The death toll at Virginia Tech stands at 32 blameless souls. The gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, has a lot of innocent blood on his hands. But his are not the only bloody hands.

Already, the pundits are talking about America’s gun culture and calling for tighter control on firearms. The call will only increase as politicians and the media join in the call.

There is irony here.

The irony is that the very people who claim to want to prevent such a future tragedy are in no small part responsible for it. These are the people who equate helplessness with security. These are the people who believe that self-defense on your part somehow endangers them.

These are the people responsible for having Virginia Tech declared a “gun-free zone.”

Well, they got their way and 32 people who might be alive today are dead because of their irrational beliefs.

In 2005, campus police disarmed a student who had a concealed carry permit. Virginia Tech Spokesman Larry Hincker cheered the college’s policy of banning all firearms, including those who had valid concealed carry permits.

“I think it’s fair to say that we believe guns don’t belong in the classroom.” Hincker pontificated. “In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear.”

I doubt the dead thank him.

Earlier this year, an attempt was made to correct this injustice. Lawmaker Todd Gilbert introduced HB 1572 into the state legislature. The bill was specifically designed to give college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus. Liberal forces would not even let it get out of subcommittee, much less on the floor for open debate and a vote. (continue reading post »)

Based on this AP article, I certainly can’t accuse this Democrat of being a pacifist. What I can do, though, is say that the AP sat on the article long enough:

A man accused of threatening a Nevada Republican Party official with a rifle was arrested Tuesday in a vehicle in which police found swords, knives, a shotgun, shells and a flare gun, authorities said. Matthew Hunter Kramer, 31, did not resist officers who arrested him on a warrant issued after the April 3 confrontation at state Republican Party offices in Las Vegas. It wasn’t clear why he was not arrested earlier.

Zachary Moyle, executive director of the state GOP, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that Kramer invited him to look at something in the trunk of his Mercedes before pulling out a rifle, pointing it at his face and warning that he would be back if President Bush vetoed an emergency war spending bill being considered by Congress.

The first thing I’d ask Kramer is if he’s related to Jim Webb. I’d doubt it since he’s willing to take responsibility for his actions but it’s worth asking. Another thing I’d ask him is why he’d be so upset that he’d shoot somebody if President Bush vetoes the emergency war supplemental. Would it be because he wants the troops to get the supplies they need? Somehow I doubt that but….

Kramer also removed photos of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney from the wall of the office and threatened to harm staff members, Moyle said. Kramer left his cell phone number with office staff before leaving, police said.

This is one of the most bizarre articles I’ve ever read. Why would Mr. Kramer leave his cell phone number after he’d committed a variety of felonies?

Finally, why the AP first reported on this incident now when the crime was committed 3 weeks ago? Isn’t that just a bit odd?

Technorati Tags: Matthew Hunter Kramer, Democrats, James Webb, Gun Violence

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

BLACKSBURG, VA – Seventy-five guns sit in a weapons storage facility at the Virginia Tech police station. The guns are secured inside storage compartments in a locked room slightly larger than a walk-in closet. University policy requires students and employees, other than police, to check their guns there. If they want to take them off campus, they have to sign them out, and a university police officer must retrieve them. Regardless of whatever permits they may have, those students and employees are not allowed to possess guns on campus.

In what already is the nation’s worst campus shooting, a man identified as a young American male killed at least 32 people and wounded 15 at Virginia Tech today.

Jan 26, 2006

The issue of guns on campus received attention at Virginia Tech in 2005 when a student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit.

The intent of Virginia HB 1572 was to allow students with concealed weapons permits to be able to carry their gun with them on campus just like they can anywhere else in the state. But officials at colleges throughout the state argued that school isn’t just another place, and guns are anathema to a learning environment that should be free of fear or intimidation.

“We do believe (HB 1572) has grave implications,” he said. “Why would the General Assembly wish to legislate to make campuses unsafe (with guns)?”

April 16, 2007

Junior David Jenkins told Fox News he heard screaming in his dorm inside West Ambler Johnston residence hall Monday morning, but didn’t know what it was.

“From what I heard, he chained up some of the doors so people couldn’t get in and he basically was just going to every classroom trying to get in, and just started shooting inside classrooms,” Jenkins said.

Virginia Tech President Charles Steger said, “Today the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions. The university is shocked and horrified that this would befall our campus. I cannot begin to convey my own personal sense of loss over this senseless of such an incomprehensible and heinous act.”

It wasn’t clear whether President Steger was referring to the senseless, incomprehensible, or heinous acts of the gunman who slaughtered and maimed dozens of students or those, including himself, who provided the environment for gunman to do so. Had armed students been in those classrooms, the gunman would have been taken down much earlier and America would be hailing the heroes who stopped him.

It isn’t the gangs, criminals, or deranged gunmen we must fear, but rather the Democrats who accommodate such individuals. And I’m not sure what the big deal is anyway: Gun control policies result in inner-city mayhem hundreds of times each day, so why should we cry about students who attend universities that invite this terror?

Students should get extra credit for surviving this lesson on our Second Amendment, and the forces that eroded it.

Today, a lone gunman killed more than 30 young men and women. The wrath of millions of Americans should be directed upon the political party, legislature, and university administrators that made it possible. Hundreds more will die tomorrow at the hands of armed gunmen who prey on disarmed Americans.

Many social conservatives are rightly concerned about Rudy Giuliani’s social positions, specifically on what type of judges he’d nominate. Today, we got that answer from Giuliani’s e-campaign. They sent out a transcript of Mayor Giuliani’s statements at South Carolina’s GOP executive committee meeting. Here’s what Mayor Giuliani said:

On the Federal judiciary I would want judges who are strict constructionists because I am. I’m a lawyer. I’ve argued cases in the Supreme Court. I’ve argued cases in the Court of Appeals in different parts of the country. I have a very, very strong view that for this country to work, for our freedoms to be protected, judges have to interpret not invent the Constitution. Otherwise you end up, when judges invent the constitution, with your liberties being hurt. Because legislatures get to make those decisions and the legislature in South Carolina might make that decision one way and the legislature in California a different one. And that’s part of our freedom and when that’s taken away from you that’s terrible. President Bush has the great model because I think as the President he appointed some really good ones and both of them are former colleagues of mine, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. Justice Scalia is a former colleague of mine. (continue reading post »)

This past Sunday’s interview on FNS isn’t the first time that Steven Breyer has given us a glimpse into the mindset of an activist justice but it’s scary nonetheless. Here’s the most stunningly scary portion:

BREYER: No, I think it’s the contrary. You see, it takes place in a context. I think whether you are a judge on my court or whether you are a judge on a court of appeals or any court, and lawyers too, and if you’re interested in law yourself, you’ll be in the same situation, you have a text that isn’t clear. If the text is clear, you follow the text. If the text isn’t clear, you have to work out what it means. And that requires context.
The freedom of speech. Do you know what it means? Basically. But you don’t know its entire content, and it doesn’t tell you itself. Those words, “the freedom of speech,” “Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech.” Neither they, the founders, nor those words tell you how to apply it to the Internet.

Justice Breyer is just plain wrong when he says “you don’t know its entire content, and it doesn’t tell you itself.” Quite the contrary. If the Founding Fathers wanted specific restrictions put on free speech, they would’ve codified them into the First Amendment. That they didn’t should tell Justice Breyer that they meant not to put petty policy restrictions on free speech.

What’s more likely the case is that Justice Breyer doesn’t like not being able to leave his imprint on an issue that he feels strongly about. (continue reading post »)

SFGate.com reports: “A state trial judge on Monday overturned a voter-approved city ordinance that banned handgun possession and firearm sales in San Francisco, siding with gun owners who said the city did not have the authority to prohibit the weapons.”

Measure H was placed on the November ballot by the San Francisco County Board of Supervisors, who were frustrated by a rising number of gun-related homicides in the city of 750,000. San Francisco recorded at least 94 murders last year, a 10-year high.

The National Rifle Association sued a day after 58 percent of voters approved the law.

In siding with the gun owners, San Francisco County Superior Court Judge James Warren said a local government cannot ban weapons because the California Legislature allows their sale and possession.

“My clients are thrilled that the court recognized that law-abiding firearms owners who choose to own a gun to defend themselves or their families are part of the solution and not part of the problem,” NRA attorney Chuck Michel said. “Hopefully, the city will recognize that gun owners can contribute to the effort to fight the criminal misuse of firearms, a goal that we all share.”

Liberals can’t distinguish, so don’t hold your breath.

RELATED:
S.F. Gun Control — Criminals Exempt
Angela Alioto: Anti-Gun, Anti-Reason
Moonbat Voters: Only In San Francisco
Vote No on Prop. H

George Will’s Sunday column outlines a future delicious irony:

First, the mantra of campaign “reformers” is that there is “too much” money in politics. But McCain will shun public funding because it provides too little money. He can raise much more from private interests. (But not from “special interests,” which are interests McCain disapproves of.)

This shows the hollowness of McCain’s convictions. They tell a tale of elitism in the sense that he’s acting like McCain-Feingold doesn’t apply to him, just to others. Saint John isn’t worried that he’ll be corrupted; he’s worried that “the process” is corrupted. He’s here to save politicians from being corrupted by special interests like religious organizations, gun rights lobbies, business organizations and others who’s rights are enumerated in the Constitution.

I’ve said this before: The government isn’t nearly as good at keeping corruption at a minimum as the blogosphere is. We are true campaign finance reform because we’re good at pointing out the bad apples such as extremist groups in both parties.

Second, the reformers revere the McCain-Feingold legislation that expanded government regulation of the quantity, timing and content of political speech. But McCain-Feingold is one important reason why the public funding system is collapsing.

Isn’t that simply delicious? I can’t wait until BCRA is challenged again and makes its way in front of the Roberts Court. That’s when it’ll meet its ultimate demise. Frankly, that moment can’t come soon enough.

Reformers, redoubling their efforts as their goal of total public financing of all campaigns recedes, now propose measures to resuscitate what the public is trying to euthanize with nonsupport.

This is one government program that needs to whither on the vine and die. Based on Mr. Will’s statistics, this program is so unpopular that the only thing keeping it alive are idiots in Washington. As Mr. Will points out, I’d doubt that this program will ever actually die. I suspect, though, that it’ll essentially become a nonentity. Good riddance.

Technorati Tags: McCain-Feingold, First Amendment, Blogging, Corruption

Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog

The shooting last week of 6 innocent people at a mail processing facility in California by an ex-postal worker armed with a handgun highlights the need for strict gun control. After all, if some tough gun control laws had been on the books, this could never have happened. Oops! I forgot – California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Then, just how could this multiple shooting have happened and what are we going to do to see that it doesn’t happen again? If you are a liberal, your first thought will be to pass some new laws that will focus on firearms as the culprit.

Gun control is one of the key planks in the liberal platform to remake America in their image. Firearms (so liberals believe) cause a certain number of deaths each year, which could be prevented if guns were taken out of the hands of all who do not require them for a legitimate purpose. Self-defense is not a legitimate purpose in the eyes of most liberals, since we have police to keep order and obviate the need for self-defense in most situations. And every liberal knows that the Second Amendment is an anachronism and was meant to apply only to organized state militias (the fact that the courts and legislative history of the Second Amendment clearly say otherwise is not persuasive to liberals). Given the liberal mindset, there is no problem in denying law abiding citizens a constitutional right in order to impose their societal vision since it is clear to them that such a right should not exist in a modern and progressive society.

The governor of Wisconsin recently vetoed a concealed carry bill passed by a majority of the Wisconsin legislature, provoking no howls from the media. (continue reading post »)

We’re just shy of two month since San Francisco’s election in which voters passed a ban on handguns, and yesterday Debra Saunders provided some valuable hindsight.

ODD HOW the Special City, which prides itself on tolerance and chants incessantly about choice, can be so, well, intolerant. Witness the November election in which 58 percent of city voters elected to ban the sale of firearms in EssEff and to outlaw handgun ownership for citizens. It takes a special city to make the National Rifle Association look like the good guys.
. . .

Here’s an interesting statistic, compiled by the SFPD and reported in The Chronicle last month: Of the 94 homicides recorded in the city through Dec. 12, no arrests had been made in 74 of those murders. Only eight cases have resulted in prosecutions.

Sorry, but if gang members think they can kill without getting caught, I don’t think a handgun ban is going to crimp their style.

Police say that witnesses to homicides often are reluctant to testify. This suggests it would make more sense to put the resources used to defend Prop. H — which by the mayor’s own admission is a very expensive public-opinion poll — into witness protection and investigative programs.

RELATED:
Angela Alioto: Anti-Gun, Anti-Reason
Moonbat Voters: Only In San Francisco

It will be interesting to hear what, exactly. the courts will say, this time out.

If the San Francisco Handgun Ban law somehow DOES stand up in court, I think many people—myself definitely included—will be utterly shocked. It’s my impression that many people who voted in favor of Proposition H thought they were voting for some kind of “symbolic” mesaure, which had no chance at all of actually becoming law.

Background/Context: last month, 60% of San Francisco voters supported Proposition H, which, among other things, bans the sale or possession of handguns in the City and County of San Francisco. From the San Francisco Voter Guide:

Proposition H is an ordinance that would ban the manufacture, distribution, sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition within San Francisco.

Proposition H also would prohibit San Francisco residents from possessing handguns within San Francisco. An exception would allow residents to possess handguns if it is required for specific professional purposes. For example, San Francisco residents who are security guards, peace officers or active members of the U.S. armed forces would be permitted to possess handguns.

The Board of Supervisors would be required to enact penalties for violation of this ordinance.

Proposition H would take effect January 1, 2006. Until April 1, 2006, residents could surrender their handguns to any district station of the San Francisco Police Department or the San FranciscoSheriff’s Department without penalty.

Of course, the new law was challenged almost immediately. Like many people, I initially felt pretty certain that Prop. H would be struck down on appeal, just as the 1982 San Francisco Handgun ban was. (The text of that 1983 appeals court decision is here.)

But digging a little deeper I noticed that the 1983 decision actually held that “local governmental bodies” like the City of San Francisco are NOT, in the court’s opinion, “prevented” by State law “from regulating all aspects all aspects of the possession of firearms.” (continue reading post »)