Skip to comments.New Gun Control Law Is Killer's Legacy
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 ...
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.
National Instant Criminal Background Check
Keyword - criminal
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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
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 !!!
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.
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."
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.
it wasn’t Taiwan, I think it was Singapore.
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.
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.
Yeah! Another law is always effective in preventing criminal action......./sarc
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.
Oh, come on, the government would never let a private citizen own 500 rounds of ammunition.
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.