Virginia Tech Consequences?

Interestingly, liberal ABC news last night showed that 49% of Americans think that how you are brought up and taught had something to do with the shooting and other shootings, and 27% thought the wide availability of guns had something to do with it.
 
According to reports the gun was legally purchased. So much for arguing that he was using an illegal weapon. This won't bode well for the politics.


edit: does one only need to be a resident alien to purchase a handgun?
 
It was a legal handgun, but it was clearly not on campus legally. Capitalize on that and utterly ignore the fact that it was legally purchased. A simple rhetorical strategy they'll never teach you but works well (ask the anti-gun lobby)...

I'm thinking I'm going to write my representative in a few days once all the facts come out here. I am a university student almost of CCW age, and though no legal action could come through in time to allow me to carry on campus, it still puts me in a position where my requests for the right carry more weight.

Kinda makes me sad though. Virginia may not be my state of birth, but I lived there for so long growing up. This would be bad happening anywhere, but it hits just a bit closer to home now...
 
No sir, you are not. You are castigating anyone and everyone who is trying to discuss the consequences of this tragedy.

You sir, are letting your emotions override your good sense.

I highly suggest you refrain from such comments until you gain control of yourself.

The anti-gun people are already parading the bodies, yet you have the audacity to call us callous? They are using this as political capital, while we are still in a discussion stage. Now is exactly the time to be discussing this. Now is exactly the time to begin to do something about the probable political consequences of this tragedy.

If not now, when? After H.R. 1022 passes later this week? (hyperbole)
Click to expand...

Thank you for your input. I disagree with what you are saying. I think that it is important to talk about what might happen as a result of these shootings. You are correct that the antis may be jumping on this to use it as a political event. I think that is disgusting. I think it is callous and does a disservice to people at VT and those who have suffered losses.

People stating what will happen before the facts are even out which was exactly what was happening yesterday is feeding the monster not fighting it.

As for your comment that I am being overly emotional I disagree. I am not being emotional at all. I am simply do not view my entire life and everything that happens in it through the lens of guns. I do not put my rights over and above the lives or others raw emotions surrounding events like this.

I did state that this may not be the time to talk about this in this manner. I stated that I believe that it is callous. It is by definition. You and others disagree and that is where the personal attacks started.
 
AWB now has plenty of co-sponsors. Before yesterday it had none. This is the impact.

I understand the desire to cope and work through your grief first, but for many of us, when we see events like this we get scared, and rightfully so. We will not be able to stop future events for us or our children.

I'm sorry for your loss anyone here who knew and loves anyone in VA who was hurt or killed.
 
It was a legal handgun, but it was clearly not on campus legally. Capitalize on that and utterly ignore the fact that it was legally purchased. A simple rhetorical strategy they'll never teach you but works well (ask the anti-gun lobby)...
Click to expand...
Yeah no. Using their techniques makes us no better than them. The fact that it appears to have been a legal handgun should not be ignored as doing so will only work against us. But I should also point out that yet another report said the serial numbers on the guns were filed off which puts their legal status into question. As to why he would have the receipt in his bag....o_O this event is as confusing as it is tragic.
 
Source: http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms.shtm

Does one have to have U.S. citizenship to be eligible to purchase a firearm?
A buyer who is not a citizen of the United States must have lawful alien status and must establish that he or she is a resident of a state by providing a valid photo identification and documentation such as a utility bill or lease agreement which would establish that he or she has resided in the state forat least 90 days prior to the date of the sale.

Congress has passed prohibitions that apply to "any alien in the United States in a non-immigrant status" with certain exceptions and a waiver process. Contact the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives if you have questions about these regulations.

=======================================================
Source: http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_MultiplePurchase.shtm

Purchase of Multiple Handguns in Virginia

The 1993 Virginia General Assembly amended and reenacted §18.2-308.2:2, Code of Virginia, making it unlawful for any person who is not a licensed firearms dealer to purchase more than 1 handgun within any 30-day period. The Virginia State Police is responsible for accepting and processing the Multiple Handgun Purchase Application and Multiple Handgun Purchase Certificate, when purchases in excess of one handgun within a 30-day period can be justified.

=======================================================
Source: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/first_gun_bough.html

Cho Seung-Hui possibly waited 30-days to purchase second handgun.

=======================================================
Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18148802/

The serial numbers had been filed off, the officials said.

Law enforcement officials told Williams that Cho was carrying a backpack that contained receipts for the purchase of a Glock 9mm pistol in March.

=======================================================
 
Redworm said:
Yeah no. Using their techniques makes us no better than them.
Click to expand...
You can be morally superior or you can be persuasively superior, take your pick. The only time you mention things detrimental to your case is AFTER you've converted someone and want to downplay its significance (you're innoculating them against its effect later when the anti-gunner comes around to persuade them).

Come on, I hear you guys whining up a storm about getting slapped silly by the anti-gun lobby in public debate, but you seem so squeamish about actually doing something about it. If you can eliminate their persuasive superiority, your factual and conceptual superiority can tip the balance.
 
Maybe because some of us prefer honesty over deceptive arguments. If we can't argue our point without resorting to deceptive tactics then we don't deserve to win the argument.
 
Agreed. Decieving and lying to people only makes you easier to dismiss. When you mix in lies and deception with the truth, then when you are discovered, people dismiss your entire statement, your entire position.

The only reason the gun community is still standing is its unwavering support for truth against a thick tide of corruption coming from the news media. If we abandon our moral high ground, viz., the truth, we abandon all hope.
 
That's like saying: If you can't defend yourself from a thug without a gun then you don't deserve to defend yourself.

Now, you KNOW that above statement is false, and you know it's false for several reasons, the two most important of which are:
  1. This guy shouldn't even be attacking you in the first place. You're defending yourself to set things as they should have remained.
  2. If this guy is using a gun, I can't well expect to be able to defend myself against him without one unless he majorly drops the ball.
I would hope you, being a regular poster here, consider your right as a free citizen to own guns to be fundamental. You're not going around messing with somebody, or participating in activity where there are no winners and losers, you're defending your rights.

And the anti-gun lobby isn't doing you the honor of a fair debate; they are using any effective strategy they can, much as you should. If it converts more people to your side, you should do it. It's not like this is a uniquely liberal habit either; conservatives have a proud history of omitting the truth as well.
 
Since when are you required to make the other sides case for them:confused:

Feel free to point out that while the shooter complied with the law to purchase the weapons ....he then went on to break several other laws up to and including mass murder
 
And the anti-gun lobby isn't doing you the honor of a fair debate; they are using any effective strategy they can, much as you should. If it converts more people to your side, you should do it.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and that's my point. I'd be fine with lying, cheating, and killing to defend my freedoms. They are worth more than life, because they give life meaning. But my point is that the most effective method of convincing someone is to tell them the unadulterated truth.

I agree with you, that we should do all that we can. But I suggest that the best way to maximize our political yield is to stick to the truth. When you trick people, they will eventually find out, and they will dismiss all you mixed in with the trick, the truth.

In 1946 George Kennan, former United States ambassador to the Soviet Union, wrote the X Article (or Long Telegram), which helped set out the policy of Containment that the United States would follow for the next 44 years, to a magnificent success. His fundamental point was that the Soviet Union, that the Communist system, was rotten at its core. All the U.S. had to do was hold out, to contain them, and eventually time would allow them to rot themselves away.

Similarly, I believe that those who would pave the way for an unfree society have, at their core, corrupt, incorrect arguments that cannot stand the thought of a free mind. The way to defeat the evil that is gun control is not to lie, just as the way to defeat communism was not to oppress. The way to defeat it is to allow its own lies to ravage its body. Call me an optimist, but I think this is what is happening now. I think the gun community is incredibly strong. That they're on the offensive now, rather than the defensive, speaks to how far we've come since Columbine.

The way to defeat lies is not our own lies, but the truth. Their arguments will collapse in on themselves, while the only truth will stand the true test: the test of time. Gun control cannot win in the long run when reasoning minds are concerned, because it comes from a corrupt source.
 
I am fully aware that laws don't protect people, they only form the basis for the legal reaction to an event or an attempt to prevent an event. I also believe that all citizens have the right and the responsibility to keep and bear arms. In this case, I think that Cho Seung-hui would have gotten guns no matter what if he really wanted them.

On the other hand, the right to keep and bear arms is a right given to the CITIZENS of the United States. Part of the reason for this was so that an armed population would be the best deterrent against a dictator or tyrant overthrowing our lawfully elected government. I have a hard time seeing how this right should apply to non-citizens. Especially individuals such as Cho Seung-hui that have lived in the United States for 15 years without becoming a citizen. Anyone that does not renounce their citizenship in another country to become an American should not have the rights of citizens. In my opinion, non-citizens should not have the right to keep or bear or buy or possess arms in any way.

If anyone really wants to pass a new gun law. That one gets my vote.
 
I think we're straying from the topic of political consequences & response a bit, so I'll try to put it on track.

I don't think any laws attempting to limit the ability of immigrants to keep and bear arms would be successful. Historically, the Supreme Court has decided that issues that regard "Alienage" fall under "Strict Scrutiny" when it comes to the government discriminating against people. (I.e. compelling govt. interest, narrowly tailored, least restrictive means). I think that any attempt to make it illegal for immigrants to own firearms, as you suggest, would be rightly struck down as unconstitutional very quickly.

That said, I don't think it will even come to the fore. Immigrants rights groups would be an interesting ally to have, however. I can just see the ACLU fighting for the rights of immigrants to keep and bear.

Indeed, the main attempts I see for laws coming out of this are a) Reban of hi-cap magazines b) Assault Weapons Ban again c) Carry limitations. Truth be told, I don't think any will be successful, especially (c). I could possibly see (b), but you just look and see that it did nothing the first time, why would they do it a second? Lot of people believe (b) will happen (from what I've read on this and other posts), which surprises me.
 
Here are the consequences. Carolyn McCarthy didn't waste any time introducing this in Congress. There is no way to convince me that she didn't release it yesterday to feed off all the media attention that would be generated by the Va. Tech murders.

John



Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)

HR 1859 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 1859
To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

April 16, 2007
Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To reinstate the prohibition on the possession or transfer of large capacity ammunition feeding devices, and to strengthen that prohibition.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Anti-Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act of 2007'.

SEC. 2. REINSTATEMENT OF REPEALED CRIMINAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.

(a) Reinstatement of Provisions Wholly Repealed- Sections 921(a)(31) and 922(w), and the last sentence of section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

(b) Reinstatement of Provision Partially Repealed- Section 924(a)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:

`(B) knowingly violates subsection (a)(4), (f), (k), (r), or (w) of section 922;'.

SEC. 3. STRENGTHENING THE BAN ON THE POSSESSION OR TRANSFER OF A LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE.

(a) Ban on Transfer of Semiautomatic Assault Weapon With Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after subsection (z) the following:

`(aa) It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a semiautomatic assault weapon with a large capacity ammunition feeding device.'.

(2) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a)(30) and Appendix A of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as in effect just before the repeal made by section 110105(2) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, are hereby enacted into law.

(3) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.'.

(b) Certification Requirement-

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 922(w) of such title, as added by section 2(a) of this Act, is amended--

(A) in paragraph (3)--

(i) by adding `or' at the end of subparagraph (B); and

(ii) by striking subparagraph (C) and redesignating subparagraph (D) as subparagraph (C); and

(B) by striking paragraph (4) and inserting the following:

`(4) It shall be unlawful for a licensed manufacturer, licensed importer, or licensed dealer who transfers a large capacity ammunition feeding device that was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection, to fail to certify to the Attorney General before the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date of the transfer, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, that the device was manufactured on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.'.

(2) PENALTIES- Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by subsection (a)(3) of this section, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(9) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(w)(4) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.'.
 
Time to get writing to representatives.

UpD: I've been looking for it and have been unable to find it. Do you have a link?
 
Last edited:
Go to http://thomas.loc.gov and search on "H.R. 1859". Make sure to select bill number as the search method. Alternatively, just look under "Carolyn McCarthy" to see the bills she has introduced or cosponsored.

Hope this helps.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top