So a buzz would have went off and prevented this event.



If they had cameras going into the dorms they could have figured out who left within 5 minutes. If they had more info on this loser they could have kicked him off campus, under watch. Thank you ACLU for protecting the rights of a murderer.



I do agree a rent a cop with a gun or mace could have kicked some butt. A person with a 9mm would have shot the pig in the face.



THIS IS GOOD:



Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster

POSTED: 5:26 p.m. EDT, April 20, 2007

More on CNN TV: Ted Nugent participates in a roundtable discussion on gun control tonight on “Glenn Beck,” Headline Prime, 7 p.m. ET.



By Ted Nugent

Editor’s note: Rock guitarist Ted Nugent has sold more than 30 million albums. He’s also a gun rights activist and serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. His program, “Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild,” can be seen on the Outdoor Channel.



WACO, Texas (CNN) – Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby’s Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.



Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I’ve about had enough of it.



Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.



A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.



At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.



More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.



My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby’s Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden “feel good” politics.



She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.



No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a “cult of agriculture fertilizer” following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh’s heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted “steak knife control” as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.



Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.



Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.



Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun ban. Feel better yet? Didn’t think so.



Who doesn’t get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?



I’ll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that’s who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to “feel good” is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.



Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children’s school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly calling for gun control.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It sounds like a case of  Fire, Aim, Ready. Preemptive war so to speak.

The NRA is infamous for showing up where there have been shootings recently to have a pro gun rally.

If anything, the "Legislate something" crowd was talking about integrating the mental health database with the other legal databases.

This is a tricky issue for the left... On the one hand they'd like to keep information out of the hands of big brother (which is generally something that the right says too) but on the other hand they'd like to have more reasons not to sell people guns.

It is absolutely another measure of the failure of this administration that, here we are closing in on 6 years after 9/12 (the day that the administration started working on taking away personal freedoms) and the calls for integrated information systems between law enforcement, emergency management, domestic and international intelligence and whomnot... We still don't seem to be ANY closer!

Those of us who bought into the tech markets, post 9/11 based on the expectation of massive gov't spending to overhaul the antiquated systems have had nothing but disappointment from that.

As to the arguments that I assume are being made by Mr. Nugent; I think they are to logical discussion what Wango Tango was to Rock and Roll (unadulterated crapola!)

Virginia Tech was absolutely a failure of VT's responsibility to provide a safe environment for students. I'd be surprised if they weren't sued out of existence. There are worlds of other solutions before the "Everybody should be carrying a gun" solution is "the best" idea.

If everybody has a gun, then there would be no reason for every one of them not to be registered. We register cars, why wouldn't we do the same for guns?

The NRA is not interested in having "Gun Freedom." If there was gun freedom, then there would be no need for the NRA. the NRA is doing exactly the same thing that Sharpton/Jackson did with Imus. Their "spokesman" was Moses, but he's become a doddering fool, and so now their go to guy is Ted Nugent... Because apparently only celebrities have important points of view! As embarrassed by Sharpton's rhetoric as some here have insisted that the black community be is at least how embarrassed by Nugent/NRA, gun owners ought to be. 

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly calling for gun control. [/quote]

NY TIMES;

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/opinion/17tue1.html?_r=2&a mp;oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Sympathy was not enough at the time of Columbine, and eight years later it is not enough. What is needed, urgently, is stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage and such unbearable loss.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/22/video-odonnell-on-vtec h-shootings-wrong-on-the-facts-wrong-on-the-law/

O'Donnell's ill-informed but loud, angry, pompous conviction is a classic, btw....

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime_file/2007/04/17/2007-0 4-17_we_must_tighten_lax_gun_laws-1.html

Tuesday, April 17th 2007, 10:55 AM

http://www.bradycampaign.org/

32 dead: What are we going to do about it?

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/opinion/ny-opfis205 178492apr20,0,1816756.story?coll=ny-opinion-print

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/18/ap/politics/main26 99042.shtml

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

It is absolutely another measure of the failure of this administration that,...... [/quote]

Why, of course, the VT shoot is Bush's fault, as is the fact that it rained yesterday and washed out my golf outing...

Gee, straw man much?

Is it is or it is ain't true that there is not significantly more (as compared with pre 9/11) interconnection between the intelligences emergency and law enforcement agencies?

Have they updated and co ordinated the hardware/software that the agencies use? No, not signifcantly.

But thanks for obfuscating the issue for us.

As for your links, thank you for them.

Three NYC news papers and a NYC TV station. Huh! What do you know?

As to the Brady campaign, well, come on! This is what there business IS. Meanwhile, the Brady's have a legitimate beef, I don't see how one can argue with that.

As to the other guy. Well, he's one one of those "argument" shows, that pretty much disqualifies him from the argument right off the top. He's talking with Pat Buchanan fercryinoutloud.

As to the NYT. Given that it is seen as the standard bearer for the "NYC Jewish Liberal" mindset and given that it is seen as "the Paper of record" nationally. That was a relatively mild editorial, I mean, that citation of yours was the ultimate paragraph. That's not a fire and brimstone rabblerousing, charge the gates, change the system editorial.

Does anybody disagree that it would have been better if this guy couldn't have gotten a gun? Not that nobody should be able to get a gun, but that if THIS guy couldn't get a gun it might have been a better thing? That's just about the same intensity that the NYT editorial has.

Same with the Daily News:   But we can sure make it a lot tougher for them to do that, and we can sure bring down the number of guns freely circulating in every hamlet and valley of the land. Stricter paperwork oversight alone would keep a good many folks from ever buying a gun in the first place. Add on hard-as-nails local gun laws and stern penalties for violating them. It's got to start happening.

Wow (not). And this is from another newspaper that serves a city with strong gun laws (because that's what it's people want!)

As to Newsday (a paper that cover the area where the wife of a slain business man ran was, at least, the elected congresswoman) written by/for a Washington Post writer... I did a search for the words Gun and Control, and neither one appears in the article. The author seems to be saying what I said was the main thrust of the "left". 

As to the CBS News report. Reporting that there is going to be a gun control debate in the election is not the same thing as advocating for gun control.

Thanks for the links, I think that they go to prove the point that there really has been much more bellowed about the perceived (pro gun control) reaction than the reality.

Cheeny’s fault… After all he wants to be president… Ohh wait, he is telling the truth… Libs and moveon.org GFU self…



Never thought I wanted a guy, but now I am going to get my permit. One more good guy with a gun.



Whom… What do you stand for?

Gun control…

War against terrorism…

Taxes…

Social Services…

Government jobs…

Immigration…

Voting with out ID…

Church and state…

Patriot Act…

Talking down to the troops…

Gay marrige…





---------------------------------------------------

The problem I have with libs and the left is they are not even close to where I stand on these issues.



Arm the people



Your either with us or against us… Al Queada, Iran and Saddam were not… Firm and hard policy only way to go… After 18 resolution action had to happen… Nice to see the domino effect with North Korea, Pakistan, Palestine, Indoneisha and half the world following suit.



Lower taxes…

Less government welfare… Make people work…

Enforce the borders and make illegals do what we had to do… Follow the rules and complete the process.

ID’s required to vote.



Churchs feed millions and provide spiritual guidance and values for our country.



If you are not calling IRAN weekly then you have nothing to worry about patriot act.



Kerry: Complete high school and join the military…

Reid and half democrats: We lost the war. What freaking war? The war against terrorism. Have we been bombed since 2001? Have we killed 95% of Al Queada’s leaders? Do we have more countries helping us? Is the pressure on Iran and North Korea? Do you see video’s of terrorist leaders popping up daily?



All the answers are pretty straight forward… Our troops are kicking some As. On top of that we are winning the war on numerous fronts. but the libs and other far left skum can’t help, but point out the negatives. They are invested in failure.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Gee, straw man much?

Is it is or it is ain't true that there is not significantly more (as compared with pre 9/11) interconnection between the intelligences emergency and law enforcement agencies?

Have they updated and co ordinated the hardware/software that the agencies use? No, not signifcantly.

But thanks for obfuscating the issue for us.

As for your links, thank you for them.

Three NYC news papers and a NYC TV station. Huh! What do you know?

As to the Brady campaign, well, come on! This is what there business IS. Meanwhile, the Brady's have a legitimate beef, I don't see how one can argue with that.

As to the other guy. Well, he's one one of those "argument" shows, that pretty much disqualifies him from the argument right off the top. He's talking with Pat Buchanan fercryinoutloud.

As to the NYT. Given that it is seen as the standard bearer for the "NYC Jewish Liberal" mindset and given that it is seen as "the Paper of record" nationally. That was a relatively mild editorial, I mean, that citation of yours was the ultimate paragraph. That's not a fire and brimstone rabblerousing, charge the gates, change the system editorial.

Does anybody disagree that it would have been better if this guy couldn't have gotten a gun? Not that nobody should be able to get a gun, but that if THIS guy couldn't get a gun it might have been a better thing? That's just about the same intensity that the NYT editorial has.

Same with the Daily News:   But we can sure make it a lot tougher for them to do that, and we can sure bring down the number of guns freely circulating in every hamlet and valley of the land. Stricter paperwork oversight alone would keep a good many folks from ever buying a gun in the first place. Add on hard-as-nails local gun laws and stern penalties for violating them. It's got to start happening.

Wow (not). And this is from another newspaper that serves a city with strong gun laws (because that's what it's people want!)

As to Newsday (a paper that cover the area where the wife of a slain business man ran was, at least, the elected congresswoman) written by/for a Washington Post writer... I did a search for the words Gun and Control, and neither one appears in the article. The author seems to be saying what I said was the main thrust of the "left". 

As to the CBS News report. Reporting that there is going to be a gun control debate in the election is not the same thing as advocating for gun control.

Thanks for the links, I think that they go to prove the point that there really has been much more bellowed about the perceived (pro gun control) reaction than the reality.

[/quote]

Mike's point, however, is well taken.  Larry Kudlow's show was nothing BUT gun control-pro and con- the day after the shootings.  Congresspeople are falling all over themselves trying to get the the assault weapons ban re-instated.  One Congresswoman is again introducing legislation to limit magazine size to ten rounds.  And so on, and so forth.  It is not, as you say, a strawman argument.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Gee, straw man much? [/quote]

You're joking, right? Blaming Bush for VT and you ask me about strawmen?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Is it is or it is ain't true that there is not significantly more (as compared with pre 9/11) interconnection between the intelligences emergency and law enforcement agencies? [/quote]

Show me where anyone anywhere ever suggested we construct and all-linking communications system, much less one that would have been at place in VT.

You're out of your ever-loving-mind....

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]As for your links, thank you for them.

Three NYC news papers and a NYC TV station. Huh! What do you know? [/quote]

You're a clown, pal.  NYC happens to be a media center in this country and it should be no surprise that the NY Times would be among the top responses when you type "Gun control" and "Virginia Tech" into Google. And calling the McLuaghin Group a "NYC TV station" is beyond silly. You must be aware the program shows nationwide.

You had a chance to admit you simply hadn't seen the wave of calls for gun control after the VT shooting, you should have taken it.

Once again you prove you're a waste of time and won't be detered by the truth when it comes to making outlandish claims.

"Never thought I wanted a guy, but now I am going to get my permit. One more good guy with a gun."<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Good looking bohunk like you, I'm sure you could get a guy now that you want one! You won't need a gun for that.

"If you are not calling <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />IRAN weekly then you have nothing to worry about patriot act."

That's what they said about RICO, then they figured out how to use it to punish our industry. 

"Churchs feed millions and provide spiritual guidance and values for our country. "

While that may be true, it doesn't negate the serious fraud that goes on in the name of religion. Not by lightyears (oops, that's right, lightyears are a figment of the scientists' imagination! The universe is a bowl that revolves around the Earth and above that bowl is heaven), nor does it compensate for the dumbing down of the American people such that we are now losing the international intellectual war.

Airforce, are you in this business? I seem to recall that you are not, that you are someone on the outside who likes to come here and pass the time of day. I don't really care one way or the other, I just want to be straight on it.

Gun Control... For it.

War On Terrorism... For it, so long as it is done with more brainpower than the war on drugs (which we're "winning" too I they are to be believed! Which they are NOT!) which, so far... They'd have been better off spending the hundreds of billions of dollars on Nuclear Fusion, Electric Automobiles and paying off the oils companies than this mess that we have going on here.

Social Services... What are you referring to? Social Security, I'm for it. Welfare? It's an inevitability of a collectivist society, to pretend otherwise is foolish. Health care? It can't cost +$20,000 plus per year to keep my family of four healthy! But somehow that's my out of pocket. There's got to be a better way. Police patrolling the streets, I'm for it. Municipal Fire Departments, I'm for them too. Schooling. I'm for it. Which Social Services are you referring to?

Government Jobs... Where do I stand on Government jobs? What does that mean? Do I think that the government could have done a better job than Halliburton did in supplying the troops in Iraq? Yes, I think that they could have. I think that they could have come in cheaper even with the $700 toilet seats. Do I think that there ought to be unbridled Gov't bureaucracy? No, I'm against wasteful spending.

Voting without ID... I've never heard of anyplace doing this. I have to show my ID before I vote (and if you think my ego is bad, believe me you don't want to meet my id!)

Patriot Act... An act that reversed much of what Patriots fought and died for from the Revolution on. Be careful what rights you give away! Young men have died to get them for you and old men will have to die for you to get them back!

Talking down to the troops.... I see, they're brave fighting men when there are bullets whizzing past their heads but they will cry if I "talk down " to them? I don't think they should. I think they ought to be smart enough and tough enough to take a little criticism (if they need it). OTOH, they are people who have been "broken" and rebuilt in the military mindset to take orders and respect the chain of command regardless of their own thoughts. As such they effectively have removed themselves from individual intellectual debate, so maybe they can be hurt by someone talking down to them. Perhaps if they had their own POV they would notice that they are being used as propaganda pawns in the debate, and they wouldn't see themselves as being talked down to.

Gay Marriage.. Who cares? The tax man cares and the "church" cares. Since I see the church as harmful I'm not likely to see their input as valid.

Happy now?

"You're joking, right? Blaming Bush for VT and you ask me about strawmen?"

LIE! You are lying again! I never blamed VT on Bush, I said that this points up again the failing of this administration in following up on the integration of intelligence sources in this country.

We're done!

Philo,

"Mike's point, however, is well taken.  Larry Kudlow's show was nothing BUT gun control-pro and con- the day after the shootings.  Congresspeople are falling all over themselves trying to get the the assault weapons ban re-instated.  One Congresswoman is again introducing legislation to limit magazine size to ten rounds.  And so on, and so forth.  It is not, as you say, a strawman argument."

I think that you misread. The strawman argument is the one about it being Bush's fault. I never said that VT shooting was Bush's fault. When he perverts what is said to try to make the argument go into a tangental direction, he is setting up a strawman, hoping that I will chase off in it's direction.

As to Kudlow... Didn't see the show. But if it was on Kudlow, does it really go to disprove the point? Does Kudlow put together shows to be "fair and balanced" or is he "Right on this Right on that and Right on the other thing." As such he's (perhaps) making the show to create the controversy.

I'm not a news junkie so I could be wrong about this, but I certainly didn't see the media filled with gun control blather as I have seen it filled in earlier iterations of gun related tragedies.

I just think that the NRA (as spokesman for the anti gun control mindset) tried to get out in front of the gun control "debate" which hadn't showed up in force by the time they were "rebutting" it.

It is absolutely another measure of the failure of this administration that, here we are closing in on 6 years after 9/12 (the day that the administration started working on taking away personal freedoms) and the calls for integrated information systems between law enforcement, emergency management, domestic and international intelligence and whomnot... We still don't seem to be ANY closer!

That's what I said.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"You're joking, right? Blaming Bush for VT and you ask me about strawmen?"

LIE! You are lying again! I never blamed VT on Bush, I said that this points up again the failing of this administration in following up on the integration of intelligence sources in this country.

We're done!

[/quote]

"Lying", there goes the forum loon again....

So you didn't blame VT on Bush, but "this" (I wonder what "this" refers to, if not VT, anyone care to take a guess?) has to do with a failing of the Bush administration. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

And, of course, had some incredible all-encompassing "integration of intelligence sources" been accomplish to the level that VT could have been warned, the usual suspects would have been screaming on the top of their lungs about Bush and the Gestapo state he had created.

You’re right about this much, we’re done.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Philo,

"Mike's point, however, is well taken.  Larry Kudlow's show was nothing BUT gun control-pro and con- the day after the shootings.  Congresspeople are falling all over themselves trying to get the the assault weapons ban re-instated.  One Congresswoman is again introducing legislation to limit magazine size to ten rounds.  And so on, and so forth.  It is not, as you say, a strawman argument."

I think that you misread. The strawman argument is the one about it being Bush's fault. I never said that VT shooting was Bush's fault. When he perverts what is said to try to make the argument go into a tangental direction, he is setting up a strawman, hoping that I will chase off in it's direction.

As to Kudlow... Didn't see the show. But if it was on Kudlow, does it really go to disprove the point? Does Kudlow put together shows to be "fair and balanced" or is he "Right on this Right on that and Right on the other thing." As such he's (perhaps) making the show to create the controversy.

I'm not a news junkie so I could be wrong about this, but I certainly didn't see the media filled with gun control blather as I have seen it filled in earlier iterations of gun related tragedies.

I just think that the NRA (as spokesman for the anti gun control mindset) tried to get out in front of the gun control "debate" which hadn't showed up in force by the time they were "rebutting" it.

[/quote]

Mine was in response to your opening statement, as follows:

"

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly calling for gun control.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

It sounds like a case of  Fire, Aim, Ready. Preemptive war so to speak."

Please correct if I've taken out of context, but I believe I understand that you're saying that no one is calling for gun control, yet pro-gun is already "shouting them down".

[quote=Starka][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Philo,

"Mike's point, however, is well taken.  Larry Kudlow's show was nothing BUT gun control-pro and con- the day after the shootings.  Congresspeople are falling all over themselves trying to get the the assault weapons ban re-instated.  One Congresswoman is again introducing legislation to limit magazine size to ten rounds.  And so on, and so forth.  It is not, as you say, a strawman argument."

I think that you misread. The strawman argument is the one about it being Bush's fault. I never said that VT shooting was Bush's fault. When he perverts what is said to try to make the argument go into a tangental direction, he is setting up a strawman, hoping that I will chase off in it's direction.

As to Kudlow... Didn't see the show. But if it was on Kudlow, does it really go to disprove the point? Does Kudlow put together shows to be "fair and balanced" or is he "Right on this Right on that and Right on the other thing." As such he's (perhaps) making the show to create the controversy.

I'm not a news junkie so I could be wrong about this, but I certainly didn't see the media filled with gun control blather as I have seen it filled in earlier iterations of gun related tragedies.

I just think that the NRA (as spokesman for the anti gun control mindset) tried to get out in front of the gun control "debate" which hadn't showed up in force by the time they were "rebutting" it.

[/quote]

Mine was in response to your opening statement, as follows:

"

What I find interesting is that I didn't hear anyone yelling for gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly calling for gun control.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

It sounds like a case of  Fire, Aim, Ready. Preemptive war so to speak."

Please correct if I've taken out of context, but I believe I understand that you're saying that no one is calling for gun control, yet pro-gun is already "shouting them down".

[/quote]

Am I to understand that you and Philo Kvetch are one in the same?

I wouldn't have thought so but for the way your response was phrased, as though you had passed comment previously in this thread.

Not that it makes any difference to me, just trying to keep the players straight in my mind.

Yes, that was my observation. You understand me correctly. I may be wrong, I'm passing comment that I have run into the "everybody should have had a gun" more often than I heard "There ought to be more gun control" in fact, I heard more, "Well, this guy would have passed any of the waiting periods and gotten by any of the gun control laws" it was only later after it came out that this guy had a history of mental problems that there was even talk of, "Gee, if only there was a way for us them to know that he was a nut job!"

I'll grant you that nine times out of the last ten, the Gun Control knees were a'jerking when there was a gun tragedy. It just seems that this time they just weren't.

If one read the CBS news article that mikebutler222 cited they would note that the two political parties don't want to get involved in the gun control dispute. Since that is the case, and since the parties have the biggest propaganda machines putting out opinion pieces on the news as it happens... perhaps there is some validity to the idea that it was not prime time news.

Not that it wasn't ANYWHERE, but that it was subdued.

If anything, the "Legislate something" crowd was talking about integrating the mental health database with the other legal databases.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

This is a tricky issue for the left... On the one hand they'd like to keep information out of the hands of big brother (which is generally something that the right says too) but on the other hand they'd like to have more reasons not to sell people guns.

It is absolutely another measure of the failure of this administration that, here we are closing in on 6 years after 9/12 (the day that the administration started working on taking away personal freedoms) and the calls for integrated information systems between law enforcement, emergency management, domestic and international intelligence and whomnot... We still don't seem to be ANY closer!

Those of us who bought into the tech markets, post 9/11 based on the expectation of massive gov't spending to overhaul the antiquated systems have had nothing but disappointment from that.

Whomitmayconcer

"Lying", there goes the forum loon again....

So you didn't blame VT on Bush, but "this" (I wonder what "this" refers to, if not VT, anyone care to take a guess?) has to do with a failing of the Bush administration.

And, of course, had some incredible all-encompassing "integration of intelligence sources" been accomplish to the level that VT could have been warned, the usual suspects would have been screaming on the top of their lungs about Bush and the Gestapo state he had created.

You’re right about this much, we’re done.

I figure that Justifying Mikebutler222 to the right ought to give him distinction and send a message too (note that the voice of reason is centered).

Mikebutler222, if you could read with a chip on your shoulder you would have noticed that I had already elucidated that conundrum of the left as to the giving up of privacy rights to take away gun buying rights. I also noted that it used to be the opinion of the right that the government has no rights collecting data on the un-convicted individual (they felt this way when the FBI was trying to track down members of the KKK, didn't feel this way when the FBI was after Hippies and war protestors, did feel this way when they were after militias, don't feel that way when they're "looking for terrorists", but do feel that way when they're looking for abortion clinic bombers). But, that's the zealotry for you (to say that it could be either sidedoing essentially the same thing) situational ethics with an absolutist mindset.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Mikebutler222, if you could read with a chip on your shoulder .....[/quote]

I'm really not interested in reading a change of subject attempt from you. You said you hadn't heard any calls for gun control, and without twisting a knife by adding comments, I gave you links to several. You could have simply said (as you later admitted) that you simply hadn't seen the call, but you chose to bob, weave and attack instead.

Do did the same with your "administration failure" line, bring Bush into the VT shooting in the usual BDS manner. But there you not only attemtpted to run away from the meaning of your own word, you called me a liar as well.  Frankly, you and your dance routine bore me.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] [quote=Starka][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Philo,

"Mike’s point, however, is well taken. Larry Kudlow’s show was nothing

BUT gun control-pro and con- the day after the shootings.

Congresspeople are falling all over themselves trying to get the the

assault weapons ban re-instated. One Congresswoman is again

introducing legislation to limit magazine size to ten rounds. And so on,

and so forth. It is not, as you say, a strawman argument.“

I think that you misread. The strawman argument is the one about it

being Bush’s fault. I never said that VT shooting was Bush’s fault. When he

perverts what is said to try to make the argument go into a tangental

direction, he is setting up a strawman, hoping that I will chase off in it’s

direction.

As to Kudlow… Didn’t see the show. But if it was on Kudlow, does it

really go to disprove the point? Does Kudlow put together shows to be

"fair and balanced” or is he “Right on this Right on that and Right on the

other thing.” As such he’s (perhaps) making the show to create the

controversy.

I’m not a news junkie so I could be wrong about this, but I certainly

didn’t see the media filled with gun control blather as I have seen it filled

in earlier iterations of gun related tragedies.

I just think that the NRA (as spokesman for the anti gun control

mindset) tried to get out in front of the gun control “debate” which hadn’t

showed up in force by the time they were “rebutting” it.

[/quote]

Mine was in response to your opening statement, as follows:

“

What I find interesting is that I didn’t hear anyone yelling for

gun control and yet I hear lots of people shouting down people allegedly

calling for gun control.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = “urn:schemas-

microsoft-com:office:office” /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O /><O:P></

O:P>

It sounds like a case of Fire, Aim, Ready. Preemptive war so to

speak.”

<O:P>Please correct if I’ve taken out of context, but I believe I

understand that you’re saying that no one is calling for gun control, yet

pro-gun is already “shouting them down”.</O:P>

[/quote]

Am I to understand that you and Philo Kvetch are one in the same?

I wouldn’t have thought so but for the way your response was phrased,

as though you had passed comment previously in this thread.

Not that it makes any difference to me, just trying to keep the players

straight in my mind.

Yes, that was my observation. You understand me correctly. I may be

wrong, I’m passing comment that I have run into the “everybody should

have had a gun” more often than I heard “There ought to be more gun

control” in fact, I heard more, “Well, this guy would have passed any of

the waiting periods and gotten by any of the gun control laws” it was only

later after it came out that this guy had a history of mental problems that

there was even talk of, "Gee, if only there was a way for us them to know

that he was a nut job!"

I’ll grant you that nine times out of the last ten, the Gun Control knees

were a’jerking when there was a gun tragedy. It just seems that this time

they just weren’t.

If one read the CBS news article that mikebutler222 cited they would

note that the two political parties don’t want to get involved in the gun

control dispute. Since that is the case, and since the parties have the

biggest propaganda machines putting out opinion pieces on the news as

it happens… perhaps there is some validity to the idea that it was not

prime time news.

Not that it wasn’t ANYWHERE, but that it was subdued.

It should bore you. After all, you are conversing with someone who won't let you do your usual bonfire of the mendacities.

I'm really not interested in reading a change of subject attempt from you.

How could it be a change of subject if it's directly related to exactly what I said in the first place? How can it be me that is changing the subject if I'm responding to what you wrote.

You don't even know when you're lying, do you?

 I gave you links to several. You could have simply said (as you later admitted) that you simply hadn't seen the call, but you chose to bob, weave and attack instead.

I'm sorry, am I not allowed to question the validity of your citations? Of the three newspapers, two had very weak calls for enforcing gun laws and the third said absolutely nothing about gun control.

Of the two tv sources one was a show that is only designed to create controversy and the only way to stay on those shows is to be controversial, combative and confrontational. Further, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Mc Glaughlin(?) a Sunday Morning show? So wouldn't that have been after Ted Nugent's appearance on Friday on CNN?  The other was  a CBS report on the absence of political comments about gun control among the candidates. I'm not bobing or weaving when I note these things, I'm simply discounting them to what they are worth.

Do did the same with your "administration failure" line, bring Bush into the VT shooting in the usual BDS manner.

Sorry, I don't understand what "BDS manner" means.

If I said that the situation in New Orleans in the wake of Katrina went to show the ineptitude of FEMA, it doesn't mean that I blame FEMA for the storm, nor does it mean that I blame FEMA for the state of the levies, nor does it mean that I blame FEMA for the people who wouldn't/didn't get out of NOLA before the storm hit. It means that FEMA was inept at dealing with the situation. Katrina made it blatant that the administration that spent a whole lot of blather on telling us how much better, and how much safer we were had no talent whatsoever when it came to dealing with a disaster that they knew was coming (to some degree or other).

With VT. It's not that the administration could have done anything about this (so far as I know) just like there is nothing they could have done about Katrina. It's just that every time something happens, this administration is out making excuses for why we weren't ready for it.

Why don't we have a central clearing house for information so that when a college student buys two hand guns, lots of ammo clips and lots and lots of bullets it doesn't say 'Hey, How come this guy doesn't want to learn how to lift off or land the jumbo jet?" alarms. Enough to then ask, "Who is this guy, and find out that he's a guy with a history of mental issues and harassment charges?

What is the threshold? At what point does the flag go up? He bought five guns? He bought ten guns? He bought 10 boxes of pistol bullets? he bought 100? We're supposed to be on terrorist alert! We're supposed to be ready if there's another 9/11. Nothing has shown us that this administration is prepared for this at all!

That is why I used this occasion to bring this up, this is just another example of the holes in the lies that this administration keeps telling us.

Starka,

Huh...

Interesting, As I said, doesn't make a difference to me, just wanted to be sure I wasn't missing something.