Share
TOPICS: april 16 gun control concealed carry john thune lori haas vcdl mark warner jim webb
The senate defeated a proposed amendment to federal law on Wednesday that would have allowed gun owners from more states to carry concealed firearms in Virginia, a policy that 22 Virginia Tech families publicly opposed.
Senate amendment number 1618, offered by South Dakota senator John Thune, would have amended the defense authorization bill to allow citizens who have been granted concealed carry permits from their home states to legally carry firearms into states that currently allow their own citizens the right to such permits.
In response to this proposed amendment, the anti-gun violence action fund Mayors Against Illegal Guns launched an ad campaign urging senators to vote against the bill. On Monday, the Richmond Times-Dispatch ran an ad with a picture of the April 16, 2007 convocation and a letter signed by over 40 individuals from 22 families victimized by the day's shootings, urging Virginia senators Jim Webb and Mark Warner to vote against the bill.
"I find it offensive that he thinks that more guns would prevent gun violence," said Lori Haas, referring to Thune. Haas's daughter Emily was in a French class attacked on April 16 by Seung-Hui Cho. She was grazed in the back of the head by two bullets, but has made a full recovery. Emily Haas and her mother are both signatories on the letter in the newspaper.
"I am just a citizen of Virginia who has seen very, very firsthand the pain of gun violence," Haas said. "And I think laws like this one would only contribute to the amount of gun violence and the spread of gun violence."
Gun rights advocates insist that concealed carry would make Americans safer.
"Somebody like Cho was going to do what he's going to do and it makes much more sense to allow people to defend themselves," said Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Civil Defense League, a gun rights advocacy group. Responding to the ad, he cast doubt on the arguments against the Thune amendment.
"The people who claim to be the Virginia Tech family, I think they're being a little arrogant in implying that they're at all representative of all the families at Virginia Tech," said Van Cleave. "This has just become a generic thing that has nothing to do with what happened at Virginia Tech. If anything you could argue that what they're doing would make it easier for Cho to do this."
"My husband's a gun owner. My children target shoot. I support the second amendment," said Haas. "The Thune Amendment is just going to allow persons that Virginia would not give a concealed carry permit to to come into our state and carry a loaded weapon."
Van Cleave has little issue with loosening restrictions on concealed carry. "Look what happened in Vermont and Alaska," he said. "Neither state has any requirement that you have a permit to concealed carry...and you hear crickets chirping up there. Do we need to have standards at all? Do we need permits at all? I would argue no. But we're stuck with the system right now, so we need to work with what we've got."
48 states allow concealed carry, including Virginia. Illinois and Wisconsin do not grant concealed carry permits. Had the amendment passed, gun owners would still have been unable to concealed carry in these states.
Virginia currently has reciprocity agreements, formal and informal, with 25 states allowing their citizens to carry concealed in the commonwealth. One of these states is Alaska, where residents need no permit to carry.
In Wednesday's vote in the Senate, both Virginia senators Warner and Webb voted "yes" on the amendment. Warner is "a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights" said his communications director Kevin Hall.
The proposal was defeated with 58 yes votes and 39 no votes. 61 votes in favor were needed to pass.
In a statement to the press Haas said, "We are thrilled that common sense prevailed in the Senate with the defeat of the Thune Concealed Carry Amendment. However we are disappointed that Senators Webb and Warner voted the wrong way on this issue of life or death."
Haas said she and others would continue to work toward initiatives such as closing the gun show loophole. "I think we're too smart not to have legitimate laws that preclude dangerous people from gaining firearms. We know all too well what happens when guns get into the wrong hands."
Leave a comment 86 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Lori, you and the other families have had terrible losses, but concealed carry did not play a role in them. If you had stood for true reform, you would not have taken the payoff from Virginia Tech to keep silent in court after 4/16 and would have instead sued to find out who in the administration dropped the ball on identifying Cho as a threat and not removing him from the university....
Reply to this Top
Why do we care what these people think again? They're not experts on gun crime and they quite clearly have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, aside from their undeniably horrible personal experiences. Concealed carry does not cause violence - there is no evidence to support a contrary claim. Policies should be based on facts and evidence, not illogical emotions and anecdotal experiences. The facts and evidence all clearly support concealed carry.
Reply to this Top
If more guns made people safer, the US would be the safest country in the world. It's not.
Reply to this Top
I totally agree.
Reply to this Top
bull is all you spew
Top
I totally agree.
Reply to this Top
Who cares. You got their payday, now shut up and go away.
Reply to this Top
This HAS nothing to do with the shooting on the 16th!! I was a student on April 16th, and am now a graduate student here @ VT and I wish these uninformed people would QUIT attacking gun rights. People with concealed permits are not the ones out there committing crimes furthermore IF you wanna relate this to the 16th (since the victims go there I will too)IF someone would have had a concealed permit fewer lives could have been lost that day.
Reply to this Top
I wonder if you gun rights people realize the possible panic that would ensure if a concerned person raised an alarm seeing another person carrying a gun let's say inside a mall after all the recent mall shootings around the country?
Reply to this Top
If concealed gun owners and supporters are so scared of criminals or people in general, perhaps they should stay home and live as hermits. I am NOT in favor of civilians carrying concealed guns in public places. I would be the first peron to raise an alarm of the presense of a gun not knowing if the person is a criminal or law abiding citizen. The ONLY people the should be allowed to carry concealed weapons are uniformed cops and uniformed security personnel. These people are known to the general public and we have faith in them too.
Reply to this Top
Bulletin: the senate has DEFEATED the measure allowing concealed owners to carry their into another state - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090722/ap_on_go_co/us_concealed_weapons
Reply to this Top
This bill would have had minimal impact on Virginians, since Virginia is one of the more permissive carry states in the nation (a non-resident over 21 who legally owns a handgun can just waltz right in and open carry in VA, for instance). The greatest effects would be felt by "may-issue" states like MD and NY, which would be forced to recognize permits from more lenient states. Also, VA currently has reciprocity agreements with many states. These states have nearly identical procedures for obtaining permits, so it's not as if there's some sort of loophole, whereby a person ineligible for a VA permit could just get one elsewhere, contrary to Ms. Haas' statement. Also, I disagree with her statement that this would in any way increase the number of weapons in Virginia. Anyone who is here for any length of time and cares about carrying a handgun will have a permit anyway.
Reply to this Top
Mark, your points are NOT valid, Where are you examples of all this alarm you speak of and people carrying guns being scared and making all these bad decisions?
Reply to this Top
LIZ: The POSSIBILITY of a person raising an alarm of a person carrying a concealed weapon in public exits. That's all.
Reply to this Top
LIZ: I found a news search on gun scare in Princeton, NJ. Read them for yourself and you'll know what I mean - http://www.bing.com/search?srch=105&FORM=AS5&q=princeton+university+gun+found
Reply to this Top
Mark, if you are the first person to raise an alarm at the sight of a gun, perhaps you should be a hermit. Apparently you are so unwilling to trust people that you assume anyone carrying a gun is up to no good, even if the law allows them to do so. Not to mention that you may cause an unnecessary panic situation, which is incredibly irresponsible.
Reply to this Top
Virginia makes it pretty easy to get a carry permit. I believe you can take an online class to get the permit. You don't have to be a resident of Va to get the permit. i don't think this would have made much a difference in the type of people aloud to carry. I feel this has nothing to do with 4/16. If the families want to get involved in fighting against carry on campus, fine but this had nothing to do with VT and seems like the add was a waste of money.
Reply to this Top
The anti-self-defense comments here are typical and hysterical. I openly carry around Virginia regularly, and have barely gotten but a second glance. A friend of mine had the cops called on him by some panicky anti-gunner, and the officer let him go back to his dinner since he was doing nothing wrong. Mark, how does someone carrying concealed raise alarm? People with x-ray glasses? Dennis, if you think the class is so easy, why don't you take it?
Reply to this Top
However, I will add that I was *not* in support of this bill. With as many corrupt and anti-gun folks in Washington DC, I did not want them in control of my carry permit. Keep it with the states until we get some of these clowns out of government.
Reply to this Top
I sleep easy at night knowing that all of the law abiding citizens who carry concealed weapons have taken a grueling qualifying course and exam, sometimes requiring up to a full hour of internet connection to complete.
Reply to this Top
You do know why you're a moron for saying that, right? 1-cars kill way more than guns, 2-there are more guns than people in the US, 3-less than 0.01% of permit holders commit any crime at all. Note: #3 means that permit holders are about 100x more trustworthy than those w/o guns - like you!
Reply to this Top
Sorry Jason, disagree. No I am NOT scared of people in genral but I do have a DUTY as a RESPONSIBLE citizen to report threats to me or others around me and that includes people with guns I know nothing about, except uniformed law enforcement. This is how dangerous carrying concealed weapons can be if no one knows who the gun toting person is. What the reaction will be is up to the personnel that takes my call.
Reply to this Top
Raw numbers are meaningless @Kojak. Per what? Go with per use, and cars are umpteen times safer. But that's not a fair comparison either. Carving out permit owners against the rest of the population is meaningless as well. Apples make better applesauce than oranges. Last time I checked, trustworthiness was a requirement of Scouting, not gun ownership, so I fail to see your point. Finally, I never spoke to the safety of guns. I own them, I like them, I think they're ok. However, its time to retire the argument that permit holders have some advanced level of experience and familiarity with the usage of their weapons. You gave that argument away when you all sought to and succeeded in reducing the requirement to a one hour internet class.
Reply to this Top
One way to make it easier to carry conealed weapons from state to state is for the BATF to issue Federal Gun Licenses. But to do this may mean aborgating all 50 states gun laws.
Reply to this Top
Kojak, you would rather 'sleep at night' knowing a concealed gun owner took clases on the internet than by a face-to-face, certified gun instructor? Wow, sounds scary to me.
Reply to this Top
Ken, I plan to take the class when i am able. I am all for SCCC. I just think competence with the handgun should be part of the qualifications to get a carry permit.
Reply to this Top
Well, Mark, I still think your words belie your feelings, because if you truly trusted people implicitly, you wouldn't automatically assume that the presence of a gun is a threat any more than, say, walking past a guy built like Arnold Schwartzenegger, who could kill you with his bare hands, if only he wanted to. Why not just assume that someone dressed as a law enforcement officer can't be trusted? Perhaps they have a fake uniform and are really a criminal hiding in plain sight. Better call in the badge number and verify it, but then, how do you know that the dispatcher hasn't been taken hostage and an imposter is at the switch? My point is that it's against the nature of our Constitution to assume nefarious intent, yet that is exactly what you're doing when you see any gun not on a policeman as a threat. The reality is that, in basic terms, a person with a gun is either carrying for self-defense or carrying to commit a violent crime. If its the latter, and you're in any danger, you'll be dead before the police get your name.
Reply to this Top
Jason, chill out. I'm not afraid of the general public w/o a gun anymore than a person with a concealed gun is. Ok.
Reply to this Top
I just don't need a gun to show how not afraid I am.
Reply to this Top
No, you just have your hyperventialting and over the top hand-wringing to show how afraid you are.
Reply to this Top
I simply don't understand why you automatically assume that any gun *will* be used to harm you simply because of its potential to do so in the wrong hands. My point is that many unarmed people *can* hurt you if they wanted to as well, yet I don't see you requesting that a psychoanalysis be conducted on everyone you encounter. The fact that the gun's mere presence alarms you doesn't mean such an alarmed reaction is rational. You claim to not fear the general public w/o guns, but how exactly do you know when they meet your condition, since concealment is more commonplace than open carry? "Calmer than you are, dude." - Walter Sobchak
Reply to this Top
Jason, I'm calm too. But if I pereive a threat I will take action. Is there something wrong with me that I cannot question a perceived threat to my safety? Seems its' always the gun-rights people who raise caine everytime they perceive threats to their rights so why I can't I becomed concerned whenever I see a person I don't know or without a law enforcement uniform on have a concealed gun? Who knows, he (or she) may be planning a massacre or to shoot someone and my alarm could prevent an innocent loss of life.
Reply to this Top
Well the officer really can't legally do much, unless there's probable cause that the person is doing something else wrong, since seeing the gun isn't probable cause to assume that the person doesn't have a permit. Same with open carry. Open carry is even more difficult for you to do anything about, since a permit isn't even required for that in VA. So really, calling the police isn't affording you any additional protection. While I appreciate your uneasiness about the sight of a gun in public, it's unfortunate that its mere presence is, for some, synonymous with impending violence. I would guess that more people carry guns for self-defense than for violent purposes. Interestingly, many do so because of a common bond with you: the fact that they are aware of the threat that others may be carrying with malicious intent.
Reply to this Top
Holy craminy, people must love this whole gun debate. I've never seen so many replies to an article. I have a gun and all, but I've never really understood how being able to have a CC permit is a 2nd amendment issue. Does having a gun concealed on any individual person have anything to do with a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state?
Reply to this Top
It doesn't have to. The right in the 2nd Amendment is affirmed on "the people". Not "...the militia." and not "...the people in the Miltia".
Reply to this Top
You're the first person to mention the second amendment in a comment. Everything that I've said relies on the premise that this Thune Amendment, if passed, would not have changed the landscape in Virginia to any noticeable degree, contrary to Ms. Haas' statements. However, since the can of worms is now open, let me point out that in DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court implicitly gave credence to the interpretation that the right to keep and bear arms exists independently of the "well-regulated militia" rationale given in the Bill of Rights. Concealed carry certainly extends beyond the purview of Heller, but with more and more states adopting concealed carry without the wild west incidents dreamed up by skeptics coming to pass, I don't think public carry is going anywhere anytime soon.
Reply to this Top
good grief, no wonder the USA is the MOST VIOLENT western nation on this planet. Everyone just has to have a gun. Whatever happened to just plain duking it out with fists instead of shooting someone?
Reply to this Top
we dont like partial solutions
Reply to this Top
Mark, your assertion that guns are the reason for violence are absurd, at best. But it goes along well with your other nonsense pretty well. Like, please explain how you're going to see a person carrying a CONCEALED firearm? If you're looking at people's pants that much, maybe you're staring too much. And then you go on to assert that people settle things with guns. Not only is that statistically false, but you've again put criminals and citizens in the same category, merely because of the gun. Since you own a car, can I consider you the same as a drunk?
Reply to this Top
guns arent the reason for violence. guns are the reason for gun violence.
Reply to this Top
No, criminals are the reason for gun violence. Actually, ALL violence.
Reply to this Top
"Gun rights advocates insist that concealed carry would make Americans safer" Was that the chief argument made in favor of the concealed carry debate?
Reply to this Top
Sean - what? I demolish your comments, and you come back with rubbish. Not even smart enough to run away on an anonymous forum? @Anon - I'm not sure anyone has made arguments in favor of the -debate- can you clarify?
Reply to this Top
ummm what? I'm lost. I replied to something that is no longer there. The CT fairy came along and stole a post I think. Gun Nut, are you replying that guns aren't the reason for gun violence? Because I am pretty confident that if there were no guns there would be no gun violence; it would be some other sort of violence. I'm no scholar, but guns seem to be an integral part of the whole "gun violence" phrase. You want to argue ice hockey would exist without ice as well?
Reply to this Top
Hey gun nut, yeah in the middle of the article it says "Gun rights advocates insist that concealed carry would make Americans safer." Was that what the proponents of Thune's bill were pushing or were their arguments more geared towards the reciprocity issue?
Reply to this Top
"Posted by: Gun nut at Jul 25 - Mark, your assertion that guns are the reason for violence are absurd, at best." Really, than what did Cho use to murder 33 of your classmates on April 16, 2006? His fists? A knife? No bozo, he used a GUN. Not only 1 guns but 2 GUNS. What is the source of all the recent massacres around the USA? Now tell me guns don't promote violence and I'll tell you I'm Jesus.
Reply to this Top
Mark, wolves hunt sheep and there is no stopping that. You can either remain a sheep and rely on the shepherd or you can become a sheepdog. Now if you were a student those fall and spring semesters you would have seen VT's 'emergency' response towards at least 4 major security events. 1) Escaped prisoner (Mova sp?) where guards and cops were injured or killed. 2&3) Bomb Threats. 4) Shootings in a dorm and 2 HOURS later in classrooms. Now i ask, how safe do you feel on campus with those 'shepherds'? You have a fairly weak and naive argument; of course guns promote violence but they also stop it (otherwise why would a cop carry one?) Cho went on a killing spree because no one COULD stop him, that's the focus of people for gun-rights.
Reply to this Top
Ford, god I wish you gun rights people would just plain accept there are people who don't like guns and learn to live with them. Guns promote violence, bad or good, no matter who has them. Accept this and deal with it.
Reply to this Top
Well Mark, I think Ford and all the gun folks understand that some people don't like guns. Their issue is when those that don't like guns make it illegal to have/carry them. For some reason they still try to proselytize the nonbelievers which is pretty useless after the age of like 10. But they want to learn to live with you, they just want to have a gun on their pants while they do it.
Reply to this Top
Anonymous at 5:26 pm - and this leads me to ask the question, if they need a gun all the time, what are they so afraid of? I can go through my daily life and w/o a gun and not be afraid.
Reply to this Top
Mark, I don't know what they're afraid of. Maybe they are scared or maybe they just want to be prepared or they just like the bulge in their pants, everyone has their reasons. Perhaps we should make laws that target the reasons why people are scared and that will create an atmosphere where people don't even need guns.
Reply to this Top
What I am AFRAID of are all the idiot drivers on our highways. I'd like to install plows on my car's front end and bulldoze all the idiots who imped, obstruct, and interfere with the flow of traffic by moving to the right so faster traffic can pass legally and safely on the left.
Reply to this Top
haha yeah. you ever notice how nobody ever admits to being an idiot driver? they walk amongst us and won't even admit to it. so yeah, guns are a must.
Reply to this Top
Wow, aren't you two cute - or is it Mark just talking to his alter ego? You can't figure out that 32 (not 33) people were murdered (the other was suicide) yet had NO way to defend themselves. And you go on to say gun owners are paranoid? They were in a CLASSROOM, what could "seem" more safe than that? But I'm sure they all deserved to be murdered, and since you're a stand-up guy, despite your distaste for the right of self-defense, no one would ever hurt you, right? And if guns are responsible for creating violence, well mine are all broken! And while we're at it, I'll use your logic and assert that your car induces drunk driving, and your computer makes you a cyber-stalker. Grow up, your fear of guns makes you sound like a child. Though that is an insult to children...
Reply to this Top
My conceal carry permit came with free Yosemite Sam mud flaps. And I've got a feeeeling, today's gonna be a good day.
Reply to this Top
Wow, the media has successfully indoctrinated the people. Well, goodbye freedoms. Good riddance to those pesky Constitutional rights, but I'll sure miss American Idol and Bachelorette. And my Prius, internet, and .. John Stewart!
Reply to this Top
To those asking what gun owners are so afraid of, they're afraid of something bad happening to them or the their loved ones, and not having the ability to stop it. I could probably go my whole life and never need a gun BUT I have one just in case. It's insurance. I do the samething with my house, car and health...why not with my life? If you a person does buy a gun or decides to go the concealed carry way, I'd suggest spending some time in safety courses and gun ranges. There really is no sense in buying a gun and not knowing how to use it.
Reply to this Top
This is sort of related to the topic, but it's about the guns on campus deal. Has anyone proposed allowing perhaps weapons with less than lethal rounds? It could help immobilize somebody on a rampage and not be as deadly an option that some people are wary of. The school could even provide the ammo, maybe right next to bowls full of condoms since it deals with health issues.
Reply to this Top
They really should first vote on allowing concealed carry in both houses of Congress. Y'know to set an example.....
Reply to this Top
But how would the school verify that only the non-lethal rounds were actually being loaded into guns carried on campus? It's unenforceable. Wait...what's that you say? The current policy is unenforceable as well? What do you mean we can't tell if someone is carrying a CONCEALED weapon?
Reply to this Top
Jason, be careful using things like logic or satire here... it might go over the heads of people like Mark. Your point is an important one -- what does a rule on a piece of paper in Steger's office do to stop a madman or criminal with a gun? As we saw, nothing. What it does do is stop good people from defending themselves, which we also saw. Look back 1-2 yrs before the shooting - people warned that if an attack took place, casualties would be massive. It's not rocket science, disarmed people make for easy victims, and evil loves that. Also, non-lethal rounds sounds nice, but I don't have $500 for another gun because some people have an irrational fear of guns. Turn off the news and meet real people who own guns, and that fear will vanish.
Reply to this Top
Hitler owned a gun ergo... Since when does enforcement of a law matter when passing it? They could create a large gov't agency to check all guns and their ammo. Jobs are created and less than lethal rounds are ensured. Everybody wins, except those that don't support Hitler.
Reply to this Top
Weighing in really late on this but Mark when you say : "The ONLY people the should be allowed to carry concealed weapons are uniformed cops and uniformed security personnel." this causes my brain to twitch in horror. Have you ever heard the word fascism? Read up on it, because that's what happens to an unarmed populace. And you would lay down like a meek little lamb. "Papers, please. Move along, citizen."
Reply to this Top
Oh, the "Adolf Hitler" defense. So then most companies you work for 40 years or so are fascists too. Please bring that up with your boss (gauleiter) at your next meeting. Your rights are limited there because they cut you a check and at schools its about the administration's liability should an incident occur. Yeah, they are being sued anyways. If the majority of students and their parents (who pay their tuition) supported CCW holders this would be a moot issue since the votes would be there. They might if you'd quit talking down to people.
Reply to this Top
Mudo - so then why do even the cops need guns with an "unarmed" populace?
Reply to this Top
Anonymous, most parents and students are not well-informed on the current laws of VA. Most would likely be shocked to learn that open carry is perfectly legal with no permit, and most probably don't even realize that a few percent of Virginians have concealed carry permits. It is difficult to cut to the chase when most don't realize that I, as a non-VT-affiliated person, can legally carry an open or concealed weapon all over campus.
Reply to this Top
Mark - maybe you're starting to wake up. Your question is the perfect one to answer. The "populace" are the law-abiding who do obey laws not to kill or to carry arms where forbidden. What you're forgetting is the other part, the "criminals." If you need an example of someone who qualifies as a criminal and has ignored these rules, you needn't look any further than our campus. Armed criminal attacks law-abiding, unarmed populace, and only the armed police can stop the killer.. but not until he injures/kills 50+ people. In Richmond, just days ago, an armed citizen saved 8 people from being executed in a store. Now, are you going to acknowledge this point or change the topic again?
Reply to this Top
Gun nut, your name is very appropriate for this article. It seems you think of nothing else. FYI: Cho was NOT a criminal until he launched his massacre. Which leads me again to say that anyone or everyone in possession of a gun is a POTENTIAL criminal, period. Cho, LEGALLY obtained his gun through the internet and use them to ILLEGALLY take the lives of 32 innocent souls. Get my point?
Reply to this Top
Gun nut, what happened in Richmond 8 days ago? I know nothing of this incident.
Reply to this Top
Mark, I'm getting tired of saying this. Cho DID NOT legally obtain his gun. His court decision rendered him ineligible. Even though his information was not in the background check system, that doesn't make a legal purchase. The law states that someone with a court decision such as Cho's may not possess a gun. Think of it like walking into a bar and buying a drink with a fake ID that fools the bartender. Just because you can buy the drink doesn't mean that you're acting within the law.
Reply to this Top
Mark, you are in possession of a computer, which makes you a potential hacker, pedophile, and stalker. I think I went over this with you already. Get it? And of course you didn't hear about the defensive case, you probably had your nose too far up the media's butt to hear anything besides "guns = criminals!" Wake up man. And as Jason keeps telling you, ILLEGAL PURCHASE. Doesn't even matter though, murder is still illegal, regardless of whether he did it with a gun or a brick.
Reply to this Top
Gun Nut and Jason, here's why you should be allowed to carry concealed weapons; http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1917356,00.html?xid=rss-nation-yahoo
Reply to this Top
Gun Nut and Jason T; this is why concealed guns should bnever be allowed - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1917356,00.html?xid=rss-nation-yahoo
Reply to this Top
Mark, That article is about law abiding citizens open carrying, in accordance with the United States constitution and Arizona state law. I fail to see how the legal carrying of guns openly by law abiding Americans has anything to do with your anti-American left wing views against concealed carry. Nice try though.
Reply to this Top
Mark, did you just have a typo the first time? I'm assuming you're saying this is why we shouldn't allow it? On the contrary, these demonstrators go far to illustrate the point that the presence of guns is not causal to violence. In fact, had they done anything violent, it would have completely undermined their cause, which, as I understand it, was to exercise rights that they believe are often overlooked, lest they be taken away. Even the Secret Service stated a lack of concern over these people.
Reply to this Top
Mark, did you just have a typo the first time? I'm assuming you're saying this is why we shouldn't allow it? On the contrary, these demonstrators go far to illustrate the point that the presence of guns is not causal to violence. In fact, had they done anything violent, it would have completely undermined their cause, which, as I understand it, was to exercise rights that they believe are often overlooked, lest they be taken away. Even the Secret Service stated a lack of concern over these people.
Reply to this Top
I really don't think that open carry (esp AR-15) at a political protest projects the right image. If anything they intimidate other protesters..not the Secret Service.
Reply to this Top
While I don't have a strong opinion regarding CCW holders, I find it intriguing to consider jointly arguments in debates on the divisive issues of CCW and Roe vs. Wade. CCW proponents argue (here and elsewhere) that gun restrictions won’t decrease violence, but can in fact make things worse. Diverse data from multiple countries, past and present, support, at least partly, their claims. Those defending abortion rights often use similar arguments. And again, diverse data support, at least partly, their claims. Clearly, the Pro-Gun and Pro-Choice think alike. Yet, if one is to trust polls, the Pro-Gun folks rarely support Roe-vs.-Wade, and the Pro-Choice people rarely endorse gun rights (although some libertarians may offer an exception). One may thus wonder if anyone is interested in solving actual problems. Or, do they apply logic effectively only when that said logic is conveniently congruent with their emotional views?
Reply to this Top
Anonymous, interesting point, and I imagine that there are many people who selectively apply their logic. Speaking for myself, I oppose Roe v. Wade because of the haphazard justification given for the decision. Many legal scholars take this position. Basically the court knew what precedent it wanted to set, and they used a creative interpretation of the Due Process clause to legislate from the bench. If you're talking about supporting legalized abortion, that's a bit different. I believe that the government ought to be left out of the issue and allow individuals to decide for themselves. While this is likely what you mean, opposing the decision itself can be different than opposing abortion itself. I believe you'll find that most Libertarians support both concealed carry and a woman's right to choose.
Reply to this Top
Gundam, this is part of what these gun-toting folks see as the problem. The public at large (and apparently many in the media) is fairly oblivious to even the fact that these actions are legal. Part of the reason people are intimidated when they see a holstered weapon is because they have conditioned themselves to equate guns with violence. By showing that a gun is harmless when it is holstered and carried by someone with no dubious intent, these people hope to break the association of guns with violence. In my opinion, being afraid of someone simply because they are armed is not much different than being afraid of someone solely based on their race. There are certainly other considerations that must be used in determining whether someone represents a danger to you.
Reply to this Top
Jason T. -- No, my point was not to object legislative excuses for fighting Roe vs. Wade. As far as I understand, nearly any legal statement can be interpreted -- also by scholars -- as a product of a creative interpretation of preexisting legal statements. My point was that people are much more interested in choosing sides and arguing their case than finding solutions. Those really interested in stopping gun-related crimes or abortion would look for real solutions and not empty gestures such as banning CCW or implementing abortion bans. If one truly cares about stopping violence or abortion, why should they spend time pursuing logically flawed solutions or debating historical validity of legislative decisions?
Reply to this Top
Agreed. That's why Libertarian is the way to go!
Reply to this Top
VTAlum, wow, I didn't know that just because I happen to disagree with some of the posters in here, that you consider me "anti-American" with "left wing views." Well, I guess there goes any respect for disagreeing. I don't see anywhere in my comments that I called anyone names.
Reply to this Top
Point taken, but a minor correction about the legislative decisions you mention. The point is that many believe the judiciary abused its authority by effectively legislating from the bench in Roe. The argument takes a few forms, namely that abortion decisions should be left to states because it isn't under the purview of the federal government as defined by the Constitution, and that they effectively created a law when there previously was none. Not their job. We can't have the Supreme Court taking wildly liberal interpretations of the Constitution just to accomplish their ideological goals.
Reply to this Top
Jason T, you and I gree on sometime regarding your Aug 25. Now isn't that a miracle. Oh and btw, I alos wrote the Anonymous commetn from Aug 24. NOTE:There is a problem with posting in here that I have to do multiple times to get my comments posted.
Reply to this Top
Recently I've found an interesting site <a href="http://www.pskiller.com/">Photoshopped Image Killer</a>. It can detect fake images. Most image analysis software will be created to recognise shapes and objects. But this software is something which can trace manipulations. It's not much more complex than recognising objects, but almost no one is interested in this kind of software except of course to detect if an image is real or fake...
Reply to this Top