[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Bush is a hypocrite. The man that could not find time to go to a single funeral of the 3000+ soldiers killed by his lies, the man that refuses to allow pictures of flag-draped coffins coming home on transports, all of a sudden is filled with compassion? Carnage that hurts you politically is ignored or covered up. Carnage that doesn’t hurt you politically is a photo op.
[/QUOTE]
Better grounds for a pitting, I think. The speech was blah, but since G-Dub (I’ve heard he actually prefers his gangsta name) never has any direct involvement with the words that come out of his mouth, I’m inclined to give him a pass, especially since this is a classic “damned if you do…” situation. People are being flamed right now in this forum for using this tragedy to advance one side or another of the gun debate (and that’s the beauty of it – guns can solve all the problems they create and vice-versa – so the debate can circle around forever), and now Bush is being excoriated for not doing so, even though his side is opposed, presumably, to the OP’s. The hell of it is, Bush’s statement is right. National policy should not be forged in the heat of emotion generated by an especially loud and photogenic but nonetheless exceptional event. I hope I live long enough to see Bush in the dock at The Hague looking very unhappy at the results of his trial, but this (the OP) is very small potatoes.
[QUOTE=LouisB]
What are we trying to pin on him other than the fact that this was, for him, a photo op and a chance to show his (phony) compassion?
[/QUOTE]
And had he not shown up he’d get ripped for that, and you’d be saying he was insensitive and didn’t care about gun violence.
Nothing he would have done would have been satisfactory. Which of course is what one would expect, unless Bush is capable of raising the dead or reversing the course of time.
[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
You know what? I’m tired. I really am. So I will concede that we need more gun laws because all of them, upwards of 25,000 of them, are lax, and not a single one of them is a reasonable restriction on a Constitutional right. Now, if you would kindly except my reasonable restriction on your 1st Amendment right and be quiet, all will be well. Thank you.
[/QUOTE]
You know what I’m tired of? I’m tired of hearing this “there are already 73,897,432 gun laws, and isn’t that enough already?” bullcrap. Because without an inventory of what these laws are, where they apply, and what they do, the sheer number of them is meaningless.
How a number of laws in existence can somehow mean something other than that we live in a complex society with lots of states and counties and towns and stuff that all pass laws and ordinances, I don’t know.
[QUOTE=aldiboronti]
Where others see tragedy, horror, national mourning, JonScribe sees an opportunity to bait Bush. What the fuck, man, have you no sense at all of the inappropriate?
[/QUOTE]
I do. And you’ll find it here, in glorious abundance!
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Could the fact that the investigation didn’t reveal the long-term concerns of…well…practically everyone who knew him…and didn’t prevent him from buying the gun used to kill 32 people…be considered evidence of “lax gun laws”?
[/QUOTE]
Nah. No more than two emotionally disturbed teenagers in Littleton, CO, managing to amass a small arsenal of automatic weapons and high explosives without any responsible adult finding out about it.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Bush is a hypocrite. The man that could not find time to go to a single funeral of the 3000+ soldiers killed by his lies, the man that refuses to allow pictures of flag-draped coffins coming home on transports, all of a sudden is filled with compassion? Carnage that hurts you politically is ignored or covered up. Carnage that doesn’t hurt you politically is a photo op.
[/QUOTE]
This was not a funeral, was it? It was a convocation, more of a memorial service.
Funerals are far more private, and typically are reserved for family and close friends.
Now, there are memorial services for the military dead, and President Bush does attend these.
[QUOTE=furlibusea]
I don’t like Bush, and most any word I hear coming out of his mouth grates on my last nerve, but I can’t fault him at all for this speach. He is The President. It is expected that he talk about situations where dozens of people died. If you have ever tried to comfort someone who has lost a loved one, you know there is nothing to say. Everything that comes out will be inane, yet you still have to as part of human decency. While I often think his human decency is more of a “played one on TV.” kind of thing, he was doing his job in difficult circumstances, and I am not sure anyone could have done it better.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t disagree. However, many of us have long ago tired of his mealy mouthed incomprehensibility, his smirky smarminess, and his seeming lack of real human emotion, and we feel that we can’t trust anything that comes out of his mouth. Now, even when he is attempting to convey a genuine sentiment, he is fighting against his past reputation. It is a lesson indeed in integrity. Bill Clinton learned that mistake to his own detriment after the Starr investigation. Bush, who evidently cannot remember the past, is clearly condemned to repeat it.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
You know what I’m tired of? I’m tired of hearing this “there are already 73,897,432 gun laws, and isn’t that enough already?” bullcrap. Because without an inventory of what these laws are, where they apply, and what they do, the sheer number of them is meaningless.
How a number of laws in existence can somehow mean something other than that we live in a complex society with lots of states and counties and towns and stuff that all pass laws and ordinances, I don’t know.
[/QUOTE]
Discussing this in the context of Virginia is probably appropriate.
Virginia is simultaneously one of the most lenient states for law abiding firearms owners and one of the toughest for those who violate firearms law. Getting guns is simple, open carry is permitted without a permit, and concealed carry isn’t terribly restrictive.
At the same time, gun crimes are prosecuted vigorously. The Virginia Exile program provides a mandatory five year prison term for illegally owning a firearm after previously being convicted of a felony, having the gun on school grounds with the intent to use it or displaying it threateningly, or possessing a gun along with Schedule I or II drugs, or with a quantity of pot that shows an intent to sell. Many gun crimes, especially in the Richmond area, are prosecuted in federal courts for the express purpose of making gun crimes undesirable for the criminal - a program called Project Exile that became a model for others in the country.
Personally, I like this emphasis. I like the fact that as a hunter and target shooter, I’ll be left alone. I similarly like the fact that the guns that criminals have are a target for prosecutors and police. It seems like a good balance to me.
Someone might have ripped him for not showing up but it certainly wouldn’t have been me. I much prefer Bush to stay right where he is for the time he has left in office; I don’t want him wandering around where he might get the citizenry into more trouble. As to him being insensitive, that’s obvious to me: He is insensitive; where was his sensitivity while he was signing 150+ death warrants as governor of Texas?
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Virginia is simultaneously one of the most lenient states for law abiding firearms owners and one of the toughest for those who violate firearms law.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting. Have you never considered shutting the barn door before the horse gets out?
[QUOTE=Sailboat]
Isn’t a real, non-rubber-stamp background investigation supposed to uncover things like “everyone you know thinks you’re unstable and might be a school shooter…the police have investigated you”?
[/QUOTE]
How do you propose this should work? Should everyone who wants to buy a gun give up a list of acquaintances who can be asked, “So are you, like, afraid of this person?”
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Interesting. Have you never considered shutting the barn door before the horse gets out?
[/QUOTE]
A closed barn will not necessarily stop a horse thief; if a person wants a gun badly enough, a gun will be available legally or otherwise. Same with drugs, same with hookers: Buying either one is illegal but both are readily available.
[QUOTE=Lord Ashtar]
How do you propose this should work? Should everyone who wants to buy a gun give up a list of acquaintances who can be asked, “So are you, like, afraid of this person?”
[/QUOTE]
A system in place that affords mandatory psychological evaluations for people when there is a reasonable fear they may pose a threat to themselves or others would be a good starting point.
Routine psyche screening as a requirement for purchasing a gun would be another good place to start. Sure, it would mean the end of convenient “instant” background checks – but how frequently do you have need of a handgun in the next five minutes?
It seems the boy was a clearly disturbed individual, in a Gary Larson “Nature’s Way of Saying ‘Don’t Touch!’” kind of way. It was too easy for him to arm himself, given the level of existing concern about him; it’s not as though there was no warning here.
[QUOTE=Larry Mudd]
A system in place that affords mandatory psychological evaluations for people when there is a reasonable fear they may pose a threat to themselves or others would be a good starting point.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, yeah. This will work. :rolleyes:
Just who is going to be doing the defining here? What if I, as a representative of the State, decided that you, as a registered Republican, pose a danger to others? Not to mention the violation of the civil rights of any of the people someone “fears” will “do something.”
See above, and add “violation of personal privacy, violation of patient/doctor confidentiality (probably), and a host of other violations of civil rights.” Was this dude disturbed? Certainly. Had there been a single legal restriction placed on him? No. At what point do you stop once you start running psych tests on people? When the CDC decides that not liking brocolli is a “deviation?”
[QUOTE=Larry Mudd]
A system in place that affords mandatory psychological evaluations for people when there is a reasonable fear they may pose a threat to themselves or others would be a good starting point.
[/quote]
How should a gun retailer determine where there is a “reasonable fear they may pose a threat”? It’s not like they all wander around muttering under their breath, “I’ll kill them all. Everyone one of them. They’ll be sorry they ever fucked with me. Dead motherfuckers.”
Wrong place, wrong time. Yeah, they were all supposed to in Iraq for their Slaughter-by-Presidential-Decree. They can’t be used as martyrs to the neo-con cause this way. You can almost hear him thinking “What a waste of some fine free vote-garnering media attention.”
[QUOTE=LouisB]
A closed barn will not necessarily stop a horse thief; if a person wants a gun badly enough, a gun will be available legally or otherwise. Same with drugs, same with hookers: Buying either one is illegal but both are readily available.
[/QUOTE]
Nevertheless, in countries that have strict gun-control regimes, such as the UK or Japan, there seem to be very few guns on the streets and very few gun crimes, compared with the U.S.
