Will the terrible tragedy of Virginia Tech become the new rallying cry for gun control? I hope not.

Will the terrible tragedy of Virginia Tech become the new rallying cry for gun control? Will the second amendment now be on trial? I hope not.

Usually when I write a post for BlueNC it is long and probably a little much, but this time I would like to get right to the point.

Last week I wrote an article about Abortion. In it I very deliberately reiterated the fact that our Constitution is only good and valid in its entirety. The parts of our constitution we use to propound the many positions we take, and the rightness of them, are part and parcel of the rest of the Constitution, yes even the parts we do not like to discuss at times.

No-one should repress their grief for these innocent victims of this madman-student. He decided that, although his own life was over, it would be more comforting, to him, to take as many people with him as he could. This guy was sick, disturbed and dark to the point that none of us will ever really know the “why” we are seeking to know today. Thirty-three young lives lost, several wounded and we may never know the true “why”.

When my own son Billy was shot in Iraq, I know what that did to me during the time immediately after being told. I was in the U.S. Embassy, Baghdad at the time. All I could think about was what a good boy my Billy had always been and how a more gentle human being never existed. I was numb, I was scared, and I was heartbroken all at once.

I have no idea what the families of the slain students are going through. My son lived and I was devastated.

I would never presume what these families must be feeling. My heartfelt love and hope are with them. The personal loss I feel is real, not only for the families, but for all of us as Americans. Part of us all died at Virginia Tech two days ago.

Some, I fear, will seek to take early advantage of this incident, while the wounds are still open, to attack the second amendment to the Constitution, which grants Americans the right to bear arms. I will not provide a dissertation on this issue. The title of this article actually expresses my feelings.

I will just say this. We Americans have just experienced another real national tragedy which will go into our history books and into the annals of world history as a very dark day indeed.

There is much we can do to try and prevent this from ever happening again, and we must do all we can do within the parameters and limitations of the U.S. Constitution, as it is.

Comments

I know of very few people

actually, no one, who proposes to do away with the Second Amendment. No one.

But I know of lots of people, including plenty of NRA types, who agree that there are certain kinds of weapons that should not be available to We the People.

For example, you'd find yourself in a heap of trouble if you had in your possession, say, a nuclear bomb. No one argues that you should have the right to have a nukular bomb because of the Second Amendment. Right?

Well then, what about a tank? Do you get to have a tank? Or maybe a hand grenade? Or a bazooka? Or some land mines?

How about a howitzer?

Almost every reasonable person understands that there should be limits on the right to bear arms. Right?

The Second Amendment is already infringed on. The only question is to what degree.

I happen to think it should be infringed on to the point of making a whole host of automatic weapons highly restricted. Not eliminated, just restricted in the sense that registration and reasonable controls are put into place. I've always thought that.

You are in good company...

Our forefathers have, throughout U.S. History excluded certain weapons of war and mass destruction as a matter of common sense when considering the limitations of the second amendment.

You are stating a position which is compatable with most closely held positions in America.

Unfortunatly, Common Sence does not always have its way. Believe it or not, the common sence you state is rejected by some. As for me, I have always thought that weapons of war and mass destruction are not in the category of "bearing Arms".

Thank you for your comment.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

I agree.

And I grew up a hunter and sportsmen. I have always advocated a perfectly logical middle ground to this argument, but if we took it, then where would the fun be.


One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Give me a break...

I'm working on my wife's loaner and I swear it has an "Erase" key and white out attached to it.

One man with courage makes a majority.
- Andrew Jackson

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

Duly noted; break given.

Though I hope for your sake that you're not comparing your wife to that famous blond with the computer screen and white out...

Now for 440 bucks, you can get this little baby!

actually, no one, who proposes to do away with the Second Amendment. No one.* A

Really! You better tell all of those anti gun lobbist groups that hang on any gun death for a reason to disarmed the Hood. Would you feel safer if you had a weapon of choice that would stop John Hood from seizing your property without a court order for his new Condo project. Or better yet, would you perfer to defend yourself from Fast Freddie Smith the king of Johnston County and his Sheriff buddy on a trump up tractor stealing charge?

But I know of lots of people, including plenty of NRA types, who agree that there are certain kinds of weapons that should not be available to We the People.* A

Yeah! I have seen those NRA types before. Usually they are snitches for the ATF and work on commission.

For example, you'd find yourself in a heap of trouble if you had in your possession, say, a nuclear bomb. No one argues that you should have the right to have a nukular bomb because of the Second Amendment. Right?* A

Wrong AngloEnstein! Did you know that American citizens can own a nuke? Yes! That is correct, but getting the permit from the Atom energy commission is a bitch.

Well then, what about a tank? Do you get to have a tank? Or maybe a hand grenade? Or a bazooka? Or some land mines?*A

All of the above! You would do anything to get rid of the Neo-con Bush agenda would n't you A, if you knew the suckers were going to torture you and make a profit off you with their private contracting company called Haliburton and the Blackwater Group. It worked the first time in the American revolution when we got rid of that other King George

How about a howitzer?* A

Sure no problem! Remember the first hero of the American Revolution was a guy name Knox who haul 100 stolen Brit cannons in a driving snowstorm for 150 miles to win the battle for Boston. George Washington first victory. By the way Fort Knox is name after him and he never knew what a cannon was until he read a book about them at the start of the American revolution. He stole a Brit cannon manuel from a drunk Redcoat one night in a drinking bout.

Almost every reasonable person understands that there should be limits on the right to bear arms. Right?* A

Nope! Ask the Patriot movement and the millions in it now. They are growing with amazing pace and hate Republicans like Bush and love Rosie O'Donald. Can you believe that? In fact, ask all of the ghosts of the innocent 90 women and children of the Waco assault by our government and I am sure they will tell you that they needed some anti-tank guns to finished off the ATF and FBI murdering Swat teams in the end.

The Second Amendment is already infringed on. The only question is to what degree.* A

You got that right! Somehow Congress does not understand that part in the consitution about " Congress cannot make Law to infringed upon the right to bear arms by American citizens"

I happen to think it should be infringed on to the point of making a whole host of automatic weapons highly restricted. Not eliminated, just restricted in the sense that registration and reasonable controls are put into place. I've always thought that.*A

Yeah! I am sure the American settlers thought the same thing about repeating rifles when the Indians were attacking the farm.

I like you A, but you have to remember, would you whether try to talk a bad guy out of raping your child or wife without a weapon of choice pointed at his heart?

I suggest that some of your fine and very nice liberal friends do this little project for a week or so in any major minority city or in some high price condo division in Cary.

Simply put up one of those cute little real estate signs in your front yard that says..

WARNING!!! THE OWNER OF THIS HOUSE HAS NO GUNS OR WEAPONS ON THIS PROPERTY. Preceed at your own risk if you are thinking of a career in Crime!

Your good buddy sharpshooters Danial Boone and Davy Crockett.

By the way A. Don't panic about me owning a nuke. Its great way to make the Bush Republicans understand the term " Balance of Power" in foreign and local neighborhood zoning disputes.

reasonable points...

...but here's another point of view:

suppose semi-automatic weapons with composite stocks are banned, and semi-automatic weapons with wood stocks are not?

suppose bayonet mounts are banned? does that really reduce risk?

would you consider 9 rounds in a magazine, loaded into a handgun, inherently less dangerous than 15 rounds in the same handgun?

these are actual restrictions, and such is the state of gun regulation in the us.

my complaint is not with regulation per se, but with how we go about it.

michael moore posed a question in "bowling for columbine" that i've never heard properly answered: why is the us incidence of gun violence so much higher than canada's, considering that both countries have similar rates of gun ownership?

my suspicion is that is the issue to consider and resolve, and that it will be tougher than trying to limit weapon access; but in the end the answer will likely be more effective in reducing this type of violence.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

Ban SUV's To Muslin students at UNC?

my suspicion is that is the issue to consider and resolve, and that it will be tougher than trying to limit weapon access; but in the end the answer will likely be more effective in reducing this type of violence.* fake consultant

Really? Just last year at UNC Chapel Hill we had a nutcase Muslin student drive a SUV on to the campus square and try to wipe out the entired student body. UNC was lucky it could have been the VPI at that time if the idiot knew how to use the SUV as a WMD.

Do we ban SUV's or simply restrict the rental agreements between rental auto companies and Muslins?

again...

...the point here is that discovering and trying to resolve the problems that lead to these outbursts, while difficult, might be more effective than trying to ban guns, or suvs, or homemade sarin.
or fertilizer, for that matter

and why is the fact that the student you reference is muslim relevant?

if he had declared jihad there would be a reason to mention it, but if the student didn't what's the point?

nutcase christian kids were involved in columbine.

is that a commentary on christianity?
of course not.

"...i feel that if a person can't communicate, the very least he can do is to shut up." --tom lehrer, january 1965

I'll second you on that, A

I'm not a strict constructionist by a damn sight. While the founding fathers were wise in some ways, in others they were trapped in their own time on certain things.

In their time, it was perfectly acceptable to enshrine that black folks counted for 3/5 of a white person and only white, male property owners could take part in political discussions and have any real say at all with a vote on them.

I always hate how the "slippery-slopers" come out of the woodwork on the gun issue. Everything is a slippery slope if you think about it. What keeps us all sane and safe is the push and pull between sensible proposals, not clinging to absolutes. And gun advocates are just this way---they fight every sensible proposal put up for discussion, saying it's part of some evil conspiracy to take their guns.

And it's events just like Virginia Tech that wake us the #$@# up to reality---that maybe folks should not be able to by guns and magazine clips with the capability to take out 50 people within minutes. I heard today on the radio that if the AWB hadn't been allowed to expire in 2004, this kid wouldn't have been able to legally procure the magazine clips he used to make his gun a weapon of mass destruction.

We need to wake up here---clinging to a right "just because" doesn't make any sense when we have so many gun deaths in our society. To my knowledge, the founding fathers lived in a time of muskets, not Glocks.

Marshall, I'll expect nothing more, nothing less of you, WHEN you beat W Jones, than to seriously consider sensible proposals to protect Americans from themselves. I don't expect you to repeal the 2nd Amendment, but I do expect you to listen and contribute sensibly as you do on everything else.

War is over if you want it.

"Everything is a slippery slope if you think about it."

This is a pet peeve, but the above statement just isn't true. Given first-step A (the prohibition against regular Joes owning assault rifles) and horrible terrible position B (a complete ban on all citizen gun ownership, leading to a police state), we can assume that there is a range of possible steps in between. (I think that's what you were saying, Internazionale, and I agree.)

But that doesn't make for a slippery slope. You only have a slippery slope if there is no more sensible stopping point between A and horrible, terrible B than A (or something even further from B than A). But that's not the point that "slippery-slopers" (I like the name) are trying to make. In fact, they're usually trying to use the fact of the existence of a range of possible steps in between to avoid talking about whether there is a place between A and B that we should be. It's lame, and it's stupid.

An example.

If we allow the use of embryonic stem cells for federally funded research, everything will go all to hell. Why not then clone embryos just to harvest stem cells? Why not grow entire fetuses to get transplant organs for newborns? Why not grow whole people to live in unconsciousness until we need a kidney? Why not clone a slave race? The next thing you know we'll have human-animal hybrids!

This point of view ignores the fact that there is at least one sensible stopping point between using discarded embryos for federally funded research and a master race of chicken men: a restriction to only using embryos created for reproductive clinic use, or maybe a restriction on the size of an embryo that can be used. We may disagree about which is the better position, but when there are footholds for argument between A and B, there is no slippery slope.

Watch and listen -- 9 times out of 10 (or more), someone describing a "slippery slope" is in fact just trying to smear your position by making an intellectually shallow argument that it is equivalent to whatever horrible related thing they can imagine.

Thanks for the clarification

I should pay you to speak for me, or, I should go back to school and take a philopsophy class. You are right---the slippery-slopers are creating false slippery-slope arguments in the first place.

And let me say that I also agree with those who want to attack the mental health aspect of the issue, too. Our response to this and other, smaller but more daily tragedies should be sensible and comprehensive. But one of the reasons NOTHING significant has been achieved in this country for quite some time is this clinging to absolutes, especially with stuff like the 2nd Amendment and my other favorite, which you brought up, the stem cell debate.

I was speaking with a conservative friend about stem cells. When I told him that I wanted to use the thousands and thousands of stem cells for research that are being THROWN IN THE FUCKING TRASH, he said that the only reason he was against it was that he thought that would lead to cloning. Now THAT is a slippery-sloper if you ever saw one, creating a false slippery slope. As a person living with chronic illness, I find clinging to these absolutes, using false slippery-slope arguments really offensive.

War is over if you want it.

The radio was wrong...

I heard today on the radio that if the AWB hadn't been allowed to expire in 2004, this kid wouldn't have been able to legally procure the magazine clips he used to make his gun a weapon of mass destruction.

The ban was on production of high-capacity(more than 10 rounds) magazines. The ownership and sale of them was and is completely legal. Prior to the enactment of the ban, manufacturers ramped up production and there have always been plenty of high-cap magazines. Yes, there was some hoarding going on at the beginning and especially Glock magazines went up in price for a while, but the market quickly corrected itself.

I know this because I was a gun enthusiast at the time the ban was enacted and attended many gun shows and owned many of the "banned" items.

Good info

Thanks, SP.

War is over if you want it.

Anglico...Were you gone for a while?

Just wondering.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

Price the bullets

at $100,000 each :P

No matter that patriotism is too often the refuge of scoundrels. Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.

Progressive Discussions

There's the solution!

Leave it to you!

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

Hmmmm.....You may be on to something....

Lets put up the ballon and see if it floats.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

We have bigger fish to fry in America....

Gun control should never be allowed to overshadow the work we need to do on ensureing some very basic equalities in America. Like Health care, Immigration, The balance between liberty and safety, our elementry school children and the quality of education we are providing today, Veterans assistance,the enviorment, our nations infrastructure and more. Issues like gun control do not rise to the level of these pressing and urgent matters. I know many will disagree.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

This very issue was my first thought

after they stated what happened on the news. My grief for the families (including the gunman's), and then wondering, "How long is it going to take for the gun control issue to rear its ugly head?".

Famous old saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Just like drugs are illegeal, people still get them/sell them/use them. Robbing banks is illegeal, but people still do it. Don't make guns illegeal.......the wrong people will still have them.

Signed,
Proud Woman .357 Owner & User

The wrong issue

The issue that the VA Tech tragedy should bring to the foreground of discussion is not gun control but mental health. After watching only 90 minutes of the obsessive coverage on CNN, it's clear that the young man responsible for this had serious mental health issues that needed to be addressed. It's unclear if there were attempts to address them or not, but with everything that's happening in our state mental health system, we should be very aware that our secretary of DHHS,and by extension our Governor, could be very well letting ticking time bombs fall through the ever widening holes in our social safety web.

"Be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi

This is exactly the type of connection we should draw

after such an event. Mental health should be the thing hghlighted here. Very good point especially consdering the situation in NC today regarding mental health

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

Mental Health

That's exactly what my thoughts were - if there were services available ... could the guy go, could he afford to go, if his family tried to have him involutarily committed was there a place for him to go ...?

Gun control? WTF? You can't stop the determined. The best you can do is slow them down.

It was a tragedy but taking the conversation down the gun control path is a disservice to VTech and the rest of the nation. That trail doesn't enlighten, it obscures.

There's a time and place for every conversation but this isn't it. The problem isn't that he had a gun, the problem is he was a person with mental health issues that had a gun. And his mental state led him to use it.

If it were all about the guns, this type of occurance would be much more common than it is. JMO, of course.

Hi Unique..I like reading your stuff....

You are right about the weapon being a tool in the hands of a Mental Health plaqued person. I agree that is the problem, not so much the way he choose to act out what ever his delusion was.

But, you can bet, that there are those who will actually attach this blame to the people who own guns in America and their persistant opposition to gun control. The gun manufactuers will also be blamed for this insane act of murder. I have already seen the debates beginning on the tube.

This gun argument, which will begin, only detracts from the real issue of social intervention and mental health. THese are the issues we need to address.
We are not as far apart as you would suppose.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

I Don't Think We're Far Apart At All

You seem like a common sense kind of guy.

Whenever an issue requires deep thought, I weigh pros and cons. Not just numerically, but by the weight of each argument.

It leaves me at a stalemate some of the time but I figure that's what the Supreme Court is for.

When somebody pays me to be a deep thinker, I'll think a little harder. ;)

I know there are people that think all guns should be banned but I don't think they are thinking logically. Guns are already out there; bad guys have guns, they aren't afraid to use them. Disarming the law abiding population won't stop the unlawful from obtaining or using them so why bother? It doesn't fix the problem.

Its coming out now

that some people, including teachers and his roommate saw some clear warning signs.

however, the teacher could do nothing more than ask him to think about getting counseling. she wasnt allowed to do or say anything more than that.

Draft Brad Miller -- NC Sen ActBlue :::Liddy 44 Brad 33

"Keep the Faith"