I figured this thread would liven up soon enough What I find interesting is that as far as I can see none of the stricter gun regulations that have been proposed would've prevented Cho Seung-Hui from purchasing a gun. He was a legal citizen with a clean record, was able to pass the background check and had bought the gun weeks before the shooting. I've heard proposals for national gun registration and picture ID's (Hillary) for gun owners. I'm not sure how exactly either of those would've prevented Cho Seung-Hui from commiting the mass murder. Unless the folks shouting for these regulations can quantify how their proposals would've prevented his rampage I can only conclude that they're shamelessly using this sick tragedy to push their agendas and shore up votes. I mean seriously, short of the completely unrealistic idea of banning all guns what can we really do to prevent a guy like Cho Seung-Hui from doing what he did? Him and all the other mass murderers are anomolies that can't be accurately predicted. So is trampling the Constitutional rights of millions to make us feel better over a handful of poor souls caught in the wrong place at the wrong time a fair trade? I don't think so. Here's a great example of what limiting people's ability to arm themselves can do, Everyone remember the mass murder at Luby's in Kileen Texas years back? The guy could've been stopped by a lady that was trained and licensed to carry a concealed weapon except for the fact that Luby's, in the interest of its patron,s safety, saw fit to not allow firearms in their establishment. Because firearms weren't allowed in the restaurant the gal left her gun in her vehicle and consequently had to watch all those folks get killed knowing she could've easily popped the son of a bitch if she'd had her gun with her. When it comes to psychos looking to waste a bunch of people they see gun-free zones like schools and restaurants as a target rich environment full of defenseless people.
Nephilim The news said Cho was a resident alien. I didn't think aliens were allowed to buy firearms. If that's the case, then it's one more law the young man broke on his way to becoming a mass murderer. I believe, as do many others, that new laws aren't needed as much as enforcement of the laws we already have. I'm amazed a lot of anti-gunners are still asking for laws to be enacted that are already enacted. Most haven't taken the time to learn what the current laws are. The reason this thread is warming up is because anti gun protestors are taking every tragedy that has a firearm connection as a chance to rake legal gun ownership and owners over the coals. The tragic incident at VA Tech is just another incendiary incident for these hate mongers to use. And hate they do. They have absolutely no respect for law abiding gun owners or the constitution of our country. If you happen to be a supporter of legal gun ownership, fool is one of the kinder things you're apt to be called. I'll not go into a rant now. Most of you've heard those before. I'm pro legal gun ownership and I've heard no sane arguments from the anti-gun movement to change my mind.
@PacMan From what I've heard, he had purchased the guns legally. He had a green card. VA laws on guns are very relaxed. Maybe we need a federal law that says you need to be citizen and read English to buy a gun.
Some states give lip service to gun laws while others enact laws banning guns. I think there should be one set of Federal laws that all states have to adhere to. I believe in the right to carry arms, but I also believe the individual should be responsible to prepare and prove competence to do so. All gun owners should have to go through a thorough background search and be licensed, much like the CCW training and license.
ah, but you can't have it both ways. a right is something *everyone* has; privileges are the only things that can be taken away. a privilege would be something you have to prove competence for, like driving. but then again, look at the people on the road.
It's illegal for convicted felons to have firearms. That's a right that can be taken away. I don't think a mental case who has no idea of what a gun can do should own one. In fact it's illegal to purchase a firearm if a person has psychological problems. Guilty of spouse abuse, no guns. There's already all kinds of limitations to the right to bear arms. There's even limits to the type of arms. I'm not saying make gun ownership a privilege that can be taken away. What I'm saying is that one should be required to be of sound mind and have some training before exercising their right.
The writers of the U.S. Constitution understood the necessity for an armed citizenry. When only the government has guns, everyone else is just a slave. Gun-banners who would turn everyone’s life and liberty over to the care of an all-powerful, central government, don’t understand and don’t agree with that.” —Alan Caruba ++ “All of these massacres, these terrorist attacks, have genuine possibilities for being stopped dead in their tracks if they encounter a well-armed, well-trained, educated public vigilant to defend their freedoms...[T]he proper public response is to promote the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. We can stop this evil if we choose to. Let’s roll.” —Andrew Longman ++ “Why is the Virginia Tech murderer always referred to as the ‘gunman’ and not the ‘murderer’? Had he stabbed a dozen students to death, would he be the ‘knifeman’?” —Dennis Prager
i would read this>>>>>>>> Gun lobby prepares for battle over rights By Andrew Ward Published: April 17 2007 18:40 | Last updated: April 17 2007 18:40 Last Saturday, Wayne LaPierre, executive vice-president of the National Rifle Association, urged delegates at the group’s annual convention in St Louis, Missouri, to prepare for “the storm that lies ahead”. Opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Americans would support stricter controls – a Gallup poll last year found 56 per cent in favour – and the proportion is likely to increase following this week’s tragedy. link http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3d770d7a-ed08-11db-9520-000b5df10621.html
I don't like guns but even I get that crazy people will always do sht and a scapegoat is found blamed and baned soon thoughts will be next after they ban everythign else.
what gets me is people like Rosie O' Donald yelling about gun control when her body guards are packing heat its insane. and do you think the Rosie o' Donald's of the world and the far left care about your personal safety NO they don't they just want to push there agenda
@aabbccdd Rosie could be a He today and She tomorrow, s-he's almost that bipolar. I bet s-he's had lots of fun on her upside down swing. When is The Donald just going to make her disappear.LMAO.
You know PacMan that's probably true. Back on topic. I plan to get my grandPa's colt 38, vintage 1920s, out and have it checked and put into service. I no longer feel safe with just a 22 pistol and various rifles and shotguns.
Good choice! It's a shame so many folks are all hot on autos and ignore the tried and true revolver. I've a 4" Stainless Ruger GP-100 in .357 and it's one of my absolute faves to take out and shoot. The nice thing about revolvers is I can load up some full-house Magnum boomers and shoot those till the concussion and blast gets old then shove in some little .38 Special powder-puff loads and plink away like it was a .22. Autos can't do that!
aabbccdd, I saw your last post and it said suspended, I bust out laughing, my wife said whats so funny, I said you wouldnt understand, but a buddy of mine got suspended AGAIN, she said what did he do kill somebody lol, said no there are rules on these places you have to follow, he probably told somebody where to get off at. She said you guys on these computer thingies as she calls it are worse than a bunch of old ladies blah blah blah, whatever lol, anyway, I feel for you old sport, like getting flagged from our favorite bar, been there done that, will wait till may 18th so I can see welcome back buddy.
It's the Federal law that allows this; it's not a VA thing. And he was an English major! I just heard him on TV (thanks to the media, now another nut who killed a bunch of people has been given a free, worldwide platform to air his grudges!) and he speaks quite clearly. I suspect that not allowing a naturalized citizen to enjoy his or her Second Amendment rights would run into the same sets of discrimination law that denying them other rights would suffer.
Exactly. Rosie should be in jail. I have as little respect for her First Amendment rights as she does for my Second. One thing that's irritating, but shows to what extent gun control advocates (the press) twist statistics and numbers is that one. Following Columbine, some pollsters tried breaking down the "public support for gun control" and found that a majority actually favored stricter enforcement of existing laws, not new gun control laws. Yep, that's a sweet one! And don't forget there's 38 +Ps if you want something in the middle power range.
Lets see so far he was a english major who wrote messed up stories and stalked women and was a basketball fan so far no word on any video games, all in all he was a nut that managed to get guns,if the system was "complete" his metal record would have shown up when he applied for a gun the system is what needs to be fixed not banning guns thats just scapegoating and overlooking the whole issue. BTW a good gun discussion staring everyones fav english destroyer zippy has poped up on gamepolitics.com http://www.gamepoliticsforums.com/showthread.php?p=33704&posted=1#post33704 take a looky its rather fun to debate it in a friendly environment altho both sides need to debate better :X
