Rudy: I Was For Gun Control Before I Was Against It...9/11,9/11,9/11

And what, pray, made him change his position so radically?

September 11th of course.

He references the attacks three times in two sentences.

Rudy...shut up.

Suddenly So Worried About Privacy?

I love the stupidity of some Republicans.

We can spy on you without a warrant, and we can gather a database of all information on you...except, of course, if you own a gun.

We can take away your privacy, we can take away your right to choose, we can take away your freedom to move, but GOD FORBID WE TAKE AWAY YOUR GUN!

House Passes Gun "Control" Legislation

The NRA and the Democrats agreed on something, and Hell didn't freeze over.

The House passed a bill that would strengthen the background checks done before a gun purchase to prevent someone like the Virginia Tech shooter from obtaining a firearm by adding those who are "mentally defective" to the list of people who will be red flagged during a background check.

The House passed the bill by voice vote and only one member had some opposition to it. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), Congressman No himself

The bill is expected to pass the Senate and be signed by the President.

Thinking about it though, I'm not too sure how I feel about the term "mentally defective." It sounds like we're talking about a household appliance instead of a human being. It kinda bothers me actually.

WHAT?!?!?

They're kidding right?

Chris Cox, the NRA's executive director, says banning the sale of guns to terror suspects "would allow arbitrary denial of Second Amendment rights based on mere 'suspicions' of a terrorist threat."

The bill is sponsered by Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-New Jersey) and supported by the President.

Not only is this a goddamn joke, but it's hypocritical. The NRA supports the Republican Party, who is perfectly fine with stripping terror "suspects" of their civil rights, such as habeas corpus, to not be spied on without a warrant, and the right to NOT be tortured.

You know, I guess it's ok to tortue people, deny them their rights to a fair trial, spy on them without a warrant, but God forbid we don't give deadly people the right to have a deadly weapon.

No, you don't have First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth amendments, but we give you the Second.

If you are going to take away someone's right, you take away ALL OF THEIR RIGHTS! End of story.

What a joke! I hope Bush still signs this bill, it will give me more respect for him (and I don't have all that much to begin with)

Virginia Governor Closes Loophole

Governor Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) has closed the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho, the Virginia Tech killer, to buy his two guns despite being ruled a danger to society.

Kaine issued an executive order requiring that a database of people who are prohibited from buying guns include anyone found to be dangerous and ordered to undergo involuntary mental health treatment.

I know it may seem like it's stupid this didn't already exist, and I know it doesn't bring back the 32 people lost, or heal the wounds that will last a lifetime, but this is how society progresses. It learns from it's mistakes and changes itself to adapt.

Also, Governor Kaine says he expects Virginia's Republican controlled legislature to show some support to legislation requiring background checks for sales at gun shows. Similar legislation, supported by the Governor, has consistently died in the General Assembly.

Guns In The Wrong Hands

Why I'm such a reluctant advocate for some gun control?

This.

I've heard arguments since Monday's tragedy at Virginia Tech that college students should carry guns. This guy killed a man and himself because of a bad performance review...only after working at NASA (so clearly he wasn't noticably crazy.) Can you imagine guns in the hands of an overstressed college student who has just been told he/she was failing a class?

Yeah, not a good idea, sorry. It's logical, just not a good idea in my book.

How Did This Slip Through?

Cho Seung-Hui was mentally ill and "an imminent threat to himself and others." Yet he managed to get two guns, which he then used to kill 32 people.

I don't blame the gun dealer, presuming he did the correct background check. The blame may lie with the Commonwealth of Virginia for not committing this madman or, at the very least, not warning those close to him of the threat this guy posessed. This didn't even show up on a background check. If ANYONE should be kept away from deadly weapons, it's someone who is THIS mentally-ill.

Someone's head will roll over this.

Another Shooting At A School

Virginia Tech...21 dead.

This SHOULD NOT happen in schools.

UPDATE: The Virginia Congressional Delegation now says 31 are dead, making it the worst shooting incident in US history.

Guns: Urban vs. Rural

The DC Circuit Court overturned a 30 year-old law banning handguns in private homes in Washington, D.C. The NRA, libertarians, most Republicans, and gun-toting maniacs are celebrating, while gun-control advocates and probably Rosie O'Donnell cringe.

Personally, I can understand both sides of the gun debate...and I think the gun debate is shaped more on where people live and what guns mean in their cities, towns and neighborhoods.

I have always had pro-gun control views, and I believe that is primarily because of where I grew up...New York City. Here in The Big Apple, when a person owns a gun, it is in his or her possession for two primary reasons, either A.) To kill someone or B.) To kill someone before they can kill you. Therefore, when we see guns, we think violence, crime, murder, bad neighborhood and equate guns with evil and bad things.

Had I grown up in, say, lovely Nampa, Idaho or Grundy, Virginia, in rural country settings, I might have viewed guns differently. Here, in Nampa-like and Grundy-like parts of the country, guns are seen as equipment for a sport...hunting. (This is where I tell PETA to shutup because people have a right to hunt.) To the hunters, taking guns away is like taking hockey sticks or baseball bats away...and that would ludicrus to us. They aren't the ones murdering people (often anyway,) like the gang bngers and drug dealers in Los Angeles, Detroit, Philadelphia or South Bronx. Why should we have to go through so much to get our own gun, when it says in the Constitution we have the right to bear arms?

Perhaps it is not surprising when it is pointed out the people of Washington, D.C. don't support the court ruling. In Washington, people don't want anyone to own guns because guns to Washingtonians are instruments of death and violence, and not a sporting equpment like it is in rural America.

Perhaps, if the two sides of the argument sit down to understand each other, we can come up with some kind of common-sense solution to the gun and crime problem. In my view, in the gun debate, both sides have strong, logical opinions. Perhaps those on the left and from the urban areas should not seek to strip guns away from ALL Americans and perhaps those from the NRA and rural areas where hunting takes place should understand what guns like their's do to people in the cities. Perhaps then we will be able to see eye to eye to come to some sort of conclusion that will keep guns out of the hands of violence criminals and keep them in the hands of good, honest, decent Americans who desire to have them.

The DC Circuit Court ruling does not seem to be good for the people of Washington, but it does good for the people of Middle America who have not used guns to commit crimes and would like to own one as the Second Amendment states. I reluctantly agree with the ruling. Perhaps, there needs to be a happy medium between the two to create a law that will pass constitutional muster.