My Errant Mind

31 Comments Add your own

• 1. lunawolf  |  April 23, 2007 at 11:47 am

  Yes. South central LA is one such great example of how effective it is for masses to carry guns every where they go…right.

• 2. SA  |  April 23, 2007 at 2:17 pm

  Wow, Sean! Interesting read, as always… i.e., a peek into the inner workings of a (Not So) Errant Mind, so the speak…

  Funny, but I just sent you an e-mail offline somewhat related to this topic… I would like to know, if you can clarify this for me, as it would make what I read from you directly and on your blog here much more understandable with regard to your use of the word ‘liberal’ (particularly since it is almost always in a very negative light) for my non-English brain….

  What is a ‘liberal’ for you? And a ‘liberal’ as opposed to what?

  My own idea from what I have read so far on this blog (not just this blogentry) is that it (obvious or not) has far less to do with Republicans and Democrats (or, Conservatives and Liberals, their more or less counterparts, here in Canada) since we seem to have wrestled with this mix-up in the past and has more to do with an ideology, even more so than a definition, i.e., http://www.onelook.com/?w=liberal&ls=a … but, even so, I still cannot grasp it as so many of your own views, strong and bold and almost primitive, to be frank, as they are (which is more than fine by me, if true, and/or if my understanding about said views are right), are usually what liberals, as how *I* understand them/the noun to be, stand for (…i.e., responsible for one’s own self, protective of civil rights, desirous of less government, etc etc.)!

  So, please help me out here, would you?

  It’s basically stuff like this, i.e., you write: ‘Yet I don’t hear any liberals stepping up to demand teenagers face prosecution for bullying and mental abuse and name-calling. What hypocrisy.’ that I have difficulty understanding… as though only liberals were so… I would think that people with a less humane priority, generally speaking, might fill the bill (and NOT a ‘liberal’ per se), no? What am I missing here?

  Thanks in advance.

  And by way, you wrote:

  “How about instead, we hold people accountable? How about we instead make people responsible for their own actions?”

  I mean, AMEN to that! I don’t think anyone can say that often enough! But beyond words, if only we could all ACT that way too! As a liberal hippie might say, ‘Right on, brother!’ =)

  I find that the idealist in you is threaded throughout all of your topics including this one and, as such, I think I can understand why you might say something like, ‘but was not responsible enough or caring enough about her community to press charges. ‘ about a girl who is stalked… well, not all of us have had bootcamp and commando courses or whatever training… Some of us are not as strong or are too frightened or too beaten down as opposed to cowardly IMHO and I would think that the measure of any successful and compassionate society is how they take care of their weak, be they the elderly, the young, the sick or the oppressed in some way or another… (and, yes, we are failing but, again, how is that ONLY the ‘liberals’ at fault here?)

  Our technologies and creativity in these regards, including firearms, have far exceeded our personal (and collective) evolution to handle them all well, it would seem (at least in the manner you state (or I understand as you state and happen to agree with for a large part) but it is definitely an ideal to reach for, all this that you say about being responsible for one’s self… The question is, as I see it, what do we do in the meantime? and what plans are in place to get us there all the while?

  “Cowards are fine with that, so long as only a couple people die…just as long as it isn’t 32 at a pop, right? ” Ouch, Sean… The answer to that is NO… a resounding NO, NOT RIGHT but hey, in the meantime, better a couple of people than 32 WHILE we backpeddle and try to find our collective humanity once again… or are you saying it is less ‘cowardly’, to use your word, to let them all loose and kill one another just so we can all have the right to arms? I’m not really sure I get you in this regard and I don’t think that this is what you mean; if you would care to elaborate?

  Just as another by-the-by, if we were that self-responsible, do ya think we’d even NEED to bare arms (at least against one another)? or that the right to bare arms would even be an issue? and a bit more off topic, if you like, I can restate the statistics, i.e., something like 30,000 Americans, good law abiding non-criminal citizens get killed, never mind how many get maimed, every year by guns that were shot by accident (and NOT by the criminal element), but, yes, I probably DO digress!)… Actually, I am reminded from a line from the 1951 version of A Christmas Carol, where Scrooge refuses to donate to charity as he sayssomething like they had better all die (these poor and destitute to relieve the world of excess population!!!) Ha!

  P.S. You wrote: ‘Why don’t we put some of this responsibility where it belongs–which is on all those who did nothing. ‘ Another AMEN!

  Take good care, Sean! Keep on truckin’!

• 3. Sean Wilson  |  April 23, 2007 at 3:48 pm

  Well, if all the good law-abiding folks were carrying them, it would soon be cleared of all the criminal and gang elements, don’t you think? You’re trying to point out a situation and describe it as bad because of law-abiding citizens, but the fact it is that the criminals in south central LA that have all the guns, and that go around shooting and raping and robbing that made it bad.

  Please enlighten me as to how law abiding citizens made it a bad place? You will amaze me if you can, because no one else has ever been able to explain how that could possibly be so.

  And, quite frankly, if the good law-abiding citizens are all armed, perhaps the next thing that needs to be done is teach them how to shoot straight to ensure that when they are justified in pulling a gun on some gang-banger or other hardened criminal, that they don’t waste the opportunity to rid society of one yet one more leech.

  I can point to just as many cities and towns where people are allowed to carry and there is very little violent crime–far below national averages. Ask yourself how south central LA became so bad? How did 5th Ward in Houston, and parts of NYC and other notorious areas of criminal activity become so bad?

  They became that way the same way our border with Mexico has–people have for far too long failed to address the problem and continue making concessions to the very people that are destroying our society. The only gun control I advocate is the kind that allows one to hit his/her target.

• 4. SA  |  April 23, 2007 at 4:21 pm

  Hi again, Sean! Interesting response but I am still not quite sure what a ‘liberal’ has to do with this as opposed to selfish, self-absorbed people, in general….

  The questions you ask do not seem to be addressed to me so I shall leave them be.

  In the meantime, I’ve got to laugh at myself… Amongst my grammatical errors, I see this doozie that made me laugh right out loud, i.e.,

  “do ya think we’d even NEED to bare arms (at least against one another)? or that the right to bare arms would even be an issue?”

  I mean how serious can I be if I don’t believe we should have the right to bare our arms, especially now that summer is around corner!!?!! I read somewhere that the something like 10 of the 14 or so years have been the hottest on record! Bare arms is definitely a right not a privilege in this case!!

  I meant, ‘to bear arms’… sorry about all the errors!

  In the meantime, as you know, it isn’t just one element or even just two or a few, that can make “a place bad”, but, as you suggest, neglect or convenience for others who would make a profit from making and/or maintaining it as bad, in many cases IMHO. Do you really think that if everyone had a gun and were taught “how to shoot straight to ensure that when they are justified in pulling a gun on some gang-banger or other hardened criminal, that they don’t waste the opportunity to rid society of one yet one more leech”, as you say, that all these good citizens would all have the good sense and collectively the same values and aim ONLY for the gang-banger and/or other hardened criminal? Who would judge? Who would judge the judge? By what standards would these judgements be made in this asphalt jungle? Guns can indeed be a great equalizer so that survival of the fittest, i.e., the rule of the real jungle, cannot - can NO LONGER - apply here… We are mostly a sedentary peoples, as we have our milk and our meat delivered right to our tables in our mostly weatherproof homes… so the fittest can be merely the one with the biggest or most expensive and gadgety gun or, better, one who can afford a marksman (an ex-soldier or what not) who can pull the trigger for him at his will… This idea of cleaning up the streets might all start off well, but, without a collective conscience to take care of ourselves and eachother, i.e., where we attack only to protect what is ours or hunt only to eat and share the surplus, and without any way to weed out those who have any sense of entitlement, then how is every ‘good’ and well-intentioned citizen armed with a gun, even if all manage to learn how to aim properly, going to resolve anything?

  And, truly, I’m curious now… what does a ‘liberal’, in particular, have to do with the slow erosion / death / downfall of our modern society? And why ONLY a ‘liberal’?

  Take care, Sean! =)

• 5. Sean Wilson  |  April 23, 2007 at 4:55 pm

  SA, in America, a liberal equates to Democrats usually, but not always. My own definition of conservative and liberal go something like this:

  Conservatives attempt to preserve/conserve traditional values and are more likely to not stray far from a core set of principles.

  Liberals on the other hand are just that—liberal with the rules and bounds and law-making in a society.

  Also, let me just say here in America, both parties have strayed far off course. I could have said Democrats, but many southern Democrats who are proud gun owners and very pro-gun. It suited the post better to use liberal, and to have it directed at those social experimenters who prefer to attempt to regulate human behavior with laws that rob all citizens of freedoms, rights and privileges—rather than actually address the problems society faces and attempting to preserve those freedoms and liberties generations have struggled to secure for posterity.

  That, in America, is one of the best ways to identify a liberal. They think everything should be politically correct, that we should force inclusion of every kind on every institution and person, and that it is better to take away freedoms and liberties that belong to everyone rather than just those elements in society that should be punished…simply because they feel it is too mean or cruel to make anyone responsible for their actions or to impose any kind of penalty on a few people. They feel that we must impose punishment on everyone for the crimes of the few or we’re being unfair.

  As to a woman being stalked or raped or anything else and not pressing charges out of fear, it has nothing to do with boot camp or commando training or military service or taking tae kwon do lessons. It has everything to do with courage.

  The fact of the matter is that if she hadn’t been a coward, 32 people might still be alive today. Instead you want to make excuses for her and blame every gun and gun owner for that loss of life instead of her. Or the police. Or the magistrate who released him for counseling. Or the counselors who did a terrible job of diagnosing him and ought to lose their licensure.

  Sure, you may be beaten down or oppressed or whatever…and that’s exactly how I feel about it…whatever…you let yourself become that way, if you don’t stand up for yourself. That mindset of fear is the enemy we should be targeting, not guns that we can use for self-defense, for survival, for hunting…and yes, handguns are used for all of those things. They are even used for sheer pleasure on a weekend, plinking and shooting in competitions. Not everyone is afraid of their own shadow, and they shouldn’t be punished because others are.

  No, instead of saying to that woman that she contributed to the deaths of 32 people, liberals think that is cruel and instead would rather rob millions of people of freedoms and liberties and rights that men and women have fought and died to earn, preserve, and protect. I’m sorry, but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one in this case.

  Why should everyone else pay for her cowardice? Or the ineptitude of the law enforcement officers or the magistrate or counselors or college professors or immigration officials or the dean of the college or his parents or the kids who tormented him? No…it is obviously the fault of an inanimate object.

  Obviously, we should outlaw screwdrivers too, right? Come one, when was the last time any gun ever got up, loaded itself, and went out and killed someone? It has NEVER HAPPENED! PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. Inanimate objects do not.

  The problem that girl has and so many others do, is that they have had weakness and submission drilled into them. That is not the natural state of human existence, I’m sorry. There’s too much to suggest otherwise. Intellectualism is fine to a point, but as some point, you have to face reality. We are animals and animals fight. Animals disagree. They kill.

  Yes, some of my views are indeed ‘primitive’ if you like. Just because you adorn yourselves with gadgets and inventions and can think more than our ancestors, do not make the mistake of thinking you are something more than an animal whose evolutionary path led you where you are because your ancestors struggled and fought and overcame. And because instead of claws or large tusks or teeth, nature gave us minds and opposable thumbs which allowed us to become the fiercest animals on the planet and is the only reason civilization exists.

  Why should we take guns away from people because some girl was cowardly or some judge incompetent? Why not instead hold people accountable, teach kids to stand up for themselves, to not be afraid and to not bully others? I already know the answer every liberal will give. Because it isn’t practical or it is too hard, or it won’t work, blah blah blah to infinity. It is always what can not be done, and why it can not be done rather than finding the guts and courage to say “we’re fed up with this, and from now on this is the way it is going to be and we don’t care if you think it offends your children to be punished for bullying or name calling.”

  See, that would require responsibility and effort. It’s so much easier to take the easy way out and say “let’s just ban guns.”

  That whole line of thinking is how rights and freedoms are eroded until people are enslaved. It has happened in democratic societies of the past–the various city-states of ancient Greece and Rome as well. In modern times, it has happened in several countries. And you have only to look at the oppression in Islamic republics and how they treat women to see that freedom is too valuable to throw away out of laziness or cowardice or fear or for fear of hurting someone’s feelings.

  And you make my point beautifully for me. You said it is better a couple of people rather than 32 getting killed. That is exactly the mentality that needs to be done away with. We shouldn’t tolerate any innocent deaths. We should be so outraged that we banish criminals from our society. We should execute murderers and rapists and drug dealers. We should have tighter border security, we should allow everyone to be able to protect themselves by being armed.

  Eventually, all the stupid people and all the criminals and all those that natural selection says can’t make the muster are gone, the gene pool would be stronger. However, liberals and intellectuals who would rather let themselves be murdered or raped rather than stand up for themselves know they would be among the early exiters from the gene pool, and so they would rather take away rights and freedoms and attempt to subjugate and enslave and weaken everyone else.

  It has been said that society hates nothing more than a strong person, and this is true in any society where citizenship and individual rights are not valued. The degeneracy of capitalist societies and the greater importance placed on people’s ability to live conveniently—rather than with courage and honor and ethics and concern for their neighbors and communities—breeds ideological cowards who make excuses for what they can not do or will not attempt rather than the kinds of people who are willing to hazard all and struggle for success and a better life.

  There are plenty of towns and cities in America where if gang-bangers cruised through and tried to act like hoodlums they are in LA, they would end up dead in short order. Some places, law abiding citizens don’t tolerate or put up with that kind of behavior. No one should have to. But liberals have made it so that criminals have more rights than citizens.

  As to what you are missing about the hypocrisy of people not demanding teenagers face harsh consequences for their actions, it goes like this. Cho, the shooter, was angry at the world, and he obviously had mental health issues. Part of his anger, according to his own words and as can be garnered from his writings, was because of the bullying and mental anguish and abuse he suffered from other teens.

  They hypocrisy is liberals clamoring to outlaw guns, which are inanimate objects and have absolutely nothing to do with Cho’s anger, frustration, or mental health issues.

  For the sake of argument here, if he had walked into those classrooms with a tire iron and started clubbing people to death, would we be hearing people calling for a ban on tire irons? Of course not. He might have only killed one or two, and as you and others have said—that’s acceptable. Why is that?

  Why is no one calling for jail time for bullying that teenagers engage in? If liberals want to protect innocents and are so concerned with protecting life and preventing everyone in society from having to endure the least bit of mental anguish, then why aren’t they clamoring about harsh penalties against the things teenagers do—which is the age/period of life where most negative traits begin to come out…such as cutting, drug use, gang membership, etc.?

  Why are we not calling for jail time for the Virginia Tech professors and the Dean who failed miserably in their responsibilities–and knew of Cho’s condition and past! No one wants to address the root causes.

  Ask yourself this one question. If you could magically wave a wand and all guns disappeared, would that in any way, shape, form, or fashion solve the hurt and anger and frustration and mental illness and offenses and wrongs and hurts and drugs and depression and despair and hopelessness and rage and evil that drives people to kill?

  No one with more common sense than nature bequeathed a dead leaf of cabbage could possibly think that would be so, nor would anyone else believe them. Yet, that is precisely what liberals seem to believe. Else, why would they not address real problems instead of attempting to regulate objects? There is absolutely no logic to that at all.

  I’ve been around guns my whole life, been in a war, been shot at, been shot, and I wouldn’t trade the freedom to have one if 1000 college students were shot over the course of the next week. I would rather take proactive action, address the root cause of that situation, clean up our nation, and hold people accountable, even if it means hurting their feelings or executing them for their crimes.

  Many liberals say a civilized society has no need for guns, that there is no real use for them. I beg to differ.

  You could line up all the violent criminals in our prisons that rape, murder and deal drugs and shoot them. Think of the benefits—less tax burden, lower crime, might actually scare young kids into growing up to be law abiding citizens, and most of all, it would force us to confront the issues behind the causes of crime rather than run away from them and ignore them.

• 6. Sean Wilson  |  April 23, 2007 at 5:05 pm

  Maybe if you wait until your post gets answered, you might not have to ask redundant questions.

  Of course there are those that profit from bad situations. Are you suggesting not tackling a problem because you wouldn’t want to address those persons too? Gun manufacturers don’t make a situation or city bad. Society does by tolerating criminal behavior.

  If you want to know what a liberal is, read your own posts. Your asking ridiculous questions that have absolutely no bearing on reality. If law abiding citizens can shoot straight, what the heck does that have to do with them shooting people. Are they suddenly going to start just shooting people at random because they now know how to aim?

  That’s ludicrous. You shoot who are legally entitled to shoot—those attacking you with deadly weapons, those attacking others with deadly force, those in the commission of violent felony crimes that may cause the loss of life or limb.

  THE SAME LEGAL STANDARDS THAT APPLY NOW TO EVERYONE, EVEN NON-GUN OWNING LIBERALS.

  You make a good example of how liberals try to argue around a point rather than address the issue. Instead, you choose to make outlandish assumptions that somehow society will change and people will act in strange ways just because they receive marksmanship training.

  It is no wonder that anti-gunners make no sense with arguments like that.

• 7. lunawolf  |  April 25, 2007 at 2:21 am

  I thought that maybe their was a point to the argument that carrying weapons would have prevented this, but then I thought about a room full surprised, adrenal-pumped people with guns all shooting at one guy at the same time and the chaos that would have ensued. Their is a reason why police are trained as a team to take down perps. They don’t teach it to college students.
  To top it off, I saw your comment about a rape victim being a coward and I had to stop reading because I nearly threw up. You’re a creep. Go talk to the women’s center in your local community and then talk about cowardice. You’re just sick.

• 8. Sean Wilson  |  April 25, 2007 at 12:56 pm

  Lunawolf…OK, I will in the effort to make a point here—and in the hopes of shedding some light–bother to reply to your post.

  There are a few things which need to be pointed out about your post. First of all, thanks for showing me just why I dislike most liberals. You know what is best for everyone and believe cowardice and fear are a necessary and even desired and acceptable response to outrages committed against innocents.

  I was speaking of a woman who was stalked and reported Cho to the police, but failed to press charges against him. The mention of the a rape victim was in reply to another poster’s mention of rape victims. I never said anything about a rape victim being involved in this situation, except hypothetically. You can call me sick or whatever the hell you feel like. I don’t really care.

  I have seen more than my share of women waste their lives, cowering in fear from abusive men and you can whine about victimization all you want, but it does not change the fact that if a woman is too afraid or cowardly or so damn selfish that she won’t press charges and allows that rapist to go rape another women, I have not one bit of damn sympathy for her.

  She is causing harm to the society in which she lives just the same as if she helped hold down the next rape victim for the rapist. You may be fine with having rapists running lose in society, others are not. I thank my lucky stars there are women who have the spirit to be courageous and help prosecute rapists. They are amazing examples of courage and bravery that astound me because I know it is a horrible thing.

  Further, I don’t need to go talk to counseling center. I can talk to a family member who was raped. Or I can talk to a friend of mine who was raped. What I can’t do, is talk to a woman I fell in love with who was murdered, burned alive in her bed.

  Take your bleeding heart pity party for the weak elsewhere. The whole reason women are afraid to stand up and press charges is because of the damn fear they have our society will not support them and stand by them and that they will carry some sort of ridiculous stigma.

  If anyone is sick, it you and those like you who think it is better to hide things and just live in misery, fear and horror your whole life if something terrible happens. Not standing up and doing the right thing is why things like child abuse and incest keep happening to our nations children. Another part of the problem are people who ignore things they know are going on—people don’t press charges on behalf of others.

  And, because this woman who was stalked didn’t think it was worth the bother to do anything (which if it was of no concern, really, then why the hell report she was being stalked in the first place?) serious about it and get him off the street, 32 people are dead.

  Even if she had been a rape victim, do you think I would feel sorry for her—for helping contribute to the deaths of 32 innocent people?

  Your other point about a roomful of people all trying to shoot the same guy is equally ridiculous as the other poster suggesting that just because people take marksmanship training and carry weapons and make every effort to kill violent criminals—when they are in the legal right to defend themselves or others—that they would go on shooting sprees and act as judge, jury and executioner. Why is it that people who are against gun ownership don’t have a clue that things called gun safety and training both exist for a reason?

  And that most gun owners have more than just a little common sense. Could it be that millions of gun owners who don’t shoot themselves in the foot, ass or face and who don’t break laws actually have intelligence? I think most liberals hate gun owners simply because they aren’t worrisome and fearful mewling cowards afraid to stand up for themselves or others.

  Where I come from, kids are often in the woods with a gun on their own at 12 and 13 years of age. I was. I was a safe gun handler before I even made it to high school and have never had an accidental discharge nor accidentally shot someone else. Pretty much the first thing you learn when shooting is sighting and target acquisition. If you don’t have something in your sights, you don’t fire.

  So if everyone in the room jumps up and an innocent classmate is between them and the killer, you think that they’ll just start shooting holes in their classmates so they can try to kill someone trying to kill them? I think someone has been watching way too much TV. And if you have such low regard for people who are receiving a college education that you don’t believe they can engage in even the most basic thinking processes, then our nation would be in real trouble if that were the case.

  So, let me recap. Victimization is an excuse to not be responsible to one’s community. College students are morons and can’t think. And I know nothing about rape and death or guns or anything else because while I have compassion and empathy for those who suffer rape, I nonetheless believe they have a responsibility to make sure that others do not become victims of the same rapist? Those are pretty much your thoughts on the matter, is that right?

  I just love how liberals all say they are so concerned about their fellow humans, yet they would rather cower in fear and whine about being victims and allow violent criminals to prey on and take the lives of others when they could do something to prevent it. That’s real compassionate.

• 9. derek  |  April 25, 2007 at 1:49 pm

  People have been killing each other for thousands of years even before guns. Even if you get rid of all the guns and stop making them people will pick up rocks, knives, and clubs, and still kill like they did in the stone age. I have never seen a gun take itself from a closet, a cabinet or where ever it is kept, and load itself, aim itself and fire without a human on the other end in some way, so guns are not the problem—it’s the idiots that wield them, however, that is the price we pay for living in a free society. If you don’t like it then move to a deserted island. I just wish the media would report the whole news; every day there is a criminal that is caught or is halted from his criminalistic way by someone with a gun and the guts do something—why do we not hear about those, because that isn’t what they report. Like I always say, though, about guns—education is the key.

• 10. lunawolf  |  April 26, 2007 at 12:54 am

  “You know what is best for everyone and believe cowardice and fear are a necessary and even desired and acceptable response to outrages committed against innocents”. Those are your words, not mine. I have certain values in which I believe, but I never claimed to know what’s best for everyone. I’m simply poking holes in your sanctimonious rhetoric. Having a society that has to carry guns with them every where they go just shows how fearful that society is. I would rather have a society that doesn’t need to live that way. I’m not asking anyone to take guns away or deny anyone of their rights to
  So if everyone in the room jumps up and an innocent classmate is between them and the killer, you think that they’ll just start shooting holes in their classmates so they can try to kill someone trying to kill them?
  own them. I’m just presenting the argument that they are not some miracle solution for the war on crime.

  You say, “The whole reason women are afraid to stand up and press charges is because of the damn fear they have our society will not support them and stand by them and that they will carry some sort of ridiculous stigma.” Well, you are right about this. Our justice system does not do as well as it could. Sometimes a victims efforts are futile, even if they do go to the police. I don’t know how you could ever go so far as to say the victim is part of the problem. Also, rape is so traumatic that some people are paralyzed with fear. That is their fault? They are the ones that were raped. Read up on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Especially the part about avoidance of stimuli associated with the traumatic event, in this case: recounting the event many times to cops and lawyers and doctors and god knows who else.

  You stated, “you and those like you who think it is better to hide things and just live in misery, fear and horror your whole life if something terrible happens.” I do not believe this. I never claimed to believe this. These are your words, not mine. I do believe in women speaking out against abuse, but I know that the psychological damage of abuse is so severe that it doesn’t always happen. Not everyone is going to react the same. Also, our society has kept things like this under the rug so long, it is taking a lot of work to get the word out that there are safe places to go. I sat in a class last year full of young conservatives that told me women should quit their whining about rape. It is not liberals that are encouraging women to keep quiet.

  You replied to me “And, because this woman who was stalked didn’t think it was worth the bother to do anything (which if it was of no concern, really, then why the hell report she was being stalked in the first place?) serious about it and get him off the street, 32 people are dead.” It is even harder to prove stalking than it is to prove date rape. Unless threats or actual physical harm occurs, there is nothing police can do. Restraining orders cost a lot more than they are worth. Yes, why would anyone bother if there will be no results? This is not the victim’s fault. It is the justice system that should be changed, not the victim.

  “Even if she had been a rape victim, do you think I would feel sorry for her—for helping contribute to the deaths of 32 innocent people?” How can you be so certain that this woman could have prevented this tragedy? Is it logical to think that the police would take a statement from her and then turn around and judge by this behavior that he would end up going on a shooting spree? You don’t want to blame inanimate object (guns) for the tragedy, but you want to blame one his victims? She didn’t shoot anyone.

  You also said, “Why is it that people who are against gun ownership don’t have a clue that things called gun safety and training both exist for a reason?” I know these things exist. Yet the rate of accidental shootings in this country is alarming. Obviously there is not enough training and education. Would conservatives be open-minded to a regulation that required classes before a person can own a gun? A friend of mine that has owned many, many guns (see, I’m not totally against guns, have even shot a few) told me the most dangerous gun is the one you are certain is not loaded. Human error is too great a margin. I would like to see this training do more.

  You asked, “So if everyone in the room jumps up and an innocent classmate is between them and the killer, you think that they’ll just start shooting holes in their classmates so they can try to kill someone trying to kill them?” I’m saying the unpredictability of human beings is such that anything can happen. Anyone can make a mistake, especially in crowds.

  “So, let me recap. Victimization is an excuse to not be responsible to one’s community. College students are morons and can’t think. And I know nothing about rape and death or guns or anything else because while I have compassion and empathy for those who suffer rape, I nonetheless believe they have a responsibility to make sure that others do not become victims of the same rapist? Those are pretty much your thoughts on the matter, is that right?” No, that is not what I said. Again, these are your words you are putting into my mouth.Victimization is not an excuse to not be responsible, but a victim is not responsible for the failure of a community. And they didn’t ask to be victims. I do not believe you have empathy for people who have suffered rape. Empathy requires understanding how another person feels. You assume you know how a rape victim feels. You said you know people who have been victims. I assume they spoke out. Good for them. That is a wonderful and beautiful thing. They are the few that feel strong enough to do so. Not everyone is effected the same by rape. Some women are harmed too badly. Are you saying it is their responsibility to stop a man from raping? I think it is a man’s responsibility to not rape. Mystrength.org is an organization created specifically to teach men about what they can do to prevent rape. That being said, I’d like to apologize for calling you names. Maybe you aren’t a creep and maybe you aren’t sick. You probably just need a more open mind.

• 11. lunawolf  |  April 26, 2007 at 1:02 am

  I’m sorry, one more point: How can we blame this on gun laws or lack there of? How are liberals responsible for this? Why is the media blowing this up into a “us v them” debate? It was CHO that did this. A man walked into a room and opened fire on his classmates. You can’t blame the gun, and you can’t blame anyone other than the person that pulled the trigger. Ok, sorry, two points: why weren’t these students adequately warned that there was a shooting on the campus? That is another point to ponder. Much more relevant than the argument between liberals and conservatives.

• 12. Sean Wilson  |  April 26, 2007 at 8:40 am

  Ah, well, now we’re getting somewhere. Yes, some of the things I wrote were my perception of your views as I could gather from what you wrote. Clarification and complete ideas are safer from interpretation than comments which are not clarified.

  First off, I have quite an open mind, more than even most of those I call liberal. Right away, I want to acknowledge that you make a good point about young Republicans, because I have heard more than my share of them espousing views just as ridiculous as anything coming from the left. Upon further thought, it occurs to me that even those conservatives and Republicans and Green Party and Libertarians and Independents who do not stand up for others are all cowards.

  Thus, because I do have an open mind, I changed the title of this post to reflect that it isn’t just liberals who can be cowards. However, I do maintain that those who are ‘liberal’ with regards to preserving rights and privileges of citizenship hold perhaps a greater portion of responsibility as they have made it hard to eradicate crime to the extent that it can be done by the lobbying for laws that fail to punish violent criminals while making criminals out of others over ridiculous things.

  As to your suggestion to read up on post traumatic stress syndrome, I have spent more than a little time studying it and reading up on it, and understand it pretty well—just as I understand a variety of other mental health issues and symptoms. I understand trauma and fear, I understand lingering doubts and the damage that certain things can do to one’s mind.

  However, your suggestion that simply because it is hard to prove stalking is a reason not to press charges is more of the same excuses people make for not doing their part in society. Oh, I can’t be troubled, I might be inconvenienced, he might get off unpunished or the problem won’t be solved.

  All kinds of things might happen. Our lives might end tomorrow for all we know. Is that a suitable excuse for our behavior today? If someone is a menace to society, or you believe them to be, you have a responsibility to your community to do something about it, that’s the bottom line. If you don’t care about those in the community in which you live, perhaps you ought to move elsewhere, and live far away from civilization instead, where you have no responsibility to anyone and depend on no one else.

  Community and society are not something every person deserves or even has a right to. They are things you earn by your participation and your mutual agreement to be a productive and responsible part of your community. Failing to press charges against Cho prevented the rest of the community and the government from being able to do their part to address the situation in that case. One more failing of they system because part of the system—a citizen—shirked their responsibility.

  I am not suggesting people do not make mistakes. I am not even pointing the finger at her and saying it is her fault. What I am saying is that she—along with many other people—hold more blame in this matter than guns or the right to bear arms. And that is a fact that no argument can change. The guns are not at fault…they are inanimate objects.

  If you want to end such incidents, you must address the causes of them. How about first of all, we reserve rights guaranteed to citizens of the US by our Constitution for those who are in fact citizens? How about we hold everyone in society more responsible for the welfare of society? How about we hold parents and children alike accountable for their actions and prosecute them for harming others and dealing out mental and physical abuse?

  How about we hold institutions accountable for making sure that when there are killings going on, that they have a loudspeaker system capable of immediately warning and notifying everyone instead of sending out email—which is about as ridiculous as it gets. Do I want to be trying to read email when I should be running for cover?

  Back to the point of how I think victims can be part of the problem. That’s easy. If you make yourself a ready and willing victim by the way you live, by your failing to be involved in your community, by your failing to take actions on the behalf of others, by living in fear and making yourself a target, you are culpable in creating your own victimization. If you walk down a deserted and darkened street, passing by even darker alleys while listening to your iPod and counting the number of pigeon droppings on the sidewalk that stand out in stark contrast to the sidewalk pavement—and a criminal jumps out of the darkened alleyway and mugs you…then you helped create your own condition as a victim.

  I know many people don’t want to hear that. They want to hear that it is always everyone else’s fault, and that they have no responsibility for their own welfare and being. I’m not uncompassionate, nor heartless. I have spent time helping out at orphanages, and working with mentally and physically challenged children. I am kind to animals and I do not tolerate bullies and men who are abusive or rude to women or children.

  However, if you wander around in a third world country where kidnappings take place, you are putting yourself at risk. No one else is responsible for you. It is the same here in America. It is the same on the street on which you live. You are responsible not only for yourself, but for looking out for your neighbors. If one does not believe they have any obligation to their community, they are basically a leech on the society in which they live, taking advantage of what others have built, made, and struggled for, contributing nothing in return—simply out for themselves. And yet, these same leeches expect society to protect them, shower them with sympathy, come to their aid, and be responsible to them should they feel like suing the society that did not protect their non-contributing selves.

  Are you fine with that? I am not. Not in the least.

  You say “Restraining orders cost a lot more than they are worth.” With that attitude, it is no wonder the system fails. Protecting one’s life is not worth the cost and effort of a restraining order? And you bother to ask how victims can be responsible for something that happens?

  Now see, I find that almost funny. Because those who attempt to stand up for themselves often end up victims because society denies them the means to do so. Take those women I mentioned in a previous reply that die because they had to endure a waiting period to purchase a handgun and were killed by an estranged lover, husband or whatever. Laws enacted by those who are too cowardly to address the real issues in society and instead suggest it is guns or knives or anything other than people and society are responsible for crime are what get such innocent victims killed. In almost every case I have heard where that happened, someone had gone to the police and nothing was done.

  The only recourse left was fending for ones-self, but society’s cowardice robbed them of that ability and left them at the mercy of someone violent by refusing them the ability to immediately purchase a gun and provide for their personal security. There is someone who is a victim and blameless…someone who tried to use the system, and followed through. When that failed, they attempted to ensure their own safety but society robbed them of that chance and sentenced them to death.

  That is what makes me sick.

  Carrying weapons does not make people fearful, and it does not show how fearful a society is. That is a twisted perception that is fraught with holes. Being prepared does not make one fearful. Do people carry spare tires and jacks because they are fearful? Or is it simply prudent and convenient? Having backups of data is not considered fearful? Nor is having candles for a power outage is it? You’re projecting your own belief onto guns and what they mean.

  Do you go around in fear of policemen? Do you cringe and worry for your life every time you see one? Then why would anyone fear other law abiding citizens? I don’t fear criminals. Never have, never will. But I take precautions if I am going to be somewhere where criminals might especially be found. If I go to the mountains to camp, I will take a gun—that is prudence, not fear. It means I am not depending on the goodwill of others, nor on law enforcement, for my safety. It does not mean I fear anyone or anything. I may even have the opportunity to put food on the table. Or better yet, some ignorant criminal may actually attack me and I will get the chance to do society a favor of ridding it of a violent predator. I would call that opportunity, self-reliance, prudence, smart, and not fear.

  Just because I use a rope when I go rappelling does not mean I fear death. That is just what you do to rappel. If I wear a helmet because I may fall, but rappel anyway, I am not fearful of death, I am just taking precautions.

  You mention the rate of accidental shootings is alarming. Even more alarming are the number of accidental deaths related to automobiles, drug overdose, workplace accidents and even suicides—which is no accident. I don’t hear anti-gunners calling for outlawing auto. Drugs have been illegal and it has not stopped the problem…why does anyone think guns will be any different? There is no evidence to even suggest this. I don’t hear liberals or conservatives calling for better workplace practices.

  And more importantly, the rate suicides in America is far more alarming than accidental death by guns. In fact, the suicide rate is such that it is like loosing an entire town every year. How horrific would it be if tomorrow some town of several thousand people all at once just committed suicide? You think 32 deaths would begin to compare to that in terms of shock and outrage and disbelief? Yet, why aren’t people outraged about that issue and willing to tackle it? The simple fact is that our society does not encourage us to tackle difficult problems. I lay the major portion of the blame for that squarely at the feet of liberals specifically.

  The same mindset that says we must allow everyone to be, do, and have the same rather than work for it…or that illegal immigration is fine because it keeps our lawncare and produce costs down and the construction industry supplied with cheap workers (who also happen to be the leading statistic for deaths by falling). Rather than address the root causes that led Cho to do the terrible thing he did, rather than holding those who could have prevented this tragedy from happening responsible for their failure…people instead want to blame inanimate objects and the right of people to own them.

  I can pop open the DSV-IV (and yes, I have spent my share of time reading it) and find any number of symptoms that suggest transference of blame and responsibility and irrational fears of an inanimate object are not only not normal, but manifestations of mental health issues.

  And I do agree again with you that this is not the fault of gun laws or lack thereof. Yet, the liberal ideology that suggests no one has a responsibility to their community or nation or society is directly responsible for this. The laws that allow foreigners to come educate themselves in our universities simply so educational institutions can make money while they commit crimes or worse, go back home and help terrorist organizations be more efficient and equipped and trained as a result of their education is a shame. The fact that we allow people to burn flags which are symbols of pride and give people a reason to feel civic responsibility—such as the kind that would encourage them to do their duty to their fellow citizens and help put criminals away—is a disgrace, and liberals are directly responsible for that.

  Yes, in the end, Cho did what he did, and the fault is his. But many people share responsibility, because they did not act when they could and should have. Just as society does not act and many children are killed every year by abuse sickens me, it sickens me that some people feel no responsibility to anyone else. This is the me-me-me society we live in.

  Again, part of the reason kids get away with heaping abuse on others that lead them to grow frustrated and angry and commit suicide or begin cutting themselves is because parenting has been made insufferable by liberals. I know a man who ended up in jail and had his career damaged because he came home from work one day, saw his son throwing rocks at other kids and grabbed him, shook him and demanded he stop. Someone nearby called the police and he was incarcerated for child abuse. Parents can not even discipline kids in America anymore.

  Real abuse, however, gets ignored and swept under the rug. No one will do anything about that because they might actually have to leave the comfort of their home or get involved in a trial and have their character and life pried into, etc. Laws that have made it nearly impossible for parents to control kids, and yet give abused children back to the abusive parents because DHS is simply pushing them through a system is shameful. We over-regulate and litigate as a society, and instead show disdain for the very things which have made our nation the place so many around the world seek out to have a better life.

  We might as well be slitting our wrists and crawling in a bathtub to die as a society. Just as we fail to simply say no to illegal immigration for fear of offending people, we fail to address the underlying issues in nearly every aspect of life in America. It wasn’t even that shocking to hear of the 32 deaths at VT to me. Why would it be? American fighting men and women have been dying for years to provide rights for those who despise everything soldiers have fought for since our nations founding. You think I am going to shed tears over college students when they were killed because of ineptitude by college administrators, local police, a magistrate, and failures of people who believed Cho to be disturbed and did nothing?

  I am not heartless nor cruel, nor un-empathyzing. I know first hand what child abuse does to a person. And you know what, I feel for rape victims, but it does not change how I feel—which is that if they refuse to help prosecute a rapist and could get him out of society and fail to do so, then they are partly responsible for every other victim of that rapist. I know I am not alone in this believe, I have heard others espouse it—including rape victims themselves who were angered that others could have helped prevent what happened to them.

  It boils down to an attempt to take away the rights and privileges which would allow those of us who don’t fear inanimate objects to protect and defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our property against the criminal element which the rest of society is too lazy or inconsiderate to deal with in a firm, and appropriate manner that gives more consideration to the welfare of the law abiding citizen than it does to the concerns of criminals and offending those people who are not even citizens—or worse, are here illegally or with the intention of causing our nation harm.

  That is the bottom line.

• 13. dereke  |  April 26, 2007 at 12:56 pm

  To lunawolf, US has more gun laws than any other country, we have so many most lawyers and judges cannot keep up with them that isn’t the problem the problem is and listen, “The weak minded people that misuse them.” He had all kinds of problems mentally, they did as the law states and no one could have prevented this except the shooter. To enact more laws is not the answer, that has been shown over and over, every time some thing like this happens we enact more laws but it still hasn’t stop this and it never will. Lets nor waist more time thinking it will, and start educating people on RESPECTING others, and that violence will not solve anything. We need to get to some of these young people and show them that life is real and not a video game.

• 14. SA  |  April 26, 2007 at 4:30 pm

  I’m glad you removed the word ‘liberal’ from your title etc.

  Take good care of yourself, Sean; you’re a good man…. and, please, you can call me Stephanie. =)

  SA

• 15. lunawolf  |  April 27, 2007 at 1:24 am

  Alright. You had some good points, and a lot not so good.
  “However, if you wander around in a third world country where kidnappings take place, you are putting yourself at risk. No one else is responsible for you. It is the same here in America”. So are you saying that America is like a third world country? I hoped we had made more progress than that. No wonder you think people have to carry guns to feel safe!

  “That’s easy. If you make yourself a ready and willing victim by the way you live, by your failing to be involved in your community, by your failing to take actions on the behalf of others, by living in fear and making yourself a target, you are culpable in creating your own victimization. If you walk down a deserted and darkened street, passing by even darker alleys while listening to your iPod and counting the number of pigeon droppings on the sidewalk that stand out in stark contrast to the sidewalk pavement—and a criminal jumps out of the darkened alleyway and mugs you…then you helped create your own condition as a victim.
  I know many people don’t want to hear that. They want to hear that it is always everyone else’s fault, and that they have no responsibility for their own welfare and being”.
  The woman that did not press charges against Cho did not walk down a dark alley looking to be mugged. Cho sought her out. I’m sorry. You just can’t convince me that victims of abuse are at fault. I can only put the responsibility on the person that committed the act. I disagree that people want to hear that criminal acts are someone else’s fault. I think they want to hear that it is the fault of the person that committed the crime.

  “No on else is responsible for you.” You say in the same paragraph that people have an obligation to their community. Which is it? Are we responsible to watch out for each other or do we only rely on ourselves? Can we or can’t we hope to rely on community and human compassion? Or should we all just take up arms? Just looking for some clarification.

  “Take those women I mentioned in a previous reply that die because they had to endure a waiting period to purchase a handgun and were killed by an estranged lover, husband or whatever”. Right, in a way, but on the other side of the coin, if there had been a waiting period in Virginia for Cho to buy his 9mm he would not have been able to purchase it. He was allowed to walk out of a store with a gun because his most recent mental assessment wasn’t in the database that alerts gun shops that the customer has been recently 5150′d. He did own another gun, but the glock was more damaging, that is why he chose to buy it and use it.

  “Do you go around in fear of policemen? Do you cringe and worry for your life every time you see one? Then why would anyone fear other law abiding citizens?” No, I do not. Police are trained and qualified. Not all people that legally own guns are law-abiding citizens. Cho proved this point. The kind of gun control I would like to see is the same that would require a person to drive a car. Training plus assessment of skills and a license with registration of all fire-arms. Is that taking away anyone’s rights? Or is it ensuring that the people that have rights to guns are the ones that actually deserve those rights.

  “Carrying weapons does not make people fearful, and it does not show how fearful a society is. That is a twisted perception that is fraught with holes. Being prepared does not make one fearful. Do people carry spare tires and jacks because they are fearful? Or is it simply prudent and convenient? Having backups of data is not considered fearful? Nor is having candles for a power outage is it? You’re projecting your own belief onto guns and what they mean.”
  You compare being prepared for a flat tire with being prepared for an attack by a criminal. I don’t see the connection. I interpret what you are saying as such: that at any moment someone could attack you to the point that you would need to use deadly force and that you are only being prepared. Seems like an awfully fearful way to live, in my opinion.

  “You mention the rate of accidental shootings is alarming. Even more alarming are the number of accidental deaths related to automobiles…”
  Yes. I did mention that. I believe that if there were no regulations for people to drive cars, it would be a thousand times worse.

  “…drug overdose…”
  The war on drugs is so complex. I won’t even get into it here.

  “…workplace accidents and even suicides—which is no accident. I don’t hear anti-gunners calling for outlawing auto. Drugs have been illegal and it has not stopped the problem…why does anyone think guns will be any different? There is no evidence to even suggest this. I don’t hear liberals or conservatives calling for better workplace practices”.
  As far as workplace accidents, remember a time in American history called the Gilded Age? The robber barons and the monopolies? The huge gap between the rich and the poor? Well,there were no work-place regulations at the time. In 1911, a sweatshop in New York locked it’s doors so women and children couldn’t sneak onto the fire escape for a break. The place burned down. When the women finally got the door opened after many had already persished, the fire-escape collapsed because there were no standards regarding it’s structural integrity. The women jumped or fell to their deaths.
  Fortunately, the Progressive Era followed (a liberal era as far as political science is concerned). Although many changes were implemented, it still took until the time of Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) for companies to be held responsible for the well-being of their workers. The 1970’s saw even more work-safety related reform with OSHA.
  What I’m trying to say with this history lesson is that yes, you do hear liberals calling for better workplace practices. We’ve been doing it for a hundred years.

  “And more importantly, the rate suicides in America is far more alarming than accidental death by guns. In fact, the suicide rate is such that it is like loosing an entire town every year. How horrific would it be if tomorrow some town of several thousand people all at once just committed suicide? You think 32 deaths would begin to compare to that in terms of shock and outrage and disbelief? Yet, why aren’t people outraged about that issue and willing to tackle it? The simple fact is that our society does not encourage us to tackle difficult problems. I lay the major portion of the blame for that squarely at the feet of liberals specifically.”. So are you saying that because the suicide rate is higher than the accidental shooting death rate, we should disregard accidental shootings and not work toward a solution? There are a lot of people doing a lot of work regarding suicide prevention. I have seen it work first-hand. As far as accidental deaths, nothing seems to get done about lack of mandatory training for persons wishing to purchase a firearm to possibly prevent more accidental shootings. I don’t see that diverting attention from the firearms issue to point out the completely separate issue of suicide is effective argument.
  Plus, you say that liberals are to blame for our society not attacking major problems. But again, I can point out the progressive era. Liberals did a hell of a job. I can also point out the war on poverty, AIDS, hunger, civil rights, conservation, and even the fight to Save Our Earth, to the causes of liberals. Talk about tough issues! Especially with all the conservative media out there brushing off these issues or even trying to convince the American people that tackling these issues is only wasting tax dollars and time.

  “The same mindset that says we must allow everyone to be, do, and have the same rather than work for it…or that illegal immigration is fine because it keeps our lawncare and produce costs down and the construction industry supplied with cheap workers (who also happen to be the leading statistic for deaths by falling). Rather than address the root causes that led Cho to do the terrible thing he did, rather than holding those who could have prevented this tragedy from happening responsible for their failure…people instead want to blame inanimate objects and the right of people to own them.” I’m sorry, what do illegal immigrants have to do with the root causes of Cho’s massacre? I hold to the fact that the cause of Cho’s massacre was his own sick twisted mind and the finger he used to pull the trigger. No one but him could have prevented this. If the woman had pressed charges, he would have been out rapidly on bail, dropped charges, or a few months in county and still would have found a way to commit the crime. He probably would have had even more pent up anger and probably better ideas on the execution from the stories of other pod-mates.
  A side note on illegal immigrants. They wouldn’t be here if money-hungry corpritocracies (corporate aristocracies) would stop paying them. Conservatives, again, spouting about immigrants on TV while letting them in the back door.

  “Yet, the liberal ideology that suggests no one has a responsibility to their community or nation or society is directly responsible for this”. That is where you are wrong. Liberal ideology has always been geared toward helping fellow man. Liberals are even called communists at times because of their socialistic views regarding health care, civil rights, poverty, and other social issues. (I’m not talking Stalin here, so don’t get up in arms about communism. Some of the principles behind it have had a positive impact on the world).

  “The laws that allow foreigners to come educate themselves in our universities simply so educational institutions can make money while they commit crimes or worse, go back home and help terrorist organizations be more efficient and equipped and trained as a result of their education is a shame”.
  What universities exactly? Can you give me an example of a foreign terrorist going to college here and then going back to help terrorists? I hadn’t heard of this. I’m pretty sure we did educate John Walker Lynd, but he wasn’t a foreigner. We did, however allow terrorists to learn how to fly planes. It wasn’t liberals that ignored the flight instructor’s warnings. It was the FBI. And you can’t say they are liberals, they’ve been fighting communism for years! As far as flag burning,it is protected by bill of rights. It is usually common only among extremists. It is a civic duty for people to protest if they feel they are not being treated fairly or are not being heard. Just because some people don’t protest with tact doesn’t mean it discourages people to be proud of their country. If a person is truly proud, they will ignore this type of rare, extremist protesting.

  “Yes, in the end, Cho did what he did, and the fault is his”. YAY! So glad you finally see the light!
  “But many people share responsibility, because they did not act when they could and should have. Just as society does not act and many children are killed every year by abuse sickens me, it sickens me that some people feel no responsibility to anyone else. This is the me-me-me society we live in”. Of course it is sad that all these horrible things happen in our society. But it can’t be blamed on one group or the other. Sure, the blame can be leaned more towards the me-me-me society we live in, but conservatives are more me-me-me than liberals. From listening to conservatives points of views it seems they want to eliminate welfare, taxes and all kinds of other civil services (including CPS) that the big bad government provides. That sounds like me-me-me to me. “Get the bums off the street, send drug addicts to prison for life without any chance of rehab, feed corporations so they grow fatter and fatter while people get poorer and poorer.” That is my interpretation of the conservative viewpoints in America. This leads me to believe that conservatives are bigger contributers to the problem than liberals.

  I could go on and on and on and on, but I’m getting really tired. I will conclude with key points. I believe that stricter qualifications regarding people that can purchase guns is needed. You mentioned training and gun safety yourself. Well then implement it. Register guns and license owners.
  Rape victims are not the cause of more rapes. Rapists are the cause of rapes. They are the ones committing the act of rape. Just as you can’t blame a gun for 32 people dying, you can’t blame anyone other than the rapist for rape.
  Cho would have committed this horrible act whether he had picked up a stalking charge or not. He was sick.
  Your view of the liberal ideology is scewed. Probably by pseudo-intellctuals like Ann Coulter who can only insult people and make up “facts” in order to sell books. Liberals have actually done a lot of good for people. There are extremists out there, yes, but there also are extremist conservatives (neocons) and they are dominating the air waves right now and creating this climate of fear that surrounds us. Hopefully you now see the true characteristics of liberals and conservatives. Join the good fight- Vote Democrat! Thank you for your input. It’s been interesting. I’m going to bed now.

• 16. Sean Wilson  |  April 27, 2007 at 7:50 am

  Lunawolf, to address a few of your points…

  I’m not suggesting America is like a third world country. What I am suggesting is that it doesn’t matter where you are, you are personally responsible to yourself to provide for your own safety, just as any other creature in the animal kingdom.

  Coincidentally, you suggest you hope we have come further than that, yet when I made my point about current workplace conditions and safety, refer back to a previous point in history to show progress we’ve made to where we are now…but which does nothing to address the problems we have now.

  As to victims contributing to their own victimization, regardless as to whether or not you believe it or want to hear it, it does happen. It is basic psychology, and you can go talk to any policeman or security consultant or protective specialist and they can enlighten you. Criminals have a psychology by which they operate…in fact there is this whole field of psychology called criminal psychology—by no coincidence, but rather, as a result of this.

  Terrorist commonly use basic psychology and the study of habit in setting up their attacks. An American general kidnapped by terrorists in Italy found this out the hard way once by being predictable. By taking the same route to and from his residence to office every day and by not having an alert mentality, he set himself up to be the victim of a terrorist attack. I know this because I have received some formal counter-terrorism training and we studied the case in question.

  Police even tell you to avoid darkened streets at night. I mean, you can deny that victims contribute to their own victimization all you want, but it won’t change the fact that they do.

  As to victims of abuse being at fault, they are not at fault, but they contribute to their own condition by failing to stand up for themselves, for failing to act, and for not seeking out help. I don’t care about the psychology of abuse, which I understand very well, I am talking about the reality here.

  If I go somewhere every day, and someone beats the crap out of me when I get there, how long does any person really need to figure out that either they shouldn’t go there, or that they should do something different to change the pattern? I understand the many reasons why women stay with abusers…and I also understand why they fail to leave them. It always boils down to fear, and the only reason women fear to leave is because our society has not overwhelmingly demonstrated that not only can they leave, but that they will find support and that the jerk who hurt them will be severely punished.

  As to which is it, on the issue of relying on ourselves and having a responsibility to our community, it is both. There is no contradiction. You seem to think we have to choose one or the other, and that is the problem. We are responsible for our own welfare, health and safety first and foremost. That is basic life for any living thing, and it is what drives evolution.

  Secondly, we do have a responsibility to our community and others in it. Early humans came together for protection and to be more productive. Government evolved out of this, first in simple family and group dynamics, then in clan and tribal government, and so forth and so on up to the creation of empires. By consenting to be governed, you accept a responsibility to the government and have responsibilities and duties—among them abiding by the law, paying taxes, etc.

  You also have a responsibility to the community to which you belong. Cities preceded states, and in fact the ancient city-states of Sumeria, Babylon and Greece are some early examples of sovereign powers exercised by communities. If I am part of a hamlet, village, town, city—I have a responsibility as a member of that community.

  Are you suggesting that people do not? That is the first thing I would like to clarify. You have not once stated that you believe people have a responsibility to their community. Is that your stance?

  Please clarify that one for those who might be reading.

  Most people who want to restrict gun ownership do not believe they have a responsibility to their community. That is a point I discovered while doing research for a paper back in the mid 90’s; most people who were self-professed anti-gun did not feel a sense of responsibility to either others or their community in regards to helping provide for the safety and welfare of the community as a whole. Their beliefs ranged from “I don’t owe anybody anything” to “the government is supposed to be here for me, not the other way around.”

  As to Cho not being a law-abiding citizen, he was law-abiding up until he committed his crime. However, he would have had his ability to own guns removed had the woman who reported he was stalking her had the courage and concern to press charges. But that’s irrelevant. This crime was not committed by a law-abiding citizen, because first of all Cho WAS NOT A CITIZEN.

  You compare being prepared for a flat tire with being prepared for an attack by a criminal. I don’t see the connection. I interpret what you are saying as such: that at any moment someone could attack you to the point that you would need to use deadly force and that you are only being prepared. Seems like an awfully fearful way to live, in my opinion.

  Police are trained to deal with criminals. Are you suggesting they are afraid just because they are prepared? You try to twist an argument to suit your needs in a way that makes no sense at all. Preparation is not fear. If I store cooking ingredients in my kitchen so that at any moment I might be able to bake a certain dish, is it because I fear not being able to bake said dish? Your argument makes no sense. It is because you consider preparation fear that you think others must be fearful for seeking training, or for thinking in a way that would lessen the likelihood of them becoming a victim.

  I understand you may think, well golly gee, we live in a civil society and I should be able to walk around with no fear and have a right to not be bothered by anything or anyone. There has never been any such society in the history of the world, nor will there ever be. Especially in a democracy, which is essentially a tyranny of the majority, there will always be those who do not agree with the laws and expected behavioral constraints of a society. As always, liberals like to dream about Utopia and try to regulate our way there in ignorance of the fact that without perhaps a million more years of evolution, the human brain and physiological design are such that we have been tailored to those things which make us superior thinkers, creators/designers, predators and at conflict. It is what has enabled us to survive and achieve the position we have as a species.

  You state specifically that you interpret being prepared to meet an attack as a fearful way to live life. It’s not fearful at all, except to you. Those who are prepared are not fearful specifically because they are prepared. Martial artists are not fearful of criminals and being mugged. Go speak to some. You need to get out of your sheltered little shell of a life and see what is out there in the world and actually perhaps go speak to the people you would classify as fearful.

  By your argument, police, firefighters, soldiers, athletes, business owners, students—heck, anyone who doesn’t do something unprepared or uneducated or untrained with regards to whatever it is they are doing—are all fearful? This is exactly the failed logic that makes so many think of “liberal lunacy” when they hear arguments coming from the left.

  By using your logic, if one seeks a college education to prepare for a job in computer programming, they are just fearful they can’t do it without any prior training. And gosh, isn’t that a fearful way to live your life?

  As to an example of someone going to school here that went back to help terrorists, there have been several examples noted in the media. One such American educated terrorist was captured not to long ago…I’m thinking in Pakistan, or perhaps in Afghanistan. I don’t have any articles on that bookmarked, but will try to find them. Might try checking yourself, but it has happened, and more than once.

  You mention that you think people need training and we need gun registration. While I agree that everyone who owns a gun should be trained, I do not believe it is the sort of thing a government needs to be regulating. Parents need to be training their children if they introduce them to guns. If they don’t know how, they go seek out professional training. The last thing we need is another government program doing what is an individuals responsibility at taxpayer expense.

  As to registration of guns, I am firmly against it. Everyone has a right to own a gun unless they are a convicted felon. There is no reason to register guns. There is only a need to register and track felons and have the ability to deny them purchase if they attempt to purchase a weapon legally. It is less costly, more efficient, and protects law abiding citizens.

  No government needs to know every little thing its people have or own, except ones that have the inclination to be oppressive. Disarmament has in pretty much been in nearly every case in history (we’re talking even disarming ancient societies through present day here) been a prelude to tyranny, oppression, and even genocide. You can look at Scotland, Ireland, Germany under the Nazis, China, and history has hundreds of examples that occurred throughout Europe.

  I know, you probably think that doesn’t matter. It does. It is the principle and it does matter. Our founding fathers thought it mattered, which is why they said that no the right of the people to bear arms should not be infringed. In fact, here are two quotes, one by Scottish philosopher David Hume, and the other by Benjamin Franklin which suggest reasons why I am against registration of guns:

  “It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Slavery has so frightful an aspect to men accustomed to freedom,that it must steal in upon them by degrees and must disguise itself in a thousand shapes in order to be received.”

  — David Hume, 1742

  “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.”

  — Thomas Jefferson

  Further, there is this concern. There have been attempts by the anti-gun lobbies to outlaw semi-automatic weapons altogether, which would leave citizens armed with technology that existed in the 1800’s (lever-action, bolt-action, pump) when we are moving into the 21st century. Should the people ever need to throw off this government for whatever reason, it becomes a near impossibility when only the government has modern arms and has more than two centuries of technological advance.

  There is only one reason why any government or society should fear its citizens being armed with current technology or weapons: either the government or an element in society (and here, I’m thinking liberals) want to either oppress society as a whole or some element in society in a way that is contradictory to the spirit of “the pursuit of life, liberty, and justice for all.”

  This of course does not pertain to the criminal element in society, which is that element that choses not to live within the laws agreed upon by society. I am sure this concern, that of freedom and liberty probably seems far fetched and ridiculous to you, but it is important to millions of Americans—especially those of us who come from America’s ‘warrior class’ (to use a term by an author who wrote an article about this for a major news outlet recently), that is, those of us who are the ones actually fighting for our nation and come from families whose members serve in every generation. To us, this is extremely important.

  How much so? Well, for one, if they ever outlaw guns, I personally am of the mind that that would be an act of oppression by the government in direct violation of the US Constitution. As a person whose family has fought for this country back to its earliest days, do not believe for a minute that I would not fight for those ideals again, in order to throw off such an oppressive government. Most of my friends and fellow veterans feel the same way.

  In fact, we took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic—and the latter category includes those that would seek to destroy the rights it gives us and those who seek to enslave others. Further, the Declaration of Independence says that it is a responsibility and a sometimes necessary thing to do. That is another reason I am against more gun regulation. America already has more gun regulations than it needs. What it does not have are people enforcing the existing laws.

  Another point I learned in my research in the 90’s was that overwhelmingly (over 90%!), of all those who espoused anti-gun views, fewer than 10% could even name three existing local gun statutes, state or federal laws, when there are thousands on the books! Most could vaguely suggest “the assault weapons ban” and a few thought something about the “Brady Bill” and the Federal Firearms Mailing Act. How and why is it that people always clamoring for more gun laws know absolutely nothing about them?

  Ask yourself how many gun laws you can name without researching the topic. There are more than enough appropriate gun laws in place. It is up to law enforcement and society to help enforce them. We don’t need rights and privileges taken away, nor infringed upon, which is what gun registration is.

  As to what do illegal immigrants have to do with Cho’s actions? Firstly, Cho was himself not a citizen. He was granted permanent residency, but should not be allowed to own a weapon. We must preserve the rights guaranteed under the Constitution for those who are citizens, and this goes hand in hand with the devaluing of citizenship and national pride that comes from flag burning. Nothing has any importance anymore and liberals want to destroy anything that challenges the idea that only Americans deserve the rights Americans have earned the right to. He should not have had the right to even purchase a gun.

  Secondly, as to illegal immigrants, take a look at the statistic and how many are criminals: Filming Assault On Homeless Man, Immigrant Criminal Elements

  More than a quarter million illegals entering the US every year either have committed rape or other sex offenses in the country of their origin or will here in America, thus leading to their deportation. Nearly two million drug related offenders. Nearly 5 million (43% of illegal immigrants) are criminals…aside from the fact that they ALL HAVE BROKEN THE LAW AND HAVE SHOWN NO REGARD FOR THE LAW OF AMERICA.

  Why wouldn’t anyone with any common sense think that if they don’t respect the law, they will abide by the law?

  As to conservatives being more me-me-me than liberals, I of course would disagree with you there. It appears to me that it i s liberals who want free benefits and handouts for everyone, to give citizenship to whomever wants to come to America rather than making them earn it, and that want something for nothing. Further, it’s all the Democrats I know who have illegals working in their companies and doing their lawn, where Republicans I know avoid them. Perhaps large corporations exploit illegals, and I’m against that. But just as many corporations are owned by Democrats and liberals as by Republicans or conservatives.

  Just in case you were not aware, I am not a Republican, nor a conservative in the sense that it applies to Republicans. I am conservative in that I am for the conserving of rights and privileges of the people. That means I am also very liberal in that I don’t like any government interference in peoples lives except the bare minimum to keep the nation running.

  More to the point, it may be that we’re both pointing at liberal and conservative when the pointing should simply be directed at capitalists. I’m all for free markets and enterprise, but an obsession with maximum returns instead of an equitable living return is destroying the values of all societies around the globe.

  So are you saying that because the suicide rate is higher than the accidental shooting death rate, we should disregard accidental shootings and not work toward a solution?

  I’m so glad you brought that up!!! No, I am not. I am suggesting tackling the problems that are the root causes. Does anyone think banning guns or knives will eliminate the reason people commit suicide? Of course not. Are we going to outlaw rooftops because people jump from them committing suicide? Of course not.

  Ask yourself that same question in another way, using the same kind of logic. Are you suggesting that because criminals commit crimes with guns that we should ignore crime and not work toward a solution? It makes no more sense to regulate guns and ignore crime and criminals than it does to ignore accidental shootings and not work on a solution.

  My solution to accidental shootings is of course training. Who knows, I might even go for a government required training program funded directly by gun sales…such as bumping the cost up $75 to pay for a mandatory day-long training session that a purchaser had to attend within a month of purchase or something. If the case were that they could not own a gun prior to such training I would be firmly against it. That would lead to more needless deaths just as the mandatory waiting period causes.

  It’s funny that you see eliminating welfare and other government services as me-me-me; I see it as self-reliance. I also see it as eliminating these people (women in the cases I have in mind) who have half a dozen children and get government subsidies for each child born, and who are making a larger income than millions of hardworking Americans to sit home on their butts and do nothing except turn out more kids they only view as a means to free money. And don’t tell me it doesn’t happen. I can point to many cases. I can put you in contact with a lot of angry Americans who are pissed off about it.

  I’m also wondering if you have read any of my other posts, because I am most assuredly not against compassion at all.

  See my views on helping the homeless…
  See my views on corporate responsibility…

• 17. Nick  |  April 27, 2007 at 3:11 pm

  Although not totally on track with the entire conversation, I still believe it needs repeating….

  “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin - November 11, 1755

  While you libs go on dreaming about your “Utopia”, I’ll will protect mine with whatever means I have at my disposal…. Namely, a LEGAL firearm.

  Great post Sean.

• 18. Christopher Graham  |  May 7, 2007 at 2:57 am

  Nick:

  Methinks you may want to read that quote again.

  It is a conservative government that has taken away more liberty and safety from American citizens than ever before in our history.

  While you are sitting with your firearm protecting your “Utopia”, consider this little conundrum: as I am sure you would vote for such a party as is currently in power in order to keep the “libs’” hands off of your gun, every other freedom that you currently have will be methodically taken away from right under your nose. Vote conservative, keep your gun. Vote liberal, keep your “Liberty and Safety.” Allow me to elaborate.

  Here is a small list of some of the American freedoms that have been lost since the selection of President Bush in 2000, as compiled by the Associated Press:

  FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

  FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

  FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

  RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

  FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

  RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

  RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

  That makes seven freedoms in just as many years. Only until recently has the left had any real political power against the current administration, so you can’t blame those on us “libs.”

  So, Nick, I do wholeheartedly encourage you so sit with your firearm and “protect” your “Utopia.” But please, for the sake of anyone who actually cares about real Liberties and not just the right to own a gun: don’t vote.

  Great comments, Lunawolf.

• 19. Sean Wilson  |  May 7, 2007 at 4:19 am

  Christopher, thanks for dropping by to read and comment. I would have to disagree with you on some things you state, however. Other points, you should clarify, however, if you’re going to present the argument in correct context.

  FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION: Government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

  Personally, what is wrong with monitoring? Invasion of privacy I am against, but religious and political institutions have shown themselves to be far too crooked, covering up bribery, scandals, liars, pedophiles, rapists, drug dealers and more. I don’t recall the government saying anyone could not associate. Why, look at all the complaining people are doing over the immigration incident in LA recently. Weren’t they associating freely until people assaulted the police and resisted the attempts by the police to gain control of what the alienists turned into a riot?

  FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: Government has closed once-public immigration hearings, has secretly detained hundreds of people without charges, and has encouraged bureaucrats to resist public records questions.

  Citizens have a right to freedom of information from our government as it pertains to us as citizens. Immigrants, not being citizens, are not entitled to the same rights, nor even the same protections of the Constitution. They are not citizens, after all. We need to do more to be selective in who we let into this country, and I don’t see this as a loss of American rights, but as preserving America. I still can go request any information about anything under the Freedom of Information Act. If I don’t like the outcome, I have the right to vote new leaders in to change what I don’t like.

  FREEDOM OF SPEECH: Government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone that the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

  That’s called obstruction of justice. We prosecute citizens for revealing things about trials before the courts, why should librarians be exempt? Should we allow them to inform terrorists when the government is on their trail? So what if the government subpoenas information from a library. Who has something to hide?

  RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION: Government may monitor federal prison jailhouse conversations between attorneys and clients, and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

  If someone is in federal prison, I could care less if their conversations are monitored. Describe to me any possible scenario where this would hamper or hurt a ‘law abiding prisoner’ (that is already an oxymoron) in prison in some way? Appeals? What need do you have for secrecy at the point where you’ve already been found guilty and are serving a prison sentence except to hide further guilt? I don’t see monitoring conversations as denying anyone representation. The fact they are holding a conversation with an attorney to be monitored means they are in fact having representation, does it not?

  FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES: Government may search and seize Americans’ papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

  This is one area where I might agree with you. There has been precedents in this area that I am unhappy with.

  RIGHT TO A SPEEDY AND PUBLIC TRIAL: Government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

  Which Americans? Those who trained with Al Qaida and the Taliban? Ask me if I care. I don’t see any other Americans except those who are Islamic converts that had association with and training by terrorists being detained indefinitely. You think I care if those who seek to destroy America for some foreign ideology are detained for ten or twenty years? I might see it differently if it were an American accused of insurrection who was fighting because the government was selling out the American people. But do I care if it is someone who wants to spread the terror of Islam? Not a bit. I personally think they should have fought harder to keep dealing with them via military tribunals…they did want to be fighters after all, let them be judged as unlawful combatants that they were.

  RIGHT TO LIBERTY: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them.

  Again, which Americans? Again, only those who were trained as terrorists in foreign nations apparently. If you can point out cases where it is just average Joe Citizen thrown in jail for indeterminate lengths of time with no right to a trial for unpaid fines or even drug dealing, please show us.

  Don’t get me wrong, I dislike the Patriot Act. I think it was unnecessary. I don’t like Republicans any more than I do Democrats. Both sides are selling out Americans as far as I’m concerned. But guns are the only thing that preserve all our other rights, and it is foolish to think otherwise. You think our rights are being eroded now? What will happen when there is no credible threat of the citizens rising up against a government that wanted to be even more oppressive? Do you think they will be more or less inclined to do so if the people are unarmed?

  You commend Lunawolf on her comments, but I wonder if—like her—you have the courage to say that people have a responsibility to others and the communities they live in? I wonder if—like her—you believe that the young woman who failed to press charges against Cho when she reported he was stalking her has any culpability for the deaths of those students at Virginia Tech?

  You say you are worried about losing rights and how it is the fault of conservatives, yet such drastic measures have only become necessary because of liberal ideology which has eroded our sovereignty, allowed unchecked immigration, and wants us to be nice to those who seek to destroy us. Further, if liberals want to take away our right to bear arms, how is that not doing the very things you accuse the conservatives of?

  I don’t see the consistency in your viewpoint on that at all, I’m sorry to say. Myself, I do believe government is far too involved in our lives. However, sad to say, it has become almost necessary because too many selfish people in America don’t give a damn about securing our borders, preserving our heritage, maintaining a strong defense, and all the things that if we did would allow us to live with fewer laws. We wouldn’t need all the anti-terror laws if our borders were secure to begin with. We wouldn’t need to be fighting terrorists overseas today if we had done so back in the early 80’s when we should have.

  I believe as most of my Scots-Irish ancestors did, that too much government is a bad thing. I also believe as they did, that the only government that fears an armed populace is the government that is oppressive or outright evil. I also believe people who are too concerned with being politically correct and too nice to our enemies and think we owe the rest of the world for our success, and that we should pay any perceived debt at the expense of our own people are just as much a threat to this nation as any fascists, communists, Islamic terrorists, narco-terrorists, or any other enemy is.

  While I do not like measures the conservatives have passed to fight terrorism, they are only necessary because liberals have sold us out to foreign interests and terrorists and have weakened our nation, both economically and militarily. We wouldn’t have had the difficult time we have had in Iraq had Clinton not chopped our military up after he took office.

  You blame it all on conservatives, yet, ignore the responsibility liberals have for having weakened our nation to begin with. Just as cowardice is responsible for the VT shootings, cowardice is responsible for our problems with immigration today and why our economy isn’t stronger and why our minimum wage has stayed so depressingly behind cost of living and inflation increases.

  I do agree that we need less government involvement. However, taking away guns from law-abiding citizens to punish one criminal who is already dead and was only able to carry out his crimes because others shirked their responsibilities…that is insanity, regardless of what political affiliation one looks at it from.

  Nick did not have it wrong, but rather clear. Anti-terrorist measures aren’t harming anyone but immigrants and non-citizens, and frankly, because liberals have ignored that problem and are helping ruin our nation, I could care less about the rights we afford to non-citizens.

• 20. Christopher Graham  |  May 7, 2007 at 10:18 pm

  Sean, I find many flaws in your logic, the most blatant being your extreme over-trust in the government. I’ll elaborate.

  First of all, regarding government monitoring, you state: “Personally, what is wrong with monitoring? Invasion of privacy I am against, but religious and political institutions have shown themselves to be far too crooked, covering up bribery, scandals, liars, pedophiles, rapists, drug dealers and more”. Therefore, according to your viewpoint, every single religious or political institution is “crooked”, filled with “bribery, scandals, liars, pedophiles, rapists, drug dealers and more.” A bit closed-minded, don’t you think? I know several million church-goers who would disagree with you.

  Your argument makes no sense whatsoever to me only on the grounds that I find monitoring without suspecting criminal activity an invasion of privacy in and of itself. If you support unwarranted monitoring, but not invasion of privacy, then please, tell us: in what situation is the monitoring of innocent citizens without cause not an invasion of privacy?

  In regards to the freedom of information, you state: “I still can go request any information about anything under the Freedom of Information Act.” Certainly, sir, you are correct. However, under the current conservative administration, the time tables for submitting said information to citizens have become, shall we say, a bit blurred. For example, in 2005 the FBI was issued a court order to release information related to the government’s use of PATRIOT Act powers to the Electronic Privacy Information Center. As of April 2007, those documents have not been submitted as per the court order.

  If you read the Freedom of Information Act, you will find that it guarantees requested information to be submitted within 20 working days of the request. Therefore, practically speaking, you can simply “request information about anything” by using the Act- you’re just not guaranteed receipt.

  Regarding new limitations on free speech, you state: “That’s called obstruction of justice. We prosecute citizens for revealing things about trials before the courts, why should librarians be exempt? Should we allow them to inform terrorists when the government is on their trail? So what if the government subpoenas information from a library. Who has something to hide?”

  Once again, you seem to completely ignore the fact that this is a gross invasion of the privacy of law abiding citizens. It is on this topic, the invasion of privacy, where you display your blatant over-trust of the government. Certainly, a librarian that is “inform[ing] terrorists” would be guilty of obstruction of justice. But this is one of the gargantuan holes in the PATRIOT act: we are to trust the government that the information being sought IS related to a terror investigation. Perhaps you are content with this altruistic viewpoint, but I, however, am not in the least.

  As always, your views make sense only when analyzed in the context of terrorism, the red herring of the conservative mind. When applied to more common real-world situations, American citizens (not non-citizens, as you argued) are losing the very liberty that the country was founded upon.

  And, speaking of the founding of the country, you state: “too many selfish people in America don’t give a damn about securing our borders, preserving our heritage, maintaining a strong defense, and all the things that if we did would allow us to live with fewer laws.” First of all, that statement is an inherent contradiction in terms. It could be rewritten: “too many selfish people in America don’t give a damn about making more laws, which if we did would allow us to live with fewer laws.” What? Which do you want? You can’t have both.

  Our heritage, sir, is that of immigration. EVERY SINGLE CITIZEN has ancestors who immigrated into America, with the exception of Native Americans.

  Preserve our heritage? Then please, return to Scotland or Ireland, from whence your ancestors came. You fail to realize that had Americans back then “secured our borders,” you wouldn’t be here, nor would America. Typical right-wing hypocrisy.

  Let me cover a few other small points:

  “[...] Guns are the only thing that preserve all our other rights, and it is foolish to think otherwise.” All other rights? Perhaps you should read the Bill of Rights a bit more carefully before you quote the so-called “Right to Bear Arms:

  “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Yes- the Right to Bear Arms IN A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA.

  Examples? United States v. Cruikshank, 1875. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “is not a right granted by the Constitution.”

  That view was confirmed by Pressner v. Illinois, in which the Supreme Court states: “The Second Amendment does not apply to Individuals not enrolled in a Regulated Militia.” Liberals are not plotting to take away any Right to Bear Arms; on the contrary, conservatives are trying to invent it.

  “While I do not like measures the conservatives have passed to fight terrorism, they are only necessary because liberals have sold us out to foreign interests [...]”

  Under which administration have we seen the highest rate of occupational outsourcing? That’s funny, I don’t remember it being Clinton.

  “We wouldn’t have had the difficult time we have had in Iraq had Clinton not chopped our military up after he took office.”

  Correction: We wouldn’t have had the difficult time we have had in Iraq had we had legitimate reasons for going there in the first place. Has every conservative forgotten about the huge stores of WMD’s Iraq was supposed to have? I’m sure more than 28% of the country would support the war if those weapons were found. But, due to conservative intelligence (an oxymoron in itself) we no longer have the resources to attack “fascists, communists, Islamic terrorists, narco-terrorists, or any other enemy” such as North Korea or Iran, both of which actually DO have WMD’s.

  And let’s not even mention Osama bin Laden. Where is he, anyway? I’m sure we’d know by now had we not stopped searching to attack Iraq.

  And finally, back to the initial matter of debate: Cho. “I wonder if—like her [lunawolf]—you believe that the young woman who failed to press charges against Cho when she reported he was stalking her has any culpability for the deaths of those students at Virginia Tech?”

  There are a great many separate issues that led to the horrific events at VT. If that young woman had pressed charges, he certainly wouldn’t have been able to perform the shooting at such an early date. It probably would have been 2008. Maybe even 2009. Damn that girl.

  Your logic is the same used by those who believe that auto manufacturers can be sued over car accidents. There is only ONE PERSON responsible for the actions of Cho, and that is Cho himself. Perhaps we should blame the girl instead. Or maybe the gun makers. Perhaps we should blame the concept of a University in the first place, for putting so many people so close together.

  Cowardice? No. It’s just another preposterous argument with no reasonable basis, as is most conservative babble.

  “Anti-terrorist measures aren’t harming anyone but immigrants and non-citizens, and frankly, because liberals have ignored that problem and are helping ruin our nation [...]”

  No, sir, the trouble is not liberals “ignoring” the problems, but in fact propaganda-driven conservative ignorance of the problems. And as I’m sure you can attest, ignorance is bliss.

  Have another blissful day.

• 21. Sean Wilson  |  May 8, 2007 at 6:34 pm

  Christopher, I would like to point out, in rebuttal, that you are wrong on several points. The first and most obvious being that I am a conservative, which I am not. Secondly, I do not put too much trust in the government—if you had read anything I have written, you would see that I have an inherent distrust of the government and its involvement in the lives of citizens.

  You mistake my belief that there are certain police powers which the government has long used in various forms in many aspects of our society which I feel the Patriot Act has merely made applicable to all aspects of society just the same.

  As to your millions of church-goers who are not guilty of such things as I listed, I commend them. But I know there are plenty who are guilty of them, and in any case, I did not suggest that all church-goers were, but rather that those institutions do in fact have people who are those things within them. Shall I point out the many examples of leaders of churches who sleep with prostitutes, do drugs, murder their wives, abuse women and children, rape young boys, embezzle money and mislead their congregations? You can find examples to add to the list daily on any news site. I suggest you turn on your TV or visit CNN.com if you have been living a sheltered life.

  As always, those with truly closed minds like to accuse people who point out misdeeds and wrongdoing of being wrong, especially if it is pointing out misdeeds and wrongdoings by those groups they are a part of or sympathetic to.

  You need to reread. I did not say every institution was those things, but made a general statement that applies to the lack of oversight and monitoring of said institutions. Name me a single religious denomination or political party that has not had its scandals and law-breakers and I shall be glad to exempt them from my comment. Why should we not monitor them? We already monitor other professions, ensure they are in compliance with government regulations and we require retail stores to comply with reporting large cash purchases in excess of specified amounts to help track down terrorists. What part of that do you think religious institutions and political parties should be exempt from?

  It is you who assumes that monitoring equates with spying. That is the ‘vast left-wing conspiracy’ theory anyway.

  As to the Freedom of Information Act request you mention, it has not been flatly denied, now has it? It is a matter in litigation, is it not? The matter has not been concluded. Even the government has a right to challenge things in court, but then, I guess you don’t feel that the government has any such right as an entity, do you? Remember, the government represents We The People, not You The Person, nor even They The Liberal Organization In An Uproar. Complain when the litigation is done and the law has been violated, not while compliance is in litigation. You’re putting the cart before the horse.

  I have read the Freedom of Information Act, by the way, and I know that it contains the following:

  The exemptions authorize federal agencies to withhold information covering: (1) classified national defense and foreign relations information; (2) internal agency rules and practices; (3) information that is prohibited from disclosure by another federal law; (4) trade secrets and other confidential business information; (5) inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges; (6) info