posted on April 17, 2007 05:07:22 PM newSo gun controls, as SOME ask for, wouldn't have changed a thing in THIS CASE.
So you start making gun control laws tougher to prevent futures cases - longer waiting periods, psychological exams, no one under the age of 25 should own a gun.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 17, 2007 05:10:42 PM new
So you start making gun control laws tougher to prevent futures cases - longer waiting periods, psychological exams, no one under the age of 25 should own a gun.
More Bovine defecation
He wouldn't have waited, just bought if off the street or stolen it, like other criminals.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on April 17, 2007 05:19:24 PM new
Linda still going to deny that you support the Patriot Act even tough it violates peoples rights and civil liberties.
Nice how you avoided the subject once you were proven wrong for another times.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 17, 2007 05:21:38 PM new
Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 17, 2007 05:23:01 PM new
I agree with Bear.
MORE gun control is NOT the answer.
Guns ARE available on the street...any fool knows that.
And even IF more gun controls WERE put into law....think these maniacs won't use something else? LIKE BOMBS.....like putting bombs on their own bodies and entering these same places and blowing everyone up?
They'll always find a way to accomplish what they intend to do....no matter what the LIBERALS REGULATE.
posted on April 17, 2007 05:24:39 PM newHe wouldn't have waited, just bought if off the street or stolen it, like other criminals.
Ah yes, we would have just walked down to the nearest corner and picked up a gun from the local gun dealer. Bear, do you know the name and address of your street gun dealers? I am sure I can get a better bargain from him instead of going to a gun shop.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 17, 2007 05:27:44 PM new
ARE YOU DENSE, ld?
What part of THIS can't you GRASP?
Linda_Kposted on April 17, 2007 02:37:51 PM edit
ld......again....you and mingotree/crowfarm TWIST everything I have ever stated.....STOP DOING THAT.
This thread is NOT about the Patriot act....or I would be addressing it.
This has to do with HOW we could ask the administration of ANY university to protect our children....when it's JUST NOT POSSIBLE.
We can't protect them from CRAZIES like this one. We CAN'T protect their classrooms from others planting BOMBS in them.
I've asked other posters if they have ways they believe we can.
I'm NOT in this thread to discuss each and EVERY topic we're EVER discussed HERE or on other boards....ROFLMHO.
posted on April 17, 2007 05:37:25 PM new
The Second Amendment Foundation notes that firearms are used defensively an estimated 2.5 million times every year, four times more than criminal uses.
This represents some 2,575 lives protected and saved for every life lost to a gun.
According to the national Safety Council, the loss of life to accidental firearm death is at its lowest point since records were begun nearly a hundred years ago.
In a nation where the rights conferred on individual Americans by the Second Amendment were just reaffirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, it's worth considering that, as of November 1997, there were an estimated 129 million privately owned firearms in the nation.
Guess what? After September 11, 2001, the one thing a lot of people did was to go out and buy a gun. If a bunch of fanatical Muslims could hijack four commercial airlines, destroy the World Trade Center towers, fly one into the Pentagon, and intended to fly the other possibly into the White House or the Capitol building, a lot of people decided that being able to shoot people with similar intentions was a very good idea.
Since then we have seen numerous incidents of "instant Jihad syndrome" where some Islamist decided to kill infidels who were just out for an hour at the local mall or otherwise peacefully going about their lives. And, yes, there are still criminals who use firearms.
Now, however, Americans are not bound by some gun-banning law to be nothing more than victims.
Responsible gun ownership is a good idea. And if this is the first time you have heard about the recent decision of the Court of Appeals, [b]that's because this story got buried by most mainline newspapers and by virtually all of the broadcast news media[/i].
No doubt this case will go to the Supreme Court at some point.
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.
As gun law expert, John M. Synder, put it, "Gun rights are human rights. Gun rights equate with the right to defend life and, therefore, with the very right to life itself."
"While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation": "What would a Democrat president have done at that point?"
"Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack."
Ann Coulter
[ edited by linda_K on Apr 17, 2007 05:41 PM ]
posted on April 17, 2007 05:42:01 PM newThis thread is NOT about the Patriot act....or I would be addressing it.
NICE COP OUT LINDA.
When you are proved wrong, you refuse to debate the question. You don't mind people giving up their rights and civil liberties when it is something you believe in - THE PATRIOT ACT. But when it is something you disagree with - OUTLAWING GUN OWNERSHIP - you are against having to give up your rights.
HYPOCRITE LINDA AT HER FINEST.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 17, 2007 05:49:05 PM newThe 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.
Let's not forget that at the time the Constitution was written, the typical gun was a musket.
Do you think the framers of the Constitution could have imagined ordinary citizens arming themselves with assult rifles and automatic machine guns in order to protect their homes?
Let's not forget the slippery slope. One person believes a musket is all that is needed to protect his home. The next person would think that is not good enough and buys a pistol. Some one else fees a rifle is better to protect his home. Some one else feels that they need an automatic assult weapon with night vision and a laser target to do the job. Where does it end?
So Linda what kind of weapon do you have in your home to protect yourself?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 17, 2007 05:54:43 PM newIf a bunch of fanatical Muslims could hijack four commercial airlines, destroy the World Trade Center towers, fly one into the Pentagon, and intended to fly the other possibly into the White House or the Capitol building, a lot of people decided that being able to shoot people with similar intentions was a very good idea.
Here is the mentality of the Republicans. if a bunch of fanatical Muslims are going to fly commercial airliners into building, they believe they can be stopped with a gun.
I can picture it now, Bear and his sidekick Linda on the top of a building getting out a gun and trying to shoot a plane down.
Yep that would definitely prevent another terrorist attack.
Do either of you idiots bring your gun to work and keep it at your desk?
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 17, 2007 05:57:56 PM new
Bear:
"Markell said the ATF told him the serial number was removed from the Glock, but authorities traced the weapon by a Roanoke Firearms receipt found in Cho's pocket"
roanoke.com
If he was carrying the receipt in his pocket, why bother with the serial number?
Unless the arms store sold it to him that way?????????????????
posted on April 17, 2007 06:12:03 PM new
linduh, jumps to the tune and does what the media tells her:
""linda_K
posted on April 17, 2007 01:56:31 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
....because it IS very much related to the shootings:
and that mingotree/crowfarm proves once again she RARELY knows what SHE'S talking about....
here...from http://www.timeswatch.org:"""
Dear little PUPPET what I stated about this NOT being a gun issue was MY OPINION! MY opinion ...can you GET THAT??? You stupid cow!
YOU
and the media make it a gun circus or a race circus .....MY OPINON IS THAT it is about the dead , the wounded, and the shooter.
Too bad for you you uneducated drooling dog
that you're so controlled by the media....
posted on April 17, 2007 06:12:21 PM new
from today's WSJ - editorial section:
Massacre at a Gun-Free School
Predictably, opponents of Second Amendment rights seized opportunistically on the Virginia Tech massacre.
"It is long overdue for us to take some common-sense actions to prevent tragedies like this from continuing to occur," said a statement from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino got questions like this one in yesterday's press briefing:
Columbine, Amish school shooting, now this, and a whole host of other gun issues brought into schools--that's not including guns on the streets and in many urban areas and rural areas. Does [sic] there need to be some more restrictions? Does there need to be gun control in this country?
And of course the New York Times, while noted that "it is premature to draw too many lessons from this tragedy," draws one anyway:
What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss.
But there is another side to this argument. Longtime readers may recall the lead item in our Jan. 18, 2002, column, which concerned a shooting spree at another Virginia institution of higher learning, the Appalachian School of Law.
The gunman, Peter Odighizuwa, killed three, and probably would have killed more but for another student's gun:
Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the gunman, officials said.
"We saw the shooter, stopped at my vehicle and got out my handgun and started to approach Peter,"
Tracy Bridges, who helped subdue the shooter with other students, said Thursday on NBC's "Today" show. "At that time, Peter threw up his hands and threw his weapon down. Ted was the first person to have contact with Peter, and Peter hit him one time in the face, so there was a little bit of a struggle there."
Appalachian is a private institution, Virginia Tech a public one; and Virginia law prohibits guns on campus. Early last year there was an effort in the state Legislature to change that law, but it died in committee.
As the Roanoke Times reported at the time:
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
There are reasons one may be wary of arming academia. College students spend a lot of time drinking and carousing, and so perhaps they're better off without firearms.
Academic disputes can get vicious; we wouldn't want them to get bloody. But it does not seem a stretch to think that if Cho Seung-hui had encountered someone else with a gun, fewer people would lie dead at Virginia Tech.
posted on April 17, 2007 07:43:30 PM new
Gee linduh I bet you wish you had the body of one of the dead students to prop your foot on as you ranted your same old same old crap for the millionth time....talk about EXPLOITING the death and grief of others !!!!!!!
posted on April 17, 2007 10:55:11 PM new
Zoomin, no licensed FFL dealer I know would risk selling a firearm with the s/n filed off. That is cause for immediate revocation of their license, in addition to serious federal prison time. Just aint worth it.
For you ld & waco:
A Federal Appeals Court Revives the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
posted on April 17, 2007 11:55:12 PM new
According to public records firearms are used 2.5 MILLION times a year for defense purposes, that is four times MORE that in criminal uses, equating to 2,575 lives saved and protected. And National Safety Records show that the number of accidental firearms deaths is at its lowest point since records were first started a hundred years ago.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on April 18, 2007 08:22:11 AM newFor you ld & waco: A Federal Appeals Court Revives the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
If you would have read what I said, I did not say gun ownership should be outlawed, but I suggested stricter gun control laws to try and prevent future occurrences like this.
So Linda, in other words you have no guns in your house to protect yourself.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 18, 2007 08:24:57 AM new
I love how all the gun nazi's out there keep saying how "if one of the students or teachers had a gun in their posession it they could have stopped the shooter".
So arming more people is the answer? Do you carry a gun with you to work?
Would you feel safe at work if you knew your co-worker had a gun?
Typical neo-con response, guns are the answer for everything.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
---------------------------------- The duty of a patriot in this time and place is to ask questions, to demand answers, to understand where our nation is headed and why. If the answers you get do not suit you, or if they frighten you, or if they anger you, it is your duty as a patriot to dissent. Freedom does not begin with blind acceptance and with a flag. Freedom begins when you say 'No.'
posted on April 18, 2007 10:07:07 AM new
Well a very troubled individual with a history of mental instability, run ins with police, and red flags flying ....had the freedom to walk into a gun store and buy a gun.....should make you neocons very happy........
posted on April 18, 2007 11:25:14 AM new
Dingo, if your intelligence only slightly exceeded that of the common house plant, you would know he legally purchased the weapons.
Had he been prosecuted for stalking and / or found guilty or mentally incompetent and / or involuntary hospitalized for treatment, he would not have been eligible to purchase the weapons. The background check would have rejected his application and made him subject to prosecution for violating the Brady law.
But then being a liberal university, it wanted to protect HIS rights by not following up on his prosecution.
It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived.George S. Patton
posted on April 18, 2007 12:57:06 PM new
""""Had he been prosecuted for stalking and / or found guilty or mentally incompetent and / or involuntary hospitalized for treatment, he would not have been eligible to purchase the weapons. The background check would have rejected his application and made him subject to prosecution for violating the Brady law."""
Thank you , cave dweller , for once more proving my point! Insane people OUTSIDE the system have every right to buy a gun........and YOU neocons think that's a good thing....again, you must be so proud of him!
"""But then being a liberal university, it wanted to protect HIS rights by not following up on his prosecution"""
You have NO way of knowing this. I read that the INDIVIDUALs he was stalking preferred not to press charges...
