April 21, 2007 7:26 AM

Sometimes senseless is just...senseless

Only the names change. And the numbers. The scale of the Virginia incident is, sadly, all that distinguishes it.

Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster

Gun Banners Have to Use Emotion…

Here we go again with right to bear arms and be crazy

The National Rifle Association joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families. We will not have further comment until all facts are known.

Since Monday’s tragedy at Virginia Tech, I’ve listened to and read far too many people who seem more concerned with protecting their Second Amendment rights than recognizing that this horrific tragedy was wrought by an individual who obtained his weapons LEGALLY. The questions asked should be about how an individual known to be a threat to others and who was demonstrably mentally ill was able to obtain the firepower necessary to murder 32 innocent people. Yeah, how’s your right to bear arms working for you now?

I’m sick to death of those who have spent the last few days opinionizing that, if only students and staff at Virginia Tech had been able to carry, this never would have happened. Yes, only by turning our colleges and universities into free fire zones can we protect our children.

What a load of crap. This argument is not about gun rights, nor should it be. No one is proposing the repeal of the Second Amendment. Though I believe that this would have some merit, it’ll never happen, and I prefer to expend my energies on things that have at least a reasonable chance of success. No one is talking about prying the guns from your cold, dead, fingers. Can anyone tell me why, and how, a mentally ill individual like Cho Seung-Hui can purchase an automatic pistol with a 15-round magazine? Yeah, how ‘s that right to own and bear arms working for you now??

No, this is not about the right to own and bear arms….

This is about mass murder and the U.S. Constitution. The massacre at Virginia Tech may prompt an attitude adjustment toward two parts of this great document — not only the Second Amendment covering the right to bear arms, but the First Amendment protecting freedom of speech.

America is a land of gaping social cracks. The cults of anonymity and open expression make it easy for the homicidal to walk among us unmolested. Cho Seung-Hui, Virginia Tech’s mad killer, was one such individual….

Before the latest carnage, history’s worst school shooting was in Germany, where gun laws are very strict, and before that in Scotland, same story. Had his preferred weapons been banned in the Commonwealth of Virginia, Cho might have obtained them elsewhere. Or he could have made a bomb at home.

But the mainstream case for restricting guns isn’t about banning them all. It’s about who may own what. Virginia could have retained a right to bear arms for hunting or self-defense that did not include letting a mentally ill young man walk out of a Roanoke shop with a Glock 19. And there’s no sane excuse for permitting anyone to buy a weapon with a 15-round ammunition magazine ‚Äö√Ñ√Æ which was prohibited by the assault-weapons ban that President Bush let expire in 2004.

If one was so inclined, and I certainly am leaning in that direction, the blame for this massacre could well and fairly be placed squarely on the shoulders of Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader © . After all, he allowed the assault-weapons ban to expire. Instead of doing the right thing and protecting Americans, The Worst President EVER © caved to the demands of the National Rifle Association. If the assault weapons ban had bee continued, perhaps Cho Seung-Hui might not have been able to obtain the weapons he used on Monday, and perhaps 32 innocent people would still be alive.

Then again, it’s all about the NRA, isn’t it?

Cho obtained his weapons legally, just as you or I could have. The very obvious question, though, is why a weapon with a 15-round magazine is legal in the first place? Can an argument actually be made that this sort of thing is appropriate for “personal defense”? There really isn’t any excuse for a civilian to be in possession of a weapon with only one purpose: to kill people.

More weapons does not equate ipso facto to greater personal security. All it really means is that there will be more itchy trigger fingers looking for a reason and an opportunity to be a hero. Bullets don’t know where they’re supposed to go or who to take out; they simply go where they’re aimed, which means they could just as easily injure or kill an innocent person as the intended target.

This argument is not about the right to own and bear arms, though at some point I believe it should become exactly that. This argument is about mass murder and how a mentally-ill individual was able to obtain the tools he needed to kill 32 innocents. This argument is about why no one seems to be holding Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader © responsible for allowing the assault weapons ban to lapse in 2004. And, yes, this argument is about holding the National Rifle Association responsible for it’s part in ensuring that the weapons used by Cho Seung-Hui could be obtained legally.

Nice work, eh?

Sorry, y’all but more firepower does NOT equal greater security. Turning our colleges and universities into potential free-fire zones does not mean that future Virginia Tech-style massacres will be prevented. Preventing the sale and possession of assault weapons might. Of course, which option do you think the gun nuts will be advocating for??

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on April 21, 2007 7:26 AM.

I can think of no sadder commentary on the state of our union was the previous entry in this blog.

Another DUMB@$$ AWARD wiener is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 5.12