Texas Rainmaker » It Was Only a Matter of Time…

It Was Only a Matter of Time…
April 17th, 2007 3:55 pm

I wondered how long we would have to wait before President Bush was blamed for yesterday’s massacre at Virginia Tech.

“At least one of the weapons used by the shooter is believed, as we said, to be a nine millimeter semi-automatic pistol, which would be like this one, with a clip designed to hold more than 10 shots. Clips like those were banned under the Assault Weapons Law of 1994, but Congress and President Bush allowed that law to expire more than two years ago.”

Now I wonder how long before they tie it to Iraq and Halliburton. Better yet, maybe this was a product of global warming, too!

By the way, Mr. Olbermann, the ban on murder is still in place… yet somehow that didn’t prevent the massacre, either.

UPDATE:
Apparently Charlton Heston is to blame as well.

UPDATE 2:
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner. I’d like to take credit for having predicted this, but when something is so obvious and so expected, it can hardly be classified as a prediction.

Gunman’s sister deals with Iraq aid

The sister of the gunman responsible for the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history works as a contractor for a State Department office that oversees billions of dollars in American aid for Iraq.

The article really adds nothing to the story of a murderous rampage on a college campus except to mention an Iraq connection.

Now where’s the Halliburton article?

22 Comments »

So you think Cho would have been able to kill so many if he had to reload all the time? Probably not. So it was a dumb thing to let that law expire.

Why does anyone need semi-auto or automatic weapons? Just so rank amateurs can go deer hunting to? Well, more like “live deer shredding” really.

Comment by endorendil — 2:25 am
the left should remember that the second amendment was not intended so cheney could shoot lawyers. it is so that citizens can protect themselves from oppressive government. you know…like one that illegally wiretaps citizens, opens their mail, subverts the constitution and treaties, sees itself as above the rule of law, politicizes the legal system etc. if current trends continue, the second amendment may be the only thing that can save this once great nation.

Comment by jay k. — 8:42 am
Jay, the second amendment declares the necessity for a well regulated militia. The militias that the Founders envisioned were essentially State armies, seen as distinct from (and conceivably opposed to) the federal army. Since militias were not standing armies, private citizens would have to provide the weapons, and the federal government couldn’t take those weapons away. Times change. In 1903 the state militias were reorganized as the National Guard, which was then federalised in 1933. Being a part of the federal army means that the National Guard is no longer a militia the way that the Founders intended.

The only remaining militias that still qualify for second amendment protection are the State Defense Forces, which are still volunteer, with members buying their own uniforms and providing their own arms. Not every state has them, btw. So, unless you’re in the SDF, you don’t have a constitutionally protected right to bear arms. It becomes a question of normal law, devoid of constitutional implications.

The Founders saw the militias as the final protection against an empirial federal government. As you point out, it can be argued that this means that its time has come. But Madison’s calculations no longer hold:

“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”

The idea that people would have affection and confidence in their State government but not the federal government is almost quaint. But the main problem in his calculations is that regular troops wouldn’t have much of an advantage over a citizen-soldier in terms of training or firepower. That has completely changed. Violent resistance against the US federal forces would be suicide, even if the entire NRA membership gives it a go.

Comment by endorendil — 11:10 am
endorendil…
“…Violent resistance against the US federal forces would be suicide…”
tell that to the insurgents in iraq currently whoopin’ the greatest fighting force in history, led by the most incompetent civilians in history. and they are doing it with largley improvised weaponry. or tell it to al queda who, with our help, whooped up on russia…and are making a strong comeback in afghanistan today. granted…grossly incompetent civilian leadership is making it easier in both cases. much easier.

Comment by jay k. — 3:21 pm
Oh yes, they’re puttin’ quite the “whoopin’” on the American military.

Let’s see, just over 3,000 American soldiers have been killed, while estimates of insurgents killed are around the 50,000 mark. In addition, the tyrannical leader of the country was captured and put to death, along with his staff. And all this in the context of our brave men and women not only fighting the ragtag group of disorganized terrorists as you’d want us to believe, but an opposition consisting of trained military and weapons provided by Iran and Syria.

What a whoopin’…

But don’t worry, your joy is duly noted.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 4:17 pm
Jay, fighting the US military IS suicide. Actually, attacking any modern military is suicide, which is why suicide attacks are actually sensible military strategy now. The average life expectancy of insurgents in Iraq must be low. Contrary to US soldiers, they don’t get a break either. It’s only because the cause is so compelling that the insurgency continues.

TR, don’t lowball our casualties either. If we didn’t have superior healthcare and rapid extraction, many of the 20,000 to 30,000 severely wounded soldiers would be dead. As it is, many of them won’t recover fully. One reason that things aren’t worse is that neither China, nor the USSR have started supporting the insurgency the way the USA supported the mujahedin (as Jay points out).

Comment by endorendil — 4:57 pm
So you think Cho would have been able to kill so many if he had to reload all the time? Probably not. So it was a dumb thing to let that law expire.

You obviously have never shot a gun in your life. Liberals are such eunuchs it’s astounding. First off, how long do you think it takes to reload? This subhuman had a vest strapped with clips. Secondly, the law was purely cosmetic. Typical liberal legislation; long on feelings- short on substance.

Why does anyone need semi-auto or automatic weapons?

Automatic weapons are illegal, dummy. Semi-auto are single shot, dummy.

One reason that things aren’t worse is that neither China, nor the USSR have started supporting the insurgency the way the USA supported the mujahedin (as Jay points out).

Dummy, Iran and Syria are supporting the insurgency. Iran purchased 800 .50 caliber armor-piercing rifles from an Austrian firm that was asked by many to void the transaction. They did not and now 100 of those rifles have turned up in Iraq and are killing Americans.

I hope you’re aware we supported the mujahadin because the Soviets were in Afghanistan.

Comment by Apollyon — 11:45 pm
Also……..

The IED trigger mechanisms are being developed in Syria and make their way into Iraq, not to mention the jihadists from Iran and Syria goin’ off to fight the Great Satan™.

Comment by Apollyon — 11:49 pm
Apollyon, the operative word is “clips”. 10 shots each, I believe, and very easy to swap out. That’s why reloading didn’t take any time.

Automatic weapons are legal, they just have to be modified to make them semi-automatic. Those mods are usually easy to undo. Talk to your local dealer. In any case, my point is that I see no reason why anyone would have a firearm other than a hunting rifle.

I’m amused that your answer to my statement that neither China nor Russia support the insurgency is to say that Iran and Syria do support them. These countries are not in the same ballgame in terms of military or economic power, are they? We sold Stingers to the mujaheddin, mate, not armor-piercing rifles. Cost the Soviets more than 200 aircraft and turned the situation completely around. Reagan also gave these “islamofascists” cold hard cash - about half a billion per year. Lucky the Russians aren’t carrying a grudge, eh?

But let’s discuss these armor-piercing rifles for a bit. These 50 calibers are legal for sale in the US, for completely unfathomable reasons. Of course, terrorists have bought 50 caliber guns in the US, “fortunately” for use in Europe, Columbia and Afghanistan in stead of here. Al Qaeda got 25 of these American-made super rifles that way. So if you’re really trying to keep these guns from getting into terrorist hands, you should start by banning them in the US.

Comment by endorendil — 2:01 am
Automatic weapons are legal,…..

If you’re trying to convince me of your ignorance you can stop now. Mission accomplished.

Comment by Apollyon — 10:44 am
Of course, terrorists have bought 50 caliber guns in the US, “fortunately” for use in Europe, Columbia and Afghanistan in stead of here.

Link?

So if you’re really trying to keep these guns from getting into terrorist hands, you should start by banning them in the US.

You’ve heard of the second amendment, right? I know you think it says gays have a right to marry and that abortion is a constitutional right, but I suggest you re-read it.

A quote from the Good Doctor™:

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”

Sigmund Freud (”General Introduction to Psychoanalysis,” S. Freud)

Comment by Apollyon — 10:57 am
Lucky the Russians aren’t carrying a grudge, eh?

As a Russian let me tell you, it’s part of the game. Just like with spies. And no, we don’t carry a grudge against America, as a matter of fact the overwhelming majority of us love this Great Nation. Putin and the Russian thugs that now run the country are not representative of the people per se.

Comment by Apollyon — 11:28 am
The article really adds nothing to the story of a murderous rampage on a college campus except to mention an Iraq connection.

Exactly.

Give them time, they’ll tie in abortion and global warming.

Comment by Apollyon — 11:48 am
Links?

First, Ireland. IRA member Caraher was arrested with a 50 caliber in his possession, :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1997/04/18/nira18.html

Second, Afghanistan. Ronnie Barrett claims that they were sent to the mujahideen by the truckload, as part of the US support:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/10/16/terror/main314868.shtml

Others claim that these guns were bought on the private market, so the weapons weren’t shipped on the US government’s behalf. Not sure which is worse.

Third, drug cartels from Bogota to Los Angeles:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050820-122749-4342r.htm
But mostly in Mexico:
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/transcrime/articles/U_S_%20Guns%20Smuggled%20Into%20Mexico%20Aid%20Drug%20War.htm

If you want to have a bit more general information of criminal and terrorist use of the 50 caliber, read the GAO report:
http://archive.gao.gov/f0502/162586.pdf

And what is the good side of civilians owning this gun again?

Comment by endorendil — 4:25 pm
“Guns don’t kill people. Gun owners do.”

Comment by endorendil — 4:40 pm
““Guns don’t kill people. Gun owners do.””

So do pet owners, car owners… Should we blame the tool or the person responsible for allowing it to kill?

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 4:43 pm
“Guns don’t kill people. Gun owners do.”

You are beyond parody.

I’m going to be very generous and assume you’re an idiot savant. So I will ask one question at a time. DC has had a gun ban [court decision noted] yet has also stripped my stomping grounds of the title: Murder Capitol of America™. Thank you DC. Now Idiot savant, how do you reconcile this?

This is not a question. As the Texas Rainmaker™ pointed out, the ban on murder is still in place, so all this talk about banning guns is irrelevant, as it always will be since it’s a Constitutional right to bear arms.

Again from the Good Doctor™:

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”

Sigmund Freud (”General Introduction to Psychoanalysis,” S. Freud)

Comment by Apollyon — 5:43 pm
Apollyon, if you rephrase your question without the insults, I shall answer. In the mean time, I notice that I’m not seeing any comment on the 50 caliber issue, now that I’ve satisfied your desire for links.

“So do pet owners, car owners… Should we blame the tool or the person responsible for allowing it to kill?”

TR, pet owners rarely use their pets to kill people with. Even though it is an extremely rare occurence, some breeds are nevertheless banned in many countries already. Pitbulls are an example.

Car owners rarely intend to kill people with their cars - check the FBI murder statistics again. And cars have huge benefits, whereas privately owned guns (other than simple hunting rifles) do not.

There are always going to be irresponsible people. When we can reduce the harm that they can cause, without negative side effects, we should do so. If you have a plan to deal with violent offenders BEFORE they offend, please enlighten us. About 1 in 7 university students are DIAGNOSED with depression, and more than 1 in 12 seriously considers suicide. What do you propose to do with them? Lock them up? Put them under surveillance? Do we take their guns away? And those of their family and friends? What about the ones that aren’t diagnosed?

Guns aren’t responsible for murder, but they enable them. They offer material help and support. In the absence of any corresponding benefit to society, they need to be banned.

Comment by endorendil — 7:07 am
“About 1 in 7 university students are DIAGNOSED with depression, and more than 1 in 12 seriously considers suicide. What do you propose to do with them? Lock them up? Put them under surveillance? Do we take their guns away? And those of their family and friends? What about the ones that aren’t diagnosed?”

Not sure where you got that statistic, but even if we assume its accurate, that means 6 out of 7 aren’t likely to go on a killing spree. Yet, those 6 out of 7 are helpless to stop the 1 when he does. Additionally, think of the deterrent effect of having that 1 wonder which of the 6 is armed to defend himself.

Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 7:35 am
The statistic has been all over the news, and if you’ve been to college, I’m sure you’ll agree that one in ten depressed sounds a little low. Here’s some references:
http://healthyminds.org/collegestats.cfm
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_id=050FEA9F-B064-4092-B1135C3A70DE1FDA

As to your point: clinically (or diagnosably) depressed students are not rational. They may wonder who is going to kill them if they start shooting, but it is likely to be with morbid fascination rather than fear. “Suicide by cop” - heard the term? They want to die. They need to die. If no one else is willing to do it for them, they shoot themselves. So there is absolutely no deterrent by arming more students, teachers and cops. The question is only whether that is a more effective way to reduce gun violence than banning them.

Guns only deter sane people. Sane people don’t need to be deterred. So guns are of no use.

Comment by endorendil — 5:12 pm
Guns only deter sane people.

And they kill the insane people trying to hurt/kill others. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Comment by crushliberalism — 9:01 am
CrushedByLiberalism, unfortunately they don’t do that - only about 200 homicides out of 10,000 per year are justified.

Comment by endorendil — 10:55 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI