[Uriah_lost]

I’m torn over this but I think they are wise to get out in front on this because we all know that the “Do something!!!” cries are already starting.

[DB]

I don’t think it is unreasonable that you have to be a citizen in order to purchase a gun. And if the Fed is going to demand background checks, they should have access to mental health records that indicate when a person has serious issues with reality...

[paratrooper82]

This is exactly why I refuse to give money to the NRA, or become a member. GOA will not compromise our Rights!

[JerseyHighlander]

If this bill is amended to include all domestic abuse cases, it will be troublesome. Divorce lawyers will be able to throw this against the wall and make even more extensive misuse of restraining orders during divorce cases.

I expect Sen. Dodd to propose the amendment doing so.

[tiger-one]

This is part of the Libs continued incremental assault on our Constitution.

So a new law goes in to affect, and when that fails what then? OK, so the wacko, borrows his father’s, brother’s gun and shoots 55 students, now we need a law which, holds the gun owner responsible for lending the gun, but the 40 YO wacko’s relatives did not know he was a basket case, because they were not notified.

Here in NH there is a indoor rage where you can rent, for use on prem, just about any type of gun made including SMG’s. So you go to the range, rent an UZI 200 RNDs of ammo, and proceed to kill everyone in the place. The next law will be, present your “Not A Wacko” ID card to rent a firearm.

Presently there are states, I think CT is one, if you see our neighbor with an “assault rifle” turn him in to be arrested.

When you look at Libs and the Constitution, over the last 40 years, they are erasing it line by line, and word by word.

The best the NRA can do, is drag these negotiations out to the point where the Libs give up on this, at least for now. And remember, Mitt and Rudy are gun grabbers.

[Jim Robinson]

Signs of Intelligence?

By Fred Thompson

One of the things that’s got to be going through a lot of peoples’ minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.

Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms — and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.

The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.

Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.

In recent years, however, armed Americans — not on-duty police officers — have successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.

So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university’s “concealed carry” policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.

The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on “the authorities” for protection.

Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled “shoe bomber” Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.

When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.

Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses — and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.

Whenever I’ve seen one of those “Gun-free Zone” signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I’ve always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don’t mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.

http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=389928&SPID=15663

[leprechaun9]

It would be an improvement if the NRA could get the mentally impaired members of Congress out of office!

[tcostell]

None of us wants guns to be handed out at the door of the mental institution... none of us.

And those of us that have a problem with the idea of stronger background checks don't have a problem with keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, we have a problem with how the government determines who is mentally ill.

I'm a white, married, conservative, portfolio manager in his 40's, who comes from a military family, and is a competitive skeet shooter. To your average woman's studies professor, I am insane. It can become a very subjective definition. and we don't trust government to define the shades of grey. Tey've proven poor at doing so in the past.

I think that's why I think it's best that the government makes an error on the side of liberty.

[tiger-one]

When the federal government, state, county, education facility, deny your right to LIFE, by establishing laws which put you at the same risk, as a fetus, it is time to look at how to protect yourself and remain law abiding, if you choose. VA Tech would not allow weapons, which is very broad term, some have been defined by LE across the U.S. as baseball bats, vehicles etc.

A few items you can carry anywhere in the world, which are not weapons, pencils, mechanical pencils and pens, spray deodorant. The pens and pencils become knives, the spray deodorant and maybe hair spray become OC, since they contain alcohol, and an adhesives.

Your ability to survive, will be your desire to kill the bad guy.

[from occupied ga]

Once again the NRA pushes more gun control.

[snowsislander]

I don't support the NRA on this, if this is true. However, considering the source is the Washington Post, I think this report can be considered dubious at best.

For what it is worth, GOA's and JPFO's responses were far better than what is being alleged here:

Aftermath Of Tragedy: GOA Defending Freedom
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Our hearts and prayers truly go out to all of those affected by Cho Seung-Hui's evil actions. But not even senseless, brutal murder justifies taking away the God-given rights of the law-abiding.

It is also worthwhile to note that Virginia Tech is -- because of deliberate policies set by its administration -- a victim disarmament zone, where even those with a state-issued concealed carry permit are denied their right of self-defense.

In fact, pro-gun forces just last year tried to get the Virginia legislature to address the problem. The bill to allow permit holders to carry on state-supported college campuses died, due in no small part to rabid opposition from Virginia Tech itself.

VT spokesman Larry Hincker put it this way after it became obvious that the bill would not pass: "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."

The unfortunate irony continues when one recalls that not long ago, two students at nearby Appalachian School of Law managed to stop a gunman at that institution. Happily, they were able to dash off-campus to retrieve their guns from their vehicles.

Four GOA spokesmen (one based in downtown D.C. and three at our Springfield, VA office just outside the Beltway) are working non-stop -- doing literally interview after interview -- making certain that the above points reach the public.

GOA has appeared on Fox News, ABC, CNN, BBC -- lots of alphabet soup networks -- as well as countless talk shows like Michael Reagan and Lars Larson. GOA spokesmen have been heard in every major radio market around the country and have done interviews with large print media outlets, such as the Associated Press and U.S. News & World Report.

The overall message that GOA is delivering is that gun prohibitions are part of the problem, not the solution.

We can expect some forms of new gun control to be pushed in the U.S. Congress. The Democrats control Congress, but more importantly, anti-gun politicians control the Democrat party. If House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- certainly no friend of gun owners -- gives free rein to virulently anti-gun House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), literally anything can make it to the floor of the full House.

Conyers' counterpart in the Senate is Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), whose GOA rating of "F" is well-deserved. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has also earned an F. Gun owners will have to be especially vigilant in the coming weeks to block any new attempts to infringe upon the Second Amendment.

And whereas the predictable media stampede to give voice to the possibility of such new gun control is certainly there, it does not seem to have the same "this simply must happen now" tone that it did after the Columbine tragedy in 1999. Indeed, the idea of firearms for self-defense in schools is gaining serious traction. Which should not be all that surprising, given a Research 2000 poll which showed that 85% of Americans find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use "a gun at school to defend the lives of students" in stopping a massacre.

ACTION: For now, stay tuned for future alerts. (If any anti-gun bills start moving on Capitol Hill, GOA will be counting on you to contact your legislators in record numbers.) And pray for all of those whose loved ones were injured or killed at Virginia Tech.

---

April 18, 2007

Why We Cannot Just Be Quiet and Mourn

In the hours and days just after the mass murder-suicide at Virginia Tech last Monday, many people felt it would be more sensitive and polite if the advocates for gun rights would sit quietly and allow the personal and national mourning to take place without a lot of gun policy arguments.

We at JPFO considered the sensitive and polite approach. We certainly feel terrible for the victims and for the families and friends whose lives are shattered by the horrendous crime. The deep evil of the murders makes it all the harder to come to terms with that sickening event. We agree that it would be best if we, as a nation, could gather together with the survivors in national mourning.

But we could not just be sensitive, polite and quiet, for two key reasons. First, we know that the enemies of defense rights always capitalize on strong emotions of the moment to drive their policies.

The Brady Campaign, for example, released a message almost immediately that called for more national "gun control" and said: "We are building a crescendo of public outcry to ensure that action is taken. We are aggressively rallying support among allies for our solutions."

Those benighted people, who think that making everybody defenseless is a good plan, have already swung into action. Their policy goals ride on strong emotions, not on reason and practicality.

If we stay quiet while the anti-self defense crowd defines the issues and whips up emtions, then we lose. We lose by being absent and by giving the appearance of conceding we are wrong about self-defense. We lose by letting emotional appeals go unchallenged by careful rational thought. We know also that a bad law driven by high-emotions in Congress and the media will be extremely hard to eliminate later.

A second reason we could not just stay quiet: gun owners have been made to feel guilty for having guns, just because one suicide-murderer misuses a firearm in such an horrific way. In this moment of national focus, many gun owners don't remember some of the key reasons that we have the right to keep and bear arms. Under pressure, many gun owners cannot respond to challenges, and that makes us all look shallow or unprincipled.

Talk host Bill O'Reilly, for example, took to the airwaves the following day to claim that Virginia's gun laws are not strict enough. O'Reilly urged that a 7-day waiting period is necessary, that the instant background check is not enough. A caller to his radio show pointed out the several procedures in Virginia that a buyer must pass through, and said that the 7-day waiting period was not needed.

O'Reilly replied by challenging the man to explain why he couldn't wait 7 days to get a Glock? Why did the man need to take immediate possession?

The caller was unable to answer the question -- because he was feeling defensive and cornered and somehow guilty. The answers to O'Reilly's challenges are:

1. a woman who is being stalked should not have to wait 7 days to obtain the means to protect herself from a potentially armed madman,
2. the police owe no duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. Blocking a person from getting defense tools is to cripple the endangered citizen's ability to protect himself or herself,
3. the suicide-murderer in this case had planned his crime carefully, such that a 7 day waiting period would have had zero effect upon him.

We cannot let the anti-defense people and the ignorant media personalities command the policy discussion while we are sensitively and politely silent. We wish it were otherwise. Innocent lives depend upon the right to keep and bear arms, so we must protect it, even in times of tragedy and grief.

- The Liberty Crew

[sergeantdave]

You cannot give an inch to liberal rats. They will take that inch, consider it a sign of weakness and load up the bill with every 2nd amendment infringement they can think of.

If the NRA insists on this measure, we need to get something in return - forbidding the ATF bureaucrats to write legally binding regulations would be one. Another could be the national right to conceal and carry.

[Condor51]

This 'mentally ill' thing is a slippery slope.

IIRC there's 20,000 listed mental illnesses (almost matching the number of guns laws. Hey what a coincidence). And just who is to decide if YOU have one of those 20,000 'mental illnesses? Some loony-tunes psychiatrist with an Oedipus complex who sleeps in his moma's nightie?

A couple years back Dubya pushed for Federal 'mental health screening' of all new mothers. I don't think it went anywhere but that was a baaaad idea. A similar mental health screening law almost passed in IL, until We The People found out and raised hell. My own State Rep was the sponsor and even SHE didn't want it passed after the mental health experts got their hands on on it and changed the thing 180^o.

When I talked to her after the final bill was ready, I asked what would happen in a household where a mother was found to have an 'illness' and there were Firearms leagly owned by another - wouldn't they be removed by law? She paused for a moment and said, "yes I believe so, but I never thought of that". I also asked if a mother 'failed' this test wouldn't she be BANNED for life from owning a gun. Again she answered yes and again the, 'gee I never thought of that'.

So there you have it. The law of unintended consequences strikes once more. What starts out as a 'feel good' law to 'help' young mothers who may be 'depressed', goes immediately into infringement of 2nd Amendment rights.

Naturally I don't want a Charlie Manson walking around armed to the teeth, BUT I sure as hell don't want some fruity pedophile 'psychiatrist' determining whom should have a firearm.

[Joe Brower]

"potentially block gun purchases by the mentally ill."

Well, this opens the door wide-open to all sorts of abuse, and must be watched with extreme care.

Don't forget that gun-banner's will consider you "mentally ill" for... you guessed it... wanting to own a gun.

[Durus]

Is there any logical reason to conclude that this crime would never had occurred if the killer had been prevented from legally buying a gun? What law are they going to pass to stop people from buying guns illegally? This completely ignores that there are far more effective and attainable weapons to commit mass murder with. We can’t ban everything.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

****Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.), a gun-rights Democrat who once served on the NRA’s board of directors,****

DON’T EVER FORGET that John Dingell resigned his NRA board of directors position so he could vote FOR Bill Clinton’s Assault weapons ban.

I haven’t forgot.
I haven’t forgotten that Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado also voted for the bill.

[Atlas Sneezed]

The NRA once again is negotiating away our rights.

[Grampa Dave]

This is probably the only area where Dingell has been right on for decades.

Rumors tell of him never even making a right turn to get to and from the Capitol.

[philman_36]

...block gun purchases by the mentally ill.
Far from being a soothsayer I can easily predict where this will end up. The definition of "mentally ill" will be expanded and be so broad that anyone who wants to own a firearm will be considered to be mentally ill.
Folks are gonna get shafted on this one!

[goldstategop]

Mental illness is not detectable by an untrained bureaucrat. A lot of these people look complete normal on the surface. And the most evil people in the world - psychopaths - are just evil - they're perfectly sane by any psychological test you could care to administer to them. This is just feel-good nonsense that doesn't address the fact the cause of the VA Tech shootings wasn't due to the killer being able to acquire guns but rather that the VICTIMS couldn't.

"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