Well, lady, victims and their families shouldn’t have a place at the table either then because you’re too emotionally damaged to make rational decisions.
A "survivor" probably means anyone who was on campus that day.
No sympathy is called for.
Correction: Her daughter was injured. But not killed.
The person who shot people on the VA Tech Campus was already in violation of campus regulations. Discharging that firearm on campus is a violation of campus policy, and probably some local laws as well. Shooting people violates the law. Do you seriously think just one more law would have tipped the balance and stopped a madman from slaughtering students and staff there? Really?
Since the NRA runs training programs for Law Enforcement, as well as firearm safety, I think their presence in any debate to promote public safety vis-a-vis firearms is highly germane.
Your misguided ranting, simply on the basis of your daughter's misfortune, however, is not.
I pray you find more constructive ways to deal with your grief. As a parent, grandparent, and great grandparent, I'd be upset if one of ours got hurt, too. I would look for solutions which might have a real effect, though, and so far the only meaningful deterrents to maniacs have been forceful--on occasion, lethally so.
Disarming in the face of that threat is not the way to become more safe, quite the opposite.
Have a better day,
Smokin' Joe
“We need to do a background check on all buyers on all gun sales.”
Once again I ask - What difference would that have made?
There was nothing stopping him from passing a background check because he had no criminal record. Nothing about his mental state would have been a factor in the approval process.
Seriously?
If she doesn't see them, it's because she's refusing to look. Her ignorance is culpable.
I thought Lindsey Graham did quite well in that hearing also.
The government should not be at the table. Read the founders’ words on the second amendment - it is to keep the government in check. Why would anybody want the very entity for which the second amendment protects us from to have any say whatsoever in the issue?
Don’t let the fox guard unarmed hens.
If the PTA would get off their butts and insist on putting armed parents in every hallway of every school, our children would not just be safer from intruders, but also predator teachers.
74% of NRA members support background checks.. BULLsh24. I would say 74% of them MIGHT support background checks if they were done in good faith and done properly... such as not allowing an FFL to charge me 40 bucks for it, not running the sellers background, NOT recording any information about the firearm being sold... see, we all know these grabbers real intent is REGISTRATION. This is their chance for the first major step toward complete confiscation.
And just think, are we really willing to allow these grabbing bastards to decide who is actually fit to PASS a check? We've all seen just how easy it is to get on a no-fly list... and how equally impossible it is to get OFF of it in the case of mistakes. They won't even tell us what criteria they use to decide such things, why would this be any different?
Sure, even I would support the idea of background checks IF... no fees to seller or buyer, seller is not subject to scrutiny, no information about the firearm is recorded, all evidence of the check being performed is destroyed after it has been approved AND most importantly, only the truly dangerous individuals be classified as such and denied a transfer. See, there is far too much trust put into the hands of those who are trying to disarm us so in reality, very FEW NRA members would actually support these checks because history has shown us time and again that it will be abused without fail.