Virginia columnist: Repeal the Second Amendment; Update: Jack Cafferty, gun rights advocate?

posted at 4:52 pm on April 17, 2007 by Allahpundit

I’m shocked — shocked that a liberal wants to change the Constitution through the proper channels rather than by encouraging Anthony Kennedy to keep “growing in office.”

I salute you, principled gun-grabber Tommy Denton!

[T]he Founders may have left a mess that they could not foresee — the proliferation within civil society of an evolving technology whose destructive firepower would be unimaginable until more than a century later.

Yet we should like to think they would be pleased by the agonizing, good-faith struggle of succeeding generations to honor the constitutional rule of law. That balance has been attempted despite its often deadly cost exacted because of the inherent tension between modern society’s general desire to protect public safety and an enduring, less-widely-held paranoia rooted in fear — of crime, of tyranny, of evil generally — and exploited for political, ideological and commercial purposes…

The Founders wrote what they wrote, but they wrote for a century and a nation for which the Second Amendment no longer is appropriate. Yet we should adhere faithfully to the letter and spirit of the Constitution: Quixotic as it may be right now, I propose that we begin thinking about invoking the Constitution’s Article V and repeal the Second Amendment.

Gallup’s expecting a blip similar to the one that followed Columbine, but historically Congress hasn’t been able to turn that sort of thing into laws that make much difference to massacres like this.

Ron Paul’s got a different idea.

Update: Hey, it’s worked before.

Update: Ace caught this live on CNN as it happened and was shocked enough to IM me about it. I’m gobsmacked by the non-vileness.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If guns are illegal, people who don’t obey the laws can’t get them, right?

Illegal immigrants are illegal, and they can’t get into the country.

It’s brilliant in its simplicity.

lorien1973 on April 17, 2007 at 4:55 PM

I think that, for the most part, I’m preaching to the choir here….

Still, I feel the need to point out that laws don’t stop law breakers.

The VT shooter murdered 32 people. What’s a gun control law or two to a killer?

Stop using criminals and their crimes as an excuse for seizing the guns of law-abiding U.S. citizens.

JadeNYU on April 17, 2007 at 4:58 PM

Let them try, Ill still maintain ownership of mine until my last breath.

Viper1 on April 17, 2007 at 4:59 PM

All right. So, the guy who’s planning on murdering 33 people, won’t do it, because it’s illegal to own a gun? Umm, murdering 33 people is illegal. I’d doubting he very much cares if him owning a gun is within the law. He’ll own one anyway. The people who’d follow the gun-restrictions, have no reason to be restricted in the first place.

amerpundit on April 17, 2007 at 5:01 PM

Don’t forget illegal drugs. They haven’t been a problem at all since they were made illegal. Right?!?

db on April 17, 2007 at 5:01 PM

I found the link to this story on Instapundit. Wiles is a graduate student at Tech:

Turns out students at Tech otherwise able to legally carry guns will be expelled if they carry them onto Tech grounds. Absurd.

Retread on April 17, 2007 at 5:03 PM

Pack/Rifle

quax1 on April 17, 2007 at 5:04 PM

Outlawing alcohol went well.
War on drugs is going well.
Illegal immigration is a thing of the past.

Wade on April 17, 2007 at 5:06 PM

This also went forth when a shooting spree was stopped by two students a few years ago at another VA school.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200209%5CNAT20020917a.html

ballz2wallz on April 17, 2007 at 5:10 PM

How ’bout a different take. You have this puke who’s head has been crammed with liberalism and political correctness, studying at a center of left-wing enlightenment. I think those influences should be the ones to be banned: Obviously they kill!!

Child In Time on April 17, 2007 at 5:11 PM

Liberals want to outlaw guns because they realize the 2nd amendment is for citizens to own guns for protection against them.

Wade on April 17, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Even Mr. Reaper knows that hoplophobia won’t sell in 2008.

Entelechy on April 17, 2007 at 5:15 PM

Yes, let’s get rid of the right to own guns, because the only massacres that should take place are state-sanctioned Tianemen-style massacres of unarmed protesters. But God forbid anyone be able to defend themselves.

thirteen28 on April 17, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Civilians with guns helped law enforcement officers stop the 1966 University of Texas shooter before he could kill even more people. Regular people didn’t hesitate to grab their guns from their vehicles and help out, and law enforcement apparently welcomed their assistance.

aero on April 17, 2007 at 5:21 PM

I love liberal irony.

They bleat about not giving up freedoms … unless they happen to be somebody else’s freedoms. Then they’re all for the idea.

They don’t trust the government with their library book records … but they’re perfectly happy to give that same government all their firearms.

When they drool over “V for Vendetta” – how do they picture fighting back against Bushitler fascism … if Bushitler and Co have all their guns?

Amazing. Do they really not understand that the Second Amendment was created specifically to allow “the people” to protect all the other rights and freedoms?

The irony – and they hypocrisy – are just breath-taking.

One last one that makes me giggle: for every person that blames the guns, I’ll find you two that blame “gun culture” and “moral decay” and “violence in the media.”

Not that I necessarily agree … although that cause is a lot closer than blaming the guns. But if you’re taking away my 2nd Amendment rights, you’re losing your 1st Amendment right, too … because its LIBERALISM and LIBERAL Hollywood at the root of all that wackiness I just mentioned. All those violent gun-movies … are made by liberals directors and liberal actors.

How they swallow that hypocrisy I’ll never know.

But you give up on the 2nd … and I guarantee the 1st is next. When the government comes for my guns, they’ll be taking my Playstation 2 at the same time. And my Godfather DVD’s. Guaranteed.

Wait … wait … I’ve been wanting to throw this one back at them for years:

Liberals … “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

After spouting that for years, you’re suddenly trading my ESSENTIAL liberty for your imagined little bit of temporary safety.

Oh, the irony.

Professor Blather on April 17, 2007 at 5:21 PM

Yeah, in 1982 they passed a law in Kennesaw, Georgia, saying that the head of household must own a gun (and ammunition).

The crime rate went down something like 85% in the next two years, as I recall. I wonder why that is?

Tanya on April 17, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Despite the fact that it’s evil to believe the government should deprive innocent people the means to defend themselves, this guy at least gets credit for recognizing that lawfully banning guns in the US would require a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That makes him substantially better than the likes of, say, Chuck Schumer, who has no qualms with simply pretending the amendment isn’t even there.

“Wrong” is easier to deal with than “wrong and dishonest.”

Blacklake on April 17, 2007 at 5:23 PM

Why am I not surprised it is from The Roanoke Times

This is the same rag that went ahead and published the VA CCW list back on March 11th.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/trejbal/wb/wb/xp-108160

F15Mech on April 17, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Um…
My middlest daughter, MOB, a senior at Virginia Tech, last evening refused my entreaties that she return home. She said that she needed to “be with her school.” She’s shown herself to be a real piece of work.

But may I ask “y’all” why this singular horror should so quickly and shamelessly devolve among the chatter class into political fodder? Can’t we parents and students and neighbors and friends find out the names of our murdered children before this act of unspeakable evil is reduced to “how is it going to play in the 2008 election?”? (No sh*t, I heard that today.)

I little peace. A little reflection. A little prayer. that’s what is needed at the moment.

The barbarity can continue unabated next week.

I am as as stoic, brave, and cynical, as the next American. But there is no excuse for

spd rdr on April 17, 2007 at 5:28 PM

this.

spd rdr on April 17, 2007 at 5:31 PM

By that dumbass logic, we should repeal the First, seeing how dangerous liberals have become with their big fat dumb farking mouths and easy access to mass communication, after all, how could the founding fathers have recognized that moronic socialists could rot away society with the dreck they constantly bombard people with.

Seriously, if Tommy Denton is reading this, get a clue.

Bad Candy on April 17, 2007 at 5:35 PM

Where are those quotes about freedom vs security now?

The founders didn’t imagine alot of things; TV, Radio, Internet anyone? Don’t see anyone rushing to repeal the 1st Amendment.

Its ludicrous to expect law enforcement to protect you when in most parts of the country the nearest cop is 1/2 hr away, and even when they’re minutes away they have to protect millions. Example: NYC has between 35,000-40,000 cops (bigger than some Euro militaries) but they have to protect 10,000,000 people and only about 1/3rd are on duty at any given time. So that’s what, 11,000 cops for 10,0000,000 citizens? That’s about 1000 citizens for every cop to protect.

It seems that as a nation we’re losing our preparedeness for emergencies. Whether criminal, terrorist, or natural. Its part of this creeping nanny-statism where self-reliance is denigrated.

Iblis on April 17, 2007 at 5:38 PM

But may I ask “y’all” why this singular horror should so quickly and shamelessly devolve among the chatter class into political fodder? Can’t we parents and students and neighbors and friends find out the names of our murdered children before this act of unspeakable evil is reduced to “how is it going to play in the 2008 election?”? (No sh*t, I heard that today.)

I little peace. A little reflection. A little prayer. that’s what is needed at the moment.

The barbarity can continue unabated next week.

I am as as stoic, brave, and cynical, as the next American. But there is no excuse for

spd rdr on April 17, 2007 at 5:28 PM

Because the media is now exposed itself openly as the propaganda wing of the Democratic Party, and they started the calls for gun control immediately, they cannot be allowed to do it unanswered and set the agenda.

Look, I feel ya, we had a school shooting in high school(albeit a minor one, no one killed), so I send my regards to you and yours, but things have changed, the media used to have a cooling period before they started their calls for gungrabbing, but everything is political now, and there’s nothing sacred. And don’t expect it to get better. The media will be crawling everywhere for a long time, obrusive, and obnoxious, so tell your daughter to be ready for it.

Bad Candy on April 17, 2007 at 5:48 PM

sigh…

spd rdr on April 17, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Wow Cafferty… you still suck but maybe just a tiny bit less now.

Dash on April 17, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Who put water in Cafferty’s hip flask?

Jim Treacher on April 17, 2007 at 5:57 PM

spd rdr on April 17, 2007 at 5:28 PM

I can only imagine how much you want to tangibly be with your daughter right now. Though thank God she’s safe.

Esthier on April 17, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Who put water in Cafferty’s hip flask?

Jim Treacher on April 17, 2007 at 5:57 PM

Lol!

PRCalDude on April 17, 2007 at 6:04 PM

It seems that as a nation we’re losing our preparedeness for emergencies. Whether criminal, terrorist, or natural. Its part of this creeping nanny-statism where self-reliance is denigrated.

Indeed. Had a shred of self-reliance been part of the upbringing of the young folks who attend VA Tech, perhaps more could have been spared. I can’t and won’t pretend to know what they felt and thought, but I also can’t fathom going down without a fight. If your only hope is that someone will show up in time to save you, that’s inadequate, as shown by Iblis’ description of police to citizen ratios.

Everybody shares the instinct for self-preservation. For some, that translates into passively hoping for circumstances to change in a crisis. For others it translates into actively attempting to change the circumstances. I was raised to be active. Military people are trained to be active. It was once the norm in this nation to respond actively to crisis. It clearly no longer is.

Freelancer on April 17, 2007 at 6:19 PM

When they drool over “V for Vendetta” – how do they picture fighting back against Bushitler fascism … if Bushitler and Co have all their guns?

You figured out our master plan, once we get rid of all the guns we will reign supreme with the sais we’ve been secrectly hoarding.

No but really, I don’t favor banning guns. I’m libertarian at heart, just liberal on iissues like helping the poor and helpless and not killing everyone we disagree with. I don’t have a gun, but I’ve been wanting to get one, probably a shotgun; I don’t plan on carrying it around, I’m not that badass. Any reccomendations?

JaHerer22 on April 17, 2007 at 6:22 PM

No waiting period for people that want to buy a gun…

I love how they make it sound like because there is no waiting period anybody can go purchase a gun.

VA has implemented an instant-check system that checks the following…

NCIC
VA Central Criminal Records Exchange
VA Criminal Information Network
Interstate Identification Index
VA database of mental incompetency
The protective orders database (part of VCIN)
The Virginia calendar file on handgun purchases (This is the 30 day rule)
FBI’s National Instant Check (NICS) (required by the Brady law)

The State Police have until the next business day to respond to the dealer.

F15Mech on April 17, 2007 at 6:22 PM

Real interesting thing here is that the guy should NOT have had guns in the first place…

A student Visa is not enough ID to buy a gun… so this guy was ALREADY breaking the law. Its also reported that the serial numbers were filed off, another illegal act…

So, do these people REALLY think that more LAWS are the answer???

Or, as I believe, is this an enforcment issue… kinda like the illegal alien invasion?

Romeo13 on April 17, 2007 at 6:51 PM

I like to think that when I say I’m a liberal who owns guns a few conservatives heads explode.

Nonfactor on April 17, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Cafferty must’ve forgotten to take his liberal pill this morning.

infidel4life on April 17, 2007 at 6:53 PM

A student Visa is not enough ID to buy a gun

Romeo, He was not here on a student visa, he was here as a resident alien, therefore it was a legal purchase from that standpoint.

F15Mech on April 17, 2007 at 6:54 PM

Everybody shares the instinct for self-preservation. For some, that translates into passively hoping for circumstances to change in a crisis. For others it translates into actively attempting to change the circumstances. I was raised to be active. Military people are trained to be active. It was once the norm in this nation to respond actively to crisis. It clearly no longer is.

Yeah, look at the Drive-by’s reaction to Flight 93. There was an example of what to do in this kind of situation, and the MSM & Co. did everything to hide, downplay, and ignore it.

Iblis on April 17, 2007 at 7:02 PM

I like to think that when I say I’m a liberal who owns guns a few conservatives heads explode.

Nonfactor on April 17, 2007 at 6:53 PM

Nonfactor, we won’t choose to suffer because you’re confused.

Freelancer on April 17, 2007 at 7:05 PM

There are many many cases of concealed carry holders stopping crimes, these stories just don’t get MSM time. Zip zero nada. Therefore, no one hears about the usefulness of CC. It’s one-sided reporting.
Course, at Salt Lake City, the person who interrupted the shooter and backed him into an area where he couldn’t continue his shooting was an off-duty cop who was carrying a concealed weapon.
A granny stopped a knife-wielding guy at a WalMart a few years ago and held him at gunpoint until the police came. He’d already slashed an employee at the next aisle over when this woman in her fifties hauled out her pistol from her purse. Everyone was relieved that she saved the day, except for a sour-faced customer who whinged that “guns” in a store with kids around is so disturbing. The pistol packing grandma didn’t even have to shoot to control the guy. The criminal had already cut a guy, a demonstrated danger to “kids” in that store, but the media gave the whin-ger the quote.

naliaka on April 17, 2007 at 7:13 PM

There are a few problems with simply repealing the Second Amendment. Even without the protection of the Second Amendment, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would still exist. Next, the Constitution would need to be further amended to grant power to Congress to govern the keeping and bearing of arms.

The way it works with the Constitution and the law, government may only do those things it has been specifically granted power to do. It’s the opposite with people. We do what ever we want unless there is a law against it. We don’t need to get permission from the government whereas the government must get permission from us.

After twice amending the Constitution to get to our guns, now the government has to come get them. That’s when the real trouble begins.

Woody

You all need to remember where the real middle is. It is the Constitution. The Constitution is the biggest compromise – the best compromise – ever written. It is where distribution of power and security of the common good meets with the protection of rights, freedom, and personal sovereignty. Don’t screw it up!

woodcdi on April 17, 2007 at 7:28 PM

Who are you people?

spd rdr on April 17, 2007 at 7:35 PM

Leave the constitution and the 2nd amendment alone.

The gun control crowd is concerned that guns kill people. But they could not give a hoot when the first amendment is used to embolden our enemies by so many of the “protesters” that helps to kill american military personnel in Iraq….

I wonder if they are willing to lose their precious right to free speech. I know that most of them have never done anything to actually defend these rights.

robo on April 17, 2007 at 7:40 PM

Who are you people?

spd rdr on April 17, 2007 at 7:35 PM

Are we not men? We are Devo… (Asinine post #1)

I watched the Cafferty video, but I couldn’t see him very well; his tail kept swishing in front. (Asinine post #2)

Jaibones on April 17, 2007 at 7:59 PM

JaHere22, I have a recommendation.

I too, have been considering a home defense weapon and according to no less than Guns and Ammo, the gun of choice is a Remington 870 12 guage pump shotgun, preferably with the 22 in barrel, as it is easiest to weild in hallways and doorways, which is critical in home defense.
They also recommend 2 3/4 turkey shot shells, which are similar to tactical ammo, as they will not blow clear through your walls with still deadly velocity. But they will blow through soft tissue (people) between you and said wall.

OneEyedJack on April 17, 2007 at 8:01 PM

gauge check
wield check

i need a proofreader

OneEyedJack on April 17, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Thanks for the memories.
We’re done here.

spd rdr on April 17, 2007 at 8:16 PM

Thanks for the memories.
We’re done here.

spd rdr on April 17, 2007 at 8:16 PM

Huh?

Look, I’m sorry if it hurts that its gone political. It bugs me too, but we can’t change it.

Bad Candy on April 17, 2007 at 8:25 PM

Can any part of the “Bill of Rights” (the first 10 Amendments) be repealed?

And if this perp was taking drugs for psychological problems, he would be disqualified from purchasing or owning firearms.

Zorro on April 17, 2007 at 8:46 PM

Who are you people?

spd rdr on April 17, 2007 at 7:35 PM

Very very angry people who are upset that over 30 innocent people were killed yesterday in cold blood.
That help?
Double worried after watching a local small school’s attempt to deal with security issues by making all the teachers wear photo IDs. It’s a small school, all the teachers know each other, very, very well. The administration somehow feels more secure.
Current school strategies scare me, they do not reassure me.

naliaka on April 17, 2007 at 8:54 PM

don’t have a gun, but I’ve been wanting to get one, probably a shotgun; I don’t plan on carrying it around, I’m not that badass. Any reccomendations?

JaHerer22 on April 17, 2007 at 6:22 PM

First off I’d advise you to take a gun safety class if you didn’t when you were younger or if have no prior military weapons training. First rule, Every gun is a loaded gun.

I would recommend the the Beretta Model 1201FP-12g semi auto shotgun. I brought one these a few months ago and I haven’t been sorry or disappointed at the range.

http://www.berettausa.com/communities/le_mil/law_enforce_catalog.pdf

Page nine.

VikingGoneWild on April 17, 2007 at 9:05 PM

JaHerer22 If you’re wanting a shotgun for home protection I’d recommend a Mossberg Model 500 12 GA or a Remington 870 12 GA. Both are reliable cost effective shotguns. No fancy bells or whistles just a good home protection gun.

The one thing I like about a shotgun is the respect it gets when the bad guy hears you racking the first round in the barrel. I keep my 870 loaded with 00 buck. But as VikingGone Wild points out take a safety course before you purchase a gun.

SPIFF1669 on April 17, 2007 at 9:19 PM

VikingGoneWild on April 17, 2007 at 9:05 PM

Don’t tell him that. Those things are expensive.

JaHerrer,

Get a Remington 870 pump shotgun with an 18″ barrel. That’s all you need for home defense. Then get 00 buckshot and tactical shotgun training.

PRCalDude on April 17, 2007 at 9:27 PM

I like to think that when I say I’m a liberal who owns guns a few conservatives heads explode.

Nonfactor on April 17, 2007 at 6:53 PM

No, Nonfactor. You, in typical liberal fashion, analyze/nuance it too much. Those for guns believe in the freedom for all to own them.

Thanks for the ‘explosion’ of laughter, though.

Entelechy on April 17, 2007 at 9:48 PM

The First Amendment is the mouth.

The Second Amendment is the teeth.

You can only control the guns of the law-abiding, which defeats the whole point.

profitsbeard on April 17, 2007 at 10:50 PM

WoW! I am shocked by the CCN bit.

Tim Burton on April 18, 2007 at 12:21 AM

loony leftist liberals = sitting ducks

lynnv on April 18, 2007 at 8:11 AM

If only Timothy McVeigh had used a gun, the death toll in Oklahoma City bombing would have been so much lower.

Crazies are going to find a way.

stenwin77 on April 18, 2007 at 9:37 AM

Whatever we do, let’s not have a civilized and thoughtful debate on this. Everyone stake out there position and cling to it like grim death.

Instinctively I want to ban assault weapons and more importantly have and/or enforce laws that require a stringent background check. But I am not certain that would help. What a dolt I must be.

The problem is that we have a much higher incident of murder in this country–much of it gun related, I would guess the vast majority–than other countries, e.g Canada, Europe. If easy access to guns is not the culprit, we need to ask ourselves, what is? In a way, a more troubling question.

As to what the founders meant: have all the muskets you want. Again, I’m not anti 2nd amendment, my first husband and my boys were gun enthusiasts. I do have a hard time extrapolating what the founders would have meant to do it today’s context. As does anyone who is honest about it.

honora on April 18, 2007 at 10:03 AM

I do have a hard time extrapolating what the founders would have meant to do it today’s context. As does anyone who is honest about it.

honora on April 18, 2007 at 10:03 AM

There are … too many words. Take some out.

Jaibones on April 18, 2007 at 10:27 AM

There are … too many words. Take some out.

Jaibones on April 18, 2007 at 10:27 AM

Sorry, I do run on sometimes. Just read every other one, won’t lose much. ;^)

honora on April 18, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Who are you people?

spd rdr on April 17, 2007 at 7:35 PM

Don’t go away mad, bro.

JaHeyDere, I am personally recommending a 1911 handgun. The Glock 9mm is a serious weapon and comes with 10 round clips, if needed, and as we saw in Blacksburg, it works real good.

But, if you’re going gangster, you should consider the Dan Wesson Classic Bobtail 1911. The Bobtail design cuts short the grip, making concealment much more effective. It basically shortens the grip apparatus by 2″, and still holds a standard 7 rounds.

This is a .45, and packs a wallop. You will not be winging the enemy with this weapon; if you hit him, he will go down. Bones will break, blood will flow. Safety is of the utmost concern, and you will need training and practice to use this gun, and at $1,000, it’s not a small investment.

Jaibones on April 18, 2007 at 10:42 AM

honora on April 18, 2007 at 10:03 AM

Honora,

The founders were well aware that technology would improve. Thomas Jefferson, in his correspondences with Ben Franklin from Paris, spent most of his time discussing the latest inventions and scientific theories, and very little time discussing the diplomatic affairs he was sent on.

Canada has similar gun laws to our own. Do you hear about widespread gun crime there? The fact is, after Britain banned guns, a crime wave spread over the entire nation. France is in a state of continuous intifada and has no private ownership of guns. In Switzerland, ownership of H&K military semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles is ubiquitous, and it has the lowest murder rate in Europe.

You’re just parroting liberal straw-men that keep having to be debunked over and over and over again. Get some facts straight, at least.

Jailbones,

You’re not helping. And why should anybody listen to somebody who refers to a magazine as a ‘clip?’ ‘Clips’ are used in fixed-magazine semi-auto rifles like the M1 Garand.

PRCalDude on April 18, 2007 at 11:57 AM

As to what the founders meant: have all the muskets you want.

Yep, and if you want free speech, you can have quill pens and hand presses, but you should be able to be arrested for “politically wrongful speech” on TV, the Internet, Telephones, or any other forms of communication that the Foudners were unaware of, because they weren’t part of their understanding of communication.

I do have a hard time extrapolating what the founders would have meant to do it today’s context. As does anyone who is honest about it.

Ok, I’ll end on that too. As I think my argument is at least as well founded as the 2nd amendment means musket position.

And if you disagree, the Feds will throw you in jail for having the “wrong” opinion on the internet. You’ll need to find me and tell me in person, or write me a letter to counter this claim… that seems fair, right?

gekkobear on April 18, 2007 at 12:06 PM

Several Points:

First, tomorrow is the 14th anniversary of the Waco Massacre and the 12th anniversary of the Murrah Bombing.

Second, I tend to favor the Winchester 1300 Defender. 12 Gauge, 8 round capacity, 18″ barrel.

Third, this is being touted as an example of the need for gun control laws (by the left) but it epitomizes why gun control laws are dangerous. This is the closest anyone has come to asking the question I asked when I first saw the story; “How many would have lived had some of them been armed?”

Fourth, it is unConstitutional for Virginia Tech to ban firearms on their campus. It is unConstitutional for the State of Virginia to bar the purchase of more than one handgun in 30 days.

Fifth, this permanent resident alien is not a citizen; he has no 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear.

Lastly, all it would have taken would have been one Ted Nugent or other cowboy with a gun to have been there that day, and perhaps 30 people would be alive who aren’t. It’s unlikely the death toll could have been any higher.

Hiraghm on April 18, 2007 at 12:13 PM

Jailbones’ “too many words” reference is a paraphrasing of the Duke of Austria (king?) in “Amadeus”, where he says, “there are simply too many notes.” in one of Mozart’s pieces.

Hiraghm on April 18, 2007 at 12:15 PM

Canada has similar gun laws to our own. Do you hear about widespread gun crime there? The fact is, after Britain banned guns, a crime wave spread over the entire nation. France is in a state of continuous intifada and has no private ownership of guns. In Switzerland, ownership of H&K military semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles is ubiquitous, and it has the lowest murder rate in Europe.

You’re just parroting liberal straw-men that keep having to be debunked over and over and over again. Get some facts straight, at least.

Did you read my post? Of course not, just start blathering on. I very pointedly addressed the issue of gun laws likely NOT being the silver bullet. If you want to maintain a dialogue with me, you’re gonna have to address what I say, not what you would like me to say.

As for facts, Canadian gun laws are akin to the Brady bill with a national registry etc. Get your facts straight Sparky.

honora on April 18, 2007 at 12:19 PM

VikingGoneWild on April 17, 2007 at 9:05 PM
Don’t tell him that. Those things are expensive.

JaHerrer,

Get a Remington 870 pump shotgun with an 18″ barrel. That’s all you need for home defense. Then get 00 buckshot and tactical shotgun training.

PRCalDude on April 17, 2007 at 9:27 PM

500 bones at Cabela’s.

VikingGoneWild on April 18, 2007 at 12:20 PM

JaHerer22

For home protection, I recommend a pump shotgun like the http://mossberg.com/products/default.asp?id=5&display=desc# or Remington Model 870.

For mobile carry protection, I recommend a good semi automatic like the .45 Auto Ruger P345. It has become my personal favorite.

What ever weapon you decide to buy, make sure you learn how to use it. Practice, practice, practice.

Owning a gun will do you no good if you do not know how to use it during an encounter with a a crook that intends you bodily harm.That is not the time to fumble for the safety or remember how to rack a round into the chamber.

There are lots of good classes that teach self defense so that when the time comes to use the gun you will be able to use it to protect you or your family. In many situations, just the display of the weapon will stop the perpetrator cold but you have to be prepared to use it if that is not enough.

my 2 cents

ScottyDog on April 18, 2007 at 1:10 PM

Not one single law-abiding citizen on the campus of Virginia Tech was able to take down the deranged killer before he fired the second shot or after any of the many shots that followed. Why? Because they were not allowed to carry weapons onto the campus.

One gun in the right hands could have saved many lives. Gun control’s unintended but predictable results. Many are dead because one person, with no respect for our laws, attacked many who were left defenseless because they DID respect the laws.

This kind of gun control KILLS!

LonelyMassRepublican on April 18, 2007 at 1:40 PM

As for facts, Canadian gun laws are akin to the Brady bill with a national registry etc. Get your facts straight Sparky.

honora on April 18, 2007 at 12:19 PM

Woops. Sorry.

In Canada, they’re dismantling the national registry, as it’s done nothing for gun crime and costs way more than they originally thought to maintain.

We essentially have the same thing here: you have to go through a BATF background check before you can get your gun. This involves going through the federal government. It didn’t appear to do much in the case of this shooting.

PRCalDude on April 18, 2007 at 2:10 PM