Jim Moran Politicizes Virginia Tech Shooting

Suggests Republicans are to blame

By Bluey Posted in | Comments (58) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »




Less than 24 hours after the deadliest shooting spree in U.S. history, liberal Rep. Jim Moran took to the airwaves to launch a political attack against President Bush, congressional Republicans and the National Rifle Association.

Appearing on the "Jack Diamond Morning Show" on 107.3 FM in Northern Virginia, Moran suggested Republicans were to blame for Monday's tragedy at Virginia Tech, which left 33 dead and injured another 30. The anti-gun congressman said Republican policies made it easy for the shooter to obtain a gun.

When the show's host tried to suggest that the gunman may have been hellbent on killing regardless of the law, Moran turned the conversation back to the GOP, complaining that the United States needs a national registry to track all firearms purchases and more stringent gun-control laws. Moran then blamed Bush and Republicans in Congress for opposing such measures at the behest of the NRA.

When I called Moran's press secretary, Austin Durrer, this morning to get an explanation, I was told Durrer wasn't available. If you'd like to call, the office number is (202) 225-4376. I've also put in a request with the "Jack Diamond Morning Show" to get the audio of the conversation. (I was driving when the interview took place.)

Moran has a history of making politically charged comments that have landed him in hot water. In 2003, he said Jews were responsible for pushing the U.S. to war with Iraq. He later apologized, but not before an uproar in the Jewish community.

UPDATE -- 9:27 p.m.: David Mark at the Politico interviewed Moran, who reiterated his comments about gun control. "As long as we give the NRA such a free ride," Moran told the Politico, "we will continue to have such tragedies time and time again."


« Rep. Capuano's Newspeak for CensorshipComments (5) | Update: The Globetrotting CongressComments (5) »
Jim Moran Politicizes Virginia Tech Shooting 58 Comments (0 topical, 58 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

It makes as much sense.

Also ask him if he's ever heard of a shooting at a gun show where also those right wing nuts are in one place and armed to the teeth. Or if to the best of his knowledge all shootings happen at schools and churches where the shooter can be most certain that his victims will not shoot back.

time for the '08 elections. Give them enough rope to hang themselves -- while we remind the voters about reality like what these bumper stickers explain:


Click
on a sticker:



You never need a firearm until you need it BADLY
CRIMINALS PREFER UNARMED VICTIMS sticker
A gun in the hand is worth 10 on the phone
The 2nd amendment IS the equal rights amendment
Road to Hell sticker

-- from THIS page

In Chicago, Mayor Daley is suggesting that the shooting occurred because there are "too many guns in this country".

I call BS.

If anything, such a tragedy happened because there aren't enough guns. One person with a concealed weapon could have stopped Mr. Seung-Hui's rampage. That's it. Unfortunately, that's one more than the laws in Blacksburg will allow to have. Why not call Mr. Moran out in regards to that? I know the media won't do it, but they sure ought to; sure, the MSM hates the idea of civilians playing "vigilante" or "hero", but one "hero" is all it would have taken.

"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."

Some would say that it is guns that cause tragedies like yesterday. I would say that it is the lack of guns that allow incidents such as this one to happen. Unfortunately, the guns laws in this country restrict fire arms from responsible law abiding citizens. It is not the gun we should fear, but fear the madman with a gun when you are unarmed.

EliTheBean

the target.

With current gun laws the death toll was 32. Were citizens REQUIRED to carry guns, the death toll would have been two:
the gunman's first victim and the gunman, period.

How many "tragedies" made possible by unconstitutional gun restrictions do we need before somebody wises up?

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --- John Adams

this is a perfect example of how the police CAN NOT protect you, no matter how many there are or how fast they arrive.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --- John Adams

Thanks Warrior.

The other thing no one ever talks about is how many people did Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols kill with a gun?

EliTheBean

By putting security cameras in all the dorm rooms and monitoring them in real time. I'm surprised he didn't call for that, with him being such a big fan of surveillance.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

...when some people oppose keeping an eye on Islamic radicals yet would still propose spying on college students. I'm waiting for a progressive to try to make that leap in judgment, as it will undoubtedly be classic stupidity.

"I could explain, but that would be very long, very convoluted, and make you look very stupid. Nobody wants that... except maybe me."

There were some Virginian politicians that where trying to make a difference.

Sadly the General Assembly did not act, as you all know Virginia is a conceal carry “shall issue” state but there is a prohibition against conceal carry on campus. There was an attempt to drop that ban…

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.
House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.
The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.
Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."
Del. Dave Nutter, R-Christiansburg, would not comment Monday because he was not part of the subcommittee that discussed the bill.
Most universities in Virginia require students and employees, other than police, to check their guns with police or campus security upon entering campus. The legislation was designed to prohibit public universities from making "rules or regulations limiting or abridging the ability of a student who possesses a valid concealed handgun permit ... from lawfully carrying a concealed handgun."
The legislation allowed for exceptions for participants in athletic events, storage of guns in residence halls and military training programs.
Last spring a Virginia Tech student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit. Some gun owners questioned the university's authority, while the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police came out against the presence of guns on campus.
In June, Tech's governing board approved a violence prevention policy reiterating its ban on students or employees carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them into campus facilities.

My hats off to Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County for trying to the right thing.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker that was happy that people were prevented from defending themselves may want to rethink his position. Sadly I doubt he will.

Full article: http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658

on firearms? I searched the Code of Virginia web site last night and received over 300 hits on the search term "firearm*". Of course, that doesn't include the federal firearms statutes.

It seems this particular individual was not deterred by Virginia statutes against concealed carry by unlicensed individuals, University regulations against gun possession on campus, not to mention the Virginia statutes against homicide. Had he not taken his own life, he would have faced execution in a state not shy in applying the death penalty. So, I'm not sure that "more laws" are the answer. We just have to accept that there are some individuals not especially inclined to following society's norms, as ensconced in the statute books or anywhere else.

"Moran turned the conversation back to the GOP, complaining that the United States needs a national registry to track all firearms purchases and more stringent gun-control laws. Moran then blamed Bush and Republicans in Congress for opposing such measures at the behest of the NRA."

How does this relate to the VA Tech shooting spree? Just because the guy's name is in a registry its going to stop him from killing 33 people and then killing himself? Didn't they try this argument after Columbine only to find out the guns were all obtained illegally? It really is a statement about someone's intelligence when they think that making it illegal to have a gun will stop a murderous criminal from breaking the law to get a gun!

Here in Minnesota, they passed a law requiring local law enforcement to issue a handgun permit to any citizen who passes a background check and takes a gun safety class (previously, the local sherif could deny the permit at whim). Of course, the local libs where appoplectic; from the way they wailed and gnashed teeth, you'd think that the GOP was going to be flying helicopters over Minneapolis and shoveling handguns out the door. It's been several years now, and to date only one person with a legally registered gun has been involved in a shooting incident (firing a gun inside city limits, I beleive).

Of course, to the left this proves that gun ownership is as dangerous as nuclear power, since the same number of people have died as the result of the Minnesota "conceal and carry" law as died at Three Mile Island.

The interesting side effect of this law was the poison pill that was inserted: every business that wishes to not have guns on the premises has to put up a sign at the door. Naturally, the tort system being what it is, every business in Minnesota has a sign saying "XYX Co. prohibits guns on these premises". So, basically the law has given Minnesota citizens the right to keep a gun in the trunk of thier cars. Now that the Democrats have control of the legislature again, I'm wondering if the they'll pass a law requiring all muggings to take place in the trunks of cars.

Being a big fan of "A Christmas Story", every time I walk past one of these, I get the mental image of a Bad Guy, complete with black-and white striped shirt, beret, and little black mask, creeping up to the door gun in hand, with the attendant Fred Flintstone tippy-toe sound effect. Suddenly he sees the sign, slaps his forehead, says "Awwww, Geee", and stomps away in disgust.

Lord only knows how many crimes have been prevented by those signs.

Seriously, I can understand a feeling of frustration and rage at a time like this, and I'm actually glad to see the American attitude of "We need to fix this", but the standard reaction of stiffer gun control laws has proven time and again that it's not a solution that's ever going to stop the Bad Guys. All it does is inconvenience honest citizens and establish price supports for the illegal gun trade.

Does anyone think that liberal scum like Moran wouldn't clammer atop the stacked bodies of these victims so that he could be better seen and heard as he spews his nonsense?

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Hi there. I'm anti-gun, as are many people I know, and not one of them is rejoicing in what happened yesterday. Just the suggestion that those who disagree with your pro-gun beliefs would be happy, never mind rejoice, in such wholescale slaughter is disgusting and offensive, not to mention the kind of thing said either because of ignorance or the desire to provoke and claim some kind of moral high ground.

Would you like for me to go over the list of times lefties have used something like this to score political points? Are you intelligent enough to even figure it out after I give you this list?

Say what you want to pal. A lefty buddy of yours called it "ghoulish glee", and I agree. You can look all solemn and concerned, talking at your cocktail parties in somber tones with shaking heads, and you know damn well that the left relishes things like this so they can score political points.

Again, if you want me to give you a list I will. Until then, cut the pre-emptive "don't blame me for bringing up a point, I don't like this any more than you do" crap.

...You really think that I *rejoice* in what happened yesterday? Seriously?

Wow.

I think that you and your ilk cannot wait to make a political point while standing on the bodies of the dead. Conveniently, Jim Moran, Senator Kennedy and Senator Feinstein are busy proving my point.

Is that clear enough for you? Now you can go pretend you are a victim of rabid conservatives, link to this post on whatever punk liberal blog you post on, and continue your miserable life.

Well, I'm glad that you're taking the moral high ground and attempting to have a rational discussion instead of, you know, jumping to conclusions or attacking me or anything.

("Continue your miserable life"? Really?)

I'm not a victim of rabid conservatives. At least, not in this conversation. I was just saddened by the need to ascribe motives to everyone who disagrees with your (generic "you", considering you personally are not the person who I initially responded to) viewpoint, especially when it's to do with something like that. It's ironic and sad that, in the comments section about it being bad to play politics with such a tragedy as this, there are comments about anti-gunners rejoicing in the deaths or "my ilk" (and who *is* that, exactly?) standing on the bodies of the dead. But, even more sadly, not surprising - This is what passes for discussion these days: Who can call names and yell foul first.

And yes, I'm talking about both sides of the political fence when I say that.

"I think that you and your ilk cannot wait to make a political point while standing on the bodies of the dead. Conveniently, Jim Moran, Senator Kennedy and Senator Feinstein are busy proving my point."

I stand by these comments.

And what saddens - rather, sickens - ME is the fact that liberals consitently take full advantage of death, any death, in order to prove a point. I would ask that you review the comments made during Senator Paul Wellstone's funeral as background, then attempt to continue the "Who? Us?" line of reasoning.

Most of the victims of the resident alien killer were rushed to the hospital in which I was born. I sincerely hope I run into someone today who tries to tell me that gun control would have prevented these murders, and I look forward to when you are able to bring yourself to realize that the left regards tragedy and death as a wonderful opportunity to score cheap political points.

Maybe the Wellstone transcript will help you with your education. And maybe, in situations like this, cocktail party discussion will feel more satisfying and appropriate to me than a simple "go to hell".

I doubt it.

There currently two diaries trying to claim that this tragedy should lead to looser gun laws. I hope you have commented in both of those diaries that nobody should be trying to make political points, at least not until the families have had time to mourn.

This my friend, is not political -- this is life and death.

It's time to quit demagoguing the issue and let folks carry guns. How many tragedies must occur before somebody wises up?

This was the "deadliest shooting" in U.S. history. Is the next one going to have 35 dead? 40? 50? And will liberals continue to cry about guns?

Probably, but it's not going to stop until the LCD's among us realize that EVERYBODY is carrying a gun and somebody is likely to shoot back.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --- John Adams

I think that you and your ilk cannot wait to make a political point while standing on the bodies of the dead.

Look: Reid's already started.

Do you have any friends who are pro-gun control? I do. I know they're not trying to score political points on the bodies of the dead. You do not understand their motivations.

All those non-fringe gun control people, there are a lot of them. I want them on my side. I want them to "see the light". But you come along and attack and alienate them. Do you want them on your side or not?

And that's a collective "you" BTW.

However, if you are able, as a result of this incident and Columbine, to pass laws that essentially outlaw guns you will look back on yesterday as "the day" that made freedom from gun ownership possible. And you will erect monuments to the victims to celebrate their *sacrifice*.

So, are you rejoicing today? No.

Would you rejoice if yesterday led to gun ban? Absolutely.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

...does that mean that those who wanted to depose Saddam are rejoicing over 9/11, because that led to the focus on (and political freedom for) the War on Terror that led to the invasion of Iraq?

I think both theories are flawed, but YMMV.

to draw whatever conclusion you want. It's called Freedom of Stupidity Speech.

I'm sure you know that we didn't need 9/11 to invade Iraq. After all we did it because Saddam threatened Bush41, and then there's always the Halliburton contracts and oil. And let's not forget all the underprivileged, uneducated fools who would be hurting the US economy if they weren't in the military. Gotta provide them jobs, you know.

Posting guidelines prevent me from comment on your development of theories and your general train of thought. Feel free to think something up that you would take very personally and be so horrified and insulted that you never read RS again. You won't be close, but it'll be a good start.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

What exactly would be a lot over the top?

That is because it is true. Death and tradgedy are currencies that liberals selectively use to push their amoral and oppressive agendas. Sure, they will lament the deaths of these people in the first phrase of sentences that always effectively end in a variation of ", but, if we control your life these things won't happen to you".

And, when I say selectively, millions have died under communist regimes, millions died because John Kerry and his ilk scurried us out of Viet Nam and millions of unborn have died without a wimper from the left.

Rejoice? You bet they do if they can use each drop of blood to lubricate the lies that spew from their lips.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

Any link to anyone "rejoicing" over this tragedy?

In preventing this situation. When someone is hell-bent on commiting the ultimate crime (murder), you think they're going to stop because they might get in trouble for carrying an unlicensed handgun? According to reports, he bought the gun last month. So much for the waiting period. He waited, and then he went ahead and killed.

Scott in Indy

The left cannot wait to find bodies to stand on in order to make a political point. Pathetic, media whore, scumbag jackasses.

1911

Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1929

The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

1935

China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1938

Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

1956

Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people , unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1964

Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

1970

Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In the 20th Century, because of gun control, 56 million Defenseless People were rounded up and exterminated.

Now a more current history page. It has now been several years since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms for destruction by their
government. This program cost Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year's results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides with firearms are up 3.2 percent.

Australia-wide, assaults with firearms are up 8.6 percent.

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note: while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upwards, since criminals now are guaranteed that
their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and
assaults of the ELDERLY.

After a monumental effort and cost was expended in ridding the Australian Society of personal fire arms, Australian politicians are at a loss to explain why public safety has decreased. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!

In light of this terrible tragedy, we need to focus on love and healing, not politicizing the senseless deaths of these people. The next time someone talks in support of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are just subjects.

If you value your freedom. Please spread this Gun Control Information message to all of your friends.

to respond with data to refute. Guess I'll be waiting for a while since the anti-self defense crowd basis their arguments on feelings vice logic and data.

Break into Old Crow's house at your own risk - you'll get to meet Mr. Glock or one of his 'friends'.
=====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison

as an outside observer, detached from the left-right political polarization of US politics (a New Zealander living in Taiwan). The standard reaction I've been hearing here in Taiwan is, 'Oh, another mass shooting in the US. That's what you get when guns are so freely available'. Although it's understandable for most bloggers here to consider it politicising when such an event causes gun control advocates to loudly restate their beliefs, to much of the world where guns are not as commonly available as in the US, this is actually what many people think.

Although I'm not going to present data to refute the previous poster's claims, it is usual practice to provide links to the source for these claims. I'm not disputing them, as I do recall about six months back some very interesting stats (with links) examining the gun crime rates of a number of countries including those with strong gun control (such as Japan and Taiwan) as well as countries such as Switzerland where weapon ownership, including guns, is encouraged. But it would be nice to have the sources.

Without politicising the tragedy, I do think it’s natural that a mass murder on such a scale involving guns will cause those on both sides of the fence to again sharpen their arguments on either side of the gun control debate. I also think that if most people here feel as strongly as they obviously do on why gun control is not the answer, why not use this time to reexamine all the arguments, with reliable sources, and debate about it without all the name calling? People on the gun control side are serious in their beliefs, as are you. Now is as good a time as any to restate the argument for trollers and outsiders (such as me, I guess) whose reaction is to sigh when they hear about yet another shooting tragedy in a school in America.

If anyone can recall those country-by-country stats, they presented a pretty convincing argument against gun control, as I recall. I’d be interested to see them again.

I'm not disputing them, as I do recall about six months back some very interesting stats (with links) examining the gun crime rates of a number of countries including those with strong gun control (such as Japan and Taiwan)

The overall stats are what matters. I can't say I have much of a preference between being shot, stabbed, and beat with a crowbar. What matters are violent crime statistics, and the gun control nirvanas like the UK and Mexico are nothing to aspire to on those. I'd rather take the tiny chance I will get shot at one of these rare mass shootings than to get stabbed in my own home in the middle of the night by some drug addict looking to score his next fix, as happens in places like London all the time. They know they won't encounter anyone with a gun, and they are (rightfully) very confident they will have no trouble in a physical confrontation.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

you mention have extremely homogenious populations, which tends to create a more standard set of values and much greater adherence to laws of any kind. Generally, country to country comparisons are apples & oranges, i.e. worthless.

Now as far as the United States (counties), the "debate" is pretty much over. A good primer on the subject for your edification is "More Guns, Less Crime" By Dr. John Lott.

Just one quote gives you a pretty good idea, if the title wasn't transparent enough, of the conclusions drawn:

Shall issue laws
Lott examines the effects of shall issue laws on violent crime across the United States.

His conclusion is that shall issue laws, which allow ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons, steadily decreases violent crime. He explains that this result makes sense because criminals are deterred by the risk of attacking an armed victim. As more citizens arm themselves, the danger to criminals increases.

So let's not hear anymore nonsense about the"gun control" debate -- there really isn't one.

And speaking of politicizing the issue, Dr. Lott was a mild mannered researcher asked to do a study on crime & gun control. When he published his results, he was vilified by lib media, academics and even former colleagues. His integrity was challenged and his results dismissed. He easily refutes the numerous attacks on his methods & findings. Don't tell me libs aren't politicizing this issue.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --- John Adams

Maybe it is a trollish thing to do, but here are some statistics on the Australian history referred to. In 1996 there was a very bad mass shooting, and as the poster said, gun controls were tightened, although not hugely. Here is a plot from a government paper of gun deaths before and after.



There hasn't been an increase, in fact a considerable decrease. I doubt if the minor change to gun control is responsible, but it is worth noting the absolute numbers. In Australia (pop 20M) there were 305 victims of homicide in the year 2003-4, and of these 17% were due to gunshot - about 52 people. To put this in perspective, in the US in 2005, according to FBI statistics, 10,100 murders involved firearms.

1. Before the gun control legislation, there appears to have been a steady downward trend in homicides with firearms.

2. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics' "Recorded Crime 1997" report, in the 12 months after the gun control legislation, homicides increased 3.2%. Assaults increased 8.6%. Armed robberies increased 44%.

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

A rise of 3.2% would be 2, or at most 3, homicides.

Armed robbery is not just gun crime - in fact, in 2003, 23% of such crimes involved firearms. But there was a rise in total armed robberies from 1996-8, since reversed. It's hard to see why this would be related to the gun control measures; the start of the rise came before them. Here's the graph:

.

I beleive the second ammendment is important, but I have to say that if we ever get to the point where the only thing keeping the US military from rounding up political dissidents is Bobby Rae and his 9mm down at the Pump-N-Munch, we're pretty much toast.

What protects us from the kinds of events you describe has nothing to do with guns or force. What protects us is a sheet of paper, one that embodies a tradition of democracy, open government, and a military sworn to uphold the constitution. All of that was lacking in those countries long before the gun laws went into effect.

America was born the day Washington told his officers that he hadn't fought to depose one despot simply to replace him with another (himself). The day an officer in the US military can give the average soldier the order to fire on unarmed Americans and expect it to be carried out will be the day that America died. I fully support Bobby Rae's right to his 9mm to deal with the trailer trash, but when it comes down to keeping the US government from becoming a totalitarian regime, I'm putting my faith in the values and morals our armed forces.

The second ammendment is imporant because it represents the honest citizen's right to have or do anything he/she pleases, provided it's not harming another citizen. It's important because it represents the fact that the people who claim to know better than you don't have the right to control your life. It's important because it says that we trust the honest citizen with deadly force to protect his property and his family from criminals. It's not important because it protects us from our own military.

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

I knew someone would throw this in (though you were the LAST person I expected), but it doesn't count. (1) The "peaceful demonstration" at Kent state wasn't all that peaceful, (2) the guardsmen were undertrained and terrified , (3) no officer gave the order to fire, and (4) the people involved CERTAINLY didn't skate through it. It was a horrible thing to happen, but in the final analysis it's more a matter of bad incident command than a military junta taking over the country.

"The day an officer in the US military can give the average soldier the order to fire on unarmed Americans and expect it to be carried out will be the day that America died."

I would be very disappointed in our military if they didn't follow that order. It is their job to follow orders, not question policy. The police in this country fire on unarmed civilians everyday.

I suggest you go read the recent Circuit Court opinion. It will enlighten or befuddle you depending on your aptitude for reasoned thought. Until you do that, your arguing about what the Second Amendment means is woefully deficient which is painfully obvious.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

give me a link? I'd like to read it.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

...how's that working out for them?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/943222/posts

As always, the libs push for something that "feels good" in their land of Shangri-La without thinking far enough ahead to consider the deadly consequences in the real world.

--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox

Cars, pens, pools, bath tubs, medicine, golf clubs, knives, pipes, chains, and even vacuum cleaners and frozen meat.

The list is as long as history.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes

Doesnt it seem quite morbidly ironic that those on the left seeking to impose gun restrictions/bans are the same ones who fight tooth and nail for abortion rights. One (the right to bear arms) is a specificly given right in the Constitution. It does not lend itself to interpretation, vauge ambiguity or debate, its explicitly spelled out in the document, yet, the Left would have you believe that this right should be exterminated, even though the founding fathers thought it important enough to define in words that can not be debated.

On the other hand they argue that termination of a fetus is a constitutional right, and that there should be no debate. Yet, (keeping with the ironic theme of this post)the founding fathers never uttered the word abortion, never intended to make abortion legal through any of the documents they produced or their writings, and certainly never penned into, either explicitly or implicitly, the Constitution that this right existed or should ever exist.

I just wonder if its me, maybe I have them backwards and the Left is right. Thinking about it though, I can only assume that they enjoy making people defenseless. I mean, they dont mind the abortion of a defenseless life, so why not make the rest of us defenseless at the same time.

- Good things take time...Great things happen all at once.

intended that the constitution be a "living" document, right?? When the Constitution "lives" there's a "right to privacy" but clearly enumerated rights, like the right to keep and bear arms, can fade away, depending on the evolving mores of the self-appointed elites. That's why they made the amendment process so easy, right? But why bother with amendments, when you can get five philosopher kings to invent a "right" out of whole cloth.

If the Founders had had anything to say about abortion, it would be to excoriate it as an utter abomination, which was a universally held judgment until after World War II.

reminder, the Constitution did not "give" us any rights, it only delineated certain rights specifically which were not to be infringed upon by the gubmint.

Our rights are inalienable...

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --- John Adams

Somehow he puts it on the same level as the Don Imus thing and displaced workers. This kind of thing might make a Kerry run more thinkable for Democrats.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

Or just copy paste from Drudge?

"But while Obama mourns the slain students, he takes the massacre more as a theme than as a point of discussion.

"Maybe nothing could have been done to prevent it," he says toward the end.

So he moves quickly to the abstract: Violence, and the general place of violence in American life.

"There's also another kind of violence that we're going to have to think about. It's not necessarily the physical violence, but the violence that we perpetrate on each other in other ways," he said, and goes on to catalogue other forms of "violence."

There's the "verbal violence" of Imus.

There's "the violence of men and women who have worked all their lives and suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them because their job is moved to another country."

There's "the violence of children whose voices are not heard in communities that are ignored,"

And so, Obama says, "there's a lot of different forms of violence in our society, and so much of it is rooted in our incapacity to recognize ourselves in each other."

Many politicians would avoid, I think, suggesting that outsourcing and mass-murder belong in the same category.

From there, he mourns again the Virginia dead, and then says, "This is an opportunity I think that all of us have today to reflect," and then heads into his stump speech -- education, healthcare, energy policy, politics being broken -- but returning to the Virginia Tech shootings.

Emphasis mine. He used the VT massacre to segue into a discussion on violence in America. Far from comparing the two or placing them on "the same level."

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

if you want more objective reporting than that rag The Politico, check this article out:

In a 25-minute talk at the 4,000-seat Milwaukee Theatre, Obama cited a speech given in 1968 by Robert Kennedy in the wake of the assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. that described how any violent loss of life degrades the nation.

Obama said the killings were "the act of a madman on some level," and later noted "maybe nothing could have been done to prevent it."

Nevertheless, he said, it should cause the nation to reflect on violence in its culture, including the "verbal violence" shown by radio talker Don Imus in his "nappy-headed hos" comment.

"So much is rooted in our incapacity to recognize ourselves in each other, to not realize we are connected fundamentally as people," he said.

[...]

"The reason we don't do anything about it is not technical . . . it's because our politics is broken. We've given up believing we can change things. So we turn away . . . and start worrying about ourselves."

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

And I think Obama is well on his way to making an egomaniacal fool of himself.

lesterblog.blogspot.com

"Obamarama, moral equivalency at its finest"

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

I know that laws don't prevent criminals from obtaining firearms.

I believe that an armed populace is better equipped to deter violent crime than a nation of "penned sheep".

I am, however, uncomfortable with the fact that a resident alien can legally obtain a firearm. This right should be reserved for citizens (along with a whole host of other benefits.)

Why? by zuiko

Immigrants shouldn't be able to protect themselves? Do Immigrants have 1st Amendment rights? 4th Amendment rights? 5th Amendment rights? Why wouldn't they have 2nd Amendment rights?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service