Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Some Thoughts On The Virginia Tech Massacre

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

The Gun Nuts
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

April 25, 2007

Some Thoughts On The Virginia Tech Massacre

By David E. Petzal and Phil Bourjaily

There is something particularly terrible about young people dying violently because they have been deprived of everything—the husbands and wives they never married, the kids they never had, and the contributions they might have made to society. Their lives are gone before they have really begun.
They are dead because a tormented kid with a gun decided to copy what other tormented kids have done. They are dead because any number of institutions and people failed them. Seung Hui-Cho bounced around in the Virginia Tech system like a lethal pinball. The only people who saw how dangerous he was worked in the English department. Aside from those few teachers, everyone failed, including a legal system that is so concerned with the protection of an individual’s rights that it puts the rest of society at risk. Apparently, administration officials at Virginia Tech would have been unable to expel Mr. Cho or do anything else effective even if someone had the brains and the initiative to tell them they had an authentically dangerous student on their hands.

****

A few news sources have recalled the first campus massacre, which took place in Austin, Texas, in August, 1966. A deranged gunman named Charles Whitman took up a firing position in the University of Texas tower, and began killing people. But when it was revealed where the sniper was, off-duty law enforcement officers and civilians put down a hail of gunfire on the tower and in doing so, probably saved lives. However, it is politically incorrect to recall this part of the story.

****

The Usual Suspects in Congress have been strangely silent about the need for new gun laws as the result of the massacre. This is probably because it’s an election year, but it may be because there is plenty of blame to go around in this one and it has nothing to do with guns.

****

Most of the parties involved were simply incompetent. The only really reprehensible group is the media, and in particular, NBC-TV News. The same organization that found Don Imus intolerable has had no problem in granting a mass murder’s last wishes by giving prime air time to his recorded ravings. Since they aired the tapes and it blew up in their faces, we have heard from NBC that there was considerable and agonized debate over whether to air them. But in the name of journalism, and bringing you the news, etc., etc., they felt they had to.

To quote the much-despised Bill Maher, “NBC debated for seven hours whether to broadcast the tapes and then opted to make a s**tload of money.”

The news media wallow in these tragedies, milking them for the last drop of blood, the last tear, the last ratings point. And what they practically guarantee is that it will happen again. In some dormitory room, some twisted geek who doesn’t care if he lives or dies is watching this stuff, thinking, “Why not?”
And sooner or later, he will.

Comments (39)

Top Rated
All Comments
from JB wrote 6 years 50 weeks ago

Two comments.Homework assignment. Go get a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Circle the words "sporting" and "hunting" everywhere you see them printed in both documents. Then see how many times the words "tyranny", "freedom", "oppression", and "defend" are there.After you've read both documents completely, post back and tell us how you come to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is about sports or hunting.Second point.The high body count had nothing, NOTHING, to do with magazine capacities or Cho's gun skills. Those kids died because they were unprotected, unarmed, and terrified.God bless them. I'd have been terrified too if that had happened to me when I was eighteen.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 50 weeks ago

You can kill more people with a truckload of shit than with a gun. Just ask Timothy McVeigh...oops too late. There was a law against guns on the Va Tech campus, there is also a law against murder. More laws will not protect us. One more gun in the right hand would have.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from James wrote 6 years 50 weeks ago

Hey Ross, if you don't trust yourself with your 14 round "magazine", then maybe you should get rid of it and only have ten round mags like the citizens of the socialist republic of california. Better yet, if your're really nervous, limit yourself to only one mag so you don't get into any mischief. Mag size doesn't really matter when a person can carry as many filled magazines as they can fit in a backpack or pockets.Cho's ability to shoot so many people has more to do with reloading tactics than mag size. What I can't believe is that no students took a chance to rush their attacker when he had to reload. I am not at all blaming the victims for their own deaths, and I know that some did resist. But there were never enough resisting at the same time, with that "let's roll" attitude that was displayed on 9/11. I figure if I know I'm going to die, I have nothing to loose and might as well take a chance.Furthermore, if you are going to acknowledge the private possession of firearms as being a hedge against federal tyranny, then you must also acknowledge the vastly superior armament that the government could potentially employ against its citizens should it ever come to "that". Glocks and AR-15s with high cap mags are a drop in the bucket compared to what the military has.That old question of what a gun owner really "needs" is really irrelevant to the discussion, because, as this case showed, it's not what the gun can do, but what its user can do with it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Lucky wrote 6 years 50 weeks ago

Hey man.Jeff Boderman is a Rat Fuck Bastard...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from D. Warner wrote 6 years 50 weeks ago

The unfortunate reality is that anyone with a title and a microphone can speak on the topic and be mistakenly labeled as credible. Recently, MSN quoted a retired ATF employee as saying that the high-capacity magazines used in the Virginia Tech shooting would’ve been “impossible” to acquire had the 1994 ban not been allowed to sunset. Now, one wonders just when interplanetary travel was made possible, because this individual is certainly not from any portion of Earth that I’ve ever met. The article didn’t mention if this was an ATF field agent or an ATF file clerk, but either way, infallibility obviously is inherent to the aforementioned bureau.Of course high-caps were available. They were in every accessories catalog and on every auction site for the last decade.The implied nonsense says the only way to guarantee that Cho hadn’t gotten his sadistic hands on high-capacity magazines would be to completely remove them from circulation. Sounds easy. Common sense says that the only way to attempt to facilitate this Utopia would be for the government to either buy or seize lawfully purchased, lawfully owned property from the public. We would assume these high-cap mags would then be distributed to key members of the NYPD, as they use a large number of rounds these days.Now, if the government somehow decided that research showed that 2-door vehicles were inherently unsafe, caused more emissions, and were thus a detriment to society, you’d be first in line to drive your ‘66 Mustang to the government buy-back for the betterment of America, wouldn’t you? And there’s no way that somebody would be so socially destructive as to hide his GTO in a barn to avoid the car crusher, right? And that GTO wouldn’t increase ten-fold in value overnight, yes? Are we beginning to see the problem with the feasibility of all these “if we just take away all the pointy things, no one can ever get hurt again” ideas? The seizure of legal property isn’t something that politicians are too keen on... yet. But never underestimate the chemical reaction that occurs when massed ignorance is allowed to inhabit a voting booth.We don’t dictate that the only responsible reason for owning a vehicle is transportation, else we’d all be driving Geo Metros; we shouldn’t allow the same immaturity to garner attention on the firearms topic, no matter how loudly it yells or how much press coverage it gets.-Dan Warner, 25

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bigbenr wrote 6 years 50 weeks ago

No, just blame the dead people. Wrong place, wrong time.hehe. As a person who lives in a community dominated by a college campus, I would be very leary about drunk childrens with guns in their rooms. They seem capable of doing plenty of damaage without guns.The problem is things will never change for good, law abiding Americans. Every elected President is in debt to the NRA for NRA votes when he gets into office. Along with all the other lobbies. The silent majority give their votes away for false promises and false hopes.That coupled with the fact that big business 'owns' politicians on both sides of the house, (you don't think they gamble on one horse in a two horse race do you?), means you better get used to it. Big tabacco, big weapons pushers and big oil have told 'bought' Dems to leave Bush alone. Profits could be hit by political instability. Where's Charlton when we need to see somebody who has really sold his soul to the corporate capitalist devil?? hehehe.You live in a civilised world where the citizenry are better armed than the police. You live in a civilised world where your neighbour could have a weapon more suited to the battlefields of Iraq than suburbia. You live in a civilised world where corporate greed comes before the lives of your young and innocent.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Biged wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

You people are sad. I understand he had the handguns for over a year, so what would a 10 or 15 day waiting period had done and as for the background check they would not have found anything because nothing was ever recorded. so get real people and stop acting like the control nuts on handguns

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Black Rifle addict wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Ross-I agree with what you are saying..HANDGUNS seem to be the major offender of the lawless. Like most of us here, I was not aware of how easy it was to purchase a handgun in VA.My state requires an application, waiting period-finger printing,and the purchase permit is dated(I believe a 10day period?)before it expires.Is this reasonable? I think so, and if cho would have purchased the guns on the street it would have been a mute point, of course.In this case he purchase them legally,and the system failed.My question is why VA does not require a backround check for outstanding warrants or mentally ill persons?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from countryboy wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Did anyone else see the interview earlier this week with Sara Brady? I think it was on the Today Show on Monday or Tuesday. I was shocked when she said more than once that she and her foundation were not pushing for more gun control laws. She said that they wanted better enforcement of the existing laws. She said several things in that interview that I agreed completely with. It kinda scared me.On another note, the polls that were on MSN.com last week asking whether people wanted more gun control laws and if more laws would help gun violence, seemed to disappear very quickly when the results were in our favor. The polls showed clearly that the majority was against more gun control. These polls were pulled from the MSN.com home page after only one day.Keep up the good work Dave.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ross wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I own a Glock 19. In order to purchase it I had to fill out an application that ran 3 or 4 pages, include references from 3 taxpaying landowners in the county where I live, and have it notarized. 3 or 4 weeks later I got a permit to purchase. Do I mind that? No, not really. I work in a hospital and see people with gunshot wounds on a regular basis. Guns, like cars, are dangerous if misused. As a sensible and responsible citizen, I recognize the common sense behind regulating who has access to firearms - especially small, concealable firearms with 14 round magazines.I agree with most of the posters here on these basic points: this man was seriously disturbed and was bound commit mayhem no matter what. I also agree that the Second Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, as formulated by the anti-federalists in the late 1700's, constitute an important check on the possibility of tyranny in our government. Finally, I agree that the 24 hour news cycle has led to a tragic deterioration in the standards for responsible journalism in this country.However, I have to admit, looking at the carnage this man caused, I had a moment's pause over whether I really needed a 14 round clip. I also wondered whether any private citizen's need for protection from personal assault -- or tyranny by the federal government -- necessitates that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can, like Cho, walk into a gun store and walk away with a Glock, or an AR-15, or any number of other non-sporting firearms with high-capacity magazines. Some have said that in this case the laws on the books were not enforced, but my reading of the story seems to indicate that there was no rigorous local process for obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun in Virginia that is similar to the one in my home state. Some say that illegal guns are so easily available that further regulation is pointless and only impacts law-abiding citizens such as myself. But I have to ask myself, if I were face -to-face with the mother of the 26th or 27th student murdered in this rampage, how exactly would I justify opposition to instituting my county's local regulations on a nationwide basis if it would have reduced the opportunities Cho had for obtaining the object of his twisted fantasies. Sure, he was going to kill someone someday, but would he have been able to kill 31 people in the space of a few minutes?I recognize this is not a popular point of view in this forum, but I am genuinely curious if there are other gun owners who have doubts about the absolutist stance of the NRA, etc., regarding unfettered access to almost any kind of hand-held firearm.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Michael wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

To Chad Love:Thank you for enlightening me. When I referred to media, I certainly didn't mean every news journalist in America. But, when an icon such as Dan Rather (who graduated from my alma mater SHSU)blatantly trangresses the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, one begins to lose faith. I understand your position. As a public school teacher I have had to teach for the "test" instead of preparing students for life after high school because "research" (money and politics) indicates this is what they need. Accept my apologies.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Peter C wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Dan Warner's post should be the answer to every liberal anti-gunner who whines, "If it saves only one life..." This is one very intelligent young man.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dennis Bender wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Perhaps the gun violence would end if these killers knew their lives would be placed in abrupt jeopardy. Killers kill and the only end to stopping that is to stopping them permanently. If they are by some means captured the doors on their cage should be welded shut to secure the safety of the rest of mankind. To excuse killing or to rationalize it is to devalue all of life. I have had to defend myself and my family twice by displaying a weapon and I will do it again if I must. No peace loving person wants to kill but I believe every one that values life whether his or that of another will do whatever it takes to defend that life.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Black Rifle addict wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

It would be interesting to see what our founding fathers would have to say about the random gun violence of today's society and freedom's bell ringing?Nice Blog Mr.Petzal

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan Warner wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I believe it was Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security."Well said, indeed.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gerald Keller wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I don't have the exact quote in front of me at this time,so it is possible that I mis-quote slightly and attribute it to the wrong Founding Father.I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said "those who would give up their rights for percieved security DESERVE NEITHER"

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad Love wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Michael, journalism has fundamentally changed (for the worse, mostly, I'll concede that) because society's means of communication has fundamentally changed and right along with it, society's opinions of what's important and should be covered has changed right.Believe me, there have been myriad attempts by a number of media outlets to chunk the sensationalism and celebrity/pop coverage and give the people real news, and almost without exception it has failed miserably.People, by and large, don't want to be informed, they want to be titilated and entertained and therefore that's what the market dictates.You think you're disgusted with the media? Believe me, you aren't any more disgusted or disillusioned than the legions of reporters (whom the vast majority of, BTW, did NOT go in to journalism for the money and fame...) who are forced to go out and cover stories and events in ways that are almost wholly influenced by consultant-driven focus group research. And from where are these focus groups drawn? You and me and everyone else. Welcome to the feedback loop...Reporting is the only career I've ever known, so maybe I'm a bit biased, but instead of slamming the "journalists of today" we should be slamming the system that's producing them.For the past few years I've been a fairly active freelancer for a very large circulation pop culture/celebrity-driven magazine, and in that time I've been sent on some truly moronic assignments and I have, by necessity, covered things and pursued stories and subjects so banal and shallow they made me seriously question both my personal dignity and the long-term viability of a society that would be interested in such crap.But I did it, because A. we can't all write for Field & Stream, and B. I need to eat, and C. despite its shortcomings and challenges, I still believe in the positive power of good journalism and hold out hope there remain enough like-minded people to ensure it doesn't completely get swallowed up by the corporate infotainment beast.And lost in this whole debate is the fact there was some damn fine reporting going on right along with the crap, you just had to wade through the sewer to find it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert W. Sprague wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Dave, thankyou for a very well written blog. I cannot express how deeply my feelings of contempt are for the leadership at NBC for choosing ratings over morals. Bearing in mind that the media uses every opportunity to portray gun owners as evil, I would ask all your readers to write, call, and e-mail NBC and ask for the resignation of those responsible for that decision, and then let the sponsors of NBC news know how you feel about the programming. Thankyou

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Peter C wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I beg to disagree: security is obviously not increased by giving up some rights. Was the security of the VT students increased by infringing their individual right to carry the means of self-protection?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Michael wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Well said, Dave.Somewhere, sometime, a decision has to be made: security can only be increased by giving up some rights. Regarding today's media; There are no more Walter Cronkites; journalists with integrity, a sense of duty, and "common sense". Journalists of today are no longer the watchdogs of society, but rather a sleazy bunch of sensationalists.William Randolph Hearst of the yellow journalism/muckraking era would be proud. "Truth is the first casualty of a sensational story." How pitiful.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pete wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Mr. Petzel,A very perceptive and thought out observation. Will the media ever get a clue?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

You can find clues to motives in many details. Note that Cho is almost exclusively refered to as a "gunman". When have you heard a report wherein he is called "murderer", "killer", or even the more sanitry "assailant". Always we are presented with the modality of his crime, not the crime itself.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from lynn wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

"...including a legal system that is so concerned with the protection of an individual’s rights that it puts the rest of society at risk." Sir, the alternative to this type of system is one that puts everyone at risk for just the few. It is call Socialism. The protection of an individual's right (or rights) is always accomplished at the expense of a few. Typically, the few always seem to be Socialist or Communist leaning.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from scott wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I remember a scene in the movie called "Scrooged", starring Bill Murray. At the beginning of the scene a panel had been debating the merits of their company's Christmas advertising, Bill's character was clearly not pleased and aired his version of the Christmas show. If you recall, it ended with a nuclear detonation. An old lady was given a heart attack during one of the airings of the commercial but instead of quitting it, Bill's character just ran a disclaimer at the top of the spot, thereby eliminating the network's responsibility.This is staggeringly close to reality here, folks.I mean, it's almost like the guys at NBC took their cues directly from the movie...What's next? I used to say nothing surprises me anymore after having lived as long as I have...but damn.Well done Dave. I think you're spot on.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 3kidsdad wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

It is a telling comment on our society that it is more acceptable to endanger others than offend someone. It requires a value judgment to pronounce someone a danger to others. And we are being continuously attacked for applying "our" values to other people. As for me, I am growing increasingly unconcerned with who is "offended" by my values. It offends me that so many are convinced that they should be able to tell all of us how we should live, but we shouldn't judge them. The truly annoying part is their refusal to see the hypocrisy

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan Warner wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I have two friends at Virginia Tech, a pair of brothers, Michael and Matthew. Matt was thankfully off campus. Mike was in an adjacent building in lockdown; he watched as 13 bodies were carried out. Unfortunately, a bridesmaid that was to be in Matt's wedding this summer was cut down."Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee."It tolls for us.What follows is a copy of an item I posted on MSNBC, April 17th.It's unfortunate that a tragedy such as this will be used as a soapbox for some. Yet, in the America in which we live, it's unavoidable. Politicians who've never darkened the door of Virginia Tech, will be tripping all over themselves to express their grief... and their views on why it happened and how it could've been avoided if only: [insert random, popular catchphrase of the moment here].Already, news reports have so much political spin -coloring various candidates as the press best sees fit- that I have no doubt the events will figure into the next election.And so I make the short climb to my own soapboxWhile those who seek political advantage are already calling for stricter restrictions, smart people, educated people, people of common sense, sadly shake their heads.Thinking people understand a simple fact: laws only apply to people who obey laws. The single, criminal mind responsible for this attack did not obey laws. Therefore, increased restrictions on firearms would not have applied to him.Perhaps most tragic of all is that the whole incident could have been prevented.I attend college myself. And each day that I pull into the student parking lot, I reach to my belt, draw my own semi-automatic handgun from its holster, and lock it securely in my vehicle. Then I walk away. This is the only way to be in full accordance with state laws concerning the legal carry of concealed firearms. In class each day, I sit next to a local SWAT officer. And I know that he too is unarmed.I have undergone extensive firearms training. I am registered with the local, state, and federal government as a citizen who should be trusted to carry a firearm, both for my protection and for the protection of those around me. I carry legal, government issued identification stating the same. But if this same situation occurs at my own college campus, I will be just as helpless to stop it as anyone else.There is no doubt in my mind that, had people like me been on that campus in Virginia, with the legal ability to act in defense of those who cannot defend themselves, lives would have been saved.The question is this: if a legally armed student or instructor could've stopped the attack, and thus saved lives, would you have let him? Even if he only saved one life? Or five? Or ten? Or twenty? When does it become worthwhile enough for you to allow well-trained, armed citizens to help keep you safe? Or to keep yourself safe? You decide.My police officer friends will all attest to the fact that law enforcement is inherently reactive, not proactive. It is long past time to quit pretending that gun restrictions limit crime, and return the ability to defend oneself, and those around us -regardless of the setting- to the individual.That's common sense that anyone, even a politician, should be able to understand.-D. Warner, 25myspace.com/tipthebalance

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from chuckb wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Dave: The victims are gone, and their tragedy is intensified by the knowledge that nothing constructive will come of their deaths. Stand by for the inevitable assault on legal gun owners' rights that the lefties will exploit, and for the future consequences of NBC's cynical publicity incentive to the next mass-murderer who wants his 15 minutes of fame on national TV.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Kudo's to you Dave-Well written and thought provoking article.This was a tragedy in the making long before the killing began, and I hope society will learn from it to avoid such a tragedy again.My prayers go out to all the families.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Grmart wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Dave,By far your best blog yet! It's a shame in this day and age you can't "shit", even if you have a mouth-full.Cheers,George

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew DeVries wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I say we go with Archie Bunker's idea. Just put a bucket of guns at the door. When you go in, you take a gun. When you leave, you put it back in the gun bucket. Everyone minds their manners.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad Love wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Look, I hate to invoke the Pogo cliche here because I agree in spirit with some of what you're saying, but before we get all self-righteous about the alleged failings and moral degeneracy of the amorphous all-encompassing "media" I'd like to point out that it's in business only because there's a huge, ravenous market clamoring for what it produces. Using the media as a collective whipping boy for deeper societal ills is a simple cop-out.I'm not trying to defend NBC's decision to air the footage from a news value point of view. It's not like this stuff was the Pentagon Papers or anything. An endless loop of images of him holding a knife to his throat didn't IMHO offer much in the way of insight. I think 32 bodies pretty much clued viewers in to the fact this guy was shithouse crazy without having to endure the violently salacious posturing of a lunatic.However, the 24-hour news cycle is a demanding beast, and when the biggest story of the year literally gets dropped in your lap, well, you either run with it or you get run over. Deal with consequences later. There are enormous pressures on news organizations these days to get the story out quicker than the other guy. Rumor? Run with it. Unverified facts? Run with 'em. Questionable source? Get 'em on air. Report now. Fact-check later.That's the nature of the broadcast journalism beast in the 21st century. If you don't air it, they'll just go find it on Youtube. It may not be right, but it's what is.If you really want to change that then I suggest we all ditch our cell phones, our cable/satellite and our broadband connection. Not likely, eh?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Kaylor wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

It is indeed strange how silent our foeshave been on this issue.Except themedia.I find it disturbing that NBC would air this guys tapes andgive a deranged killer his last wish in the name of so-called journalism.The cable media has also re-visited San Ysidro and other mass shootings this past week ad nauseum.This is equally disturbing.They claim First Amendment rights to free speech to report the news but yet they freely say we have no Second Amendment rights.Hypocrisy.I thinkour foes have been silent becausewe have a Presidential election coming up in 2008.We all best be on our toes.The only person who has not been silent is Reichsfuhrer Michael Blommberg and his cronies.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Kaylor wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

It is indeed strange how silent our foeshave been on this issue.Except themedia.I find it disturbing that NBC would air this guys tapes andgive a deranged killer his last wish in the name of so-called journalism.The cable media has also re-visited San Ysidro and other mass shootings this past week ad nauseum.This is equally disturbing.They claim First Amendment rights to free speech to report the news but yet they freely say we have no Second Amendment rights.Hypocrisy.I thinkour foes have been silent becausewe have a Presidential election coming up in 2008.We all best be on our toes.The only person who has not been silent is Reichsfuhrer Michael Blommberg and his cronies.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I agree whole-heartedly with your comments. The warning flags were there but everyone seemed to drop the ball which is sad and unforgivable. As in all of these situations everyone seems to blame what happened on anything but the truth. Nice to see that your not everybody. thanks for the truth.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sam Irish wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Yes sir, thank you for posting this. I'm a longtime reader just finding the website. This is one of the only rational rundowns of the situation I'v heard, and definately the best worded. Thanks.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sam Irish wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Yes sir, thank you for posting this. I'm a longtime reader just finding the website. This is one of the only rational rundowns of the situation I'v heard, and definately the best worded. Thanks.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I was taken this kid at VT showed no fear in his recorded ranting. He wasn’t crazy, he was just EvilHis sister graduated from Princeton, he got into VT on his own merits. The medical community let him go after counseling, medication, and examination for he was a social case, not a medical issue. Lots of people are mentally ill, more so than having cancer. They don’t go around popping 32 innocent souls.Evil is very much a part of our physical world, why else did this kid mention Christ, Moses, etc.Many people will scoff at this comment. Call it The Devil, Demons, Resident Evil….but this is what I saw talking to me. For those who don’t prescribe to this thought, the only other possible examination is mental illness.What to do? Bill Hickock is quoted in saying a person should feel no guiltier of shooting a bad man than shooting a mean dog. Rather PI, but likely shows more wisdom than I first thought.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Wulffy wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

In February 1995, a freshman walked into a math class at the Jr. High School in my town with a Winchester 30-30 and a pistol. He shot 3 students, killing 2, and also killed his math teacher, before being taken down by the school wrestling coach. It quickly made local and national news, with a frenzy to report what ever info they could, with out regard to fact or rumor. I was a sophomore at the time. I knew all of those killed, and 80% of the other students in the classroom. I also knew the shooter quite well, and had been in classes with him the previous year.The media jumped all over the idea that the shooting was gang related. They continued to report it as such till another student, my girlfriend, called and set the facts straight. We never see the media out of Seattle in our small town, and only get the news vans from Spokane once in a great while. For several weeks after the shooting, there were news affiliates from all of the surrounding areas in our town for the latest update. They even had the guts to set up outside the churches after the funerals and at the community memorial service held a couple weeks later.I lost all of my respect for the news media then and there, and am still very cautious with anything they present in an effort to “educate and inform” us.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan Salmon wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Well said!!Let's not find a way to fix the problem, just make it go away and move on. But, before that happens, let's let Hollywood, the media and any politician looking for a platform for re-election milk this for what it's worth.Then we'll make more unenforced laws that only serve to help the criminals and not protect the innocent victims they create. It's amazing how screwed up a form of self goverment for the people by the people, can get when greedy, selfish and wealthy can weed out the people that would make it great.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from JB wrote 6 years 50 weeks ago

Two comments.Homework assignment. Go get a copy of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. Circle the words "sporting" and "hunting" everywhere you see them printed in both documents. Then see how many times the words "tyranny", "freedom", "oppression", and "defend" are there.After you've read both documents completely, post back and tell us how you come to the conclusion that the 2nd Amendment is about sports or hunting.Second point.The high body count had nothing, NOTHING, to do with magazine capacities or Cho's gun skills. Those kids died because they were unprotected, unarmed, and terrified.God bless them. I'd have been terrified too if that had happened to me when I was eighteen.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dr. Ralph wrote 6 years 50 weeks ago

You can kill more people with a truckload of shit than with a gun. Just ask Timothy McVeigh...oops too late. There was a law against guns on the Va Tech campus, there is also a law against murder. More laws will not protect us. One more gun in the right hand would have.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from James wrote 6 years 50 weeks ago

Hey Ross, if you don't trust yourself with your 14 round "magazine", then maybe you should get rid of it and only have ten round mags like the citizens of the socialist republic of california. Better yet, if your're really nervous, limit yourself to only one mag so you don't get into any mischief. Mag size doesn't really matter when a person can carry as many filled magazines as they can fit in a backpack or pockets.Cho's ability to shoot so many people has more to do with reloading tactics than mag size. What I can't believe is that no students took a chance to rush their attacker when he had to reload. I am not at all blaming the victims for their own deaths, and I know that some did resist. But there were never enough resisting at the same time, with that "let's roll" attitude that was displayed on 9/11. I figure if I know I'm going to die, I have nothing to loose and might as well take a chance.Furthermore, if you are going to acknowledge the private possession of firearms as being a hedge against federal tyranny, then you must also acknowledge the vastly superior armament that the government could potentially employ against its citizens should it ever come to "that". Glocks and AR-15s with high cap mags are a drop in the bucket compared to what the military has.That old question of what a gun owner really "needs" is really irrelevant to the discussion, because, as this case showed, it's not what the gun can do, but what its user can do with it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Lucky wrote 6 years 50 weeks ago

Hey man.Jeff Boderman is a Rat Fuck Bastard...

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from D. Warner wrote 6 years 50 weeks ago

The unfortunate reality is that anyone with a title and a microphone can speak on the topic and be mistakenly labeled as credible. Recently, MSN quoted a retired ATF employee as saying that the high-capacity magazines used in the Virginia Tech shooting would’ve been “impossible” to acquire had the 1994 ban not been allowed to sunset. Now, one wonders just when interplanetary travel was made possible, because this individual is certainly not from any portion of Earth that I’ve ever met. The article didn’t mention if this was an ATF field agent or an ATF file clerk, but either way, infallibility obviously is inherent to the aforementioned bureau.Of course high-caps were available. They were in every accessories catalog and on every auction site for the last decade.The implied nonsense says the only way to guarantee that Cho hadn’t gotten his sadistic hands on high-capacity magazines would be to completely remove them from circulation. Sounds easy. Common sense says that the only way to attempt to facilitate this Utopia would be for the government to either buy or seize lawfully purchased, lawfully owned property from the public. We would assume these high-cap mags would then be distributed to key members of the NYPD, as they use a large number of rounds these days.Now, if the government somehow decided that research showed that 2-door vehicles were inherently unsafe, caused more emissions, and were thus a detriment to society, you’d be first in line to drive your ‘66 Mustang to the government buy-back for the betterment of America, wouldn’t you? And there’s no way that somebody would be so socially destructive as to hide his GTO in a barn to avoid the car crusher, right? And that GTO wouldn’t increase ten-fold in value overnight, yes? Are we beginning to see the problem with the feasibility of all these “if we just take away all the pointy things, no one can ever get hurt again” ideas? The seizure of legal property isn’t something that politicians are too keen on... yet. But never underestimate the chemical reaction that occurs when massed ignorance is allowed to inhabit a voting booth.We don’t dictate that the only responsible reason for owning a vehicle is transportation, else we’d all be driving Geo Metros; we shouldn’t allow the same immaturity to garner attention on the firearms topic, no matter how loudly it yells or how much press coverage it gets.-Dan Warner, 25

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Bigbenr wrote 6 years 50 weeks ago

No, just blame the dead people. Wrong place, wrong time.hehe. As a person who lives in a community dominated by a college campus, I would be very leary about drunk childrens with guns in their rooms. They seem capable of doing plenty of damaage without guns.The problem is things will never change for good, law abiding Americans. Every elected President is in debt to the NRA for NRA votes when he gets into office. Along with all the other lobbies. The silent majority give their votes away for false promises and false hopes.That coupled with the fact that big business 'owns' politicians on both sides of the house, (you don't think they gamble on one horse in a two horse race do you?), means you better get used to it. Big tabacco, big weapons pushers and big oil have told 'bought' Dems to leave Bush alone. Profits could be hit by political instability. Where's Charlton when we need to see somebody who has really sold his soul to the corporate capitalist devil?? hehehe.You live in a civilised world where the citizenry are better armed than the police. You live in a civilised world where your neighbour could have a weapon more suited to the battlefields of Iraq than suburbia. You live in a civilised world where corporate greed comes before the lives of your young and innocent.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Biged wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

You people are sad. I understand he had the handguns for over a year, so what would a 10 or 15 day waiting period had done and as for the background check they would not have found anything because nothing was ever recorded. so get real people and stop acting like the control nuts on handguns

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Black Rifle addict wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Ross-I agree with what you are saying..HANDGUNS seem to be the major offender of the lawless. Like most of us here, I was not aware of how easy it was to purchase a handgun in VA.My state requires an application, waiting period-finger printing,and the purchase permit is dated(I believe a 10day period?)before it expires.Is this reasonable? I think so, and if cho would have purchased the guns on the street it would have been a mute point, of course.In this case he purchase them legally,and the system failed.My question is why VA does not require a backround check for outstanding warrants or mentally ill persons?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from countryboy wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Did anyone else see the interview earlier this week with Sara Brady? I think it was on the Today Show on Monday or Tuesday. I was shocked when she said more than once that she and her foundation were not pushing for more gun control laws. She said that they wanted better enforcement of the existing laws. She said several things in that interview that I agreed completely with. It kinda scared me.On another note, the polls that were on MSN.com last week asking whether people wanted more gun control laws and if more laws would help gun violence, seemed to disappear very quickly when the results were in our favor. The polls showed clearly that the majority was against more gun control. These polls were pulled from the MSN.com home page after only one day.Keep up the good work Dave.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ross wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I own a Glock 19. In order to purchase it I had to fill out an application that ran 3 or 4 pages, include references from 3 taxpaying landowners in the county where I live, and have it notarized. 3 or 4 weeks later I got a permit to purchase. Do I mind that? No, not really. I work in a hospital and see people with gunshot wounds on a regular basis. Guns, like cars, are dangerous if misused. As a sensible and responsible citizen, I recognize the common sense behind regulating who has access to firearms - especially small, concealable firearms with 14 round magazines.I agree with most of the posters here on these basic points: this man was seriously disturbed and was bound commit mayhem no matter what. I also agree that the Second Amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, as formulated by the anti-federalists in the late 1700's, constitute an important check on the possibility of tyranny in our government. Finally, I agree that the 24 hour news cycle has led to a tragic deterioration in the standards for responsible journalism in this country.However, I have to admit, looking at the carnage this man caused, I had a moment's pause over whether I really needed a 14 round clip. I also wondered whether any private citizen's need for protection from personal assault -- or tyranny by the federal government -- necessitates that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can, like Cho, walk into a gun store and walk away with a Glock, or an AR-15, or any number of other non-sporting firearms with high-capacity magazines. Some have said that in this case the laws on the books were not enforced, but my reading of the story seems to indicate that there was no rigorous local process for obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun in Virginia that is similar to the one in my home state. Some say that illegal guns are so easily available that further regulation is pointless and only impacts law-abiding citizens such as myself. But I have to ask myself, if I were face -to-face with the mother of the 26th or 27th student murdered in this rampage, how exactly would I justify opposition to instituting my county's local regulations on a nationwide basis if it would have reduced the opportunities Cho had for obtaining the object of his twisted fantasies. Sure, he was going to kill someone someday, but would he have been able to kill 31 people in the space of a few minutes?I recognize this is not a popular point of view in this forum, but I am genuinely curious if there are other gun owners who have doubts about the absolutist stance of the NRA, etc., regarding unfettered access to almost any kind of hand-held firearm.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Michael wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

To Chad Love:Thank you for enlightening me. When I referred to media, I certainly didn't mean every news journalist in America. But, when an icon such as Dan Rather (who graduated from my alma mater SHSU)blatantly trangresses the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics, one begins to lose faith. I understand your position. As a public school teacher I have had to teach for the "test" instead of preparing students for life after high school because "research" (money and politics) indicates this is what they need. Accept my apologies.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Peter C wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Dan Warner's post should be the answer to every liberal anti-gunner who whines, "If it saves only one life..." This is one very intelligent young man.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dennis Bender wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Perhaps the gun violence would end if these killers knew their lives would be placed in abrupt jeopardy. Killers kill and the only end to stopping that is to stopping them permanently. If they are by some means captured the doors on their cage should be welded shut to secure the safety of the rest of mankind. To excuse killing or to rationalize it is to devalue all of life. I have had to defend myself and my family twice by displaying a weapon and I will do it again if I must. No peace loving person wants to kill but I believe every one that values life whether his or that of another will do whatever it takes to defend that life.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Black Rifle addict wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

It would be interesting to see what our founding fathers would have to say about the random gun violence of today's society and freedom's bell ringing?Nice Blog Mr.Petzal

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan Warner wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I believe it was Franklin: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Security, deserve neither Liberty nor Security."Well said, indeed.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Gerald Keller wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I don't have the exact quote in front of me at this time,so it is possible that I mis-quote slightly and attribute it to the wrong Founding Father.I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said "those who would give up their rights for percieved security DESERVE NEITHER"

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad Love wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Michael, journalism has fundamentally changed (for the worse, mostly, I'll concede that) because society's means of communication has fundamentally changed and right along with it, society's opinions of what's important and should be covered has changed right.Believe me, there have been myriad attempts by a number of media outlets to chunk the sensationalism and celebrity/pop coverage and give the people real news, and almost without exception it has failed miserably.People, by and large, don't want to be informed, they want to be titilated and entertained and therefore that's what the market dictates.You think you're disgusted with the media? Believe me, you aren't any more disgusted or disillusioned than the legions of reporters (whom the vast majority of, BTW, did NOT go in to journalism for the money and fame...) who are forced to go out and cover stories and events in ways that are almost wholly influenced by consultant-driven focus group research. And from where are these focus groups drawn? You and me and everyone else. Welcome to the feedback loop...Reporting is the only career I've ever known, so maybe I'm a bit biased, but instead of slamming the "journalists of today" we should be slamming the system that's producing them.For the past few years I've been a fairly active freelancer for a very large circulation pop culture/celebrity-driven magazine, and in that time I've been sent on some truly moronic assignments and I have, by necessity, covered things and pursued stories and subjects so banal and shallow they made me seriously question both my personal dignity and the long-term viability of a society that would be interested in such crap.But I did it, because A. we can't all write for Field & Stream, and B. I need to eat, and C. despite its shortcomings and challenges, I still believe in the positive power of good journalism and hold out hope there remain enough like-minded people to ensure it doesn't completely get swallowed up by the corporate infotainment beast.And lost in this whole debate is the fact there was some damn fine reporting going on right along with the crap, you just had to wade through the sewer to find it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert W. Sprague wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Dave, thankyou for a very well written blog. I cannot express how deeply my feelings of contempt are for the leadership at NBC for choosing ratings over morals. Bearing in mind that the media uses every opportunity to portray gun owners as evil, I would ask all your readers to write, call, and e-mail NBC and ask for the resignation of those responsible for that decision, and then let the sponsors of NBC news know how you feel about the programming. Thankyou

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Peter C wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I beg to disagree: security is obviously not increased by giving up some rights. Was the security of the VT students increased by infringing their individual right to carry the means of self-protection?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Michael wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Well said, Dave.Somewhere, sometime, a decision has to be made: security can only be increased by giving up some rights. Regarding today's media; There are no more Walter Cronkites; journalists with integrity, a sense of duty, and "common sense". Journalists of today are no longer the watchdogs of society, but rather a sleazy bunch of sensationalists.William Randolph Hearst of the yellow journalism/muckraking era would be proud. "Truth is the first casualty of a sensational story." How pitiful.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Pete wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Mr. Petzel,A very perceptive and thought out observation. Will the media ever get a clue?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Steve wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

You can find clues to motives in many details. Note that Cho is almost exclusively refered to as a "gunman". When have you heard a report wherein he is called "murderer", "killer", or even the more sanitry "assailant". Always we are presented with the modality of his crime, not the crime itself.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from lynn wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

"...including a legal system that is so concerned with the protection of an individual’s rights that it puts the rest of society at risk." Sir, the alternative to this type of system is one that puts everyone at risk for just the few. It is call Socialism. The protection of an individual's right (or rights) is always accomplished at the expense of a few. Typically, the few always seem to be Socialist or Communist leaning.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from scott wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I remember a scene in the movie called "Scrooged", starring Bill Murray. At the beginning of the scene a panel had been debating the merits of their company's Christmas advertising, Bill's character was clearly not pleased and aired his version of the Christmas show. If you recall, it ended with a nuclear detonation. An old lady was given a heart attack during one of the airings of the commercial but instead of quitting it, Bill's character just ran a disclaimer at the top of the spot, thereby eliminating the network's responsibility.This is staggeringly close to reality here, folks.I mean, it's almost like the guys at NBC took their cues directly from the movie...What's next? I used to say nothing surprises me anymore after having lived as long as I have...but damn.Well done Dave. I think you're spot on.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from 3kidsdad wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

It is a telling comment on our society that it is more acceptable to endanger others than offend someone. It requires a value judgment to pronounce someone a danger to others. And we are being continuously attacked for applying "our" values to other people. As for me, I am growing increasingly unconcerned with who is "offended" by my values. It offends me that so many are convinced that they should be able to tell all of us how we should live, but we shouldn't judge them. The truly annoying part is their refusal to see the hypocrisy

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan Warner wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I have two friends at Virginia Tech, a pair of brothers, Michael and Matthew. Matt was thankfully off campus. Mike was in an adjacent building in lockdown; he watched as 13 bodies were carried out. Unfortunately, a bridesmaid that was to be in Matt's wedding this summer was cut down."Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, It tolls for thee."It tolls for us.What follows is a copy of an item I posted on MSNBC, April 17th.It's unfortunate that a tragedy such as this will be used as a soapbox for some. Yet, in the America in which we live, it's unavoidable. Politicians who've never darkened the door of Virginia Tech, will be tripping all over themselves to express their grief... and their views on why it happened and how it could've been avoided if only: [insert random, popular catchphrase of the moment here].Already, news reports have so much political spin -coloring various candidates as the press best sees fit- that I have no doubt the events will figure into the next election.And so I make the short climb to my own soapboxWhile those who seek political advantage are already calling for stricter restrictions, smart people, educated people, people of common sense, sadly shake their heads.Thinking people understand a simple fact: laws only apply to people who obey laws. The single, criminal mind responsible for this attack did not obey laws. Therefore, increased restrictions on firearms would not have applied to him.Perhaps most tragic of all is that the whole incident could have been prevented.I attend college myself. And each day that I pull into the student parking lot, I reach to my belt, draw my own semi-automatic handgun from its holster, and lock it securely in my vehicle. Then I walk away. This is the only way to be in full accordance with state laws concerning the legal carry of concealed firearms. In class each day, I sit next to a local SWAT officer. And I know that he too is unarmed.I have undergone extensive firearms training. I am registered with the local, state, and federal government as a citizen who should be trusted to carry a firearm, both for my protection and for the protection of those around me. I carry legal, government issued identification stating the same. But if this same situation occurs at my own college campus, I will be just as helpless to stop it as anyone else.There is no doubt in my mind that, had people like me been on that campus in Virginia, with the legal ability to act in defense of those who cannot defend themselves, lives would have been saved.The question is this: if a legally armed student or instructor could've stopped the attack, and thus saved lives, would you have let him? Even if he only saved one life? Or five? Or ten? Or twenty? When does it become worthwhile enough for you to allow well-trained, armed citizens to help keep you safe? Or to keep yourself safe? You decide.My police officer friends will all attest to the fact that law enforcement is inherently reactive, not proactive. It is long past time to quit pretending that gun restrictions limit crime, and return the ability to defend oneself, and those around us -regardless of the setting- to the individual.That's common sense that anyone, even a politician, should be able to understand.-D. Warner, 25myspace.com/tipthebalance

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from chuckb wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Dave: The victims are gone, and their tragedy is intensified by the knowledge that nothing constructive will come of their deaths. Stand by for the inevitable assault on legal gun owners' rights that the lefties will exploit, and for the future consequences of NBC's cynical publicity incentive to the next mass-murderer who wants his 15 minutes of fame on national TV.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Kudo's to you Dave-Well written and thought provoking article.This was a tragedy in the making long before the killing began, and I hope society will learn from it to avoid such a tragedy again.My prayers go out to all the families.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Grmart wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Dave,By far your best blog yet! It's a shame in this day and age you can't "shit", even if you have a mouth-full.Cheers,George

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Andrew DeVries wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I say we go with Archie Bunker's idea. Just put a bucket of guns at the door. When you go in, you take a gun. When you leave, you put it back in the gun bucket. Everyone minds their manners.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Chad Love wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Look, I hate to invoke the Pogo cliche here because I agree in spirit with some of what you're saying, but before we get all self-righteous about the alleged failings and moral degeneracy of the amorphous all-encompassing "media" I'd like to point out that it's in business only because there's a huge, ravenous market clamoring for what it produces. Using the media as a collective whipping boy for deeper societal ills is a simple cop-out.I'm not trying to defend NBC's decision to air the footage from a news value point of view. It's not like this stuff was the Pentagon Papers or anything. An endless loop of images of him holding a knife to his throat didn't IMHO offer much in the way of insight. I think 32 bodies pretty much clued viewers in to the fact this guy was shithouse crazy without having to endure the violently salacious posturing of a lunatic.However, the 24-hour news cycle is a demanding beast, and when the biggest story of the year literally gets dropped in your lap, well, you either run with it or you get run over. Deal with consequences later. There are enormous pressures on news organizations these days to get the story out quicker than the other guy. Rumor? Run with it. Unverified facts? Run with 'em. Questionable source? Get 'em on air. Report now. Fact-check later.That's the nature of the broadcast journalism beast in the 21st century. If you don't air it, they'll just go find it on Youtube. It may not be right, but it's what is.If you really want to change that then I suggest we all ditch our cell phones, our cable/satellite and our broadband connection. Not likely, eh?

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Kaylor wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

It is indeed strange how silent our foeshave been on this issue.Except themedia.I find it disturbing that NBC would air this guys tapes andgive a deranged killer his last wish in the name of so-called journalism.The cable media has also re-visited San Ysidro and other mass shootings this past week ad nauseum.This is equally disturbing.They claim First Amendment rights to free speech to report the news but yet they freely say we have no Second Amendment rights.Hypocrisy.I thinkour foes have been silent becausewe have a Presidential election coming up in 2008.We all best be on our toes.The only person who has not been silent is Reichsfuhrer Michael Blommberg and his cronies.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Richard Kaylor wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

It is indeed strange how silent our foeshave been on this issue.Except themedia.I find it disturbing that NBC would air this guys tapes andgive a deranged killer his last wish in the name of so-called journalism.The cable media has also re-visited San Ysidro and other mass shootings this past week ad nauseum.This is equally disturbing.They claim First Amendment rights to free speech to report the news but yet they freely say we have no Second Amendment rights.Hypocrisy.I thinkour foes have been silent becausewe have a Presidential election coming up in 2008.We all best be on our toes.The only person who has not been silent is Reichsfuhrer Michael Blommberg and his cronies.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Walt Smith wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I agree whole-heartedly with your comments. The warning flags were there but everyone seemed to drop the ball which is sad and unforgivable. As in all of these situations everyone seems to blame what happened on anything but the truth. Nice to see that your not everybody. thanks for the truth.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sam Irish wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Yes sir, thank you for posting this. I'm a longtime reader just finding the website. This is one of the only rational rundowns of the situation I'v heard, and definately the best worded. Thanks.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sam Irish wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Yes sir, thank you for posting this. I'm a longtime reader just finding the website. This is one of the only rational rundowns of the situation I'v heard, and definately the best worded. Thanks.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mark wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

I was taken this kid at VT showed no fear in his recorded ranting. He wasn’t crazy, he was just EvilHis sister graduated from Princeton, he got into VT on his own merits. The medical community let him go after counseling, medication, and examination for he was a social case, not a medical issue. Lots of people are mentally ill, more so than having cancer. They don’t go around popping 32 innocent souls.Evil is very much a part of our physical world, why else did this kid mention Christ, Moses, etc.Many people will scoff at this comment. Call it The Devil, Demons, Resident Evil….but this is what I saw talking to me. For those who don’t prescribe to this thought, the only other possible examination is mental illness.What to do? Bill Hickock is quoted in saying a person should feel no guiltier of shooting a bad man than shooting a mean dog. Rather PI, but likely shows more wisdom than I first thought.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Wulffy wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

In February 1995, a freshman walked into a math class at the Jr. High School in my town with a Winchester 30-30 and a pistol. He shot 3 students, killing 2, and also killed his math teacher, before being taken down by the school wrestling coach. It quickly made local and national news, with a frenzy to report what ever info they could, with out regard to fact or rumor. I was a sophomore at the time. I knew all of those killed, and 80% of the other students in the classroom. I also knew the shooter quite well, and had been in classes with him the previous year.The media jumped all over the idea that the shooting was gang related. They continued to report it as such till another student, my girlfriend, called and set the facts straight. We never see the media out of Seattle in our small town, and only get the news vans from Spokane once in a great while. For several weeks after the shooting, there were news affiliates from all of the surrounding areas in our town for the latest update. They even had the guts to set up outside the churches after the funerals and at the community memorial service held a couple weeks later.I lost all of my respect for the news media then and there, and am still very cautious with anything they present in an effort to “educate and inform” us.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Dan Salmon wrote 6 years 51 weeks ago

Well said!!Let's not find a way to fix the problem, just make it go away and move on. But, before that happens, let's let Hollywood, the media and any politician looking for a platform for re-election milk this for what it's worth.Then we'll make more unenforced laws that only serve to help the criminals and not protect the innocent victims they create. It's amazing how screwed up a form of self goverment for the people by the people, can get when greedy, selfish and wealthy can weed out the people that would make it great.

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment