View Story | 50 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
...wouldn't have prevented the Virginia Tech shooting. He was never committed and never considered to be a threat to himself or others, and as such had no record to find in the first place. I'd suggest dropping the inflammatory language, (there are a lot of progressives and liberals who support gun rights and gun ownership) and toning things down a bit.
That having been said, while I support gun rights, the NRA is the group who elected a 90-something year old religious fanatic with longstanding ties to racist groups, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's to be the face of responsible gun ownership in the United States. They're nuts.
by Corwin Weber on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:12:34 PM PDT
He was designated as a threat to himself and others. It was only because he was never hospitalized (committed) that his name wasn't entered into the proper database.
From the Washington Post:
A Virginia state court found Cho to be dangerously mentally ill in 2005 and ordered him to receive outpatient treatment. But because Cho was not ordered into hospital treatment, the court's order was never provided to the FBI and incorporated in its database. Two gun dealers checked the list before selling Cho the 9mm Glock 19 and the Walther .22-caliber pistol he used in the shootings.
But you're right that this particular law wouldn't have stopped that particular incident. It nonetheless seems like a reasonable requirement, don't you think?
On the whole, I wish there were more Dems out there who could articulate what you just did - that it's possible and even consistent to support gun rights and despise the NRA - which, after all, is really there to represent manufacturers and dealers, not owners.
Help Russ Feingold help progressive candidates - support the Progressive Patriots Fund.
by scardanelli on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:53:51 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
...the NRA is nuts. Unfortunately, so are the more, shall we say gun-phobic elements that tend to just assume that Democrats/Progressives automatically agree with their phobia. I've expressed in other places, (primarily in discussions about living in other countries) that I have no problem with control, reasonable restrictions and background checks.... but I don't trust a government that feels the need to completely disarm its citizens.
by Corwin Weber on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:31:01 PM PDT
So did Gandhi.
by scardanelli on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 12:02:56 AM PDT
but I don't trust a government that feels the need to completely disarm its citizens.
Then you've got nothing to worry about, since at no time in the history of the nation, has the US ever felt "the need to completely disarm its citizens".
I only the other hand, don't share your distrust. I don't see anything wrong with a government doing that, or nearly doing that, as many, very reasonable and far more democratically-leaning governments than ours have seen fit to restrict the distribution of guns (also not exactly the same thing as "disarming", but even if it were), and the interests, welfare and even their political liberties are still in relatively good shape.
I've always found it sad that a culture feels the need to define its "freedom" via the ownership of guns. Its not so much that I distrust such a culture, as I worry for it.
Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel
by a gilas girl on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 01:41:21 AM PDT
to requiring background checks for those who purchase guns at gun shows. It seems like common sense to me. I would like to think that I support gun rights as well, but I do not see how a background check infringes upon the second amendment in the slightest.
Barack Obama - Experience the Change.
by Ziggystardust125 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:03:02 PM PDT
The NRA is nuts. The problem is with using VATech as an example, as is being done in the current case.
by Corwin Weber on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 11:28:19 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 50 comments