# Cry and drool



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I would imagine that the Washington liberals are wringing their shirts this morning. They must be soaked after a day of crying for 32 victims and drooling over more gun control. They will pile victims upon victims. Upon the 32 dead they will pile the loss of freedom for millions. They drool over the opportunity for more gun control, and unfortunately the time is ripe. 
Some things that have just come to my attention. I have seen three former Columbine students interviewed that travel about the country talking about school shootings. That makes them in their mid 20's now and they are making a living talking about Columbine?? One young fellow said he never thinks about Columbine, then five or six sentences later says he does a lot of traveling talking to school children about violence and school shootings. What does he mean he never thinks about it? 
I have a hard time with people names. I can remember tiny little aquatic insects like Colymbetes sculptilis exeretus, but not Dick or Jane. Yesterday a well known new media fellow (who you can perhaps remember the name of) talked about how this may not have happened if the Clinton gun ban was still in existence. He said that magazine capacity was responsible for many of the deaths. I also heard talk about automatic weapons, and large caliber weapons. 
You can expect an attack from every angle in the next year. Some of the things brought up before that went nowhere will gain traction now. Things I have heard in the past from Washington liberals:
Full metal are cop killers
Hollow points are made for maximum damage and should be outlawed
Scopes are only for snipers and should be outlawed
Semiauto are all assault weapons
Handguns have only one purpose and that is to kill people
High velocity firearms are assault weapons
Sub velocity firearms are meant to use with silencers and should be outlawed
There is no need for anyone to have more than 50 rounds of ammunition
There should be a 1000 percent tax on all ammunition (Kennedy to be exact)
Anyone with more than three firearms and or more than 100 rounds of ammunition should be required to have an arsenal license and subject to random search by BATF.
Any firearms ownership should require fingerprinting

The list goes on and on and on. Some will pass now with this disaster in Virginia, and the one in Washington D. C.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

I just read this:
He was identified by NBC News as Sung Hue Chow, a 23-year-old permanent legal resident from Korea.
They were saying it was one gun. What I wanted to say about gun control. I know Virginia is one of the easier states to get a concealed weapon permit. But on that campus "all" firearms are banned. The only people carrying weapons are campus police. So regardless if this person, not a born citizen, had a permit to carry he was still breaking the Campus Laws by carrying. I don't know who said it but it was said. If you make carrying a gun a criminal act only criminals will have guns. You can read that 2 ways. I choose to read it that if they take my guns I will be defenseless against any criminal that have these weapons illegally anyway.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Thirtysome people are dead and right away it is somehow tied in with the liberals. I think this shows lack of respect for a tragic event. :eyeroll:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

In the briefing this morning these particular guns were identified as a 9MM and .22 semi auto. The serial numbers had been filed off both guns. In the brief picture that was displayed I did not have a chance to identify the brand of the guns but neither had a extended magazine. This guy was identified as a 23 year old Korean student that had attempted to hide all identification leading to himself. Seems to me he was simply bent on killing people for what ever reason and if guns had not been available I suspect it would have been explosives, fire or something else. One thing that puzzles me is that as a resident alien I was not aware that he could have purchased guns. I thought you had to be a born citizen or a naturalized citizen. Nevertheless, as Jiffy pointed out this is going to have a ripple effect that will in the end not protect anyone but at all but will harm law abiding citizens.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Nice try Rooster, but you know exactly what I was getting at. Of course it's a tragic event, and I was not detracting from that as you are trying to imply. You see Rooster us conservatives are not heartless, you liberals just try your best to portray us that way. That attempt tells me you have nothing of substance for a counterpoint. 
Of course the tragedy is not linked to liberals. Anyone with two brain cells knows that Rooster. I would never think anyone stupid enough to try make that link, but evidently you think you know someone. No, you don't, you're a typical liberal taking a cheap shot. Any shot to win cheap or not right? I don't like being portrayed as heartless Rooster and you know better. Liberals proclaim themselves as compassionate, feeling, caring, truthful, honest, now lets see it. 
My point is there will be a tragedy to follow this tragedy. My point also is that "Washington liberals" will see a silver lining in this cloud. The silver lining they see is this tragedy providing an opportunity for more attacks on the second amendment. That darn constitution just keeps getting in the way doesn't it?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I think it is the liberal anti gun left, that makes these sitations worse and more likely to happen

This is undoubtedly the worst school shooting, high school, college or otherwise, in the history of our country. There are some facts, however, about some of these school shootings of which you probably are not aware. Do you know, for instance, that at least three shootings in high schools were stopped by civilians with guns? Civilians, not law enforcement. In one case a civilian was traveling past a school when he saw children running from the building. One told him that there was a student inside shooting people. The civilian pulled his gun, ran in side, and confronted the student. The student put down the gun and surrendered. In another case a high school vice-principal heard that there was a student in the hallways with a gun. He sprinted a half-mile to his car. He had a gun in his car so he had to park off campus. He then sprinted back with the gun to confront the student. Lives saved.

There have been many other cases where civilians with guns have prevented further carnage at the hands of killers. The media isn't fond of reporting these episodes because they don't contribute to the cause of gun control.

The point here is that you are never ever going to get the guns out of the hands of those who want to use them for carnage. Never. In all the years of press releases and statements from the Brady anti-gun organization there has never been one single gun control plan presented that would take the guns out of the hands of criminals. This is the oddity of gun control. Only law abiding people are going to abide by gun control laws. Criminals are not. The anti-gun lobby, and that includes much of the media, will never give any fair coverage at all to the people who use guns to save their own lives, or the lives of others.

*Now here's something that I have yet to see reported in the mainstream media. Earlier this year the Virginia General Assembly failed to act on House Bill 1572. The citizens of Virginia are permitted to carry concealed weapons if they get a proper permit from the state government --- unless you are on a college campus. This bill would have allowed college students and employees to carry handguns on campus --- with appropriate permits, of course. It died in subcommittee. After the bill was thrown out up steps Larry Hincker, a spokesman for Virginia Tech, the site of today's carnage, who says "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."
So .. how safe did these students and faculty in Norris Hall feel yesterday? *

Now nobody can say for certain, but if it had been legal for students, employees or faculty members with permits to carry guns on the campus, is it at all possible that there might be some students alive today who didn't make it through the carnage? Do you think the actions of the Virginia General Assembly stopped the gunman from getting his guns and carrying them to the campus? * Of course not*. Reports are that the guns had their serial numbers scratched off. The were acquired outside of the normal channels of commerce and illegally carried to the Virginia Tech campus. *The law meant nothing to the shooter. It meant something to the victims though*, and perhaps that's why there wasn't one person anywhere near the shooter with a gun that might .. just might have been used for self defense.

*There are those out there who think that allowing people to carry a concealed weapon on a college campus is an absurd idea. Why so? Just how is a college campus that much different than our society as a whole? Diverse people living together in common environment pursuing different goals. Where's the big difference?* What is so special about a college campus that students should not be allowed to own firearms? What if some student in the dormitory had a gun? What if he heard the argument in an adjoining room and had accompanied the student advisor when he went to quell the disturbance? Could that student with a gun have stopped this carnage before it even began? We'll never know. But is there anyone out there who can say for a certainty that the day might have played out quite differently?

Some of the less educated will come forth with lines of thought like "We don't want to return to the wild, wild west." Why not? What research have you put into your clever little "wild wild west" line? Do you know anything about the actual crime rates in the so-called wild west? Would you be surprised to learn that the crime rate in what we now refer to as the "wild wild west" was actually lower than it is in most American cities now? And why would that be? Because people were armed, for one thing. * People were armed, and the bad guys knew that people were armed.* Tell me ... just what chance do you think a lone gunman would have had in those days in lining up people against a wall and then calmly picking them off one by one. No ... I'll tell you. Slim to none. Oh he might get off a shot or two, but by then he would be the object of some rather intensive target practice.

And let's talk about people with concealed carry permits. Do you think they're dangerous? Do you think they're just wandering around ready to pull their gun and start shooting at the slightest provocation? Again .. check the statistics. People with concealed carry permits are among the most law abiding people in the nation. Oops ... another little preconception shot to hell, so to speak.

When I was in college I had a shotgun and a deer rifle in my dorm room and went grouse and duck hunting every chance I had, so did my friends.
I used to bring my shotgun and keep it in my locker in high school during hunting season so we could go duck huting in the evenings before it got dark.
Thats was in the late 60's eraly seventies before this country became so crazy.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Excellent post Bob, and I might add that a study was done on crime rates and demographics of this nation. When looking at crimes per 100,000 people those who carried concealed weapons had a lower crime commission than teachers, attorneys, police, etc. They had the lowest incidence of crime of all groups looked at. The margin was huge, and crimes by people with concealed carry permits was nearly undetectable. 
We are being lied to by the left and the media every day. It just depends on if your smart enough to know it.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

This has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. The blood hasn't even been cleaned up and you are spouting anti gun control rhetoric. Everyone in America knows that even with stricter gun control laws things like this will occur. No gun legislation will keep criminals and assassins like these from their trade. We know this and you know this. But...right away the liberal word........paranoia!! This broken record word should be used as a frisbee instead of a boomerang that keeps coming back to be used over and over and over and over! Liberal is the most overused word in the dictionary on the political forum! Man o man, let it go!!!


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

Nothing of the sort Rooster. But I expected that type of response from the spin doctoring left. Listen, anyone who watched the coverage or see some of the kids interviewed had to feel terrible down inside. I am 6'8" and 350 lbs and a few times I had to fight back the tears from some of the accounts. I have a 16 year old daughter. I couldn't imagine anything like this. All I am saying is on every station last night I heard how this will push the Democrats even harder for gun control. You are blatantly accusing some one of being heartless and only taking a political stance. Get real. Feel free to discuss the points at hand but don't point fingers just because you have nothing to add.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> This has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. The blood hasn't even been cleaned up and you are spouting anti gun control rhetoric. Everyone in America knows that even with stricter gun control laws things like this will occur. No gun legislation will keep criminals and assassins like these from their trade. We know this and you know this. But...right away the liberal word........paranoia!! This broken record word should be used as a frisbee instead of a boomerang that keeps coming back to be used over and over and over and over! Liberal is the most overused word in the dictionary on the political forum! Man o man, let it go!!!


Of course we (you and I and a few others) know that more gun control will do nothing to stop this type of violence. The liberals in Washington perhaps know it too, but they will deny it, because they want more anti gun second amendment attacks. For some reason they don't want us to have guns, and why that is not abundantly clear to everyone will forever task my reason. Even the remotely intelligent know this, some just deny it because political loyalty is more important than national loyalty, the constitution or their own personal value system.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> This has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. The blood hasn't even been cleaned up and you are spouting anti gun control rhetoric. Everyone in America knows that even with stricter gun control laws things like this will occur. No gun legislation will keep criminals and assassins like these from their trade. We know this and you know this. But...right away the liberal word........paranoia!! This broken record word should be used as a frisbee instead of a boomerang that keeps coming back to be used over and over and over and over! Liberal is the most overused word in the dictionary on the political forum! Man o man, let it go!!!


Of course we (you and I and a few others) know that more gun control will do nothing to stop this type of violence. The liberals in Washington perhaps know it too, but they will deny it, because they want more anti gun second amendment attacks. For some reason they don't want us to have guns, and why that is not abundantly clear to everyone will forever task my reason. Even the remotely intelligent know this, some just deny it because political loyalty is more important than national loyalty, the constitution or their own personal value system. 
What stirs your loyalty to the point of demonizing conservatives as heartless beasts? Even those on this form who enjoy you here. I am at a loss to understand. Did I not make it clear to you that often when I use the term you I am not using it personally I am using it in the terms of the political group I think you are in. Rooster, I would not consider you an anti firearms knee jerk, bleeding heart liberal. I am sure you are not. However, unlike Santa Clause they do exist.


----------



## Burly1 (Sep 20, 2003)

While I see you, Rooster, as someone who has and uses his vast knowledge to support his views, I can't help but see your current views as being skewed. Your obvious empathy for those who have suffered as a result of this tragedy has caused you to berate that which irks you most frequently. I admire your compassion in this regard. The important thing concerning the gun situation, is for us to present a united front. You say that everyone in America knows that more gun control will not stop this type of thing. You are most assuredly mistaken. There are so many out there that are uneducated about firearms, and simply take the rhetoric of the talking heads as fact. While we all wish that these murders would not have happened, and that similar acts will never again take place, we know that the end result has nothing whatever to do with gun control laws. As always, when someone wants to kill, they will find a way. We must address the problem at it's source(s). Such positive action can only be accomplished by the cooperation of our lawmakers. We elect and support those who can make a difference. I'll take a clear thinking and rational politician over any who choose to merely follow party rhetoric as policy. Again, the only way to handle the fall out from this tragedy is to present a united front. "Those who choose not to remember the past are doomed to repeat it" seems to fit rather well here. 
Burl


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster you wonder how I link this tragedy to gun control? I don't liberals do. I didn't catch the name, but it was a female democrat from the house. Interview, on radio, she brought up the Clinton assault weapon ban, she brought up semiautomatic, she brought up clips with more than ten rounds, she even said that firearms were a health care issue and cost the taxpayer 100 billion annually. What, where do they get these figures out of thin air? One hundred billion? I don't believe this lady for one second. That sum sounds to great to be realistic. Also, why does it cost the taxpayer that much? Are we paying for the drug pusher who gets shot protecting his turf? 
Now they interviewed a liberal that said this poor young man (multiple murderer) must have had some terrible experience in his youth and there was no one for him to talk to. Oh great compassion for the murderer, but put further firearms restrictions on the innocent. Do these people have no capacity for logic? Is there a stupid contest going on in Washington that we don't know about? How can any of us as hunters support these people?


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

The Crazy thing is if they would of cought him alive he probably would of got off with temp. Insanity. Or they would let him sit in jail and let the tax money pay for 3 Sq. Liberals waste 100 billion on murders and rapest meals and a warm bed. Why because liberals feel bad for murders but gun owners are the devil.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I just heard that the liberal European (I know redundant) media is blaming this on Charlton Heston. They say he is indirectly responsible for every death at that Virginia campus. they sure are jealous of our freedom aren't they. And they wonder why our ancestors left there for America.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I don't know if the blood was dry anywhere or not but it was still flowing when yesterday, and within hours after the shootings a university professor said on Fox News that the number one cause of violence was to many guns in America. You don't think this is or won't be about gun control, think again.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

Yeah but later on O'Reilly he had a professor that specialized in gun control. He stated we need less gun control. He said if we bans guns only criminals will have guns. It will not stop them from getting them. He said the police can only do so much to protect us. They can't be at everyone's door 24/7. The only logical way to defend ourselves from these gun wielding criminals is with a firearm.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

I thought the phrase was:

"An unarmed citizen is just a victim waiting to happen".

Or something like that.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

live2hunt
I like that quote and the one that says "an armed man is a citizen an unarmed man is a subject". 
Here are a few more:
President Reagan made Americans proud to be Americans once more. He gave us back our pride, our strength, our Americanism. He did not fear, or wring his hands over what the pools said or what was PC. He acted decisively, he took responsibility for bad decisions, but shared the spot light on the good ones. He was a man who will be missed. He is what we need now, we need another leader like President Ronald Reagan. Farewell Mr. President and may god keep you in his embrace.

No air power without ground power
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." 
-- George Orwell

Those who beat their swords into plows, will plow the fields of those still with swords.

An armed man is a citizen, and unarmed man is a subject.

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~~ George Washington


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

DJRooster
Man o man said:


> You first!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> This has absolutely nothing to do with gun control. The blood hasn't even been cleaned up and you are spouting anti gun control rhetoric. Everyone in America knows that even with stricter gun control laws things like this will occur. No gun legislation will keep criminals and assassins like these from their trade. We know this and you know this. But...right away the liberal word........paranoia!! This broken record word should be used as a frisbee instead of a boomerang that keeps coming back to be used over and over and over and over! Liberal is the most overused word in the dictionary on the political forum! Man o man, let it go!!!


Rooster, would you like to tell me again today how this will have nothing to do with the liberal push for gun control? This was so easily predictable there should have been no doubt in anyone's mind. Have you turned on the radio in the past 24 hours? 
Will liberals use anything for more gun control? I don't know, do bears dump in the woods?


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

As I explained to my class this morning, the law is like evolution. There are two theories. First, that evolution takes time to come about, that species adapt at a slow rate and survive incremental changes in their environment. Second, there is a catastrophic event that eliminates many species, or various members of a species, and only those with traits of adaptability that benefit their survival in the cataclysm exist after that point and continue to evolve.

The tragic events at VT will spur the latter form of legal evolution. The reactive bills and their subsequent laws. It is a situation to watch, that is for certain. I will continue advocating for the proper control of individuals (This Cho Seung was certainly missed by the higher ups at VT, and the police, and there should be repercussions there, no doubt) as THAT was truly the problem with this situation.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Heard someone on the liberal side today say what we should be talking about right now is how to in the future identify people with problems, and take action to help them overcome their problems but now is not the time to go into gun control as that is not important right now. Then a conservative spoke up and said bs, that we should be talking about gun control right now. He went on to say if just a few of those professors that had proven they were proficient with a gun had of been carrying or had quick access to a gun this guy probable could have been stopped sooner. He then said "and that whether you like it or not is also part of gun control". I had never thought about it that way but he is right.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Gohon said:


> I had never thought about it that way but he is right.


That's exactly how I always think of it ... that's why I have a permit to carry a concealed firearm.

As they sometimes say ... "An Armed Society is a Polite Society."


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

To add just a little ...

I was just watching the news ... Commentator says "The Anti Gun Control folks are responding in an irrational way ... just hours after this incident they were giving away FREE GUNS to folks!"

My thinking instantly went to this ... bear with me just a second with this thought.

Suppose every student, faculty and service person on that campus were carrying a concealed weapon. Do you suppose over thirty people would have died before this joker was on the floor assuming room temperature?

I say, not very many would have died.

But Nope ... What we have here is one guy with two auto loaders and extra magazines in competition with a cumpus full of folks armed with nothing but their Fists and their Wits.

I'll leave it at that.

And no I don't suggest folks who do not want anything to do with a gun ought to be forced to have one ... but Guns are a tool. they are a tool used by the bad guys to do bad things and they are the only reasonable tool for stopping the bad guy in the act.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Sounds to me like some may want to actually try to figure out a solution and the rest of you just want to let them shoot. Who sponsored the Brady Bill? Was this another liberal plot?? Did only the liberals cast a yes vote???


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Rooster, didn't you make the comment a while back that everyone knows that more gun control isn't the answer and would not have stopped this. Someone corrected you on that and said "not everyone knows". Now that you see the liberals are going after more gun control you simply say


> Sounds to me like some may want to actually try to figure out a solution.


 That sounds to me like your drinking the KookAid. Gulps are so loud I can hear them from here. 
No, not only liberals voted for the Brady Bill, fools come in all political flavors. It may not be a democratic plot, but it is a liberal plot. It is one of their steps to push incrementally to a total gun ban. You can turn a blind eye to that if you wish, but to most sportsmen it's as obvious as the sun rising in the east.

As to me jumping to the conclusion that the liberals would respond to the VT shootings with cries for more gun control and you thinking I was way off base ------------- I think I am entitled to a I TOLD YOU SO.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Is the NRA trying to determine if more legislation can be written into gun control laws restricting the sale of guns to people with documented mental illness? Is this a good thing or is this to liberal of an idea???? God, I hate that word!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I can see why you hate the word liberal. It's sort of name calling isn't it? After all it is one of the nastiest things I can think to call someone.  but you know the old cliche about if the shoe fits ------

Rooster, have you purchased a gun since 1968? The law your talking about is already in place.

The liberal idea would be to ban all handguns, all semi auto, anything with a pistol grip, anything with a thumbhole stock (what does that have to do with anything) anything that shoots full metal jackets (cop killers), anything that shoots nasty hollow points (remember the Black Talons) and a 1000% tax on all ammo (Kennedy).


----------

