Congress OKs Va Tech-inspired gun bill

[HokiePilot]

There were a whole lot of factors that broke down leading up to the Virginia Tech incident; that particular law just wasn't one of them. Why did every single student in every one of his classes know that he was a nutter, but nothing was ever done about it? Why was the administration aware that he'd been writing crazy, quasi-threatening English compositions and scaring the crap out of his professors, but it was a complete surprise to his parents? The problem in this case wasn't that he was able to legally buy a gun; it was that he was a freaking loony, and nobody adequately addressed it, and he decided that he wanted to kill a lot of people.

What do you propose should have been done about it? He was sent to a mental health facility. Part of that commitment should have included a hit on NICS but it wasn't. This bill will fix that in the future.

The reason that the parents didn't know was because the school is not allowed to share any personal info with anybody. Before you start blaming the administration realize that the were following federal privacy laws (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act). If you have a problem with that law then write your congressman.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

I think this is reactionary as well. Just because someone is crazy doesn't mean they have anything documented anywhere to prevent them from legally purchasing a firearm.

I think a better "reactionary" measure would have been to abolish gun-free zones and hope that a fellow student was actually lawfully carrying a concealed pistol and had ended the situation. Similar to what happened at the Appalachian School of Law Shooting.

 

[statesman]

I'm for it. Who wants carzy people running around with guns?

The 2nd Ammendment doesnt specify who may own a gun.

By this logic you could easily say: Who wants crazy people running around with dangerous ideas?

This country was based on two things, the right of the people to voice their concerns over government and the right of the people to back up that concern with the ability to resist tyrrany in government, by force of arms if need be.

 

[JIMC5499]

JIM,

I lost ALL firearm rights and damn near my career due to DV Accusations. If the judge granted a permanent restraining order (and we know the standard of evidence is not that high, just accusations work in FL) I would NEVER be able to own guns and would have been Ad-Sep'd from the Navy.

Gotta love the penalties of a Felony conviction with none of that pesky trial!

Lautenburg Act is FEDERAL. There is no escaping it. You get a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO) you don't have guns anymore. Period. NON-NEGOTIABLE.

I'm not familiar with the Lautenburg Act. I'm referring to a Pennsylvania law that goes one beter. A restraining order doesn't have to be issued, all there has to be is an accusation. There is no appeal, no hearing no nothing. As I said the State Police found no basis for the accusation, that still doesn't clear him. He was accused.

 

[statesman]

Are you guys basing your opinions of the bill based on what the AP has to say about or what the NRA has to say about? Because by the looks of the NRA fact sheet, this piece of legislation is a home run, especially since it addresses everyone of your aforementioned concerns...

As a general rule I dont trust the NRA. I prefer the GOA

 

[statesman]

I think a better "reactionary" measure would have been to abolish gun-free zones and hope that a fellow student was actually lawfully carrying a concealed pistol and had ended the situation. Similar to what happened at the Appalachian School of Law Shooting.

I'm glad you brought this up, because I was about to. The only way to prevent gun violence is to ensure a well armed, and concerned citizenry, who are willing to act when the time comes.

I do not mean to make this political, but I think it's relative to the topic at hand. Ron Paul has said several times that if the Federal Government had allowed pilots to carry guns on air planes 9/11 could have been averted. I have no dobt this is true. Just as I have no doubt that if VT had allowed CHL permits to be valid on campus a concerned citizen would have acted. Especially in VA, a good gun loving state. This may have been less likely in Massachusets or a NE state where gun ownership is less prevelent and less desired, but states like Texas, VA, etc people are willing to use their own firearms to protect fellow citizens.

 

[C420sailor]

I'm not familiar with the Lautenburg Act. I'm referring to a Pennsylvania law that goes one beter. A restraining order doesn't have to be issued, all there has to be is an accusation. There is no appeal, no hearing no nothing. As I said the State Police found no basis for the accusation, that still doesn't clear him. He was accused.

Someone needs to take that to the Supreme Court. That is a clear violation of "innocent until proven guilty" IMO.

 

[Ken_gone_flying]

The 2nd Ammendment doesnt specify who may own a gun.

Maybe its time we specify that.

 

[JIMC5499]

Someone needs to take that to the Supreme Court. That is a clear violation of "innocent until proven guilty" IMO.

The State Supreme Court stated that the woman's right to safety must be considered over the accused's right to posess a firearm. The US Supreme Court won't take the case because it would be interfering with the State's rights. The FOP fought it as far as they could take it.

 

[statesman]

Maybe its time we specify that.

I believe you are implying, correct me if I am wrong this is just my interpritation, that the rights garunteed under the 2nd ammendment are more dangerous than those garunteed under the 1st. I would submit the exact opposite. The written word has proven time and time again to be far more leathal.



Regardless I agree clarification is needed. Lucky for us it's about to happen.

 

[raptor10]

"The only no-compromise gun lobby in Washington."
-Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) on the GOA
This may not be the best time to bring this up but, Ron Paul is Retarded...

http://spaceramblings.blogsome.com/2007/11/05/why-ron-paul-is-like-forrest-gump/

http://beginnorth.com/blog/2007/08/12/ron-paul-is-retarded/

“Ron Paul is retarded, or ‘mentally handicapped,’ in more ways than one,” said Jason Fremont, director of Political Affairs for the University of South Carolina. “But it is inspiring to see someone so retarded running for president.”

 

[eddie]

The written word has proven time and time again to be far more leathal.

I think that's incomplete reasoning.

To preface, this website did a lot to pull my head out of the sand on gun control and see that it was mostly motivated by ignorance and reactionism, although I still believe at the individual citizen's level it is well intended.

Guns are INFINITELY more dangerous, more absoulute in effect, than ideas in the short term. Words are most dangerous over the long term, mostly because they can motivate guns (among other political devices) instance by instance. Words, also, are not exclusively used for violent means (which may explain, in contrast, much of the reactionism to firearms).

 

[NozeMan]

I think that's incomplete reasoning.

To preface, this website did a lot to pull my head out of the sand on gun control......

Guns are INFINITELY more dangerous, more absoulute in effect, than ideas in the short term. Words are most dangerous over the long term, mostly because they can motivate guns (among other political devices) instance by instance. Words, also, are not exclusively used for violent means (which may explain, in contrast, much of the reactionism to firearms).

If you're making the statement that guns are dangerous....your head is still in the sand. The "guns kill people" approach is asinine. You need to shake off that Kommiefornia mentality and take an educated look at firearms.

 

[statesman]

If you're making the statement that guns are dangerous....your head is still in the sand. The "guns kill people" approach is asinine. You need to shake off that Kommiefornia mentality and take an educated look at firearms.

Agreed. There are several cute sayings out there with regard to how rediculous the "guns kill people" mentality is:

If Guns Kill people then:

Spoons made Rosey O'Donnel fat (Or Michael Moore, or any other fat anti gunner)
Pencils mis-spell words

The list goes on.

Hatred for one another, disregard for the principles of western society, etc, these are the things wich cause guns to be used in an inappropriate manner.

At the most basic level a gun is designed to move a metal projectile in a relatively straight line at a hight rate of speed through the use of chemical energy stored in a propellent. Nothing more.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

I say let the states make their own gun laws.