|
|
Post by Northny94 on Feb 17, 2009 23:18:09 GMT -5
Being near Boston this week, I was reading sundays edition of the Boston Globe. Two items got me to thinking.
First, one of the items on the editorial pages took the Virginia state senate to task for rejecting the VA govenor's legislation to require background checks on private gun sales at gun shows. To begin, I am not sure why the Boston paper is critizing the senate of another state, especially since Massachusettes does not require the same background check. Of couse they lament the fact that 32 people were killed in the virginia state massacre, and although they do state in the article that the shooter did not buy his weapons at a gun show, HE COULD HAVE so there should be a law against it. They also state there are no restrictions on mentally disturbed people buying guns there.(?). one paragraph, full of inuendo and misinformation.
The second item, the front page story in the " Idea Section" was titled "TIME FOR A MUZZLE The online world of lies and rumor grows ever more viscious. IS IT TIME TO RETHINK FREE SPEECH? Now, they don't actually attack all free speech, but do go after annonomous information being posted on the internet. The suggestions being made follow the pattern used to confuse gun control as crime control. They cite that last month someone posted maps with names, home locations and occupations of thousands of people who donated money to support California's proposition 8, a ballot initiative to outlaw gay marriage in CA. A number of supporters of prop 8 have since reported threatening emails and phone calls. Not a good situation. But they do not suggest going after those making the threats. No, they propose to make the web sites responsible for the information was anonymously posted, and lets pass laws against ON LINE freedom of speech. Kind of like lets hold the gun manufactures liable, and pass laws against firearms, but don't go after the criminals.
Just had to vent, two days later this still worries me.
|
|
|
|
Post by northny on Feb 17, 2009 23:20:22 GMT -5
Just to be clear, northny94 and northny are one and the same. My login expired while I typed, and I could not post under my normal ID>
|
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 18, 2009 10:16:00 GMT -5
About the Virginia Tech shooter- he somehow slipped through the cracks, and a background check was not required, which would have shown his being treated for mental illness (if I recall correctly). Also, guns are illegal on the Virginia Tech campus, and always were, as far as I know. Unfortunately, the gun laws in that area had a hole in them, but he was in fact violating the law by having the weapon on campus. Pete, Virginia Tech '77
|
|
|
|
Post by screwbolts on Feb 19, 2009 7:00:54 GMT -5
If every one had a gun on campus that would not have happened IMHO :-) IMHO if some of the sheeple had gotten up and challenged the shooter fewer would have been executed, The gun was not the problem!
Ken
CNY
|
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 19, 2009 9:22:33 GMT -5
After the shooting, the suggestion came up, in the news, that maybe students should be able to carry guns. I think it would not be a good idea, because of the age bracket you are dealing with. There are beer parties, the maturity level is not completely adult yet, and people's guns could be easily stolen on campus. I would say that the problem was mostly that a proven nut was able to buy a gun. And how did he get a dozen or so clips?
|
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on Feb 19, 2009 11:02:49 GMT -5
Maybe students shouldn't.
Maybe Professors, Custodians, Yard workers, Cafeteria workers, etc., SHOULD be able to!
|
|
|
|
Post by screwbolts on Feb 19, 2009 12:19:19 GMT -5
After the shooting, the suggestion came up, in the news, that maybe students should be able to carry guns. I think it would not be a good idea, because of the age bracket you are dealing with. There are beer parties, the maturity level is not completely adult yet, and people's guns could be easily stolen on campus. I would say that the problem was mostly that a proven nut was able to buy a gun. And how did he get a dozen or so clips? Your thoughts are most interesting,I believe based on just taking a truck load of guns into a campus and dumping it wasn't what I had in mind. If all Americans grew up around and used guns from the time they could walk and be taught the safe handling of guns then they all should have been carrying. Even if the small percentage of Farm Boys like myself had been allowed to carry on that campus or any other place in the Republic we Call The United States of America. 9-11 would also never have happened. JMHO Police are good at investigating and taking photos after the fact. Ken CNY |
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 19, 2009 12:58:21 GMT -5
JMHO Police are good at investigating and taking photos after the fact. Ken CNY JMHO, bolts, I agree with you, I am disgusted to say, referring to your comment about police response. I have had some dealings with the police, and they come on, at times, just like any other government workers. That is why I decided to buy a gun, meaning a handgun. Just look at what John Walsh (Americas most wanted show) went through. For example, when someone called the police and said that they saw Adam Walsh being put into a car, the cop said he was going on vacation and would deal with it when he came back. In reference to Va. Tech, let it be known that unlike the usual civilian situation, at any time there are usually one or more security officers patrolling within a few hundred yards of any location on campus. I think they needed to be better trained, but mostly that the system needs to be able to deny someone with a history of mental illness a permit. As Richard has pointed out, the laws down south are less strict than up north. Where the balance is I am not going to get into, only that that guy was a nut, and unfortunately he still had the savy to plan and execute his plan. Those buildings are made of fieldstone (as mandated by law as a point of trivia), and once barricaded could not be broken into in time to save the victims. It's farmboys like you that keep me optimistic about the future of our country. Talking of farmboys, I'll mention a little story along this line. My Uncle Bob attended Virginia Tech in a different era, when it was still all Cadet Corps, in the late 30's. He broke the rules by having a Lewellyn setter in his room, with which he and his buddies went hunting. I guess they all had shotguns somewhere. He went on to serve in WWII in France and Germany, and things being as they were he probably should not have survived, but he did, and had a big Nazi flag in his house which all his Army buddies had signed. But it's a different era now, and as long as everybody works in an office, I guess our future is assured, but if there is war and survival, we will probably wish we had more farmboys, and outdoorsmen. As you say JMOH. |
|
|
|
Post by screwbolts on Feb 19, 2009 18:19:57 GMT -5
If you are still able to talk to your Uncle Bob, would you tell him, Thank you for serving! for me.
Ken
CNY
|
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 19, 2009 21:22:05 GMT -5
Thank you bolts, but unfortunately he passed away in 1990.
|
|
|
|
Post by chickenhunter on Feb 20, 2009 1:13:24 GMT -5
Petev, respectfully. The hole in the VT Murders is the fact that we denied them the right to defend themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by chuck41 on Feb 21, 2009 1:31:36 GMT -5
Petev, respectfully. The hole in the VT Murders is the fact that we denied them the right to defend themselves. Absolutely! |
|
|
|
Post by petev on Feb 21, 2009 2:39:49 GMT -5
Allright, are you talking teachers, or everybody. Seriously, I can't imagine students packin'. I don't think they could either. In 140 years of V.T. not a problem, now people have to arm themselves on campus? It's all debatable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Buckrub on Feb 21, 2009 15:06:05 GMT -5
Can you imagine 'em dead? That's what they were because SOME weren't packing.
I can't imagine them ALL packing either.....thought it'd be ok. But to deny those who know how, the right to defend themselves, is criminal.
Besides, it's STILL the adults that I'd prefer to see packing on college campuses.....although most are too liberal to attempt it, I'd guess.
|
|
|
|
Post by chickenhunter on Feb 21, 2009 15:24:00 GMT -5
Petev, to my knowledge 140 years ago you weren't having someone killing 30+ people at a time in or schools. That guy was a Wack Job. Didn't stop him from getting done what he needed to get done because he was willing to die for the cause. I dont see how you can defend yourself against that, you can only minimize it in a situation like that. I believe he would have killed people that day no matter how many laws against it or or how many hanndguns were in the building. Ido believe if students had the right to selfdefence and a small percentage had choosen to exercise their right that day there would have been less killing because the solution would have been way closer to the threat.
Who has stepped up and is willing to be held accountable for these murders in a real sense? These people are dead. That is no longer debatable. Without our right to debate we would be missing out on a lot of fun. Have a good one!
|
|
|
|
Post by huntingmike on Mar 6, 2009 0:41:24 GMT -5
No gun law can stop a criminal or mentally deranged person from killing. He will use a hammer if he must. He could use weapons like home made IED's like in Iraq. No law can stop it. Only a well armed people have a chance to defend themselves from those who would impose their will to harm over others.
|
|
