issue. Just a hunch.

Remember, guns don't kill people — people with guns kill people.
18 April 2007
at 5:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

as_I_live_and_breathe (Anonymous) says…

Beatrice,
remember, people with: bombs, poison, knives, ropes, guitar strings, sticks, bricks, cars, frozen legs of lamb, ice picks, gasoline, nail guns, iron pipes, duct tape, lye, acid, and hands also kill people…..

But if you have a gun, you can kill them first.
18 April 2007
at 5:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

beatrice, I bet they would have in Norris Hall.

arizonajh, first off, I am not sending them after death squads in iraq. All I am saying is that a 19 year old is responsible enough to carry a concealed weapon. It doesn't take going through boot camp to safely and responsibly handle a gun.

Again, I also don't think that everyone should have a gun. But those who obtain the cc permit must pay $200 - $300, attend class, pass a shooting test, and pass a background check to be able to do so. All I am saying is that those who have successfully gone through that should be allowed to carry anywhere. Why the need to classify me as an hot tempered, wanna be cop? Is it so you can look down on me? I just want guns in the hands of the good guys. We disagree, thats all. Chill out. I didn't make fun of your momma.

I know that gang members, drug dealers, murderers, and people like that shooter at VT out in public places with guns. Some legal, many illegal. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be able to defend yourself. They are not going to listen to me reasoning with them about why they shouldn't be carrying a gun.
18 April 2007
at 5:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35yQg_…

Here is one of those highly trained law enforcement officers we all trust with our lives.

Seriously, I do respect police officers but most adults can effectively learn to handle a gun. It isn't rocket science. Cops and soldiers are not some special group unusually gifted in handling weapons.
18 April 2007
at 5:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

zzgoeb (Anonymous) says…

Well, I haven't seen anything here since my post this a.m….Marion, you ignorant…;p I didn't say there was a law; if we had a simple law that each citizen gets two guns, one short and one long, that are muzzle-loading flintlocks…think about it?

As for data bases and drugs, it's too late, it's all already there…been to Walgreen's lately? Watched 'em ring up your meds? If you take a physical to be insured, you waive your rights to privacy on the info…have for years.

If your local pharmicist and insurance guy can track you by data base, and credit can be approved in a minute over the phone, then we need to know what nut should or shouldn't have a gun…ok?
18 April 2007
at 6 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Lynn731 (Anonymous) says…

I have always supported concealed carry for law abiding citizens. I think the law we have now needs some work, but at least we have a law! A citizen carrying a deadly weapon must have and exercise a higher degree of self control than the average person. They cannot lose their temper and reach for that gun. They must also have a higher degree of common sense, as well. They must know when and when not to pull a deadly weapon out of their holster. I was always taught to never point a firearm at a person unless it is lawful to use it, and you are willing to kill them. Before you get that concealed carry permit, ask yourself can I kill another person. If you feel in your heart that you can't, you shouldn't carry a firearm. Thank you, Lynn
18 April 2007
at 6:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

75x55 (Anonymous) says…

staff04 - “The shooter was a legal permanent resident, not a citizen. I have a problem with non-citizens being able to legally purchase firearms.”

I couldn't agree more. While other rage about the acceptability of the Second Amendment, there is the issue that we're extending the rights of citizens to non-citizens.

Beyond the fact that it is becoming apparent that the linking of mental health information (which impinges on privacy concerns) would have likely denied this loon the ability to purchase his weapon over the counter had it been available to a NICS background check.

There seem to be quite enough laws and information resources available - but precious little enforcement and inter-connection of the same.

That and I'm still waiting to hear any stories of anyone who sold their lives dearly.

18 April 2007
at 7:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Grreyheim wrote:

“Posted by greyheim (anonymous) on April 18, 2007 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

So you're saying that you would feel as safe with some 19 year college kid carrying around a weapon as you would a soldier?”

Marion writes:

I merely pointed out that handguns may only be purchased by those who are 21 and older, said post minimising the emotional effect of those who LIE about who may or may not purchase and possess handguns.

Marion further writes to Greyheim:

Thank you for hiding behind your anonymity!

Thanks.

Marion.
18 April 2007
at 8:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

yourworstnightmare (Anonymous) says…

The national ID card to guard against terrorists would be a perfect check for gun purchases. A scan of this card would link to a database that would contain criminal background and mental health.

We need a national ID card to prevent terrorists and to control the purchase of guns.
18 April 2007
at 9:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

drewdun (Anonymous) says…

“Boyda is about a “Pat” looking, ummm, person, isn't (she?)?

And “Nancy” for a first name–-is it a joke?”

Typical rightthinker.

Pretty juvenile, if you ask me.
18 April 2007
at 11:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

rehaag (Anonymous) says…

Yeah, our America people really don't need the guns! PERIOD!
19 April 2007
at 7:50 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tuschkahouma (Anonymous) says…

I fit into a neat category here. I'm a Democrat. A gun owner.
A son of a gun collector. And I believe in gun control.
This was after a 16 year old kid put a 25 cal. Raven pistol
in my face at a previous job.

There needs to be a new category of gun owners created in the
media. “Gun Snob”. This way, people like me can distance
myself from the racist, AK or Mini-14 assault stock people
who bring scruntiy upon all gun owners by hunting needlessly
with assault rifles. One of my relatives hunts with flintlock and
percussion blackpowder rifles. They hunt everything from squirrels
to deer. This whole issue has politicized for years by end of the
world, guns and butter nutjobs, who create a climate of fear
that reinforces the transparent existence of the NRA and the
involvement of the Geriatric Oppressive Party. I've seen people
vote against their own best interests due to the snowjobs
pulled by the GOP and the NRA. I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti
-nutjob. And yes I voted for Nancy Boyda.
19 April 2007
at 7:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

notme (Anonymous) says…

arizonajh,

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Having passed the CCW permit class I have thought deeply about this scenario. Carrying the gun is about protecting yourself and possibly those very near. A CCW does not make you a swat team member. I now that I am not a cop, I will not act like one. Why because I know that if I take my gun out I will become a target as well. So I will spend a lot of effort letting everyone know I'm a good guy.

The off duty cop in the mall shooting a month ago in utah said he was most worried about getting shot by another officer. So he spent a lot of time announcing who he was. No good guys shot him.

In reality I don't think its too hard to tell the difference from a good guy with a CCW permit and a Psycho killer.
19 April 2007
at 11:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04…

Does this mean we should ban guns in the military? According to this article they are clearly not trained well enough to avoid killing each other.

My point is that no response to the problem is going to be perfect. Citizens that have gone through the process of getting the concealed carry permit are an asset to themselves, and those they love and protect in a situation like VT. Bad guys are out there and one of them intent on breaking the law by murdering are not going to obey the law by not bringing thier gun into a gun free zone. So law abiding citizens with the ability to defend themselves with lethal force become easy pickings to armed criminals intent on murder.

Just like monday, police officers with guns are usually not going to be there when you need them. There is no way they could be.

People train martial arts to protect themselves. Some use those skills for evil. People learn to drive so they can get around faster. Some people get behind the wheel and kill. People use box cutters to open boxes. Some use them to hijack an airplane and kill 2000 people.

Guns are valuable in the society we live in. Just like karate, automobiles and boxcutters. They are a valuable tool. When used lawfully they save lives, and prevent rapes, secure freedom, etc. They are not some mystical force out there to fulfill the needs of infatuated, paranoid gun nuts with low self esteem.
19 April 2007
at 12:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

smillstein (Anonymous) says…

There is no single action we could take that would stop the tragic events on the VT campus, but that is no excuse for taking no action.
To simply say “we must enforce the laws on the books” is not only one of the oldest political cop outs known, but is a premature conclusion. We desire full consideration of all options, once the facts are known.

19 April 2007
at 1:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

smillstein:

We have over 40,000 firearms laws on the books across this nation.

None prevented or could have prevented this tragedy.

What do you suggest?

Thanks.

Marion.
19 April 2007
at 6:19 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

I have a suggestion: “More intelligence, less bravado.”

I don't really have a problem with the whole CCW issue. Not anymore, at least. What's REALLY getting old is the rampant case of “Superman Syndrome” that seems to blaze through certain extremist groups like a California wildfire, every time there's an incident like this.

“OH! If only I'd been there with my handgun! Why, I could've…”

“OH! If only somebody had been there with a concealed weapon—they could've saved everybody!”

“OH! If only those far-left SP Bush-haters hadn't taken away everyone's guns! Then, this guy would've been shot into red Jello the moment he set foot in the room! Everyone would still be alive, aborted babies would rise from the dead, Osama Bin Laden would turn himself in to the FBI, all the illegal aliens would go back to wherever they came from, and the entire North American continent would be infected with a terminal case of 'minty-fresh breath!'”

B**lsh*t.

If any of these “armchair generals” had actually been in that VT classroom on Tuesday, they most like would have:

A) Peed & pooped their drawers, before getting shot.

B) Made a move towards the assailant, before having their gun taken away and shot with it.

C) Hidden in a corner, before getting shot.

D) Popped up from behind a table, only to get their brains blown off in some sadistic variation of “Whack-A-Mole.”

E) Forgotten to take the “safety” off… and gotten shot.

By that kind of twisted logic, wearing a helmet when you ride your motorcycle means you will *never* get in an accident.

You can't change the past. You can't control or predict the future, with any kind of reasonable certainty.

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
19 April 2007
at 9:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

gogoplata (Anonymous) says…

Agnostick, why is it so hard for you to see that there are regular citizens who are quite capable of handling situations like VT with courage and clear thinking. I'd bet if they were honest the most well trained battle tested weapons expert would be scared when a crazy man was trying to kill them. Fear can be overcome. The professor and the kids that prevented him from entering thier classroom are an example of that. They were scared and they still managed to act courageously. All I am saying is that if someone like that would have had a gun it would have been better than not having one. It isn't predicting the future to say that if you're in a gunfight it's better to have a gun.
19 April 2007
at 10:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

gogoplata: You are correct. Those “regular citizens” do exist. They are the relatively quiet, unassuming, moderate ones.

They are in a completely different realm that the extremist crackpot “armchair general” types I'm referring to. :)

—Ag
19 April 2007
at 10:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Agnostick is a Pseudo-liberal/Neo-socialist IDIOT who most likely wets the bed every night in fear of getting up in the morning.

Thanks.

Marion.
19 April 2007
at 11:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Agnostick (Anonymous) says…

Cup'O'HateSpew before bedtime, Gramps?

Boxers?

Briefs?

Depends?

Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
19 April 2007
at 11:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

megan2723 (Anonymous) says…

New gun control laws or not…..I honestly don't think the new laws would do any good. People who are as crazy and insane as this campus killer are not going to care about any laws. He was going to do what he was going to do regardless of any gun control laws.