2009.11.18
Brady campaign video stars Virginia Tech survivor
Colin Goddard was one of the survivors of the Virginia Tech massacre. After graduation, he worked as a volunteer for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, and he's now a paid staffer there.
This past summer, Goddard took a little trip to four gun shows in four states, where he and/or an associate purchased handguns and semiautomatic rifles from unlicensed sellers with no background check, no ID.
The resulting video is rather eye-opening: guns for cash with few questions asked.
The video is part of the Brady Campaign's efforts to close the so-called "gun show loophole," in which licensed sellers are required to perform "instant" background checks on handgun buyers, but unlicensed individuals who sell firearms there are not.
As others on this blog have already noted, some person-to-person gun transactions already happen that way. (Depending on the state, often those transactions are supposed to require ID and a minimum age).
Goddard isn't the only Virginia Tech survivor who's taking an activist stance on the proliferation of guns.
Last week, survivor Elita Habtu wrote a column in the Collegiate Times about how easy it is to get a concealed-carry permit in Virginia. Even if you've never touched a gun.
Someone really paid $300 for a Llama? Wow.
Comment by Ed S. — November 18, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
The VT gunman did not have a CCW nor did he buy his gun at a gun show.
Comment by Henry — November 18, 2009 @ 9:03 pm
You do know that private sales require no backround check..right
So you dont have to buy a weapon from a gun show ..dealer or any public entity..there for sale every day in the Trading Post
Comment by Tony — November 18, 2009 @ 9:19 pm
Oh no, there's no problem with gun show folks selling to anybody. Anybody at all. Hey conservatives, including Muslim terrorists.
Comment by gdad — November 18, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
Stayed tuned tomorrow. For yet another gun control article.
Comment by Big Momma — November 18, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
Ed S.-
Big hitter, the Llama.
Tony-
What's a fact when you can you can yell BOOOOOOO? Also, who cares that almost no crime guns come from gun shows?
gdad-
Terrorists? Really? That's about as valid an anti-gun argument as me claiming that everyone should carry a gun to stop terrorism is a pro-gun argument. It's idiotic, it has no basis in fact, and it's every bit the paranoid fear mongering that the NRA uses as SOP.
Comment by Jason — November 18, 2009 @ 10:43 pm
OMG everyone panic. That guy is a criminal! "this thing is pretty diesel dude." That is code for I'm a crazy lunatic that got his permit online and I guzzle gallons of beer while planning my next killing spree! Where is the common sense? Next thing you know, you will be able to buy a gun in the parking lot at Wallyworld.
Comment by PU — November 19, 2009 @ 2:01 am
4.Oh no, there's no problem with gun show folks selling to anybody. Anybody at all. Hey conservatives, including Muslim terrorists.
Comment by gdad
Ummm have you ever been to a gun show? I have, numerous times. I have had a back ground check every single time I bought a gun.
I have bought from a couple of private sellers over the years all of which I have known for years. None of them were at a gunshow.
Comment by TScottW — November 19, 2009 @ 5:51 am
Just read 2 articles on the student killed by a hunter. Surprised they didn't charge her with "walking in the woods with intent to be killed". Never heard such an apologia for hunters shooting down unarmed humans. Do they get a special tag for their humans? Here is a guy who from all appearances killed someone from gross neglect; but we don't know that he complied with the most basic requirements to hunt, a training course and being sober, yet he is walking free and you have already made her a statistic of acceptable collateral damage from a useless activity. As long as people glory in their ignorance like this, there will never be meaningful gun control to make sure that people who have guns deal with them with the care they deserve.
Comment by mary — November 19, 2009 @ 7:58 am
Thanks Dan.
Comment by Krt — November 19, 2009 @ 8:23 am
Here's a novel idea. What about sentencing CRIMINALS to the penalties dictated by the Code of Virginia. Not some very watered down "sentencing guidelines" or social reflection because a thug didn't have enough Crunch Berries growing up.
A log , a car, a kitchen knife, all of these as well as firearms are simply OBJECTS. How about less focus on OBJECTS, and a little more on the removal of dangerous people from our streets. And until that improves some, I will continue to keep myself safe from harm, by CCW in a composed and competent way. As another article today ( re: Mrs. Hale's unfortunate experience) shows, situations can go bad rather quickly. Be prepared.
Comment by mike dahew — November 19, 2009 @ 9:01 am
Nope, never bought at a gun show. Never bought at all. I see no reason to own a gun. I don't object to you owning a gun, but I don't want one.
Comment by gdad — November 19, 2009 @ 9:43 am
"Goddard isn't the only Virginia Tech survivor who's taking an activist stance on the proliferation of guns."
"Proliferation" Dan? Rather sinister sounding. Is that what all gun sales in general are to you?? So gun dealers are conspiring to intentionally cause the gun population to grow, so we can all be gun wielding lunatics that threaten the enlightened like Dan. So when I buy a gun I am a co-conspirator and by extension make you a victim of "gun proliferation"? Just like nuclear chemical and biological weapons are "proliferated"? Your use of the word "proliferation" sounds like Goddard isn't the only "Activist". Sounds a bit hysterical dontcha' think?
Sarah Brady and Paul Helmke sought to disgustingly profit (as usual with her) off of the Tech tragedy when they immediately starting asking for money and mailing lists with their convenient addition of a "Donate Now" button on their website next to their report on the tragedy which wasn't there the day before.
http://www.thebitchgirls.us/2007/04/sarah-brady-paul-helmke-seek-to-profit-off-virginia-tech-shooting/
Comment by Joe C — November 19, 2009 @ 9:55 am
Henry:
The commonality between April 16 Survivors and gun control is not about CCW or gun show regulations. It's about the fact it's way too easy for the wrong people to obtain guns. What's to say that the next massacre won't be carried out by someone that purchased their gun at a gun show? If you can anticipate the potential problem, why not address it? Your point is shortsighted at best.
Mike Dahew:
You're correct that a log, a car, a kitchen knife, and a gun are all inanimate objects. The difference is the intended use of the objects in question.
Let's take a look:
Log - Used as fuel for a fire, or possibly as a building component
Car - Used as a mode of transportation
Kitchen Knife - Used to cut/chop food such as vegetables and meats
Guns - Used to kill/mame animals and humans
Comment by jeremy — November 19, 2009 @ 10:33 am
I love gun shows. I go to most of them in the valley, I enjoy looking at everything that people are looking to sell. To be honest, that's probably the safest place in the valley on any given day, the threat of someone committing a crime is probably less than zero. That aside, I wouldn't buy a gun at a gun show. I've found the prices generally too high, so I focus on other thinks like deer jerky, historical memorabilia, and other non-gun items that I buy. If I want to buy a firearm, I'll do it someplace else where the prices are more reasonable.
Comment by Other John — November 19, 2009 @ 10:57 am
Joe C,
Wow! You are spinning a fine linen of conspiracy out of a single word, proliferation. (And you're working yourself up into a tizzy).
Comment by Dan Casey — November 19, 2009 @ 11:23 am
So the NRA does not have a "join now" button on their website? Odd.
When people have been touched and hurt by needless gun violence it is not strange nor uncalled for to take some action. There are too many guns in the hands of the wrong people. There are too many people who do not value their own life or the lives of others. There are too many people who believe the glorified violence and "gangsta" mentality makes you "a man". There are too many innocent people being killed by guns. PERIOD
You can shove your statistics. Until gun rights advocates are as serious about removing the mentality, easy access and don't tread on me from their minds and start working on real solutions we will continue to push and when we win, you will have only yourselves to blame. Keep making it easier to get guns, and CCP's and see where that gets you. Our society is not going to keep taking shootings in the streets, in the schools and in the churches. The Constitution has been amended before and it can be again.
You want to talk about obscenely taking advantage of a situation? Let's talk about the racist scum that went out and bought guns and ammo like it was a fire sale when Obama was elected and those that encouraged that! THAT is obscene and disgusting behavior. Sarah Brady has a very valid reason to do what she does and it is disgusting to sling mud at her when your own windshield is so filthy!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — November 19, 2009 @ 11:45 am
Jeremy-
You are assuming that killing is automatically bad. I and most CCWs have no desire to kill anyone, but if our firearms are used in self defense, and the attacker happens to die, then the gun was used for a moral purpose. Also, when guns are used for self defense, it's actually very rare that the attacker is killed. It's often the case that they aren't even injured, mere brandishing of the weapon is sufficient.
Comment by Jason — November 19, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Sandi-
All demographic trends are breaking the other way. Opposition to gun control is increasing, not decreasing. Since the CCW movement began, not a single state has repealed their CCW law. And now we have Heller and the upcoming Chicago case. Obama for all practical purposes ran from the gun issue in the last election. He even signed the amendment allowing guns back into national parks where state law allows it. You can stomp your foot all you want, but the antis aren't winning. Virgina Tech happened, the worst mass shooting in American history, and no major gun control came from it. I believe we have passed the point of panic-legislating every time a publicized tragedy occurs.
Also, the panic buying that occurred after the election was not entirely irrational. Obama has made some extraordinarily anti-gun remarks in the past. He's against all CCW, and in favor of putting the AWB back in place, and then his AG started spouting off and that set off another wave of panic buying. Not to mention the Mexico drug violence nonsense. Yes, some of the buying was done irrationally buy people of the tinfoil hat ilk, but not all of it.
Comment by Jason — November 19, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
Merely brandishing of the weapon is sufficient. So very true..
And only a harden criminal will test our resolve to use deadly force to stop them....911 does help in some cases, but being prepared is the answer.
In the grand scheme of things any person safety is their personal responsibility at the end of the day.
Comment by Static Lines — November 19, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
"The Constitution has been amended before and it can be again."
Come take them from us. I dare you!
Comment by Walker — November 19, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Walker-
Regardless of how sincere you are, bluster of that kind does not help our argument and adds to the stereotype of the gun owner as aggressive and paranoid.
Comment by Jason — November 19, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
Jason your first comment assumed that I was saying something negative about you gun folks..I really wasnt, just stating a fact....getting kinda touchy arent ya..I hope your not that touchy while your totin and considering killing someone for a "moral purpose"
Comment by tony — November 19, 2009 @ 4:31 pm
Jason
Quote by Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)
The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
In Walkers defense: It takes a little paranoia to understand and defend oneself from the insanity in the world today.
Comment by Static Lines — November 19, 2009 @ 5:03 pm
Jason
I have to agree with your #22. We all know that there are elements in the pro-2nd crowd who act that way, but it does us little good for Walker to react with bluster rather than intellect.
This issue seems to be less an issue of the right and fringe right and more an issue of America as a whole, persons who are politically all over the place support gun rights and are wary of gun control measures. If this issue was removed from the 'right' side of the column, I think I would consider myself a left leaning moderate. I also think that a larger portion of America would be in the middle, if this were not considered a determination of conservative/right tendencies.
Comment by VVarlock — November 19, 2009 @ 5:05 pm
tony-
No, actually I was being sarcastic and agreeing with you. I didn't think it was that subtle.
Comment by Jason — November 19, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
MikeDahew...I doubt that hunter who killed that girl considered himself a
"dangerous criminal"...yet, he killed someone in cold blood. Call it an accident, call it what you want, he went out with his gun and killed a defenseless human on public land.
Why do the opponents of gun control always assume it's aimed at so-called "criminals"?
If you work at it hard enough, you could probably kill someone with a coffee mug. To consider a mug equally lethal to a handgun is silly.
Comment by Kristen — November 19, 2009 @ 5:39 pm
Sandi, what "real solutions" are you talking about? I know a lot of people looking for real solutions. I also know a lot of people who feel too many people are killed or injured by criminals (including by knife, hands, car, or whatever else).
Regarding the last portion of your post, I am comfortable in saying that the vast majority of people buying guns or ammo after the election did so because of Obama's political beliefs, not his skin color.
Comment by Ed S. — November 19, 2009 @ 6:29 pm
Unless the gun people are out stockpiling in the event that they have to defend themselves from health care, there's nothing about Obama or his "political beliefs" that would lead a sane gun owner to believe he poses a threat to them or their armory. He has, after all, repealed the restrictions on loaded concealed weapons on public lands that was put in place during the tenure of the great Conservative icon, Reagan.
Comment by Kristen — November 19, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
VVarlock-
"This issue seems to be less an issue of the right and fringe right and more an issue of America as a whole, persons who are politically all over the place support gun rights and are wary of gun control measures. If this issue was removed from the 'right' side of the column, I think I would consider myself a left leaning moderate. I also think that a larger portion of America would be in the middle, if this were not considered a determination of conservative/right tendencies."
I have worn myself out on other forums trying to convince the majority of pro-gun people that they are throwing away a substantial source of support. It's not enough to argue the merits of each gun topic, they have to bash anyone with politics to the left of Barry Goldwater.
They constantly complain about being stereotyped as paranoid racist rednecks, yet in the next sentence paint everyone who might have ever voted for a Democrat as a Marxist, hippie, gun grabbing, pot smoking, vegan Satanist. It's ridiculous.
Comment by Jason — November 19, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
Jeremy says
"Let's take a look:
Log - Used as fuel for a fire, or possibly as a building component
Car - Used as a mode of transportation
Kitchen Knife - Used to cut/chop food such as vegetables and meats
Guns - Used to kill/mame animals and humans"
http://abcnews.go.com/US/police-arrest-teens-chicago-student-beating-death/story?id=8696090 <-- If you read this, the student was beaten with a plank. Did they rush out and see if the thugs had a "concealed carry plank permit?" Or if it was purchased by an unlicensed seller? Did the lumber have a serial number etched on it that can be traced? (I'm waiting for the article from Dan, what kind of training will we need to buy lumber? Will we be able to purchase a lumber permit online without actually having an in person class with a hammer and everything? I guess I shouldn't give too much away...)
I'm sure you can easily search the news for stories regarding people having been killed buy automobiles and knives.... in fact, here's a story for you:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/anger-over-failure-to-cut-knife-deaths-1756108.html
Just over the ocean where guns are banned. Imagine that. Although, the title makes me chuckle just a bit...
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound...
Comment by jc — November 19, 2009 @ 6:51 pm
Mike Dahew - I don't think you could call Ms. Hale homicide an "experience" as she didn't live to talk about it.
As Ms. Palin would says - Let's have some commonsense, just as not everyone can be trusted to drive a car, not everyone can be trusted with a gun.
Comment by mary — November 19, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
Ed S.
On your last post Obama's political beliefs, not his skin color.
Some people would think that all African Americans voted for him as well.
Ed S. It's also been a while Since Shanna's Blog. I hope all has been well with you as this year is rapidly coming to a close and a new one beginning.
As well as Mike as I graciously await Ms. Good Willow's comments.
Comment by Static Lines — November 19, 2009 @ 7:23 pm
You know everyone is busy going after guns and capitalizing on the tragic death of the Ferrum student, I'd like to ask a different question. The hunter has already admitted to smoking marijuana earlier in the day. Why is there no outcry about that? How does that fit into the questionable logic employed by all the pro-drug use/legalization types here who are constantly arguing that marijuana is harmless?
Comment by Another Chris — November 19, 2009 @ 7:32 pm
I draw the line at "vegan".
Comment by Kristen — November 19, 2009 @ 7:50 pm
Pot smokin hippie? I resemble that remark..
Comment by tony — November 19, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
Static, things are going pretty good. Working late last few days, so very tired, but good overall. I do miss Shanna's blog. She was a lot of fun.
Hope you are doing good as well! As you said, another year closing, and coming up on another year of opportunity.
Comment by Ed S. — November 19, 2009 @ 8:38 pm
Marijuana is just a plant. Marijuana never killed anyone. First they outlaw marijuana, next thing they'll be outlawing rhododendrons. They'll take my plants from my cold dead hands.
Comment by Kristen — November 19, 2009 @ 9:11 pm
Kristen-
"Unless the gun people are out stockpiling in the event that they have to defend themselves from health care, there's nothing about Obama or his "political beliefs" that would lead a sane gun owner to believe he poses a threat to them or their armory."
Kristen, I'll be the first to say that many gun owners have overreacted and some remain ridiculously paranoid. However, it's also ridiculous to say that there is "nothing" about him or his beliefs to frighten them. As I said earlier, he is against CCW entirely, in favor of reinstating the AWB, was ok with Illinois' statewide handgun ban, banning "semi-automatics" (indicating that he either doesn't know what a semi-automatic is, or he's in favor of banning the majority of guns in existence), etc.
Now, it is true that with the current composition of Congress (and the likely composition of the next one) there's virtually no chance of any significant gun control getting passed. Since Obama has repeatedly shown to be completely gutless, this means that he likely won't even try, particularly with midterms and re-election looming. But that doesn't mean he wouldn't if he could.
Another Chris-
"You know everyone is busy going after guns and capitalizing on the tragic death of the Ferrum student, I'd like to ask a different question. The hunter has already admitted to smoking marijuana earlier in the day. Why is there no outcry about that? How does that fit into the questionable logic employed by all the pro-drug use/legalization types here who are constantly arguing that marijuana is harmless?"
If it can be shown that he was under the influence at the time of the shooting and that it was a factor, throw the book at him.
Comment by Jason — November 19, 2009 @ 10:09 pm
re Kristen: you have some interesting points, but these are again..just OBJECTS. Perspective being what it is, why don't we install alcohol sensing bylocks inside every vehicle. Because tragic drunk driving fatalities are far more common than CCW based injuries or deaths. Or require a full driving test every time you renew your drivers license. This would perhaps prevent a few tragic things on the road.
The reason we don't , or won't , end up that way is because we live in a nation where freedoms are enjoyed by smart and responsible people. And yes, freedoms are enjoyed by irresponsible idiots too, but it is what it is.
Not to beat the horse, but emotions understandably run high in this. For every anti-gun person I have met, I have met people with need for protection. Not vague, but genuine (individual specific due to threats made) fears. Should we assume that a protective order on paper is sufficient? Hardly. A metal deadbolt door lock? Nice, but just a speedbump.
Comment by mike dahew — November 20, 2009 @ 8:57 am
Kristen-
"Unless the gun people are out stockpiling in the event that they have to defend themselves from health care, there's nothing about Obama or his "political beliefs" that would lead a sane gun owner to believe he poses a threat to them or their armory."
(except his desire to increase tax on ammunition by over 400% when he was an Illinoise senator. Yeah, I feel real safe about him.)
I've rarely seen a GUN kill anyone. It's usually a 'projectile' (bullet) fired from a firearm. and for that to happen a series of physical, mechanical and chemical events need to happen IN SEQUENCE. working from the end result:
the victim needs to be in the projected ballistic path of the projectile
the projectile needs to leave the barrel of the firearm
the projectile needs to be propelled down the barrel by the expanding gas
the expanding gas must be contained and directed in a specific direction
the powder needs to burn to make a volume of expanding gas
the powder needs to be ignited by the detonation of the primer
the primer needs to be impacted by the firing pin
the firing pin needs to be released by pulling the trigger
A FINGER NEEDS TO PULL THE TRIGGER
THE FIREARM NEEDS TO BE POINTED IN A SPECIFIC DIRECTION
THE FIREARM NEEDS TO BE LOADED WITH THE CORRECT AMMUNITION
Ah..so now we're getting a 'user' involved. So what we really need is less GUN control (as it is only following the laws that apply to it: the laws of physics) and more PEOPLE control.
And PEOPLE control is viewed by responsible conservatives as a loss of freedoms.
And THAT is the root of the problem with what you define as 'gun control'
Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound...
My definition of gun control: a tight group and hitting your aim point.
Comment by Tom B. — November 20, 2009 @ 9:10 am
Mike, I agree completely that orders of protection are worth less than the paper they're written on. I'd also say that an understandably nervous person who suddenly decides they need to own a gun to protect themselves from a threat that has already manifested itself ALSO poses a danger, both to themselves and the people around them. It's a short hop from worrying about your stalker being outside the house, to hearing the neighbors dog/kid/self walking through and deciding it's probably your stalker and taking action. The action that's possible with a gun potentially a lot more lethal than it would be without one.
I have no answer on the drunk driving thing. Why people are allowed to continually offend that way is beyond me. When I lived in Germany I was told that the first offense was something like 6 months in prison and a license suspension of 5 years. There are very few repeat offenders.
Comment by Kristen — November 20, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
this video is SO wrong on MANY points!! In ohio, he was question and provided answers. what difference is a license going to make? In Virginia, he bought it from a private indiidual, just as if he had bought something from a yard sale.
I feel bad that he was shot at Va Tech. but if he (or anyone else in the classrooms) had a gun, do you think the rampage would have gone as long as it did? Finally he says that (quote) "People should be safe wherever they go" What he means to say is OTHER people should take actions to make ME safe wherever I go.
He denies his personal responsibility for his own safety. I'm sure there are places he would not walk because he wouldn't feel 'safe'. That is accepting responsibility by 'avoidance' I feel comfortable in accepting responsibility by 'defense', meaning if I DO go places like that, I have a means at my disposal to protect my person, and those around me.
Comment by Tom B. — November 20, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
If the gun show loophole isn't closed what is the point of having background checks at all?
Comment by Brendan — November 20, 2009 @ 1:58 pm
Tom B.
You can quote all the nonsense personal responsibility you want. People want to feel safe. There are people who are afraid. We need more laws! Get with the program!
And Mike, you want to put some sort of fancy breathalizer on cars, that rediculous. I'm a responsible person. Your assuming I'm guilty by trying to suggest I might drive drunk. Nonsense.
Comment by PU — November 21, 2009 @ 1:25 am
PU
Why is putting breathalyzers on cars "rediculous"(sic) when strict gun control measures are not.
More people are killed each year by drunk drivers than by guns. So, isn't your advocating against a Constitutional Right out of line when you will not argue against the privilege to drive even in the circumstance of drunk drivers?
http://www.newsleader.com/article/20091121/OPINION03/911210316/Guns-are-not-the-problem--humans-are
I am a responsible gun owner. I have been trained, thoroughly, on the use and maintenance of every weapon I have. Mine are kept where it would be very difficult for anyone but me (or my highly trained wife) to put hands on them.
Why is it right for you to limit my Right to own guns by background checks and restrictions on certain weapons, but it is not ok to make you blow into a tube to start and shift your car?
Comment by VVarlock — November 21, 2009 @ 9:18 am
VV,
Cars don't scare people. Guns do! We must have more laws so people aren't scared.
Comment by PU — November 21, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
PU
If you are so afraid of guns take up a petition to have all weapons removed from our military and the next time an armed situation arises you can be the first...
to wag your finger at them and tell them to go home.
Comment by Static Lines — November 21, 2009 @ 6:18 pm
PU
Thus the reason guns don't scare me. People scare me.
Comment by VVarlock — November 21, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
You as a police officer scare me Warlok..
Comment by Tony — November 21, 2009 @ 9:47 pm
VVarlock, I think PU is just being facetious.
Comment by Ed S. — November 21, 2009 @ 9:49 pm
But, the military doesn't have any weapons, or the evil terrorist wouldn't have been able to kill all those people. See. If he didn't have a gun either, it would have been ok.
Comment by PU — November 22, 2009 @ 12:25 am
PU
Then you haven't hear of Transylvania Vlad the Impaler.
Vlad found Wallachia in a wretched state: constant war had resulted in rampant crime, falling agricultural production, and the virtual disappearance of trade. Regarding a stable economy essential to resisting external enemies, he used severe methods to restore order and prosperity.
Vlad considered the boyars the chief cause of constant strife.
To secure his rule, he had many leading nobles killed and gave positions in his council, traditionally belonging to the greatest boyars, to persons of obscure origins, who would be loyal to him alone, and some to foreigners.
For lower offices, Vlad preferred knights and free peasants to boyars.
Now if we look at Thomas Jefferson 3rd President of the United States and has been has been consistently ranked by scholars as one of the greatest of U.S. presidents.
Whom was an architect, archaeologist, paleontologist, inventor, and founder of the University of Virginia. Study the cultures and governments from around the world in his time and said.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government".
An impromptu history lesson, but one worth remembering.
Comment by Static Lines — November 22, 2009 @ 9:25 am
PU
You need to see a psychiatrist about that "Eleutherophobia", look around then step outside...
Take a deep breath, you may well cure yourself and save a dollar at the same time.
Comment by Static Lines — November 22, 2009 @ 9:30 am
Tony
I am not sure why that is.
I treat everyone with the degree of respect they will allow me, I do not exceed my mandate, I follow the law in my pursuit of its enforcement.
I do have a dislike for DWI which causes me to enforce that law much more strictly than say, speeding or even mutual combat. But I do not let my personal (as opposed to professional) interests and prejudices impact the way I do my job (I wouldn't give a church bus a speeding ticket just because it is a church bus and a priest is only just as likely to get a ticket as anyone else. In practice, this is easy because I recognize 1. that on a local level the churches are beneficial to the community I serve and 2. my personal feelings can not determine my professional actions or I become part of what I am required to remain aloof from).
If there is an actual reason you feel that way (other than our differing opinions on topics), please illuminate. Perhaps I should consider it and I am pretty open to examining my position in the light of additional information (no matter what you think).
Comment by VVarlock — November 22, 2009 @ 9:38 am
Jason, they really won't need to prove he was under the influence. The charges would remain the same. Plus, he already admitted to smoking weed earlier in the day, prior to going hunting. Did the plant itself kill the girl? No, but perhaps the doofus that fired blindly at a noise instead of properly identifying his target would have taken more care had he not chosen to chemically alter his own mental state before picking up a gun.
That said, I just can't buy into the completely illogical arguments posed by the gun control crusaders. They're willing to overlook the role drug use plays in any violence. They are also willing to absolve violent criminals of any personal responsibility. Instead they go after inanimate objects and seek to disarm people who have committed no crime.
It's analagous to hiring a shady contractor to repair your home who, while there, uses drugs and breaks several valuable objects with his hammer and then steals your wallet on the way out. The gun control advocates answer? Legalize drugs, forgive the contractor because surely he isn't responsible for his own bad acts, but then organize a massive lobby to ban hammers.
Comment by Another Chris — November 22, 2009 @ 11:39 am
Another Chris-
"Jason, they really won't need to prove he was under the influence. The charges would remain the same."
That has nothing to do with the question you asked. Here's what you said: "The hunter has already admitted to smoking marijuana earlier in the day. Why is there no outcry about that? How does that fit into the questionable logic employed by all the pro-drug use/legalization types here who are constantly arguing that marijuana is harmless?"
My answer was that if the marijuana had anything to do with the accident, he should be punished accordingly, just as it would if alcohol was the drug at issue. I don't care what drug people choose to ingest, as long as they can contain their behavior.
The logic behind most marijuana/drug legalization arguments is not that this drug or that is harmless, it's an argument of harm reduction. There is no question to any person who has objectively looked at the data that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, it's not close. There's also no question that when *abused* it is not a harmless drug. But harmless or not, it shouldn't be the government's business to intrude upon what adults put into their bodies. And to the original point, prohibition is causing more harm than it is preventing.
"Plus, he already admitted to smoking weed earlier in the day, prior to going hunting. Did the plant itself kill the girl?"
I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that the plant killed the girl. If the guy was under the influence that should be a factor legally.
"No, but perhaps the doofus that fired blindly at a noise instead of properly identifying his target would have"
*Might* have, you can't possibly have any idea what was going on in his mind, even if he was under the influence.
"taken more care had he not chosen to chemically alter his own mental state before picking up a gun.
That said, I just can't buy into the completely illogical arguments posed by the gun control crusaders."
Nor I.
"They're willing to overlook the role drug use plays in any violence."
Primarily alcohol. If the Brady Campaign redirected their resources toward the role alcohol played in violence, they'd actually do some good.
"They are also willing to absolve violent criminals of any personal responsibility."
Sort of. Sometimes.
"Instead they go after inanimate objects and seek to disarm people who have committed no crime."
True.
"It's analagous to hiring a shady contractor to repair your home who, while there, uses drugs and breaks several valuable objects with his hammer and then steals your wallet on the way out. The gun control advocates answer? Legalize drugs, forgive the contractor because surely he isn't responsible for his own bad acts, but then organize a massive lobby to ban hammers."
I think you're a bit off the rails here. The idea behind drug legalization is not to give a free pass for all criminal behavior committed while under the influence; the exact opposite is true.
Comment by Jason — November 22, 2009 @ 1:45 pm
Static,
I'm not afraid of getting impaled, but if it makes you feel any better, after the Brady Campaign get rid of the guns, I'll suggest they go after the pikes and take them as well.
Comment by Pu — November 22, 2009 @ 6:05 pm