We have the right to bear arms. This is hogwash.
Other constitutional and substantive individual rights exercised by and for Cho made his massacre possible which are never mentioned. His right of privacy kept the fact of his mental illness from those who could act on it; his right against unreasonable search and seizure allowed him to hide firearms in his dorm, where they were prohibited by law; his right of free speech permitted him to communicate his violent nature but prevented those who could act from doing so, lest his right to speak freely be ‘chilled’. And yet, no one talks about curtailing those rights for all of us to protect the few. Civil rights organizations tell us that the toll in blood for protection of our rights against search and seizure, privacy and free speech is an acceptable cost for our civil liberties. But the Second Amendment is never included in that discussion. The Bill of Rights is not a menu from which we can pick and choose, and any guarantee of our forefathers that can be repealed by the whim of a minority in our society sets the standard for treatment of the others, and endangers them all.
If we find out a clerical error is the reason that the background check did not flag this individual, then let’s fix the clerical error and move on.
No gun law is going to deter or stop a criminal with a vicious appetite for mass murder. Therefore, citizens of these great states should be aware and prepared to fight for their lives when necessary. The government shall not infringe on the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms if that is the tool they should freely choose to aid them in the defense of their lives when and if they should need to.
History shows us that murderous rampages that consume numerous victims seem to happen in the most unlikely places and always take the victims by complete surprise. Therefore, we should never allow ourselves to be “completely” surprised.
...no joy in our Washington bureau which carried the biggest part of the load...
That’s right Bob, it’s all about you
What we need is not more gun control. We need more nut control.
VTech was aware that there were problmes with Cho. In one of his classes, students were so afraid of him, they skipped class. The school ended up teaching him one-on-one. But they couldn’t kick him out. Other students with mental illnesses have sued colleges under the Americans with Disabilities Act for the right to remain in college in spite of their mental illness ....and won.
Neither the college nor Cho’s doctors could tell his parents about any mental health problems. Once he is over 18, his parents have no more rights than anyone else to that information. This is true even if he is a dependent and they are providing all of his support.
The current laws relating to mental illness not only result in more people homeless and on the street. They make it harder for others to make sure that the mentally ill person gets the help he needs.
Inevitable without a more rational approach to mental illness. This young man’s mental state was known to many people in authority, yet no one offered to help. Where is the nanny society when you need it? The liberals are all to self absorbed to step forward and offer help when it is really needed.
We need to ban the media from making these guys into a cause of celebration. They are doing it for the notoriety, and the media are giving it to them.
....says Bob Scheifer, calling for more gun laws.
No Bob, it’s not complicated. This is the standard boilerplate response on very simple, straightforward issues, as a matter of fact. Disarm the law abiding and you get what we got. More money, more gun control - we’ll get MORE of what we already got.
Any more questions Bob, you be sure to ask.
I wonder if CBS studios has armed guards?
They seem very willing to condemn the rest of us to the failed security of “gun free” zones.
I believe B.S. had Ben Stein (more BS) on in a short segment where Stein asserted that “Americans need to get over their love affair with guns.” I thought Stein was a “conservative.” Nix that idea.
One week has passed. The libs are all using the media to call for seizing legal guns from law-abiding citizens and leaving them in the hands of criminals who obey no laws.
>>>Journalism 101<<<
Newspeak: “powerful forces oppose”
In English: the Constitution, the American public oppose
Newspeak: “tightening the gun laws”
English: gun prohibition
That's right. A gun free zone will only make it easier for evil men to do evil things.
The "current safeguards" are not safeguards at all. Virginia Tech students were sitting ducks that day and this fact should serve as a wake up call to all those who seek to protect themselves against evil.
The gun grabbing lobby, which is primarily funded six or seven figures at a time by a smattering of gazillionaire liberals in Hollywood or New York, always refers about the gun lobby as a sort of pro violence cabal funded by the evil gun industry that owns the smoky backrooms of Washington.
That's BS. There isn't some impersonal powerful force opposing tightening the gun laws, there are millions of independent gun owners who care about their rights being taken away and vote. That's all.
These are the same characters who claim that war powers will subvert the Constitution.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus