Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can We Accept Another Va. Tech? (CBS News: Inevitable Without Stricter Gun Laws)
CBS News ^ | April. 22, 2007 | Bob Schieffer

Posted on 04/23/2007 7:36:17 AM PDT by presidio9

Not since 9/11 can I remember a worse week than the one we have just experienced.

This week the death toll in Iraq went even higher; hundreds died as the government prepared to send more American troops into the war zone. Yet I don't remember even a casual conversation about that as the unimaginable tragedy unfolded at Virginia Tech.

Reporters love to cover big stories, but there was no joy in our Washington bureau which carried the biggest part of the load in covering the Virginia Tech horror — for our people, there was only revulsion and a sense of duty that such things must be covered.

It was what happened in the days and hours after the shooting that I found most depressing. In the wake of 9/11, people demanded action. This time it was different.

This time, public officials reacted with despair, even resignation — despair that no one seems to know what to do, resignation that these things are going to happen from time to time as long as guns are available to the mentally deranged, and because powerful forces oppose tightening the gun laws, there is just not much that can be done about it.

This is an enormously complicated subject. There is no magic quick fix, including more gun laws. But Virginia Tech must have shown us one thing: The current safeguards are not working, and unless something changes, it IS only a matter of time until what we saw — or something worse — happens again. The question that keeps running in my mind is: As a people, are we prepared to accept that?


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; bobschieffer; fakebutaccurate; seebsnews; vatech; wtfk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 04/23/2007 7:36:22 AM PDT by presidio9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: presidio9
A shining example of liberal idiot-think:

"But Virginia Tech must have shown us one thing: The current safeguards are not working"

In other words it is not working so lets do more of it.

2 posted on 04/23/2007 7:41:36 AM PDT by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Can we accept another CBS?

I can’t.


3 posted on 04/23/2007 7:41:59 AM PDT by RexBeach ("Broad-minded is just another way of saying a fellow is too lazy to form an opinion." Will Rogers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
But Virginia Tech must have shown us one thing: The current safeguards are not working, and unless something changes......

Changes: As far as colleges campuses in shall-issue states are concerned, allowing those with CCW permits to carry would be a good first step.

4 posted on 04/23/2007 7:42:09 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
This is from Bobbie Schieffer, hand wringing moonbat that can look at a situation and never, ever see the logical solution.

Telling Bobbie that permitting students and faculty to carry would drastically reduce the risk, is like trying to explain to a dog that the greezy crude he ate on monday is why he is sick on wednesday.

They just can’t make the connection, and will continue to do exactly those things that exacerbate the problem.

5 posted on 04/23/2007 7:42:30 AM PDT by Al Gator (Refusing to "stoop to your enemy's level", gets you cut off at the knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

What a Liar Scheiffer is.....all of the media had palpitations over the scramble to get in their face-time.....as did the contingent of VT administrators.


6 posted on 04/23/2007 7:42:32 AM PDT by Vn_survivor_67-68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

If it’s still broke, fix it even more.


7 posted on 04/23/2007 7:42:48 AM PDT by presidio9 (Suspended for posting an article about Scalia and Arthur Miller arguing at SCOTUS. Seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

“But Virginia Tech must have shown us one thing: The current safeguards are not working, and unless something changes, it IS only a matter of time until what we saw — or something worse — happens again. The question that keeps running in my mind is: As a people, are we prepared to accept that?”

My God, are people really this idiotic?

Something SHOULD change: the idea that gun-free zones are a good idea.

If folks with CCW permits+weapons had been about, there would have been far fewer fatalities. THAT is the common sense approach to keeping “worse” from happening in the future.

Now, we just need to pound this simple notion into the vacuous heads of the media and public.


8 posted on 04/23/2007 7:43:06 AM PDT by PreciousLiberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Liberals can’t accept that there is evil in the world. They think you can pass legislation and bad things will magically stop happening.

Libs, here’s a newsflash: no amount of legislative pixie dust can stop these things from happening. Banning guns would only make things worse.


9 posted on 04/23/2007 7:43:18 AM PDT by Disambiguator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Can we accept another liberal gun ban?

NO.

Can we allow a government run amok to confiscate our onlyt means against criminals and tyrranny?

NO — well, maybe bullets first.


10 posted on 04/23/2007 7:44:47 AM PDT by patriot preacher (To be a good American Citizen and a Christian IS NOT a contradiction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
The current safeguards are not working

What safeguards are they talking about? The safeguards that allowed this seriously disturbed student to stay in school? The ones that inspired the school to enable this student to stay?
11 posted on 04/23/2007 7:45:00 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Brain dead, ignorant, self-centered, political hack idiots!!!!

Conceal Carry saved the school 5 years ago. The proof is in the history book! oh,, and here:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55326


12 posted on 04/23/2007 7:45:46 AM PDT by JoeSixPack1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

We aren’t really hearing any calls for gun control. We hear lots of calls for “nut” control and the ability to defend ourselves.

A lot of realists around these parts, I’d say.

I do know of one family member of a victim that is going to join up with the anti-gunners. Possibly two.


13 posted on 04/23/2007 7:47:15 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

as usual they’re 180 degrees off.

inevitable until self-defense rights are taken as seriously as our rights to swear or access pornography, or PEE in teh crucifix.


14 posted on 04/23/2007 7:47:27 AM PDT by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

some have seen me post this question : if you and a democrat were in a foxhole and a mooooslim was charging you with a gun and grenade,who would you shoot first ?

well,Ole Bob Scheiffer would do all he could to disable your aim.


15 posted on 04/23/2007 7:47:37 AM PDT by advertising guy (If computer skills named us, I'd be back-space delete.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

mailto:ftn@cbsnews.com


16 posted on 04/23/2007 7:47:39 AM PDT by savedbygrace (SECURE THE BORDERS FIRST (I'M YELLING ON PURPOSE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Seems to me the breakdown was in our handling of the mentally ill - the current paradigm is let them go about their business until they start killing people. If we kept guns away Cho, what would have stopped him from driving a vehicle at top speed through a lage crowd of people - his only goal was to kill as many people as possible.


17 posted on 04/23/2007 7:48:05 AM PDT by ghost of nixon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

*** and because powerful forces oppose tightening the gun laws, there is just not much that can be done about it. ***

It’s interesting that when a murderer starts his killing spree that when the police show up...GASP! THEY ARE ARMED!

Why not just try to talk the murderer from killing more. That’s what they expect the students to do.


18 posted on 04/23/2007 7:50:19 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Today we make America safe by taking guns out of the hands of criminals...LB Johnson 1968)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9; All

OUTSTANDING FReeper comments.


19 posted on 04/23/2007 7:51:07 AM PDT by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Not since 9/11 can I remember a worse week than the one we have just experienced.

Is there a reason to read past this incomprehensibly pointless statement?

Of course there hasn't been a worse week you twit, Bob.  Thank you for saying it though because none of the rest of us could have figured that one out on our own.

Idiot.

20 posted on 04/23/2007 7:51:08 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Time for the jackass Scheiffer to be issued his drool cup and bib. Bob’s greatest daily challenge is staying within close proximity to a restroom.


21 posted on 04/23/2007 7:52:32 AM PDT by bikerMD (Beware, the light at the end of the tunnel may be a muzzle flash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ghost of nixon

He might have done what nut in Norristown Pa did a few years back.

Bought a black powder revolver through mail order.

Killed and wounded a few folks before it was over.

Perfectly legal!


22 posted on 04/23/2007 7:53:32 AM PDT by Al Gator (Refusing to "stoop to your enemy's level", gets you cut off at the knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
In other words it is not working so lets do more of it.

I'm sure that Dan RaTHer can "produce" the documents that support this conclusion.

23 posted on 04/23/2007 7:54:13 AM PDT by Navy Patriot (Zimbabwe, leftist success story.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Reporters love to cover big stories, but there was no joy in our Washington bureau which carried the biggest part of the load in covering the Virginia Tech horror — for our people, there was only revulsion and a sense of duty that such things must be covered.

Admit it Bob, there was no joy because NBC got the tapes and pics from Cho.

This time, public officials reacted with despair, even resignation — despair that no one seems to know what to do, resignation that these things are going to happen from time to time as long as guns are available to the mentally deranged, and because powerful forces oppose tightening the gun laws, there is just not much that can be done about it.

Bob, we know what to do. Do away with gun free zones and allow armed citizens to defend themselves and others. I'd like to know what 'powerful forces' are opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of psychopaths!

This is an enormously complicated subject. There is no magic quick fix, including more gun laws. But Virginia Tech must have shown us one thing: The current safeguards are not working, and unless something changes, it IS only a matter of time until what we saw — or something worse — happens again. The question that keeps running in my mind is: As a people, are we prepared to accept that?

Current safeguards? Oh, you mean disarming the campus and having tens of thousands of people rely on a couple of hundred cops for protection? How did that work out?

24 posted on 04/23/2007 7:54:32 AM PDT by TC Rider (The United States Constitution ? 1791. All Rights Reserved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

We have the right to bear arms. This is hogwash.


25 posted on 04/23/2007 7:56:21 AM PDT by tioga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Other constitutional and substantive individual rights exercised by and for Cho made his massacre possible which are never mentioned. His right of privacy kept the fact of his mental illness from those who could act on it; his right against unreasonable search and seizure allowed him to hide firearms in his dorm, where they were prohibited by law; his right of free speech permitted him to communicate his violent nature but prevented those who could act from doing so, lest his right to speak freely be ‘chilled’. And yet, no one talks about curtailing those rights for all of us to protect the few. Civil rights organizations tell us that the toll in blood for protection of our rights against search and seizure, privacy and free speech is an acceptable cost for our civil liberties. But the Second Amendment is never included in that discussion. The Bill of Rights is not a menu from which we can pick and choose, and any guarantee of our forefathers that can be repealed by the whim of a minority in our society sets the standard for treatment of the others, and endangers them all.


26 posted on 04/23/2007 7:59:00 AM PDT by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
I am prepared to accept that, yes. I am resigned and regret to admit, that the only protection I or my family will have will come from self reliance and the will and training to survive.

If we find out a clerical error is the reason that the background check did not flag this individual, then let’s fix the clerical error and move on.

No gun law is going to deter or stop a criminal with a vicious appetite for mass murder. Therefore, citizens of these great states should be aware and prepared to fight for their lives when necessary. The government shall not infringe on the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms if that is the tool they should freely choose to aid them in the defense of their lives when and if they should need to.

History shows us that murderous rampages that consume numerous victims seem to happen in the most unlikely places and always take the victims by complete surprise. Therefore, we should never allow ourselves to be “completely” surprised.

27 posted on 04/23/2007 8:00:43 AM PDT by Tenacious 1 (No to nitwit jesters with a predisposition of self importance and unqualified political opinions!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

...no joy in our Washington bureau which carried the biggest part of the load...

That’s right Bob, it’s all about you


28 posted on 04/23/2007 8:04:38 AM PDT by Paisan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

What we need is not more gun control. We need more nut control.

VTech was aware that there were problmes with Cho. In one of his classes, students were so afraid of him, they skipped class. The school ended up teaching him one-on-one. But they couldn’t kick him out. Other students with mental illnesses have sued colleges under the Americans with Disabilities Act for the right to remain in college in spite of their mental illness ....and won.

Neither the college nor Cho’s doctors could tell his parents about any mental health problems. Once he is over 18, his parents have no more rights than anyone else to that information. This is true even if he is a dependent and they are providing all of his support.

The current laws relating to mental illness not only result in more people homeless and on the street. They make it harder for others to make sure that the mentally ill person gets the help he needs.


29 posted on 04/23/2007 8:05:07 AM PDT by knuthom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach; presidio9
Can we accept another CBS?

You're right about that. It was Dan Rather who published demonstrably fabricated information as fact. The story was damaging and untrue. Is CBS ready for more speech control?

I'm thinking they would see such a suggestion as preposterous. But CBSers don't complain about efforts for proposed curbs on bloggers and don't consider internet reporters as legitimate journalists. Apparently only "their" amendment is worthy of exuberant protection. And only among those whose opinions are sufficiently appropriate.

30 posted on 04/23/2007 8:05:29 AM PDT by Sgt_Schultze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Spok
Well said. The whole package of rights and protections in the Bill of Rights is made to inter-operate. When you take out part (e.g. restrict the right of armed self-defense enumerated in the 2nd Amendment) you get failure at other parts of the system.
31 posted on 04/23/2007 8:05:48 AM PDT by RKV ( He who has the guns, makes the rules.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

Inevitable without a more rational approach to mental illness. This young man’s mental state was known to many people in authority, yet no one offered to help. Where is the nanny society when you need it? The liberals are all to self absorbed to step forward and offer help when it is really needed.


32 posted on 04/23/2007 8:05:50 AM PDT by Eva
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

We need to ban the media from making these guys into a cause of celebration. They are doing it for the notoriety, and the media are giving it to them.


33 posted on 04/23/2007 8:05:54 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
There is no magic quick fix, including more gun laws.

....says Bob Scheifer, calling for more gun laws.

34 posted on 04/23/2007 8:08:30 AM PDT by Lazamataz (JOIN THE NRA: https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
A lot of realists around these parts, I'd say.

The Democratic Party leadership is "realistic" in the sense of understanding that if it weren't for the votes they lost by being on the wrong side of the gun issue, Al Gore would be president.

35 posted on 04/23/2007 8:09:00 AM PDT by steve-b (It's hard to be religious when certain people don't get struck by lightning.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

No Bob, it’s not complicated. This is the standard boilerplate response on very simple, straightforward issues, as a matter of fact. Disarm the law abiding and you get what we got. More money, more gun control - we’ll get MORE of what we already got.

Any more questions Bob, you be sure to ask.


36 posted on 04/23/2007 8:11:23 AM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tenacious 1

“History shows us that murderous rampages that consume numerous victims seem to happen in the most unlikely places and always take the victims by complete surprise. Therefore, we should never allow ourselves to be “completely” surprised.”

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
“Gun Free Zones” aka “Free Fire Zones for Perps” seem to me to be a very likely venue for future mass slaughters. Steyn’s article highlights this with his local (New England) experience.

Let’s be realistic about reality

April 22, 2007
BY MARK STEYN Sun-Times Columnist

Within hours of the Virginia Tech massacre, the New York Times had
identified the problem: ‘’What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls
over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such
unbearable loss.’’

According to the Canadian blogger Kate MacMillan, a caller to her local
radio station went further and said she was teaching her children to
‘’fear guns.’’

Overseas, meanwhile, the German network NTV was first to identify the
perpetrator: To accompany their report on the shootings, they flashed up
a picture of Charlton Heston touting his rifle at an NRA confab.

And at Yale, the dean of student affairs, Betty Trachtenberg, reacted to
the Virginia Tech murders by taking decisive action: She banned all
stage weapons from plays performed on campus. After protests from the
drama department, she modified her decisive action to “permit the use of
obviously fake weapons” such as plastic swords.

But it’s not just the danger of overly realistic plastic swords in
college plays that we face today. In yet another of his
not-ready-for-prime-time speeches, Barack Obama started out deploring
the violence of Virginia Tech as yet another example of the pervasive
violence of our society: the violence of Iraq, the violence of Darfur,
the violence of . . . er, hang on, give him a minute. Ah, yes,
outsourcing: ‘’the violence of men and women who . . . suddenly have the
rug pulled out from under them because their job has moved to another
country.” And let’s not forget the violence of radio hosts: ‘’There’s
also another kind of violence, though, that we’re going to have to think
about. It’s not necessarily physical violence, but violence that we
perpetrate on each other in other ways. Last week the big news,
obviously, had to do with Imus and the verbal violence that was directed
at young women who were role models for all of us, role models for my
daughters.’’

I’ve had some mail in recent days from people who claimed I’d insulted
the dead of Virginia Tech. Obviously, I regret I didn’t show the
exquisite taste and sensitivity of Sen. Obama and compare getting shot
in the head to an Imus one-liner. Does he mean it? I doubt whether even
he knows. When something savage and unexpected happens, it’s easiest to
retreat to our tropes and bugbears or, in the senator’s case, a speech
on the previous week’s “big news.” Perhaps I’m guilty of the same. But
then Yale University, one of the most prestigious institutes of learning
on the planet, announces that it’s no longer safe to expose
twentysomething men and women to ‘’Henry V’’ unless you cry God for
Harry, England and St. George while brandishing a bright pink and purple
plastic sword from the local kindergarten. Except, of course, that the
local kindergarten long since banned plastic swords under its own “zero
tolerance” policy.

I think we have a problem in our culture not with “realistic weapons”
but with being realistic about reality. After all, we already “fear
guns,” at least in the hands of NRA members. Otherwise, why would we ban
them from so many areas of life? Virginia Tech, remember, was a
“gun-free zone,” formally and proudly designated as such by the college
administration. Yet the killer kept his guns and ammo on the campus. It
was a “gun-free zone” except for those belonging to the guy who wanted
to kill everybody. Had the Second Amendment not been in effect repealed
by VT, someone might have been able to do as two students did five years
ago at the Appalachian Law School: When a would-be mass murderer showed
up, they rushed for their vehicles, grabbed their guns and pinned him
down until the cops arrived.

But you can’t do that at Virginia Tech. Instead, the administration has
created a “Gun-Free School Zone.” Or, to be more accurate, they’ve
created a sign that says “Gun-Free School Zone.” And, like a loopy
medieval sultan, they thought that simply declaring it to be so would
make it so. The “gun-free zone” turned out to be a fraud — not just
because there were at least two guns on the campus last Monday, but in
the more important sense that the college was promoting to its students
a profoundly deluded view of the world.

*I live in northern New England, which has a very low crime rate, in
part because it has a high rate of gun ownership.* We do have the
occasional murder, however. A few years back, a couple of alienated
loser teens from a small Vermont town decided they were going to kill
somebody, steal his ATM cards, and go to Australia. So they went to a
remote house in the woods a couple of towns away, knocked on the door,
and said their car had broken down. The guy thought their story smelled
funny so he picked up his Glock and told ‘em to get lost. So they
concocted a better story, and pretended to be students doing an
environmental survey. Unfortunately, the next old coot in the woods was
sick of environmentalists and chased ‘em away. *Eventually they figured
they could spend months knocking on doors in rural Vermont and New
Hampshire and seeing nothing for their pains but cranky guys in plaid
leveling both barrels through the screen door. So even these idiots
worked it out: Where’s the nearest place around here where you’re most
likely to encounter gullible defenseless types who have foresworn all
means of resistance? Answer: Dartmouth College. So they drove over the
Connecticut River, rang the doorbell, and brutally murdered a couple of
well-meaning liberal professors. Two depraved misfits of crushing
stupidity (to judge from their diaries) had nevertheless identified
precisely the easiest murder victims in the twin-state area.* To promote
vulnerability as a moral virtue is not merely foolish. Like the new Yale
props department policy, it signals to everyone that you’re not in the
real world.

The “gun-free zone” fraud isn’t just about banning firearms or even a
symptom of academia’s distaste for an entire sensibility of which the
Second Amendment is part and parcel but part of a deeper reluctance of
critical segments of our culture to engage with reality. Michelle Malkin
wrote a column a few days ago connecting the prohibition against
physical self-defense with “the erosion of intellectual self-defense,”
and the retreat of college campuses into a smothering security blanket
of speech codes and “safe spaces” that’s the very opposite of the
principles of honest enquiry and vigorous debate on which university
life was founded. And so we “fear guns,” and “verbal violence,” and
excessively realistic swashbuckling in the varsity production of ‘’The
Three Musketeers.’’ What kind of functioning society can emerge from
such a cocoon?


37 posted on 04/23/2007 8:12:32 AM PDT by Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

At least in terms of the campus policy.

This is laughable that they can’t see that the campus didn’t allow guns in the 1st place, so it’s irrelevent.

They’re RIGHT - the campus policy DIDN’T work in this case. The policy was “no guns”.

The nutcase got a gun off campus and brought it in without ever getting caught. Maybe if they want to ban student guns there, they should make security check over every entrant into the campus. That’s the only way it might work against a nut like this.

(Personally, I am for campus bans on undergrad student guns generally, because I think stupid accidents from immature students are far more likely than a wacko acting out.)


38 posted on 04/23/2007 8:14:08 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I wonder if CBS studios has armed guards?

They seem very willing to condemn the rest of us to the failed security of “gun free” zones.


39 posted on 04/23/2007 8:19:33 AM PDT by Names Ash Housewares
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K
Campus security & individuals without guns sure didn’t work.
40 posted on 04/23/2007 8:23:29 AM PDT by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

I believe B.S. had Ben Stein (more BS) on in a short segment where Stein asserted that “Americans need to get over their love affair with guns.” I thought Stein was a “conservative.” Nix that idea.


41 posted on 04/23/2007 8:26:13 AM PDT by nonsporting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

One week has passed. The libs are all using the media to call for seizing legal guns from law-abiding citizens and leaving them in the hands of criminals who obey no laws.


42 posted on 04/23/2007 8:27:17 AM PDT by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: presidio9

>>>Journalism 101<<<
Newspeak: “powerful forces oppose”
In English: the Constitution, the American public oppose

Newspeak: “tightening the gun laws”
English: gun prohibition


43 posted on 04/23/2007 8:33:46 AM PDT by tumblindice (Rudy Tenuta's got a squeezebox, conservatives never sleep at night)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel

“(Personally, I am for campus bans on undergrad student guns generally, because I think stupid accidents from immature students are far more likely than a wacko acting out.)”

Oh really? I can’t seem to recall any of the accidental campus shootings you seem so fearful of. Care to state your statistical basis for this? Or when you say you “think” so, are you really meaning you “feel” so?
The 2nd Ammendment’s protections apply to all of us. Not just to those whom you deem worthy.


44 posted on 04/23/2007 8:35:47 AM PDT by rickomatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
But Virginia Tech must have shown us one thing: The current safeguards are not working, and unless something changes, it IS only a matter of time until what we saw — or something worse — happens again.

That's right. A gun free zone will only make it easier for evil men to do evil things.

The "current safeguards" are not safeguards at all. Virginia Tech students were sitting ducks that day and this fact should serve as a wake up call to all those who seek to protect themselves against evil.

45 posted on 04/23/2007 8:43:00 AM PDT by SaveTheChief (Chief Illiniwek (1926-2007))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeSixPack1

Good link...


46 posted on 04/23/2007 8:43:42 AM PDT by EnigmaticAnomaly (Grassroots Conservatism at its finest...VOTE DUNCAN HUNTER 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: rickomatic

This really is a moot point.

I think you need to be 21 to own a handgun and at least that for a ccw.

Most 21 year olds are not freshmen.


47 posted on 04/23/2007 8:44:21 AM PDT by Al Gator (Refusing to "stoop to your enemy's level", gets you cut off at the knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: rickomatic

Fearful? No, I just think that undergrad’s tend to be very immature and DRINK a HELL of alot. They are a huge majority on campus and they tend to be in large enclaves all alone without any “outside” influence.

No stats, just surmising. (And that is THINKING, based on admittedly few observations over some years; but it is not just “feeling”.)

And I’m not interested in disarming every single person. I think higher students and faculty and staff should all be allowed, mostly to balance if this kind of psycho thing happens.

But if the campus wants to allow everyone to be armed - se la vie. I’m not that upset about it. I just think they’ll regret it - the likelihood of general day-to-day problems is greater than ever having a homicidal maniac show up and blow everyone to pieces.

OTOH, I just now find out it was only the last 5 years or so that VA banned guns for anyone on campus (not sure of policy before that, except now noone is allowed). So, it’s very possible before that, few mishaps were happening.

As for your comment about “ALL of us” - I doubt that. People here are clamoring for more gun control for nutcases like Cho. So I guess the class of “possibly unstable” doesn’t count in your 2A protections.


48 posted on 04/23/2007 8:44:50 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: knuthom
The current laws relating to mental illness not only result in more people homeless and on the street.

Cho was not on the street, and he had not comitted any crime. Harmless people write incredibly disturbing and violent things all the time. Should Quentin Turentino or Bret Easton Ellis be forcibly incarcerated?

When you start making laws to crack-down on the supposedly mentally dangerous, you are headed down a slippery slope. Bear in mind that the experts in the mental health professions tend to be liberal. For example, many conservatives believe that homosexuality is a mental disorder, just as many liberals feel the same way about "hate speech/hate crimes." Are you prepared to undergo forcible reprogramming the next time you call somebody a faggot?

Bear in mind that Cho was evaluated and deemed a danger to himself, but not others.

49 posted on 04/23/2007 8:53:17 AM PDT by presidio9 (Suspended for posting an article about Scalia and Arthur Miller arguing at SCOTUS. Seriously.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
Changes: As far as colleges campuses in shall-issue states are concerned, allowing those with CCW permits to carry would be a good first step.

When I was a senior at a large Southern University in the late 1970s, most of us in Army ROTC had CCW permits and frequently carried on campus and to class. I majored in Criminal Justice so there were also cops in my classes who were routinely armed and everybody knew who else was armed. No problems whatsoever. NONE. Not a single one.

Of course no weapons were permitted in the dorms and I was sharing a house off campus with other army cadets. Even normal students not in ROTC were often seen with shotguns or rifles in a vehicle rack during the various hunting seasons. Again, no problems, at all. A lot of folks (including students) in the area fed themselves by harvesting wild game. Heck, I did too.

Cutting down on the meat bill by killing deer during the season allows a bigger party budget. However, ALCOHOL and GUNPOWDER never mix. That's also pretty basic to growing up and attending school in the deep south. Sure there are always hunting accidents. But none involving students during the time I was in school....at least none of which I'm aware.

Things seem to have changed since I was in school. Now the globalist liberal cabal is in charge all over the nation. Last time I checked, the proud Army ROTC programs were in danger of being evicted from the campus by the Administration. When I was in school, we had the #1 biggest noncompulsory ROTC Program in the nation. It was a sign of student patriotism for Fraternities and Sororities to join the first and second year ROTC program. They loved it, then. The times...they are a'changin' I guess. For the worse, it seems. This is what happens when the SHEEP MENTALITY is inculcated into the student campus attitudes.

50 posted on 04/23/2007 8:53:31 AM PDT by ExSoldier (Democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb voting on dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson