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

Skip to comments.

New Gun Control Law Is Killer's Legacy
ABC News ^ | Jan. 12, 2008 | JOHN COCHRAN

Posted on 01/13/2008 8:04:04 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi

Before President Bush left Washington for the Mideast, he signed into law the first major federal gun control measure in more than 13 years.

If the new law had been in effect last April, it might have prevented the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, from buying a weapon at a gun store.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: 110th; armedcitizen; backgroundchecks; banglist; control; gun; illness; mental; msm; rkba; vatech; virginiatech

1 posted on 01/13/2008 8:04:05 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

Seung-Hui Cho was a twisted individual. He was referred to a mental institution for screening. They let him go.

Virginia Tech also bears a little responsibility, you know.

But there is so much liability associated with poor decisions and hindsight that nobody wants to admit anything.


2 posted on 01/13/2008 8:08:10 AM PST by Albert Guérisse (NRA Life)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

National Instant Criminal Background Check

Keyword - criminal


3 posted on 01/13/2008 8:08:44 AM PST by wastedyears (This is my BOOMSTICK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi
If the new law had been in effect last April, it might have prevented the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, from buying a weapon at a gun store.

Yes, he would have had to step out his front door and buy one from the local Gangsta.

No, I did not read the article. It is obviously not news, but some Cornell *****'s PC Regurgitation.

4 posted on 01/13/2008 8:09:09 AM PST by Gorzaloon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi
It's not a "gun control measure" - it is a measure to encourage states to report cases of mental illness in order to prevent vile wastes of protein like the VA Tech murderer from purchasing weapons they are prohibited from purchasing by law.

That dirtbag was enabled in his crimes by the VA Tech administration's policy of disarming lawful firearm owners, by the State of Virginia's laxity in reporting cases of dangerous mental illness and by the mental health lobby's efforts to force states to pretend that lunatics should have the same privileges as people who are not out of their blinking minds.

5 posted on 01/13/2008 8:10:37 AM PST by wideawake (Ron Paul and his newsletters: The Milli Vanilli of the New Millenium)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

Using the same logic it should be decreed that people deemed by “a court” to suffer with mental illness should not have...

freedom of speech
freedom to assemble or petition
freedom from unreasonable searches or seizures
the right of trial by jury
the right to a fair and speedy trial
the right to vote
the right of citizenship

And so on...


6 posted on 01/13/2008 8:11:00 AM PST by cougar_mccxxi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

Any thought that any law is going to keep criminals from getting guns is asinine. Just look at the states with the harshest gun controls , they are invariably the states with the highest crime rates.


7 posted on 01/13/2008 8:12:27 AM PST by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

What this database will also be used for is college admissions. This mental deficient should have never been allowed in any school outside a medical institution.


8 posted on 01/13/2008 8:36:48 AM PST by wrench
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi
might have
9 posted on 01/13/2008 8:55:44 AM PST by sionnsar (trad-anglican.faithweb.com |Iran Azadi| 5yst3m 0wn3d - it's N0t Y0ur5 (SONY) | UN: Useless Nations)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sionnsar

So if I think I need to talk to a shrink about issues, this is a good reason to NEVER seek help. Sounds like a good law to me ./s


10 posted on 01/13/2008 9:02:12 AM PST by MrPiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

This is typical Liberal, B.S., “feel-good” legislation which will accomplish ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. If the killer didn’t do it with a gun, he would have done it with a knife, or a baseball bat, or a claw hammer, or an ice pick, or a zillion and one other deadly objects. He was a “NUT” and the gun didn’t make him a “NUT”. God, what a load of CRAP !!!


11 posted on 01/13/2008 9:27:15 AM PST by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

People should understand up front that this new law, however well intended, isn’t going to keep people who are bent on committing murder from acquiring firearms, but it will make it more difficult for some innocent, harmless citizens to defend themselves and their families. The law sounds good though. It has every appearance of being something a responsible, free society would do to keep crazy people from hurting themselves and others. Isn’t that what these laws are all about? ...Imagine being in a room full of frightened students with no escape. Coming down the hallway is a crazed gunman, blazing away with semi auto pistols. You can’t talk to him, can’t reason with him. He hasn’t had his Prozac for days. But, there is hope, there is a law against mentally ill people having firearms. You breath a sigh of relief, and tell your fellow students not to worry. ...Oh yeah, you also have your Glock 40, and have been practicing at the range every week. Other students sitting with you are similarly packing. When the crazed gunman opens the door, he will meet a wall of lead.


12 posted on 01/13/2008 9:39:58 AM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi
On down in the article is another part of the agenda behind this article:

Still, there is a loophole in the new law. While it does cover all sales at licensed gun stores, it does not apply to all sales at gun shows, where unlicensed vendors are not required to run background checks.

This article is also a pretext to get in more propaganda in the MSM agenda under the label "gun show loophole."

13 posted on 01/13/2008 9:42:29 AM PST by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldenPup

Make more laws, make more laws, so what? No one pays any attention to the cumbersome accumulation of laws that already hamper our day to day lives. Why would I buy a gun where I have to fill out papers to track it? BS. I can go on the steet and find what I want in short order, buy it cheaper, take it home, and no one else is the wiser. It is not an unusual concept.

The books are full of laws that no one enforces. Maybe if we just put up the fence and enforced our immigration laws, we wouldnt have to worry so much about law breakers.

Remember when the idiot kid vandalized the cars in Taiwan a few years ago? They caned him. Klintoon attempted to intervene and said to the chinese, we have law and order in our country. The chinese ambasador responded, “So do we. But when we enforce order, we dont need so many laws.”

It is time that the US people rise up and put the Government out of our lives.


14 posted on 01/13/2008 9:47:14 AM PST by Concho (IRS--Americas real terrorist organization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Concho

it wasn’t Taiwan, I think it was Singapore.


15 posted on 01/13/2008 9:50:46 AM PST by tired1 (responsibility without authority is slavery!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

This is one of the most dangerous gun control laws in the history of the country.

I have read many of your posts, you are unbalanced, and must be evaluated before you can even be considered as an individual who can buy a gun. After your initial evaluation, we may put you on the list of those to be fully evaluated. If you pass full evaluation, you will be considered to be put on the waiting list of those who can buy a gun. If you are put on that list, and pass a final evaluation, which occurs 365 days after your full evaluation, you may purchase one gun and not more than 500 rounds of ammunition.

If you do not pass anyone one of these evaluations you may not apply to be re-evaluated for a period of not less than 10 years.


16 posted on 01/13/2008 9:53:08 AM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

And, one student, faculty member, administrator or other person, armed and ready could have stopped a lot of this guy’s bloodletting.
That’s an argument for less restrictive gun laws, IMO, not more.

The subjectivity built into this one scares the bejeesus out of me.


17 posted on 01/13/2008 10:17:33 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi

Yeah! Another law is always effective in preventing criminal action......./sarc


18 posted on 01/13/2008 10:19:33 AM PST by G Larry (HILLARY CARE = DYING IN LINE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Albert Guérisse

The antigun nuts are screaming about this law and how they hate it.

The reason being is because for the first time, people have the ability to get their gun Rights restored which is what they couldn’t do since 1968. It’s still not a good law but at least that provision is in there.


19 posted on 01/13/2008 10:28:37 AM PST by Shooter 2.5 (NRA - Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle

Oh, come on, the government would never let a private citizen own 500 rounds of ammunition.


20 posted on 01/13/2008 10:53:26 AM PST by Sender (Feel like, I feel like a poke chop san'wich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi
This sick individual was allowed to carry this crime out not because of the firearm but because he had been examined in the past for emotional disorders and “privacy laws” kept those professionals from alerting the school or anybody. The doctors were not allowed to discuss his condition.

Where is the law that states when an individual is known to be a danger to himself and Innocent people around him that his privacy now takes a backseat to the safety to the people who are in danger because of his presence. How is this new restriction of gun rights ever going to stop people from these terrible crimes if the same privacy act keeps them out of the database again?

Nobody has stopped anything but the possible rights of veterans who at one time or another been treated for combat stress issues but today are more normal and levelheaded than the fools passing these feel good laws. That is why this was known as the” veterans disarmament bill”

21 posted on 01/13/2008 11:33:59 AM PST by CowboyConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
I have read many of your posts, you are unbalanced, and must be evaluated before you can even be considered as an individual who can buy a gun.

What a bizarre individual you are.

I'd love to know what was going through your head as you wrote this post.

22 posted on 01/13/2008 11:45:05 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: cougar_mccxxi
Before President Bush left Washington for the Mideast, he signed into law the first major federal gun control measure in more than 13 years.

Ah, now that it's signed, they admit it's new "Gun Control" not just the improvement of state level record keeping and reporting.

23 posted on 01/13/2008 11:59:46 AM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I gues I should have left the “the above is just a look into the future” on the post.

Instead I deleted it, thinking it would be obvious.


24 posted on 01/13/2008 12:09:37 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
The antigun nuts are screaming about this law and how they hate it.

Some are, but not the Brady Bunch, they commended the President for signing it.

Not notorious anti arms right Congress woman McCarthy, she was the sponsor and endorsed the Senate Changes, which were by equally gun grabbing Senator Schumer along with Leaky Leahy.

25 posted on 01/13/2008 12:21:24 PM PST by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Balding_Eagle
Instead I deleted it, thinking it would be obvious.

It might have been obvious if the law had provided provisions that made your scenario plausible.

In reality, the law mandates that the states be proactive in supplying licensed firearms dealers with the identities of individuals who have been deemed mentally unfit in courts of law.

The burden remains on the individual states to find persons unfit through a judicial proceeding - it does not contemplate any law, let alone a federal one, that requires individuals to prove they are mentally competent.

26 posted on 01/13/2008 1:10:27 PM PST by wideawake (Why is it that those who call themselves Constitutionalists know the least about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
You need to take a closer look at this and the real ramifications involved here. The government advertised that this law is supposed to protect us from people who are already protected under the privacy act. The only records that will be available are the records from the Veterans Administration and those alone. You cannot legislate a mentality only protect it under the “Privacy Act” these records are still protected and this bill means nothing when it comes to “protecting anybody” This bill was pushed through without a full vote by either the House or the Senate. If the people at the school and law enforcement were allowed the background on this individual in the first place the crime in Virginia would never have happened Even with this “feel good bill” they still are not allowed the very information that would have stopped the loss of life that happened there!
27 posted on 01/13/2008 2:31:26 PM PST by CowboyConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
the law mandates that the states be proactive in supplying licensed firearms dealers with the identities of individuals who have been deemed mentally unfit in courts of law

My rant WAS an example of what a proactive state will do. A state who accepts complaints from its residents about the stability of other residents.

This is easily the worst , most dangerous, gun control measure ever enacted.

28 posted on 01/13/2008 6:40:12 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

Efforts are already underway: “The Times article goes on just about forever—it is nine pages long on the web—but it consists almost entirely of anecdotes about a handful of the 121 alleged crimes. The stories are indeed sad, and some of the soldiers and veterans involved no doubt did suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. “

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1953218/posts

Easily the most dangerous gun law ever enacted in America.

The gun-grabbers don’t even need even one more law. Not one. This can be the beginning of the absolute end on individual gun ownership.


29 posted on 01/13/2008 6:48:50 PM PST by Balding_Eagle (If America falls, darkness will cover the face of the earth for a thousand years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Concho

I agree, completely.


30 posted on 01/14/2008 5:24:14 AM PST by GoldenPup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

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