Virginia Tech Shooting

[glitter]

Very well put.       
It's all about personal responsibility.  If he mental problems they should have been addressed and he should have been helped. 

Donna

In a perfect world maybe.....this guy was in the hospital for being a danger to himself-but they let him go, saying he was no danger,I could go on and on with the details of this case,but by now we have all heard the same newscast 25 times....there is no public money to treat mentally ill people, all you have to do is visit one soup kitchen to see where the majority end up. We just do not care until something like this happens.

Gun laws should only exsist to protect my right to own them.

[vandie]

Shouldn't we be focusing our attention on the heroes in this tragedy?
The more attention we give to the maniac, the more infamous he becomes. 

How about the professor who saved lives by giving his own?
Or the students who put their lives in danger to save others?

These are the people I will be talking to my children about.

[glitter]

it is true the media is not honoring the victims with this coverage at all-just giving him the notoriety he wanted.

[BigSky]

The easy access to the guns he had should also be a concern.   

There are no easy access to guns .

All gun buyers that buy firearms at a licensed business have to submit their Constitutional rights and apply to buy a gun through a check via the Brady Act.  Most of the time when one is found mentally ill by a court as Cho was they are barred from buying a firearm.  The Bradys Act failed just as was predicted it would.


Various things could have been done to stop this but no matter what law is on the book it cannot stop  those that are out to commit such an act.  They will commit it no matter what the law or laws are.

[livecam]

Hasn't this subject been totally beaten to death yet?  Endless discussions of it and endless media coverage do nothing but rehash what everyone already knows.

I heard about this thing when it happened on Monday and you know what I did?  I stopped watching television news until today because I don't want to hear about it constantly. 

A little while ago I turned on CNN while drifting in and out of sleep to be greeted with the story of a gunman on the campus of Johnson Space Center in Houston.  I kept that on while sort of sleeping with the point being that in two hours of reporting there was no new information at anytime and the same two or three facts were repeated endlessly over and over again and for what?

Yes these events are tragedies but their endless repetition serves no purpose whatsoever.  And the TV stations wonder why nobody watches anymore...

[meadowlandsnj]

The easy access to the guns he had should also be a concern.   

There are no easy access to guns .

All gun buyers that buy firearms at a licensed business have to submit their Constitutional rights and apply to buy a gun through a check via the Brady Act.  Most of the time when one is found mentally ill by a court as Cho was they are barred from buying a firearm.  The Bradys Act failed just as was predicted it would.


Various things could have been done to stop this but no matter what law is on the book it cannot stop  those that are out to commit such an act.  They will commit it no matter what the law or laws are.

You could have the most strictist gun laws in the world and guess what?  The bad guys will always be able to get the guns.
People who commit crimes do not have licensed firearms ( I can't state that as a fact but it's common sense), they buy them from people who sell them on the streets.  I knew a guy who I grew up with who has three unlicensed handguns.  He never used them to my knowledge but it just goes to show you not all guns are bought legally. 

Donna

[George Jung]

Tell me again why we need the right to bear arms.  Gun laws should be harsh in nature.  Why not have a 30 day wait period on all firearms (plenty of time time to perform any necessary backround checks)?  What can be so important that someone can't wait 30 days?

 

People who commit crimes do not have licensed firearms ( I can't state that as a fact but it's common sense)

A fact?  Highly unlikely.  Crimes are committed with legal guns everyday.  If you are stereotyping then that statement MIGHT stick but the reality is all kinds of people commit crimes with all kinds of weapons, legal or not.

[glitter]

Owning isn't a 'need'  but it is a basic American right. The Second Amendment... and if you do not exercise your rights- you will lose them.

[BigSky]

Tell me again why we need the right to bear arms.  Gun laws should be harsh in nature.  Why not have a 30 day wait period on all firearms (plenty of time time to perform any necessary backround checks)?  What can be so important that someone can't wait 30 days?

Same reason we need free speech.  Apply just a few of those unconstitutional gun laws in a similar manner to the First and you might see just how wrong they are.  You might note that some of the most violent places in America and the world have very strict gun laws and or outright gun bans.


There was a background check performed. 
30 days will not matter to someone who is intent on committing a crime.

A fact?  Highly unlikely.  Crimes are committed with legal guns everyday.  If you are stereotyping then that statement MIGHT stick but the reality is all kinds of people commit crimes with all kinds of weapons, legal or not.

While some crimes are committed with legal firearms the vast majority are not.   Very few criminals are able to get a gun through legal channels and for that matter very few honest citizens get a gun to commit a crime.  In fact more lives and property are protected by guns everyday than used in a criminal manner. 

[George Jung]

Tell me again why we need the right to bear arms.  Gun laws should be harsh in nature.  Why not have a 30 day wait period on all firearms (plenty of time time to perform any necessary backround checks)?  What can be so important that someone can't wait 30 days?
 

Same reason we need free speech.
 

How?  The right to speak and the right to own a gun are, in my opinion, nowhere close to being thew same thing.  The only thing they have in common is that they are both in the constitution.  Personally I exercise my freedom of speech but I have never owned a gun and will never own a gun.  There is no reason for the majority of Americans to own hand guns.  How about laws that permit buyers to purchase for specific pourpose only, like hunting, or business owners, things of that nature.  What reason is there that a college student needs to own a firearm?

There was a background check performed.
30 days will not matter to someone who is intent on committing a crime.

I know there was a backround check.  It is not mandatory by the federal government for states to report medical records of applicants for a gun permit.  30 days may or may not matter but why shouldn't there be as many speed bumps as possible?  30 days shouldn't matter to anyone, why would you need something so bad?  Why not have a test to pass at the end of the 30 days (a safety course of sorts) similar to a drivers license, which must be renewed every so often.  How about a heavy tax or required insurance?  There simply is not enough being done as far as gun controll goes.

People who commit crimes do not have licensed firearms ( I can't state that as a fact but it's common sense),

I watch crime shows on Discovery and Biography channel and such......I have to say, a lot of the time there is a story about a good person gone bad, and sometimes there are legal firearms involved.  Crime is not limited to robbery, rape, and low level thugs. 

Back in the days of cowboys and Indians a gun may have been necessary, for most of America today they are completely unnecessary.  The laws really need to be reconsidered.

[glitter]

Tell me again why we need the right to bear arms.  Gun laws should be harsh in nature.  Why not have a 30 day wait period on all firearms (plenty of time time to perform any necessary backround checks)?  What can be so important that someone can't wait 30 days?
 

Same reason we need free speech.
 

How?  The right to speak and the right to own a gun are, in my opinion, nowhere close to being thew same thing.  The only thing they have in common is that they are both on the constitution.  Personally I exercise my freedom of speech but I have never owned a gun and will never own a gun.  There is no reason for the majority of Americans to own hand guns.  How about laws that permit buyers to purchase for specific pourpose only, like hunting, or business owners, things of that nature.  What reason is there that a college student needs to own a firearm?

There was a background check performed.
30 days will not matter to someone who is intent on committing a crime.

I know there was a backround check.  It is not mandatory by the federal government for states to report medical records of applicants for a gun permit.  30 days may or may not matter but why shouldn't there be as many speed bumps as possible?  30 days shouldn't matter to anyone, why would you need something so bad?  Why not have a test to pass at the end of the 30 days (a safety course of sorts) similar to a drivers license, which must be renewed every so often.  How about a heavy tax or required insurance?  There simply is not enough being done as far as gun controll goes.

People who commit crimes do not have licensed firearms ( I can't state that as a fact but it's common sense),

I watch crime shows on Discovery and Biography channel and such......I have to say, a lot of the time there is a story about a good person gone bad, and sometimes there are legal firearms involved.  Crime is not limited to robbery, rape, and low level thugs. 

Back in the days of cowboys and Indians a gun may have been necessary, for most of America today they are completely unnecessary.  The laws really need to be reconsidered.

You see- in a free country we have the basic right to be a gun owner- for pleasure- hunting is a billion dollar industry, millions of people own and collect guns, hunt with guns, target shoot-whatever-its a right in this country- Your opinion scares me- how quickly you would give my rights away because you don't agree with them.

[Sluff]

I have to disagree with you this time George. We as a free country are losing all our rights. It is against the law to own an assault type firearm but only because Law enforcement doesn't want to be out gunned. I agree with Donna. The old cliche if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Just my 

[BigSky]

How?  The right to speak and the right to own a gun are, in my opinion, nowhere close to being thew same thing.  The only thing they have in common is that they are both on the constitution.  Personally I exercise my freedom of speech but I have never owned a gun and will never own a gun.  There is no reason for the majority of Americans to own hand guns.  How about laws that permit buyers to purchase for specific pourpose only, like hunting, or business owners, things of that nature.  What reason is there that a college student needs to own a firearm?

The Constitution and Natural Law make no exception, nor do they put more importance on one over the other.

If you cannot handle a firearm then do not own one.  The Second Amendment was never about hunting or letting business owners have firearms.  It is about the PEOPLE having firearms.  A God given right that was so IMPORTANT that the founding fathers put it into a Bill of Rights to insure government didnt mess with that right.

It is the peoples right to own firearms, shown by the US Constitution and shown by many State Constitutions. 

I suggest you apply some of that logic you used to the first to see how flawed it is.

I know there was a backround check.  It is not mandatory by the federal government for states to report medical records of applicants for a gun permit.  30 days may or may not matter but why shouldn't there be as many speed bumps as possible?  30 days shouldn't matter to anyone, why would you need something so bad?  Why not have a test to pass at the end of the 30 days (a safety course of sorts) similar to a drivers license, which must be renewed every so often.  How about a heavy tax or required insurance?  There simply is not enough being done as far as gun controll goes.

Medical records are private and protected by federal law.

Next time you post you wait 30 days before posting.  After all if you dont need to post so bad right?
How about making people who want to use free speech fill out a 4473 form.  Of course with profanities you used George you will be banned from using free speech.
How about a heavy tax on those that want to use free speech.  That way they will only speak something of importance?
How about making people pass a English course and having to renew it so often before using free speech?


Gun Control.  This will burst your bubble but CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW GUN CONTROL OR GUN LAWS.  Such laws only affect honest law abiding people.

I watch crime shows on Discovery and Biography channel and such......I have to say, a lot of the time there is a story about a good person gone bad, and sometimes there are legal firearms involved.  Crime is not limited to robbery, rape, and low level thugs. 

Back in the days of cowboys and Indians a gun may have been necessary, for most of America today they are completely unnecessary.  The laws really need to be reconsidered.

The vast majority of gun crimes in this country are done by criminals, not law abiding folks who flipped out.

The Second Amendment was never written because of Cowboys and Indians.

[BigSky]

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Assault is a behavior, not a device!
80,000,000 firearm owners killed no one yesterday!
Over 6,000 people protected themselves, property or loved ones with firearms yesterday.
The Unites States Constitution, (c) 1791.  All rights reserved.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
An armed man is a citizen.  An unarmed man is a subject.
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
Gun control is not about guns; it is about control of people.
If you don't know your Rights, you don't have any.
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
Guns have only two enemies:  Rust and Politicians.
Know guns, Know peace and safety.  No guns, No peace and safety.
You don't shoot to kill;  you shoot to stay alive.
911- Government sponsored Dial A Prayer.
Criminals love gun control, it makes their job safer.
Only a government that is afraid of its citizens will try to limit their rights.
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
".....a government by the people for the people...."
If guns cause crime, then pens cause misspelled words.
If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
It is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.
The American Revolution would NEVER have happened with Gun Control!



"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;  that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom  of the press."         Thomas Jefferson


"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-   Thomas Jefferson

[carson]

well, anyway, we've all felt sad for the victims and their families.
We've all felt anger and frustration at the gunman.
But we've forgotten someone in this:
Cho's family

They didn't have anything to do with his actions. Can you imagine hearing about the shootings and being so sad and in shock with the rest of the world THEN you find out you son was the one who did this?
And he killed himself.
So now they're grieving the loss of a son who just committed the most heinous of crimes.
No one is comforting them.
No one is consoling them.
He's just destroyed their lives too. They'll probably have to move. For many years they will feel ashamed, if not always.
I feel for them too.

[meadowlandsnj]

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Assault is a behavior, not a device!
80,000,000 firearm owners killed no one yesterday!
Over 6,000 people protected themselves, property or loved ones with firearms yesterday.
The Unites States Constitution, (c) 1791.  All rights reserved.
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
An armed man is a citizen.  An unarmed man is a subject.
Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
Gun control is not about guns; it is about control of people.
If you don't know your Rights, you don't have any.
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
Guns have only two enemies:  Rust and Politicians.
Know guns, Know peace and safety.  No guns, No peace and safety.
You don't shoot to kill;  you shoot to stay alive.
911- Government sponsored Dial A Prayer.
Criminals love gun control, it makes their job safer.
Only a government that is afraid of its citizens will try to limit their rights.
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
".....a government by the people for the people...."
If guns cause crime, then pens cause misspelled words.
If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
It is better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.
The American Revolution would NEVER have happened with Gun Control!



"The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;  that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom  of the press."         Thomas Jefferson


"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-   Thomas Jefferson

I just want to add to this that our forefathers thought this right so important, so integral to this country that they did put in the Constitution the right to keep and bear arms. 

Donna

[George Jung]

The right does not need to be taken away but we are talking about guns not my f@#*ing mouth (thats for you BigSky).  Guns and speech are not the same thing no matter how you look at it so why would I want to compare the two?  I may have the foulest mouth on the planet but it will never physically harm anybody not matter how much I misuse it.  Can you say that about a fire arm?  I have to do more to obtain and keep a drivers license that I do to own a gun which in my opinion is out of balance.  While cars can kill, it is not their purpose.  All I am saying is that why not do as much as possible to protect our people and our rights.  Implementing requirements to own a gun is not taking away anyone's right, why not make people jump through hoops, why not require insurance, why not require a safety class/test?  Nobody is saying you CAN"T/DON"T HAVE THE RIGHT to own a gun, should it be so easy?  I don't believe it should be.  If you can't handle a gun then you should defiantly not own one but that is not the reason why I don't have one.  I have good eyesight and a steady hand so I would probably be a damn good shot, what do you think BigSky.

"Medical records are protected by federal law." - BigSky

I thought mental health was part of the backround check.  Is it not?

And it's not only law abiding folks who flipped out that commit the crimes with legal guns, it is not limited to anybody, the person does not necessarily have to have flipped out for a crime to be committed.  How about irresponsible parents who's children wind up with the gun at school?  In my book that is a crime.  Not one committed by the child but rather the parent/owner of the gun.

[BigSky]

The right does not need to be taken away but we are talking about guns not my f@#*ing mouth (thats for you BigSky).  Guns and speech are not the same thing no matter how you look at it so why would I want to compare the two? I may have the foulest mouth on the planet but it will never physically harm anybody not matter how much I misuse it.  Can you say that about a fire arm?

Our founding fathers beg to differ.

My firearms and millions of other's firearms have caused no harm in ANYWAY to another, can you say that about your use of free speech and can you say that about EVERYONES use of free speech?


In fact I have seen tens of thousands of firearms in my life and not once did one jump up and cause anyone any harm for that matter. People kill, not firearms. 

I have to do more to obtain and keep a drivers license that I do to own a gun which in my opinion is out of balance.  While cars can kill, it is not their purpose.

Actually you do not.  While you may take a test you do not have to undergo a federal background check.  BTW cars kill far more people each year than guns in this country.  Firearms are made for a variety of things, not one of them being marketed as to kill someone.

All I am saying is that why not do as much as possible to protect our people and our rights.  Implementing requirements to own a gun is not taking away anyone's right, why not make people jump through hoops, why not require insurance, why not require a safety class/test?  Nobody is saying you CAN"T/DON"T HAVE THE RIGHT to own a gun, should it be so easy?  I don't believe it should be.  If you can't handle a gun then you should defiantly not own one but that is not the reason why I don't have one.  I have good eyesight and a steady hand so I would probably be a damn good shot, what do you think BigSky.

No where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to infringe or make requirements to own a firearm.  The Constitution is VERY CLEAR on what powers the federal and state governments get, and firearm ownership requirements are not one of them.  No more, no less.

And it's not only law abiding folks who flipped out that commit the crimes with legal guns, it is not limited to anybody, the person does not necessarily have to have flipped out for a crime to be committed.  How about irresponsible parents who's children wind up with the gun at school?  In my book that is a crime.  Not one committed by the child but rather the parent/owner of the gun.

A child takes a parents car without permission.  Did the parents commit a crime?

[George Jung]

My firearms and millions of other's firearms have caused no harm in ANYWAY to another, can you say that about your use of free speech and can you say that about EVERYONES use of free speech?

Yes.  Speaking has never physically harmed anybody.  Some people do have a phobia of guns in which your gun has unknowingly caused.  I am talking about real harm, not being offended and "emotionally" hurt.  Didn't you mom ever tell you the saying...."sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you."

What about a stolen gun?  Someone can steal my words but it will never kill anybody.

This is conflicting......

People kill, not firearms.

AND

BTW cars kill far more people each year than guns in this country.

I have to do more to obtain and keep a drivers license that I do to own a gun which in my opinion is out of balance. While cars can kill, it is not their purpose.

Actually you do not. While you may take a test you do not have to undergo a federal background check. BTW cars kill far more people each year than guns in this country. Firearms are made for a variety of things, not one of them being marketed as to kill someone.

Actually I do.  First school, then a written test, then a performance test, then various insurance requirements, and periodic renewals, and if I move I have to do it all over again.  So what if a piss poor federal backround check is not part of the deal, that doesn't mean squat!  And I forgot the eye test that requires corrective vision if failed.

No where in the Constitution does it give the government the right to infringe or make requirements to own a firearm. The Constitution is VERY CLEAR on what powers the federal and state governments get, and firearm ownership requirements are not one of them. No more, no less.

Society is far different today then what it was when the constitution was written and signed.  Few things in this life are timeless.  Had our founding fathers lived in this time era I think they would have had enough sense to regulate ownership laws.

A child takes a parents car without permission. Did the parents commit a crime?

A car and a gun are not even in the same ballpark.  Just because guns are not "marketed" for killing it sure as heck was the reason for invention and design.  Automobiles were invented for efficient transportation.  Where is the sense in that question?  Parents are held responsible if their child doesn't attend school though, so maybe if the child is 12 or 14 years old the parent should be held at some fault.

BigSky, you did not answer my question about mental health being a part of the backround check.

I have to tell you that I am disappointed in your argument over this issue.  Your statements are weak and somewhat ridiculous.  If you would like we can start a new thread so we don't continue to take away from the V.T. tragedy.  carson's  "well, anyway...."  sounds like a hint.

[Sluff]

simply put.

" Matches don't start forest fires, people do."- Yogi Bear

[George Jung]

I thought it was this guy that said that..............Smokey Bear, not Yogi Bear?  "Kids, only you can prevent forest fires."

[BigSky]

Yes.  Speaking has never physically harmed anybody.  Some people do have a phobia of guns in which your gun has unknowingly caused.  I am talking about real harm, not being offended and "emotionally" hurt.  Didn't you mom ever tell you the saying...."sticks and stones may break your bones but words will never hurt you."

A gun sitting by itself has NEVER harmed anyone nor has it ever caused emotional harm by itself.

What about a stolen gun?  Someone can steal my words but it will never kill anybody.

Not quite.  People can use your words and commit actions.  Look at what Hitler said and tens of millions died because of those words!

This is conflicting......

People kill, not firearms.

AND

BTW cars kill far more people each year than guns in this country.

Actually it is not because it is two separate statements in response to two things you said and in no way are related to one another in their context. 

Saying cars kill far more people each year than guns in this country plays off your wrong assumption that it is the gun that kills and not the person behind it.

Actually I do.  First school, then a written test, then a performance test, then various insurance requirements, and periodic renewals, and if I move I have to do it all over again.  So what if a piss poor federal backround check is not part of the deal, that doesn't mean squat!  And I forgot the eye test that requires corrective vision if failed.

First one doesn't need to go to school.   Ohh ya and second..... YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DRIVE, CONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHERWISE!!!!!

Society is far different today then what it was when the constitution was written and signed.  Few things in this life are timeless.  Had our founding fathers lived in this time era I think they would have had enough sense to regulate ownership laws.

Same thing can be said about Free Speech.

A car and a gun are not even in the same ballpark.  Just because guns are not "marketed" for killing it sure as heck was the reason for invention and design.  Automobiles were invented for efficient transportation.  Where is the sense in that question?  Parents are held responsible if their child doesn't attend school though, so maybe if the child is 12 or 14 years old the parent should be held at some fault.

No far more people die because of cars than they do from firearms in this country.

Guns were NEVER made for some nutjob to go out and murder people either, so your design argument is moot.  A gun is made to fire a projectile, plain and simple.  That is it.  It is the person behind the gun that puts it to good or bad use.  Same as the person behind the wheel of a car or those that use cars as car bombs.

BigSky, you did not answer my question about mental health being a part of the backround check.

   To those that know the issue, yes.  If a person is adjudicated by a court to be mentally ill ( as the individual was) then he is barred from having a firearm.  The check showed no such thing in the courts.  Therefore the Brady Act failed just as was predicted because not all courts do their paperwork.



 

I have to tell you that I am disappointed in your argument over this issue.  Your statements are weak and somewhat ridiculous.  If you would like we can start a new thread so we don't continue to take away from the V.T. tragedy.  carson's  "well, anyway...."  sounds like a hint.

Be disappointed all you want.   Not only is the Constitution is on my side, but so are some of the most important founding fathers of this country.  Your lack of knowledge about the Constitution and why the founders REFUSED to compromise on the Second is terrifying.  The very fact that you try to use a double standard on the issue shows how frail your position is on the issue.   I.E.  Comparing your speech to only those that commit gun crimes thus ignoring the fact that 80 million gun owners committed no crime yesterday and in fact over 6000 of those owners saved life, liberty and property with those firearms yesterday, today and again in the future.

[kitkatz]

Can I just say as a person who is married to a collector or WWII history and items, I think putting a ban on all weapons is a shame.  There is so much history to be gained from the study of these weapons.  The weapons of history have shaped the world as we know it today.  We need to be aware of these things and how they have been used before to keep our world in order for the future.

[vandie]

Why is it that we hear so much about the idiots that use the guns to kill and not the responsible Americans who use the guns to save lives?
It happens often that a homeowner who owns a gun will protect his/her family from an intruder.
If my family were being threatened, I would much rather have a gun to shoot him than try to use my words to reason with him.

[George Jung]

kitkatz - We/I am not necessarily suggesting a ban on all weapons, there are proposals that simply reinforce safety.

vandi - Because of the tragedy involved, similar to why the the bad things people do to us stand out easier than the good.  One bad apple can ruin the entire bunch.

BigSky - Would you like to take this topic to a thread of it's own, I so very much want to rip you a new one on this issue.  Our of respect for this thread I will refrain from further comment.