As stretches go, this is one of the longer ones. GoodbyeKen has posted an article saying that Ken Cuccinelli was somehow responsible for the massacre at Virginia Tech because he opposed attempts to regulate private firearms transfers at gun shows. SB 807 (in the 2005 session) had absolutely nothing at all to do with the manner in which the crazed lunatic who committed this outrage obtained his firearms, and even had Cho tried to obtain a firearm at a gun show under the regulations that SB 807 imposed, he would not have been denied.
I can understand that there are some who view any opportunity to impose restrictions on the possession, transfer, or use of firearms as an imperative. It might be an uninformed view to hold, but not everyone out there has experience in this subject. Nevertheless, it would be refreshing for those linking cause and effect to at least be able to follow the wording of the law, and be able to apply the circumstances accurately. This kind of call for more gun control, as if those with evil intentions will ever be dissuaded from committing their atrocities by just one more gun law, actually harms us. For whenever we think that more restrictions on liberty will prevent evil, we’re just showing how little we understand those who founded our nation. It’s too bad ignorance isn’t more painful.
Cho didn’t buy a firearm at a gun show. The firearms he did purchase were transferred to him from a licensed firearms dealer, who complied with the National Instance Check System. Cho passed that background check, and unless we start talking about stripping everyone who has received outpatient mental health services of their gun rights, this discussion is entirely inane.
Perhaps such an idea might appeal to some, who might find such a notion consistent with their imperatives, but I’d hope they don’t rush too quickly into supporting such an idea. Consider the scenario of a single mother who loses her child, who seeks assistance in dealing with such a terrible tragedy. After news coverage of her tragedy, she starts attracting stalkers, and after learning that there’s really no way for the police to provide her with round-the-clock protection for an indefinite period, she seeks to obtain effective means for her own defense. Would gun control advocates, who typically describe themselves as socially conscious progressives, want to endanger folks such as this? I can’t imagine even the progressive crowd wanting to sacrifice the vulnerable on the altar of their gun control dogma.
But maybe we’re going to have to wait and see about this. Given how hard the gun control crowd is trying to cram their square peg of an agenda into the round hold of the circumstances surrounding the Virginia Tech tragedy, perhaps anything is possible. They’re stretching pretty far already.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.