Political Punch

I find it disingenous that people try to blame republicans for Cho and his insanity...it was the state of Virginia which didn't commit Cho to a mental institution, or report that a court had ordered him to have mental health outpatient treatment...if the State of Virginia had, then by Law, Cho could not have bought the weapons he used for such tragic ends at Virginia Tech....To claim that this is all because "gun control" wasn't in place is a lark...there were laws in place, and Cho had a background check done on him to purchase these weapons...it is democrats who refused to force "by law" states to include medical records and information to be included in federal databases for background checks during weapons purchases. Our Constitution guarantees they right for citizens to own and possess weapons for personal safety, as well as the ability to revolt against an oppressive government no longer responsive to the people. If there had been just one student or teacher on the VT campus while this massacre was going on, they could have stopped Cho. Anyone who would ban weapons, doesn't have the commonsense to see the truth in the fact that only 1% of gun violence and crime is done by Lawful Owners of guns...the other 99% of crimes committed with a gun is done by criminals, who will not care if the weapon they use in their crimes is legal or not...they are criminals and do not care about the law, and any "gun control" legislation would be to merely take away the Constitutional Rights of Law Abiding Citizens, and not the criminals.

Who cares what the democrats think? What do the republicans think? They are the ones that have let the NRA push them around and made it possible for the republicans to act like they are so tough. Now it really is up to the republicans to take a stand for more gun control. Everyone assumes that the democrats are the ones for gun control. It should be everyone for it regardless of their political leaning.

the dems are so incredibly chicken to take a stand. once again, they have no backbone and no guts to provide solutions, ideas or even opinions. all they know is scare tactics and in this case, it won't work for them. bottom line, we need a solution to the problem of gun control. our forefathers provided us a right to bear arms in the constitution but they also knew there would be problems along the way so they included the word "regulate" in their wording. it would be irresponsible and idiotic of us to restrict our right to bear arms. at the same time we have to have stricter gun laws and a better communication system that allows for negative background check info to show up (such as cho's history of mental illness). i agree with those that say this is not a "left or right" issue. it isn't about your political affiliation but rather our desire as a country to get this under control.

Well... Last year VA Tech, my Alma Mater, adopted a gun-free-zone campus policy. History has shown that gun-free-zones are a terrible failure in OH, KY, CO, TX, DC, IL, and NY. Cho has now proven that gun-free-zones are a failure in VA. Due to the campus policy, not one civillian on that campus was afforded the right of self preservation without the consequence of expulsion, or termination. Instead they were subject to the "protection" of what few law enforcement officers were on duty at the time....
All those in favor of gun control: say BAaa

from an anonomous blog

"You may think you know me well enough to know which side of the line I stand on regarding gun control. Maybe you do. But, you might be surprised to know that I own a gun.

The NRA is the most powerful lobby in the United States. They are the ones that convince people that gun control is a bad idea. They scream that the 2nd amendment gives people the right "to keep and bear arms". They tend to leave out the "for the purpose of a well armed militia" section of the 2nd amendment. They also feed people the garbage that gun control somehow takes away peoples ability to hunt.

I come from a family of hunters. My father owns several guns and I own one. I live in the country and my gun occasionally comes in very handy. For example, two weeks ago a gun made it much easier and safer to protect my children and my pets from a possibly rabid raccoon. It could have been hit it over the head with a shovel, but a gun just seemed less barbaric. The animal was destroyed and the carcass disposed of without incident. Now, the majority of people in this country are urban dwellers and I would guess that most are not hunters. I am not a hunter either, but I do know that the only animals hunted with high-powered rifels, with automatic and semi-automatic weapons, with handguns, and with high capacity clips are human animals. Sensible gun control does not take away a persons right to keep and bear arms nor does not take away a persons ability to hunt or protect themselves and their families.

Some say that if the students and teachers at Virginia Tech had been armed Seung-Hui Cho wouldn't have been able to kill as many as he did. Yes, that is one possability, but it is very unlikely. With so many armed people in such a small place, with so much adrenaline and anxiety, I can imagine hundreds dead.

Can you see it? Imagine a student, Jennifer, decides to take her gun and engane Mr. Cho. He is shot dead. At that moment a teacher from another class decides to do the same, he opens his door, sees Jennifer with her weapon drawn, assumes she is the killer and fires. Jennifer dies. Her friend thinking the professor is the killer picks up Jennifer's gun and starts to fire. Jennifer's friend, Harry, has never fired a gun before. Harry accidentally kills three more people before Joe manages to get his gun out of his backpack... Is it that hard to imagine?

Now picture a young man set on revenge. He goes to buy a gun from a dealer and is turned away."

This is hardly a media issue. People would care about the Dems if they would actually say something. This is not a left/right issue - it's an issue of reality and the fact we don't need guns any more to protect ourselves from the Red Coats.

By keeping quiet on the "hot button" issues, the Dems are playing it smart. There is, however, a big difference between playing it smart and acting intelligently, and the Dems fall in the former category. When the opportunities to discuss their positions arise and the Dems choose not to do so for fear of losing power, appearing weak, or opening themselves up to political attacks, the Dems project an image of sheer political opportunism and utter cowardice. Charges which have been leveled at the Dems when they do this include those of following poll results rather than any political philosophy or beliefs. The manner in which Speaker Pelosi and Sen. Reid deflected the more important questions of what they think and believe was done so professionally that they could almost be mistaken for Repubs. Almost.

There doesn't seem to be such a thing as reasonable debate on the topic of gun control. Any time the government proposes common sense regulation, gun owners go all "THE GOVERNMENT IS AFTER MY GUN!!!" For a sampling of the hysteria, just look at yesterday's web traffic here.

The media (read: you) has fostered a culture of fear, as demonstrated in Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. And it's only gotten worse in the post- 9/11 era. Terror alert: ELEVATED Only, here, the enemy is ourselves.

So what to make of democratic inaction? I call it pragmatism. Maybe if the media didn't go out of the way to scare the bleep out of us, democrats wouldn't have to be so...pragmatic. Maybe you should point that finger at yourself, or your employer.