My editor at GUNS Magazine is going to bump one of my articles in the queue to make way for "A Very Sound Policy," which focuses on Virginia Tech's weapons prohibition policy and the comments of its spokesman, Larry Hincker. Still, it will be a while before it hits the stands--magazine columns are poor places to discuss breaking news stories, but this one couldn't go ignored.
Also, I just got off the phone with Leslie Eaton of The New York Times. As I mentioned earlier, I contacted major newspapers and TV networks asking why they weren't talking about this in their coverage. I had requested we conduct the questioning via email so I'd have a context record to fall back on--I guess I'm just a tad wary of dealing with "The Gray Lady"-- but was informed they were having delay problems with their email system.
Ms. Eaton seemed pleasant and earnest, confessed she "had no idea" about some of the information I was conveying, so we'll see. One of the things she was looking for was if I thought this would increase the likelihood for more or less "gun control." I opted for the pessimistic side, so let's everybody hope I'm wrong.
I even suggested she call NRA to see if Wayne LaPierre's school gun ban endorsement applies to colleges, which she did, but so far, they haven't responded.
There's no guarantee, of course, that The Times will use any of this.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
David,
I was listening to the Mike Church show on Sirius today and about 1500CDT, he had a self-described liberal caller who owns or works for a company that has contracts with "law enforcement". He stated that last night, while flipping between Fox and CNN, he caught a FBI profiler on CNN that said that if there had been one CHL/Armed person on the VT campus facing the nut, he would not have been able to kill or wound as many people.
I have been looking for this on CNN but have not been able to confirm it and thought this might be beneficial- if confirmation can be ascertained.
That's exactly the point.
Those tragedies cannot be prevented.
But the body count can be reduced !!!
The governemnt mandates the use of seat belts in cars.
The seat belts don't guarantee saftey but reduce body counts.
Guns don't guarantee safatey from criminals, thy just INCREASE chances of survival.
It is time for us to quit being polite in some misguided idea of respect for the victims of this atrocity.
When President Bush, or Shumer, or Clinton, or McCain, or Wayne LaPierre or anybody expresses sympathy for the victims and their families, it is time for us to call them liars. Not mistaken, not of good conscience, not basically decent people who just have a different view, but liars who are happy with the results of this abomination.
Proof of their contentment with this new platform from which to pontificate to the rest of us, that all would be well if we just surrendered our lives and volition and reponsibility for protecting them, to the state, is simply this. They are considering and/or proposing more of the same to a higher intensity. The blood of the victims hasn't dried and the issue is being framed in conjecture about which of two options would be the answer, increased security at the expense of open campii or more gun conrol. Both of these proposed alleged solutions have been disproven in blood many times. Both are also abridgements of liberty. Yet they persist in presentation of more and stronger impediments to defense of self and others and more restriction of the tools of that defense.
So when they commiserate with the victims, they lie. We need to call them liars. We need to call them liars and frauds loudly and at every opportunity. If they were not amoral liars, interested only in their own power and other rewards, they would not persist in placing restraints upon the law abiding that makes their vicitimization inevitable.
I will believe any of our celebrity politicians when they say they sympathize and truly regret and resent this monstrous atrocity when they move to restore the observance and practice of the second amendment everywhere. Then and only then will we know they truly disapprove of Americans being murdered en masse.
Until then, anyone who says anything different as a solution is a liar who is secretly pleased with these incidents that can be used to increase state power and weaken citizen liberty. Any and all.
Thanks for the link to the Wayne LaPierre letter. What a treacherous man. With him in charge of our largest so-called "gun rights" organization, it won't be long before we're disarmend just like they have been in Australia, England, and most of Europe.
After listing a series of abrogations of individual freedom that "we" (read: NRA leadership cowards) would support, he says "We believe freedom should never be diminished for those who abide by the law." Oh yeah, Wayne, then why do you support "gun-free, zero-tolerance" schools?? As a gun owning teacher, I beg to differ with the claim that you don't diminish freedom for the law-abiding. And why "no unsupervised youth access to guns, period." As a kid I had access to guns whenever I wanted. I had learned the rules of gun safety from a loving father, and never showed disrespect for the priveledge he granted me in using the family .22 for plinking around the farm. Who the hell is Wayne LaPierre to step in as a surrogate for my father???
Wayne implies that only "properly-permitted citizens" should be able to carry concealed. I wonder how the people in Vermont, where no permit is required, feel about that?
And finally, Wayne lays this on us: " We will consider instant checks at gun shows when, and only when, this Administration stops demanding new gun taxes and stops illegally compiling the records of millions of lawful gun buyers." So now this man is bargaining with the devil. Once instant checks are in place for private transfers, we will have a de-facto registry of all firearms in the US. And this is OK with the leader of America's largest gun rights organization? BS!!
Gun Owner's of America is going to get an extra check from me tomorrow!!!
David,
Want to see what freaked me out yesterday when I got back from my meeting with the Serbian Army?
Someone at wizbang found this: http://libertyzone.blogspot.com/2006/02/college-students-in-virginia-will.html
I didn't even remember I wrote it, but it was over a year ago. Needless to say, I was a little upset last night.
Nicki
I think people are taking Wayne LaPierre's statements out of context. After reading his words it was clear that the "schools" he was talking about are elementary through High School. He's talking about children having guns in schools.
Relating his comments to the VT shootings is lame.
Actually, anon, you need to learn how to read. He clearly stated:
“That means no guns in America's schools, period ... with the rare exception of law enforcement officers or trained security personnel.”
Bringing up "he meant kids" is an invention of yours.
Why shouldn't an adult be able to have a gun at an elementary school or high school, including teachers, administrators, staff, parents, visitors?
Since when is it NRA's place to call for gun free criminal empowerment zones anywhere?
Your objection is what's lame--there is absolutely no logical consistency to it.
Post a Comment