Quote:
Originally Posted by cmbdiesel
Please do yourself a favor, and read the laws, not just the wiki explanation.
There is no mention of the word felon in the law, the wording - 'is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year'.
Furthermore, it is unlawful to purchase firearms if - '...has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution'.
Do you have a concealed carry permit, and if not, why? If it will make you feel safer, go get one. What you are advocating is just as much an imposition on people's rights as the folks saying take away the guns. I don't want the government telling teachers they need to take swat training, or telling private institutions that they must place weapons in their facilities, or even that they must allow weapons on their grounds. If you don't want to go to a university because you are afraid of getting shot, don't go. It is not the governments place to force guns on people any more than it is their place to take them away.
|
now that you bring it up, the word "government" means "to control". that is what government does, it is a "governor" or "controller". I agree with your statement, "
I don't want the government telling teachers they need to take swat training, or telling private institutions that they must place weapons in their facilities, or even that they must allow weapons on their grounds". however, aren't the teachers being denied the right to have a gun in the classroom? therefore, the teachers and students are being controlled (told what to do), aren't they?
in this case, the government hasn't denied the teachers at Virginia Tech the right to have a gun in the classrom, the Universities' Policies prohibit it. therefore the teachers and the students are being "controlled" because they have voluntarily submitted to the school's policies. no one is forcing these people to teach or take classes at the University, so the teachers and students are choosing to be "voluntarily controlled" (now that term seems like an oxymoron to me.....but that's another discussion).
since you appear to have a better understanding of the "law" than myself, perhaps you might care to explain how Cho waltzed into a gun store and loaded up on guns and ammo. apparently he sailed right through the back ground check (as in the purchase he made was LEGAL), didn't he? the "law" seems to have failed us all, didn't it counselor?
my question is, if a "Cho incident" happened once, is it possible for it to happen again? there isn't enough ink and paper to write enough "law" to protect the public from the Cho's of this world.
there is a misconception that the Chos of this world are stupid. many score very high in the IQ department. I"ve had discussions with law enforcement that confirms this fact. they are anything but dumb, however that doesn't mean they are stable.
however, it appears that you have your mind made up concerning this issue so it just isn't worth carrying this discussion any further......