Va. Tech Families Protest State Gun Law

W

WSM MAGNUM

New member
Va. Tech Families Protest State Gun Law
By KRISTEN GELINEAU
Associated Press Writer

RICHMOND, Va. - Survivors and families of the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings faced off Monday against gun-rights advocates over a bill that would prevent criminals and the mentally ill from buying firearms at gun shows.
About 100 supporters of the measure lay on the Capitol lawn to honor the victims of gun violence, as about 200 opponents stood nearby, holding signs that read, "Here Lie Disarmed Victims."

At one point, Jeff Knox, director of operations of the Manassas-based Firearms Coalition, approached survivor Colin Goddard and said students could have stopped student Seung-Hui Cho's rampage if they had been allowed to carry guns on campus.

"I would have stopped him," Knox said. "Because when I went to school, I carried a gun. It was legal; I did it."

Goddard, a Virginia Tech senior who was shot four times in the April 16 massacre, was taken aback, then said: "I feel sorry for you - the fact that you feel you need to protect yourself in every situation.

"You're afraid of crazy situations happening. I've lived through this and I know that I can't continue in my life afraid of things," he said, adding that he put his "full trust" in the police to protect society.


Earlier Monday at a Senate committee hearing on the bill, supporters, many wearing ribbons in Tech's colors of maroon and orange, outnumbered opponents, sporting buttons reading "Guns Save Lives" by about 3 to 1.

The legislation would require unlicensed sellers at gun shows to run criminal background checks on buyers. Such checks now are required only of federally licensed gun dealers.

Cho, who killed 32 people at Tech before committing suicide, passed a background check and bought one gun from a store and a second online despite having been deemed mentally defective by a Virginia court.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has since signed an executive order requiring that anyone ordered by a court to get mental health treatment be added to a state police database of people barred from buying guns.

Gun-rights advocates said the bill would burden law-abiding citizens and gun show promoters. They also noted that Cho did not buy his weapon at a gun show, but supporters said that doesn't matter.

The idea, they said, is to reduce the possibility of similar tragedies in the future.

"You can no longer say you have not been forewarned," said Joseph Samaha, whose daughter Reema was among those killed. "By voting 'no' you are doomed to relive history."

A committee vote on the measure will be Wednesday, the panel chairman said.

___

Associated Press writer Larry O'Dell contributed to this report.


http://kevxml2a.verizon.net/_1_26K4...0&qcat=usnews&ran=31510&passqi=&feed=ap&top=1


I feel sorry for this guy that made this statement that I emphasized in bold above. People like this do not understand "give me life, give me liberty, and give me freedom. :( What a shame.
 
Earlier Monday at a Senate committee hearing on the bill, supporters, many wearing ribbons in Tech's colors of maroon and orange, outnumbered opponents, sporting buttons reading "Guns Save Lives" by about 3 to 1.
Click to expand...

This would be because the folks trying to "steer" the meeting basically rushed the VT group into the room before anyone else could go in. There were easily twice as many VCDL members still outside but no room to enter.

"nice" twist by the media though.

The legislation would require unlicensed sellers at gun shows to run criminal background checks on buyers.
Click to expand...
but interestingly enough there are NO provisions to give private citizens access to NICS so that such a background check could be run. In other words it's a "backdoor" ban on private sales.
 
OOOOOOOOH :barf:

Why should I be licenced to sell a leagle product? Are you required to sell a AUTO that kills more? Thank God I live in the back boonies! I want nothing of or from you people! How I feel Sorry for people that have no life, and just plain don't know what it is like to be FREE!
 
Rely on police to completely protect society. :barf: I have never used that emoticon before. I am now officially sick at my stomach.

I think a better question is if this guy had been deemed "mentally defective" why did he pass a NCIS background check at the gun store? That's the burning question in my mind. In TX I don't think you can buy a gun if you've been committed...not sure but I think the gun shop owner told me that. I think fixing what appears to be a broken process is more of a priority than adding new laws.

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has since signed an executive order requiring that anyone ordered by a court to get mental health treatment be added to a state police database of people barred from buying guns.
Click to expand...

As long as there is a way for a "mentally defective" individual get get that right back after they have been "repaired" I don't see anything wrong with that. IF the law is written a little more specifically like forced to be instated in a mental institution for a period of six months or more....blah blah blah. Being ordered by a court to see a counselor or anger management specialist should not get people added to that list.

The legislation would require unlicensed sellers at gun shows to run criminal background checks on buyers.
Click to expand...

Now...my opinion on this has nothing to do with SHOULD one even have to be licensed to own a gun shop and sell guns. The laws are what they are.

I don't see anything wrong with that either. That does not ban private sales, that requires a guy who sets up a booth with 200 guns to do a background check...just like a gun shop. If you meet Joe and want to sell him your coveted Kimber Carry Pro Tactical you can still do so. Worse come to worse you go outside or down the street to complete your transaction.

Again, those are just my opinions and I am assuming a bit (accurate characterization of the laws...I know that's a stretch) as I have not read the legislation.

The scariest thing in that article is the fact that a senior at an institution of higher learning would make such a generalization and form such a concrete opinion based on evidence that is CONTRARY to his opinion (they did not prevent the shooting nor protect anyone...why will tomorrow be different?)

The 2A does say "reasonable regulations", I guess reasonable is in the eyes of the beholder but those two concepts, as I understand them, are completely reasonable. No need a seller at a show should be held to different standards than a guy who owns a brick and mortar shop (again, that licensing requirement might be seen as unreasonable period BUT the requirement should be upheld across the board). The one about "mentally defective" depends a lot more about the specifics of the wording and conditions, there's a different between someone needing to get themselves straightened out a bit and "mentally defective". We're all defective in some way :D.
 
The hard-science guy in me wants to remark wittily on the common sense of "international studies" majors... but I won't be a jerk.

I will say, maybe Goddard will care about someone more than himself some day, and realize that even if he can live defenselessly (recklessly), those he loves should not have to. If it were just about me I'd probably be more relaxed too. But I couldn't live with myself if I was relegated to spectating while something terrible was happening.

As to the main thread of discussion here, I can say many people who might be considered "defective" for one reason or another are responsible people who deserve the right to defend themselves and those they care for as much as anyone else. Sweeping generalizations are flatly prejudicial, something the left generally opposes vehemently. Such arbitrary and categorical restrictions on gun ownership are clearly "unreasonable." The only way in which otherwise inalienable rights should be stripped - embracing all the rights of American citizens - should be on an individual basis, depending most heavily on the person's own behaviors and decisions in rendering themself ineligible to share in a particular freedom. Blanket propositions such as these are not only ineffective (as are all gun laws, tbh), but twice unAmerican, in going against both our constitutional guarantees and our belief that all persons are born equal.
 
I think a better question is if this guy had been deemed "mentally defective" why did he pass a NCIS background check at the gun store? That's the burning question in my mind.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, he wasn't court ordered to undergo treatment, but was in a clinic for a while voluntarily. Correct me if I'm wrong on that.
 
Goddard, a Virginia Tech senior who was shot four times in the April 16 massacre, was taken aback, then said: "I feel sorry for you - the fact that you feel you need to protect yourself in every situation.
Click to expand...

I just can't physically understand how someone, especially someone who was nearly murdered, cannot, even after that, feel the need to defend themselves from anything! I'm just completely numb about it.....

"You're afraid of crazy situations happening. I've lived through this and I know that I can't continue in my life afraid of things," he said, adding that he put his "full trust" in the police to protect society.
Click to expand...

True, you can't live your life in total, irrational, paranoid fear of something happening to you, but why can't you be simply prepared in case it does? Even the cub scouts teach you to be prepared.

And how could someone put their full trust, including their very life, in the hands of anyone else? Police or no police. Did the police keep him from getting shot, or those people from being murdered THAT time? Then why would it even be remotely rational to believe they could prevent it from happening NEXT time? The police, no matter how well intentioned, cannot guard you at all times, and you should know this without doubt, since you JUST GOT SHOT, so it stands to reason that one must have the means to protect ones self if the police are not with you at the moment of peril!!!

ARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHH! IDIOT PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!
 
As to the main thread of discussion here, I can say many people who might be considered "defective" for one reason or another are responsible people who deserve the right to defend themselves and those they care for as much as anyone else. Sweeping generalizations are flatly prejudicial, something the left generally opposes vehemently. Such arbitrary and categorical restrictions on gun ownership are clearly "unreasonable." The only way in which otherwise inalienable rights should be stripped - embracing all the rights of American citizens - should be on an individual basis, depending most heavily on the person's own behaviors and decisions in rendering themself ineligible to share in a particular freedom. Blanket propositions such as these are not only ineffective (as are all gun laws, tbh), but twice unAmerican, in going against both our constitutional guarantees and our belief that all persons are born equal.
Click to expand...

Zing!

Well said.
 
I hope our friends in Va. who work in the social services give us a true reading of these proposals. Key issues on the table:

1. Demanding background checks for private sales at gun shows. As someone mentioned, individuals can't access NICS. So, what is the practical effect? Does this effectively (and dishonestly) ban private sales? Or will private buyer/seller have to find a willing FFL to bless their transaction? Does the ban only apply at gunshows? Can the willing buyer/seller just go outside the gunshow and complete the transaction legally in the parking lot? Seems like a tailor-made situation to encourage more abuse by unscrupulous ATF agents (was the transaction "initiated" in the gunshow, or not?) :mad:

2. Unless this bill is being reported incorrectly:
Gov. Timothy M. Kaine has since signed an executive order requiring that anyone ordered by a court to get mental health treatment be added to a state police database of people barred from buying guns.
Click to expand...
this is quite different than the standard that was always raised by defenders; namely "adjudicated mental defective". Seems like the high bar is already being lowered to include those merely ordered by a court to undergo mental evaluation (what a surprise!). Would a one-time evaluation order permanently bar a person from gun ownership, even if the evaluation found the person competent? Call me cynical, but I sense where this could be heading (slippery slope toward abuse). :(

Of course, I invite those closer to the situation to correct me if I'm wrong (hopefully with citations). ;)
 
I don't seem to recognize a right of survivors and families of the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings to push for new laws in Virginia. It would be bad enough to have a tiny minority of Virginians pushing for a law, but as I understand it, many of the victims were from out of State, so what we seem to have is a small group of emotionally disturbed foreigners trying to change Virginia law.
 
Those of you fighting against background checks for ALL sales are fighting a loosing battle. The antis will push these measures through because the majority of the nation does support the concept of a background check for all gun sales (private or not).

You can stand outside and hurl slogans all you want or you can take the initiative and craft legislation that is as simple and burden free for the honest citizen. If you elect to hand the initiative over to the opposition though WE WILL LOOSE. The legislation will go through with nasty little back doors on it like this one. Requiring checks for private sales but without a method for them to be done...

Wake up and work with the system.
 
I don't seem to recognize a right of survivors and families of the victims of the Virginia Tech shootings to push for new laws in Virginia.
Click to expand...

Right or Wrong they have the same right you do. It doesn't matter if you recognize that fact. Not recognizing the right though is a pretty sad statement.
 
Right or Wrong they have the same right you do. It doesn't matter if you recognize that fact. Not recognizing the right though is a pretty sad statement.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that citizens of other States and Countries have the same right as Virginians to determine law in Virginia? Our laws are not their laws and they have no right to protest them. It's not their State.
 
"You can no longer say you have not been forewarned," said Joseph Samaha, whose daughter Reema was among those killed. "By voting 'no' you are doomed to relive history."
Click to expand...

History? You want to talk about history? Fine. Open a history book, and tell me how many people have been disarmed and massacred by their own governments.
 
Are you saying that citizens of other States and Countries have the same right as Virginians to determine law in Virginia? Our laws are not their laws and they have no right to protest them. It's not their State.
Click to expand...

WRONG. They have every right to protest. So they may not be residents of VA but they may have had children killed in VA or themselves been victims of crime in VA. Their status as victims or relatives of victims though is immaterial. They have the same rights as you do to protest. They do not have the right to VOTE for VA representatives but are perfectly free to peaceably assemble and make their case. This is the same right you have to go to NY and protest its draconian gun laws, or go to CA and protest the microstamping law which has the potential to spill over to other states.

Someone once said "I may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to do so with my life." Anybody remember that?
 
Goddard, a Virginia Tech senior who was shot four times in the April 16 massacre, was taken aback, then said: "I feel sorry for you - the fact that you feel you need to protect yourself in every situation.

"You're afraid of crazy situations happening. I've lived through this and I know that I can't continue in my life afraid of things," he said, adding that he put his "full trust" in the police to protect society.
Click to expand...

Pay close attention. This is the point at which a human being changes from an intelligent omnivore to a willing...prey animal. :barf:
 
WRONG. They have every right to protest. So they may not be residents of VA but they may have had children killed in VA or themselves been victims of crime in VA. Their status as victims or relatives of victims though is immaterial. They have the same rights as you do to protest. They do not have the right to VOTE for VA representatives but are perfectly free to peaceably assemble and make their case. This is the same right you have to go to NY and protest its draconian gun laws, or go to CA and protest the microstamping law which has the potential to spill over to other states.

Someone once said "I may not agree with what you say but will defend your right to do so with my life." Anybody remember that?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but you seem to have mistaken me for a yankee. I do not believe that I have a right to go to NY or CA and protest their laws. I may not like their laws, but I reckon they have a right to pass them.

It is Virginians that have a right to peaceably assemble and to petition Virginia government for a redress of grievances. And Californians that have a right to do so in CA, and New Yorkers that have a right to do so in NY. The point of it all is that the people of each State have a right to control their own legislature. I think you are WRONG to turn such fundamental principles against themselves by construing them to mean that foreigners have the same right to peaceably assemble and to petition the Virginia government as Virginians do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top