Some impressive thoughts by a Korean War Veteran regarding the United States Marine Corps:
http://www.kmike.com/Haditha.htm
Monday, April 30, 2007
Friday, April 27, 2007
Gun Owners of America
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm
SO WHAT DOES HR 297 DO?
HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]. If you are thinking, "Oh, I've never committed a felony, so this bill won't affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun rights than ever before.
Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous "crime"?
Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).
HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the NICS system.
But, of course, Representatives Dingell and McCarthy tell us that we need HR 297 to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like we had on Virginia Tech. Oh really?
Then why, after passing all of their gun control, do countries like Canada and Germany still have school shootings? Even the infamous schoolyard massacre which occurred in Ireland in 1997 took place in a country that, at that time, had far more stringent gun controls than we do.
Where has gun control made people safer? Certainly not in Washington, DC, nor in Great Britain, nor in any other place that has enacted a draconian gun ban.
HR 297 TALKING POINTS
Regarding Cho's evil actions last Monday at Virginia Tech, you need to understand three things:
1. If a criminal is a danger to himself and society, then he should not be on the street. If he is, then there's no law (or background check for that matter) that will stop him from getting a gun and acting out the evil that is in his heart. (Remember that Washington, DC and England have not stopped bad guys from getting guns!) So why wasn't Cho in the criminal justice system? Why was he allowed to intermix with other college students? The justice system frequently passes off thugs to psychologists who then let them slip through their fingers and back into society -- where they are free to rape, rob and murder.
2. Background checks DO NOT ULTIMATELY STOP criminals and mental wackos from getting guns. This means that people who are initially denied firearms at a gun store can still buy one illegally and commit murder if they are so inclined -- such as Benjamin Smith did in 1999 (when he left the gun store where he was denied a firearm, bought guns on the street, and then committed his racist rampage less than a week later).
NOTE: In the first five years that the Brady Law was in existence, there were reportedly only three illegal gun buyers who were sent to jail. That is why in 1997, a training manual produced by Handgun Control, Inc., guided its activists in how to answer a question regarding the low number of convictions under the Brady Law. The manual basically says, when you are asked why so few people are being sent to jail under Brady, just ignore the question and go on the attack. [See http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm -- GOF's Gun Control Fact Sheet.]
3. Background checks threaten to prevent INNOCENT Americans like you from exercising your right to own a gun for self-defense. No doubt you are familiar with the countless number of times that the NICS system has erroneously blocked honest Americans from buying a gun, or have heard about the times that the NICS computer system has crashed for days at a time, thus preventing all sales nationwide -- and effectively shutting down every weekend gun show.
Perhaps the most pernicious way of denying the rights of law-abiding gun owners is to continuously add more and more gun owners' names onto the roles of prohibited persons. Clinton did this with many military veterans in 1999. And Congress did this in 1996, when Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) successfully pushed a gun ban for people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or merely yelling at a family member. Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans can never again own guns for self-defense. HR 297 will make it easier for the FBI to find out who these people are and to deny firearms to them.
GOA has documented other problems with this bill in the past. Last January we pointed out how this bill will easily lend itself to bureaucratic "fishing expeditions" into your private records, including your financial, employment, and hospital records.
HR 297 takes us the wrong direction. The anti-gun Rep. Dingell is trying to sell the bill to the gun owning public as an improvement in the Brady Law. But don't be fooled!
The best improvement would be to repeal the law and end the "gun free zones" that keep everyone defenseless and disarmed -- except for the bad guys.
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm
SO WHAT DOES HR 297 DO?
HR 297 provides, in the form of grants, about $1 billion to the states to send more names to the FBI for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS]. If you are thinking, "Oh, I've never committed a felony, so this bill won't affect me," then you had better think again. If this bill becomes law, you and your adult children will come closer to losing your gun rights than ever before.
Are you, or is anyone in your family, a veteran who has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress? If so, then you (and they) can probably kiss your gun rights goodbye. In 1999, the Department of Veterans Administration turned over 90,000 names of veterans to the FBI for inclusion into the NICS background check system. These military veterans -- who are some of the most honorable citizens in our society -- can no longer buy a gun. Why? What was their heinous "crime"?
Their "crime" was suffering from stress-related symptoms that often follow our decent men and women who have served their country overseas and fought the enemy in close combat. For all their patriotism, the Clinton administration deemed them as mentally "incompetent," sent their names for inclusion in the NICS system, and they are now prohibited from owning guns under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4).
HR 297 would make sure that more of these names are included in the NICS system.
But, of course, Representatives Dingell and McCarthy tell us that we need HR 297 to stop future Seung-Hui Chos from getting a gun and to prevent our nation from seeing another shooting like we had on Virginia Tech. Oh really?
Then why, after passing all of their gun control, do countries like Canada and Germany still have school shootings? Even the infamous schoolyard massacre which occurred in Ireland in 1997 took place in a country that, at that time, had far more stringent gun controls than we do.
Where has gun control made people safer? Certainly not in Washington, DC, nor in Great Britain, nor in any other place that has enacted a draconian gun ban.
HR 297 TALKING POINTS
Regarding Cho's evil actions last Monday at Virginia Tech, you need to understand three things:
1. If a criminal is a danger to himself and society, then he should not be on the street. If he is, then there's no law (or background check for that matter) that will stop him from getting a gun and acting out the evil that is in his heart. (Remember that Washington, DC and England have not stopped bad guys from getting guns!) So why wasn't Cho in the criminal justice system? Why was he allowed to intermix with other college students? The justice system frequently passes off thugs to psychologists who then let them slip through their fingers and back into society -- where they are free to rape, rob and murder.
2. Background checks DO NOT ULTIMATELY STOP criminals and mental wackos from getting guns. This means that people who are initially denied firearms at a gun store can still buy one illegally and commit murder if they are so inclined -- such as Benjamin Smith did in 1999 (when he left the gun store where he was denied a firearm, bought guns on the street, and then committed his racist rampage less than a week later).
NOTE: In the first five years that the Brady Law was in existence, there were reportedly only three illegal gun buyers who were sent to jail. That is why in 1997, a training manual produced by Handgun Control, Inc., guided its activists in how to answer a question regarding the low number of convictions under the Brady Law. The manual basically says, when you are asked why so few people are being sent to jail under Brady, just ignore the question and go on the attack. [See http://www.gunowners.org/fs0404.htm -- GOF's Gun Control Fact Sheet.]
3. Background checks threaten to prevent INNOCENT Americans like you from exercising your right to own a gun for self-defense. No doubt you are familiar with the countless number of times that the NICS system has erroneously blocked honest Americans from buying a gun, or have heard about the times that the NICS computer system has crashed for days at a time, thus preventing all sales nationwide -- and effectively shutting down every weekend gun show.
Perhaps the most pernicious way of denying the rights of law-abiding gun owners is to continuously add more and more gun owners' names onto the roles of prohibited persons. Clinton did this with many military veterans in 1999. And Congress did this in 1996, when Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) successfully pushed a gun ban for people who have committed very minor offenses that include pushing, shoving or merely yelling at a family member. Because of the Lautenberg gun ban, millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans can never again own guns for self-defense. HR 297 will make it easier for the FBI to find out who these people are and to deny firearms to them.
GOA has documented other problems with this bill in the past. Last January we pointed out how this bill will easily lend itself to bureaucratic "fishing expeditions" into your private records, including your financial, employment, and hospital records.
HR 297 takes us the wrong direction. The anti-gun Rep. Dingell is trying to sell the bill to the gun owning public as an improvement in the Brady Law. But don't be fooled!
The best improvement would be to repeal the law and end the "gun free zones" that keep everyone defenseless and disarmed -- except for the bad guys.
Another "Good Deal" For My Fellow Citizens or Think Twice If The Government Is Doing It FOR You
These were the lead four paragraphs of a New York Times article.
I wish to point out that the "federal watch lists" to be used are the same federal watch lists that have caused all kinds of problems for innocent and unsuspecting air travelers whose names are listed as a "suspect".
Since this federal watch list was put together after the 9-11 catastrophe many innocent people have spent many hours trying to prove they are not the person named in the list. Some of those travelers affected have been very young, some have been very old and even had proven service to their country, but all were upset and wrongfully accused while attempting to catch an airline flight. If I remember correctly, some were even politicians.
There is no innocent until proven guilty if you are on the "federal watch list". You will have to prove your innocence first and since it is a government list, the appeal takes a lot of time energy and money.
I am at a loss to see how the last two paragraphs I provided from the article relate to the fight against terrorism.
It more seems to relate to firearms control against citizens of this country. Terrorists are more likely to be found in a garden center purchasing large quantities of fertilizer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Written by By MICHAEL LUO, for The New York Times and published: April 27, 2007
U.S. Proposal Could Block Gun Buyers Tied to Terror
Legislation would give the attorney general discretion to bar terrorism suspects from buying firearms, seeking to close a gap in federal gun laws.
WASHINGTON, April 26 — The Justice Department proposed legislation on Thursday that would give the attorney general discretion to bar terrorism suspects from buying firearms, seeking to close a gap in federal gun laws.
The measure, which was introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, would give the attorney general authority to deny a firearm purchase if the buyer was found “to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism.”
Suspects on federal watch lists can now legally buy firearms in the United States if background checks do not turn up any standard prohibitions for gun buyers, which include felony convictions, illegal immigration status or involuntary commitments for mental illness.
I wish to point out that the "federal watch lists" to be used are the same federal watch lists that have caused all kinds of problems for innocent and unsuspecting air travelers whose names are listed as a "suspect".
Since this federal watch list was put together after the 9-11 catastrophe many innocent people have spent many hours trying to prove they are not the person named in the list. Some of those travelers affected have been very young, some have been very old and even had proven service to their country, but all were upset and wrongfully accused while attempting to catch an airline flight. If I remember correctly, some were even politicians.
There is no innocent until proven guilty if you are on the "federal watch list". You will have to prove your innocence first and since it is a government list, the appeal takes a lot of time energy and money.
I am at a loss to see how the last two paragraphs I provided from the article relate to the fight against terrorism.
It more seems to relate to firearms control against citizens of this country. Terrorists are more likely to be found in a garden center purchasing large quantities of fertilizer.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Written by By MICHAEL LUO, for The New York Times and published: April 27, 2007
U.S. Proposal Could Block Gun Buyers Tied to Terror
Legislation would give the attorney general discretion to bar terrorism suspects from buying firearms, seeking to close a gap in federal gun laws.
WASHINGTON, April 26 — The Justice Department proposed legislation on Thursday that would give the attorney general discretion to bar terrorism suspects from buying firearms, seeking to close a gap in federal gun laws.
The measure, which was introduced by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, would give the attorney general authority to deny a firearm purchase if the buyer was found “to be or have been engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism.”
Suspects on federal watch lists can now legally buy firearms in the United States if background checks do not turn up any standard prohibitions for gun buyers, which include felony convictions, illegal immigration status or involuntary commitments for mental illness.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Gun Free Zones
Here is an interesting site: http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/02/gun-free-zones-and-mass-shootings.html
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
A Well Prepared News Story
In police terminology, the story presented below is about an emotionally disturbed person (EDP). Every day police officers interact with EDPs, in each and every state. Each year, police officers are injured or killed by EDPs. I remember one in the news who was 86 years old when he shot and killed two police officers who were giving him a ride home after his vehicle died at the side of the road.
EDPs do not act or react like more normal people, but they can be extremely dangerous.
Many homeless are EDPs, but not all. Even those in the military or going to college can be or become EDPs.
Without citizen complaints, Florida police officers can only "Baker Act" or involuntarily commit a person who says they are going to harm themselves or others. I do not know the requirements in other states.
Whether Seung-Hui Cho is mentally ill or only emotionally disturbed is somewhat past my training as a police officer. He certainly had the ability to plan his crime down to the details of chaining doors shut. I also believed he understood what he had done as he committed suicide to avoid punishment.
As long as that type of person is alive in society, there is no way to prevent him or her from killing innocent and unarmed victims.
However, if there are armed victims under attack, they have the ability to respond and at the least possibly derail the plans of the attacker.
As a police officer, I know that people are the ones who kill people.
Va. Tech anguishes over missed signals
By ADAM GELLER, AP National Writer (Yahoo News @ Yahoo.com)
BLACKSBURG, Va. - The student slouched into his chair, his face wrapped in sunglasses, the brim of his baseball cap pulled down so low his eyes were almost lost. The Virginia Tech professor who took a seat across from him did so because there didn't really seem to be any other option.
But in three, hour-long talks that began that October day, Lucinda Roy tentatively edged away from the lesson plan for her class of one, moving beyond poetry and drawing the darkly troubled student, Seung-Hui Cho, into a tortured and all-too-brief conversation about the human need for friendship and the pain of being trapped inside oneself.
Looking back, it may have been the closest anyone ever came to reaching the brooding loner before he metamorphosed into the gunman responsible for the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
But soon after their meetings in 2005, Roy — who alerted university officials with her fears about the student and tried to get him into counseling — lost touch with Cho. The semester ended. She went on leave. They exchanged e-mails once or twice. Then nothing.
It is only now that she asks herself: What if ...?
Roy has wrestled with that question endlessly in the past few days. And it is a variation of the one that now haunts this quarrystone campus and mountain town, an aching doubt that grows with each new revelation of missed signals and miscalculations, twists of fate and legal loopholes, and what appear increasingly like a series of lost opportunities to avert tragedy.
"That's a question I'll probably be asking myself the rest of my life," Roy says. "What else could I have done? Could I have done more? I think probably all of us could have done more."
In fact, it is not at all certain what might have stopped Cho from carrying out the rampage that left 32 people dead before he killed himself.
What has become clear is that at numerous points over the past year and a half, critical incidents took place that at least gave people around Cho — as well as administrators, police and mental health providers — the briefest windows into his state of mind, and perhaps chances to alter his path to destruction.
We wouldn't be human if we didn't second-guess ourselves. And there's probably no time when that is more true than after a tragedy unleashed by a fellow human being.
"I don't think at the time you could have said he's definitely going to shoot someone. But we had talked about he was likely to do that if there was someone that was going to do it," says Andy Koch a junior from Richmond, Va., who was Cho's suitemate last year.
"The first thing I thought of Monday was Seung ... and if that's the first thing you think about, there were definitely some things that we should have done," he says. But "I don't know what we could have done."
Many Virginia Tech students say that they do not want to second-guess, that they are content that university officials and those who came in contact with Cho did the best they could to prevent the tragedy.
But the story of the Virginia Tech massacre is a labyrinth of what-ifs. Many of them come with explanations any reasonable person would understand. There's just one problem with such explanations: They do nothing to explain the horror of the most unspeakable acts.
"We're all asking `what if,' and we all want to know why," says Fawn Price, a sophomore from Lebanon, Va. "But I don't think we're going to get the answers we need as soon as we need them."
There were signs, so many signs.
Or so it appears in hindsight. But the people in the position to do something and the systems we create to protect ourselves seemed ill-equipped to deal with Cho.
There was an opportunity when two female students called university police, soon after Roy began meeting with Cho. They were being hounded, they complained — there were repeated phone calls, instant messages, notes. They did not know Cho and did not want to know him.
Then, in December 2005, Koch called police to say that his suitemate seemed suicidal.
Officers went to speak with Cho. He was referred to the local mental health center, and then sent to a psychiatric care hospital.
Here was Cho, safely away from campus, in the arms of the mental health system. What if it had been possible to keep him there?
It didn't happen. A day or two later, he was released and returned to campus.
Virginia Tech officials say his care was out of their hands, and they could not know that he needed more help.
And what could they have done? When George Washington University and New York's Hunter College expelled students who appeared suicidal, the students sued.
Schools have to "balance the rights of students with the rights of the communities and with what parents want, and its not an easy thing to do," says Dr. Joanna Locke of the Jed Foundation, which works to prevent suicide and promote mental health among college students.
What about the mental health providers beyond campus who dealt directly with Cho? Couldn't they have done something?
Not unless Cho shared his morbid fantasies, and people like Cho almost never do, says Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychologist who has profiled mass murderers.
Cho "is not a person who fell through the cracks. He's a person who crawled into the cracks," Welner says.
If mental health providers couldn't follow him there, what if university police had pursued a case against him?
But that would have required the two female students to press stalking charges against Cho. And after speaking with Virginia Tech officers, the two women decided against it, police say.
Other female students said last week that they would almost certainly have made the same decision. Unusual behavior is not unusual on campus. No one wants to make trouble for others.
"Stalking happens on almost every campus across the country. It is a problem and people rarely know how to deal with it," says Michele Galietta, a clinical psychologist who is researching the treatment of stalkers.
"I think that's why sometimes officials are hesitant to take a heavy hand with it," she says. "Keep in mind that this guy (Cho) didn't threaten anyone. He did bizarre things."
But that hasn't stopped Galietta from mulling a whole series of what-ifs.
If the women had pursued a case, and if Cho had been convicted of stalking — rather than a misdemeanor charge of harassment — he would have entered the domain of the criminal justice system. If so, he might have served time and on release would have been assigned to a probation officer who could've have monitored his behavior. When he went to buy a gun, a criminal record would have prevented it, she says.
And that raises the emotionally charged question of Cho's access to guns.
What if firearms laws had been tougher?
The problem with that question is that, as easy as it is to buy a gun in a state like Virginia, a case can be made that Cho still shouldn't have made it through the net.
After Cho was evaluated at a psychiatric hospital in late 2005, a judge found that the student "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." That should have disqualified him from purchasing a gun under federal law, experts say.
But Virginia court officials insist that because the judge ordered only outpatient treatment — and did not commit Cho to a psychiatric hospital — they were not required to submit the information to be entered in the federal databases for background checks.
The thread that runs through nearly all the what-ifs at Virginia Tech is the most obvious and perhaps the most difficult to parse. What if the university police and administration had taken more decisive action, at any number of junctures?
That opens up a debate about whether Virginia Tech did enough to protect itself against threats from within.
There are many who are willing to accept school officials' word that they took all possible security measures to prevent what happened here. College police departments are just as well-trained and sophisticated as any city department and they take just as aggressive a stance in preventing violence, says Ray Thrower, head of security at Minnesota's Gustavus Adolphus College and president-elect of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators.
If anything, Virginia Tech — one of the first campus police departments in the country to win professional accreditation — exemplifies that argument.
But could that argument be missing the point?
The problem with Virginia Tech's policing — and with most other college's approach to security — runs deeper than training or resources or dedication, says S. Daniel Carter of Security on Campus Inc., a nonprofit watchdog group. The problem is mindset, he says.
On a campus, everyone is a big family — the administrators, the students, the faculty and the university's security officers.
As a result, "the tendency is to overlook or downplay potential problems," Carter says. "They don't want to think that their campus community members — their students — could be that dangerous."
Carter believes that mind-set was almost certainly a factor in how Virginia Tech officers handled — or mishandled — previous complaints about Cho. And it was clearly a factor in many of the things that went wrong early on a flurry-filled morning last Monday when a campus just stirring from its weekend slumber was shaken by gunfire, he says.
The dorm Cho chose for as his first target requires a magnetic card for entry. But students say they let each other into one another's dorms all the time. What if the security system had been more comprehensive?
When officers responded to a 911 call at West Ambler Johnston Hall and found the bodies of resident assistant Ryan Clark and freshman Emily Hilscher on the fourth floor, they began investigating the killings as a crime of domestic violence. The problem, Carter says, is that they even as they pursued that lead, investigators assumed as fact a theory that hadn't yet been proven.
What if they'd considered the possibility of shooter with a different profile, one who had no intention of stopping with two victims?
Administrators and police did not decide to lock down the campus and notify students of the violence taking place around them until the shootings that left 31 more people dead in Norris Hall. What if they'd acted sooner?
It is the last in a heart-rending series of what-ifs. Together, they weigh on the mind but not because it is essential to lay blame, or to find a culprit.
They matter because we need to understand. Because to know what, if anything could have been done differently, is the only means we have for squeezing a drop of reason, comfort or understanding from utter senselessness.
What if we had it all to do all over again? Would Reema Samaha have lived to dance once more? Would Michael Pohle still be here to don cap and gown this spring and clutch his diploma?
What if? Can there be anyone who hasn't asked themselves that question in recent days and not felt the ache of knowing it can never be adequately answered?
That is a feeling that Chris Flynn, director of Virginia Tech's mental health counseling center, is beginning to understand all too well.
What if? The question plays again and again through his head.
That, he says, is a question he'll ask "for the rest of my life."
Associated Press writers Allen G. Breed in Blacksburg and Matthew Barakat in McLean, Va., contributed to this report.
EDPs do not act or react like more normal people, but they can be extremely dangerous.
Many homeless are EDPs, but not all. Even those in the military or going to college can be or become EDPs.
Without citizen complaints, Florida police officers can only "Baker Act" or involuntarily commit a person who says they are going to harm themselves or others. I do not know the requirements in other states.
Whether Seung-Hui Cho is mentally ill or only emotionally disturbed is somewhat past my training as a police officer. He certainly had the ability to plan his crime down to the details of chaining doors shut. I also believed he understood what he had done as he committed suicide to avoid punishment.
As long as that type of person is alive in society, there is no way to prevent him or her from killing innocent and unarmed victims.
However, if there are armed victims under attack, they have the ability to respond and at the least possibly derail the plans of the attacker.
As a police officer, I know that people are the ones who kill people.
Va. Tech anguishes over missed signals
By ADAM GELLER, AP National Writer (Yahoo News @ Yahoo.com)
BLACKSBURG, Va. - The student slouched into his chair, his face wrapped in sunglasses, the brim of his baseball cap pulled down so low his eyes were almost lost. The Virginia Tech professor who took a seat across from him did so because there didn't really seem to be any other option.
But in three, hour-long talks that began that October day, Lucinda Roy tentatively edged away from the lesson plan for her class of one, moving beyond poetry and drawing the darkly troubled student, Seung-Hui Cho, into a tortured and all-too-brief conversation about the human need for friendship and the pain of being trapped inside oneself.
Looking back, it may have been the closest anyone ever came to reaching the brooding loner before he metamorphosed into the gunman responsible for the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history.
But soon after their meetings in 2005, Roy — who alerted university officials with her fears about the student and tried to get him into counseling — lost touch with Cho. The semester ended. She went on leave. They exchanged e-mails once or twice. Then nothing.
It is only now that she asks herself: What if ...?
Roy has wrestled with that question endlessly in the past few days. And it is a variation of the one that now haunts this quarrystone campus and mountain town, an aching doubt that grows with each new revelation of missed signals and miscalculations, twists of fate and legal loopholes, and what appear increasingly like a series of lost opportunities to avert tragedy.
"That's a question I'll probably be asking myself the rest of my life," Roy says. "What else could I have done? Could I have done more? I think probably all of us could have done more."
In fact, it is not at all certain what might have stopped Cho from carrying out the rampage that left 32 people dead before he killed himself.
What has become clear is that at numerous points over the past year and a half, critical incidents took place that at least gave people around Cho — as well as administrators, police and mental health providers — the briefest windows into his state of mind, and perhaps chances to alter his path to destruction.
We wouldn't be human if we didn't second-guess ourselves. And there's probably no time when that is more true than after a tragedy unleashed by a fellow human being.
"I don't think at the time you could have said he's definitely going to shoot someone. But we had talked about he was likely to do that if there was someone that was going to do it," says Andy Koch a junior from Richmond, Va., who was Cho's suitemate last year.
"The first thing I thought of Monday was Seung ... and if that's the first thing you think about, there were definitely some things that we should have done," he says. But "I don't know what we could have done."
Many Virginia Tech students say that they do not want to second-guess, that they are content that university officials and those who came in contact with Cho did the best they could to prevent the tragedy.
But the story of the Virginia Tech massacre is a labyrinth of what-ifs. Many of them come with explanations any reasonable person would understand. There's just one problem with such explanations: They do nothing to explain the horror of the most unspeakable acts.
"We're all asking `what if,' and we all want to know why," says Fawn Price, a sophomore from Lebanon, Va. "But I don't think we're going to get the answers we need as soon as we need them."
There were signs, so many signs.
Or so it appears in hindsight. But the people in the position to do something and the systems we create to protect ourselves seemed ill-equipped to deal with Cho.
There was an opportunity when two female students called university police, soon after Roy began meeting with Cho. They were being hounded, they complained — there were repeated phone calls, instant messages, notes. They did not know Cho and did not want to know him.
Then, in December 2005, Koch called police to say that his suitemate seemed suicidal.
Officers went to speak with Cho. He was referred to the local mental health center, and then sent to a psychiatric care hospital.
Here was Cho, safely away from campus, in the arms of the mental health system. What if it had been possible to keep him there?
It didn't happen. A day or two later, he was released and returned to campus.
Virginia Tech officials say his care was out of their hands, and they could not know that he needed more help.
And what could they have done? When George Washington University and New York's Hunter College expelled students who appeared suicidal, the students sued.
Schools have to "balance the rights of students with the rights of the communities and with what parents want, and its not an easy thing to do," says Dr. Joanna Locke of the Jed Foundation, which works to prevent suicide and promote mental health among college students.
What about the mental health providers beyond campus who dealt directly with Cho? Couldn't they have done something?
Not unless Cho shared his morbid fantasies, and people like Cho almost never do, says Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychologist who has profiled mass murderers.
Cho "is not a person who fell through the cracks. He's a person who crawled into the cracks," Welner says.
If mental health providers couldn't follow him there, what if university police had pursued a case against him?
But that would have required the two female students to press stalking charges against Cho. And after speaking with Virginia Tech officers, the two women decided against it, police say.
Other female students said last week that they would almost certainly have made the same decision. Unusual behavior is not unusual on campus. No one wants to make trouble for others.
"Stalking happens on almost every campus across the country. It is a problem and people rarely know how to deal with it," says Michele Galietta, a clinical psychologist who is researching the treatment of stalkers.
"I think that's why sometimes officials are hesitant to take a heavy hand with it," she says. "Keep in mind that this guy (Cho) didn't threaten anyone. He did bizarre things."
But that hasn't stopped Galietta from mulling a whole series of what-ifs.
If the women had pursued a case, and if Cho had been convicted of stalking — rather than a misdemeanor charge of harassment — he would have entered the domain of the criminal justice system. If so, he might have served time and on release would have been assigned to a probation officer who could've have monitored his behavior. When he went to buy a gun, a criminal record would have prevented it, she says.
And that raises the emotionally charged question of Cho's access to guns.
What if firearms laws had been tougher?
The problem with that question is that, as easy as it is to buy a gun in a state like Virginia, a case can be made that Cho still shouldn't have made it through the net.
After Cho was evaluated at a psychiatric hospital in late 2005, a judge found that the student "presents an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness." That should have disqualified him from purchasing a gun under federal law, experts say.
But Virginia court officials insist that because the judge ordered only outpatient treatment — and did not commit Cho to a psychiatric hospital — they were not required to submit the information to be entered in the federal databases for background checks.
The thread that runs through nearly all the what-ifs at Virginia Tech is the most obvious and perhaps the most difficult to parse. What if the university police and administration had taken more decisive action, at any number of junctures?
That opens up a debate about whether Virginia Tech did enough to protect itself against threats from within.
There are many who are willing to accept school officials' word that they took all possible security measures to prevent what happened here. College police departments are just as well-trained and sophisticated as any city department and they take just as aggressive a stance in preventing violence, says Ray Thrower, head of security at Minnesota's Gustavus Adolphus College and president-elect of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators.
If anything, Virginia Tech — one of the first campus police departments in the country to win professional accreditation — exemplifies that argument.
But could that argument be missing the point?
The problem with Virginia Tech's policing — and with most other college's approach to security — runs deeper than training or resources or dedication, says S. Daniel Carter of Security on Campus Inc., a nonprofit watchdog group. The problem is mindset, he says.
On a campus, everyone is a big family — the administrators, the students, the faculty and the university's security officers.
As a result, "the tendency is to overlook or downplay potential problems," Carter says. "They don't want to think that their campus community members — their students — could be that dangerous."
Carter believes that mind-set was almost certainly a factor in how Virginia Tech officers handled — or mishandled — previous complaints about Cho. And it was clearly a factor in many of the things that went wrong early on a flurry-filled morning last Monday when a campus just stirring from its weekend slumber was shaken by gunfire, he says.
The dorm Cho chose for as his first target requires a magnetic card for entry. But students say they let each other into one another's dorms all the time. What if the security system had been more comprehensive?
When officers responded to a 911 call at West Ambler Johnston Hall and found the bodies of resident assistant Ryan Clark and freshman Emily Hilscher on the fourth floor, they began investigating the killings as a crime of domestic violence. The problem, Carter says, is that they even as they pursued that lead, investigators assumed as fact a theory that hadn't yet been proven.
What if they'd considered the possibility of shooter with a different profile, one who had no intention of stopping with two victims?
Administrators and police did not decide to lock down the campus and notify students of the violence taking place around them until the shootings that left 31 more people dead in Norris Hall. What if they'd acted sooner?
It is the last in a heart-rending series of what-ifs. Together, they weigh on the mind but not because it is essential to lay blame, or to find a culprit.
They matter because we need to understand. Because to know what, if anything could have been done differently, is the only means we have for squeezing a drop of reason, comfort or understanding from utter senselessness.
What if we had it all to do all over again? Would Reema Samaha have lived to dance once more? Would Michael Pohle still be here to don cap and gown this spring and clutch his diploma?
What if? Can there be anyone who hasn't asked themselves that question in recent days and not felt the ache of knowing it can never be adequately answered?
That is a feeling that Chris Flynn, director of Virginia Tech's mental health counseling center, is beginning to understand all too well.
What if? The question plays again and again through his head.
That, he says, is a question he'll ask "for the rest of my life."
Associated Press writers Allen G. Breed in Blacksburg and Matthew Barakat in McLean, Va., contributed to this report.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Harry Reid, The New "Jane Fonda"
Taken from AL-JAZEERA.NET:
FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 2007
6:20 MECCA TIME, 3:20 GMT
Iraq war 'lost' says top Democrat
The US war in Iraq is lost and a further build-up of US troops in the country will not recover the situation, the senior Democrat in the US senate has said.
"This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Harry Reid, the senate Democratic majority leader, told reporters.
Reid, who held talks with George Bush on Wednesday, said he told the president that he thought the war could not be won through military force.
Only political, economic and diplomatic means could bring success, he said.
His comments came as the US defence secretary told Iraqi leaders that US support for the country was not an "open-ended commitment".
Robert Gates was speaking as he left Tel Aviv for his first visit to Iraq since the US decided to send an extra 30,000 troops to the country in what the Bush administration has labelled a troop surge.
On Wednesday at least 180 people were killed in a series of bombings in Baghdad, with one blast near a market killing more than 140 people – the deadliest single bomb attack in the capital since the US-led invasion in 2003.
On Thursday, the violence continued when a suicide car bomber rammed into a fuel truck, killing 12 people and injuring 24 others in the Jadiriya district of Baghdad.
Angry reaction
Reid's comments drew a swift response from the White House and an angry reaction from Republicans in congress who accused the senate majority leader of turning his back on US troops.
"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States senate has declared the war is lost,'' Senator Mitch McConnell, the senior Republican in the senate, said.
Reid's assessment of the situation in Iraq came before the House of Representatives voted 215-199 to uphold legislation ordering troops out of Iraq next year.
Bush did not directly address Reid's comments.
However, a White House spokeswoman quickly fired back that they were at odds with US military assessments of the two-month-old effort to quell sectarian violence in Iraq.
"If this is his true feeling, then it makes one wonder if he has the courage of his convictions and therefore will decide to defund the war," Dana Perino said as Bush called for his plan to be given time to work.
Funding row
Locked in a bitter row with Democrats over emergency war funding, Bush said that no crackdown could ever fully banish such attacks such as the ones that took place in Baghdad on Wednesday.
"If the definition of success in Iraq - or anywhere - is 'no suicide bombers', we'll never be successful," he told an audience at a high school in Tipp City, Ohio.
"I'm optimistic we can succeed. I wouldn't ask families to have their troops there if I didn't think, one, it was necessary, and two, we can succeed. I believe we're going to succeed," he said.
Democrats, who owe their control of the US congress to deep US public anger over the war, have tied timetables calling for a withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq in 2008 to a $100bn emergency war funding measure.
Bush, who has vowed to veto any measure with a deadline, warned on Thursday that "the very radicals and extremists who attack us would be emboldened" by a hasty US withdrawal, and violence could spread beyond Iraq's borders.
The version of the funding bill in the House of Representatives would pull US combat troops out by September 2008.
The senate version would begin getting US forces out in mid-2007 with the goal of having most of them withdrawn by March 31, 2008.
In my opinion, my fellow citizens, should join with me in demanding his resignation from the United states Senate immediately. This so much exceeds the exercise of free speech.
FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 2007
6:20 MECCA TIME, 3:20 GMT
Iraq war 'lost' says top Democrat
The US war in Iraq is lost and a further build-up of US troops in the country will not recover the situation, the senior Democrat in the US senate has said.
"This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week," Harry Reid, the senate Democratic majority leader, told reporters.
Reid, who held talks with George Bush on Wednesday, said he told the president that he thought the war could not be won through military force.
Only political, economic and diplomatic means could bring success, he said.
His comments came as the US defence secretary told Iraqi leaders that US support for the country was not an "open-ended commitment".
Robert Gates was speaking as he left Tel Aviv for his first visit to Iraq since the US decided to send an extra 30,000 troops to the country in what the Bush administration has labelled a troop surge.
On Wednesday at least 180 people were killed in a series of bombings in Baghdad, with one blast near a market killing more than 140 people – the deadliest single bomb attack in the capital since the US-led invasion in 2003.
On Thursday, the violence continued when a suicide car bomber rammed into a fuel truck, killing 12 people and injuring 24 others in the Jadiriya district of Baghdad.
Angry reaction
Reid's comments drew a swift response from the White House and an angry reaction from Republicans in congress who accused the senate majority leader of turning his back on US troops.
"I can't begin to imagine how our troops in the field, who are risking their lives every day, are going to react when they get back to base and hear that the Democrat leader of the United States senate has declared the war is lost,'' Senator Mitch McConnell, the senior Republican in the senate, said.
Reid's assessment of the situation in Iraq came before the House of Representatives voted 215-199 to uphold legislation ordering troops out of Iraq next year.
Bush did not directly address Reid's comments.
However, a White House spokeswoman quickly fired back that they were at odds with US military assessments of the two-month-old effort to quell sectarian violence in Iraq.
"If this is his true feeling, then it makes one wonder if he has the courage of his convictions and therefore will decide to defund the war," Dana Perino said as Bush called for his plan to be given time to work.
Funding row
Locked in a bitter row with Democrats over emergency war funding, Bush said that no crackdown could ever fully banish such attacks such as the ones that took place in Baghdad on Wednesday.
"If the definition of success in Iraq - or anywhere - is 'no suicide bombers', we'll never be successful," he told an audience at a high school in Tipp City, Ohio.
"I'm optimistic we can succeed. I wouldn't ask families to have their troops there if I didn't think, one, it was necessary, and two, we can succeed. I believe we're going to succeed," he said.
Democrats, who owe their control of the US congress to deep US public anger over the war, have tied timetables calling for a withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq in 2008 to a $100bn emergency war funding measure.
Bush, who has vowed to veto any measure with a deadline, warned on Thursday that "the very radicals and extremists who attack us would be emboldened" by a hasty US withdrawal, and violence could spread beyond Iraq's borders.
The version of the funding bill in the House of Representatives would pull US combat troops out by September 2008.
The senate version would begin getting US forces out in mid-2007 with the goal of having most of them withdrawn by March 31, 2008.
In my opinion, my fellow citizens, should join with me in demanding his resignation from the United states Senate immediately. This so much exceeds the exercise of free speech.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Another Politician Who Believes Laws Are For Anyone Else But Him
Governor Jon S. Corzine, New Jersey was recently seriously injured in an automobile accident in New Jersey.
It would seem that his vehicle, driven by a New Jersey State Trooper, was proceeding along at about 91 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour zone. According to news reports the governor's vehicle did have the emergency lights activated.
When a citizen tried to get out of the way, the citizen lost control of their vehicle which struck another vehicle with the ultimate result that one of the vehicles involved was Governor Corzine's vehicle.
Unbelievably, the head law enforcement officer of New Jersey was not wearing his seat belt. The Governor suffered some very serious injuries, injuries I suspect that would have been much reduced if he had his seat belt fastened in accordance with state law.
Recently, the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police unbelievably stated that if the trooper driving the vehicle was found to have contributed to the accident, he would receive some type of punishment.
As a start, doing 91 mph in a 65 mph zone must have contributed somewhat. The troopers failure to ensure (as required by law) that his passenger was buckled certainly contributed to the magnitude of injury.
On the other hand, is the trooper at fault when his passenger is his bosses' boss. The Governor of any State is the senior law enforcement officer of that state, sworn to uphold all laws.
This will be interesting to follow in the news. Perhaps the original citizen who was startled by the Governor will sue the Governor for damages caused by the Governor's misuse of his authority.
Since this can be seen as the result of misused authority the question is:
Who is paying the Governors medical bills and for vehicle repair or replacement.
It would seem that his vehicle, driven by a New Jersey State Trooper, was proceeding along at about 91 miles per hour in a 65 miles per hour zone. According to news reports the governor's vehicle did have the emergency lights activated.
When a citizen tried to get out of the way, the citizen lost control of their vehicle which struck another vehicle with the ultimate result that one of the vehicles involved was Governor Corzine's vehicle.
Unbelievably, the head law enforcement officer of New Jersey was not wearing his seat belt. The Governor suffered some very serious injuries, injuries I suspect that would have been much reduced if he had his seat belt fastened in accordance with state law.
Recently, the Superintendent of the New Jersey State Police unbelievably stated that if the trooper driving the vehicle was found to have contributed to the accident, he would receive some type of punishment.
As a start, doing 91 mph in a 65 mph zone must have contributed somewhat. The troopers failure to ensure (as required by law) that his passenger was buckled certainly contributed to the magnitude of injury.
On the other hand, is the trooper at fault when his passenger is his bosses' boss. The Governor of any State is the senior law enforcement officer of that state, sworn to uphold all laws.
This will be interesting to follow in the news. Perhaps the original citizen who was startled by the Governor will sue the Governor for damages caused by the Governor's misuse of his authority.
Since this can be seen as the result of misused authority the question is:
Who is paying the Governors medical bills and for vehicle repair or replacement.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Neither The University Nor the Killer Will Be At Fault
Posted on "InTheLineOfDuty.com" a police informational website:
Did Virginia Tech's Gun Ban Contribute To Massacre?
Tuesday, 17 April 2007
In light of the recent Trolley Square Shootings, which were brought to a quick end by an armed off-duty Ogden Police Officer, we can't help but wonder if the tragic Virginia Tech shootings could have been stopped much sooner if someone, anyone, in that campus building was armed.
While the State Of Virginia allows licensed law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, Virginia Tech forbids them on campus.
We unearthed this little gem, originally posted on April 13, 2005.
Would the chance of an armed response by faculty or students deter school shooters?
*************************************************************************************
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Virginia Tech's ban on guns may draw legal fire
Some people question whether the university has the authority to ban the carrying of firearms.
By Kevin Miller
From roanoke.com
BLACKSBURG - Virginia Tech's recent action against a student caught carrying a gun to class could draw unwanted attention from groups already angry about firearms restrictions on public college campuses.
University officials confirmed that, earlier this semester, campus police approached a student found to be carrying a concealed handgun to class. The unnamed student was not charged with any crimes because he holds a state-issued permit allowing him to carry a concealed gun. But the student could face disciplinary action from the university for violating its policy prohibiting "unauthorized possession, storage or control" of firearms on campus.
Tech spokesman Larry Hincker declined to release the student's name or specifics of the incident, citing rules protecting student confidentiality. But Hincker said Tech's ban on guns dates back several decades.
Students who violate the school policy could be called before the university's internal judicial affairs system, which has wide discretion in handing down penalties ranging from a reprimand to expulsion.
"I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom," Hincker said. "In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear."
Most public colleges in Virginia ban or restrict guns on campus. But the root of that authority is murky, according to some observers.
Virginia law already prohibits students or visitors from carrying guns onto the grounds of public and private K-12 schools. The state also prohibits concealed weapons in courthouses, places of worship during a service, jails and on any private property where the owner has posted a "no guns" notice. State employees are barred from possessing guns while at work unless needed for their job.
But Virginia code is silent on guns and public colleges. And two bills seeking to give college governing boards the authority to regulate firearms on campus died in committee during this year's General Assembly session.
David Briggman, a resident of Keezletown in Rockingham County, has made it his personal mission to challenge state colleges' authority to enact tougher gun restrictions than the state.
Briggman, who is a former police officer, said he forced Blue Ridge Community College to allow him to carry a gun onto campus while a student. And he sued James Madison University over its ban on concealed weapons even among permit holders. While JMU's policy still stands, Briggman said he has been told by campus police officials that they will not arrest visitors who carry a gun legally.
"It's extremely easy to challenge university policy by looking at ... whether they are given the statutory authority to regulate firearms on campus, and of course, they're not," Briggman said Tuesday.
Hincker, meanwhile, said it is not unusual for colleges to have more restrictive policies than the state. As an example, Hincker said certain chemicals and explosives that are legal on the outside are prohibited in the classroom or in dormitories for safety reasons.
"We think we have the right to adhere to and enforce that policy because, in the end, we think it's a common-sense policy for the protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors," Hincker said.
Virginia Tech also has the backing of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police. In a policy position paper dated April 1, association executive director Dana Schrad wrote that the presence of guns on college campuses "adds a dangerous element to an environment in which alcohol is a compounding factor." Students should not have to be concerned about guns on campus, Schrad wrote.
"The excellent reputation of Virginia's colleges and universities depends in part on the public's belief that they are sending their college-age children to safe environments," the policy paper reads.
At least one attorney who represents college students would like to see the concealed-carry permit issue clarified.
John Robertson, the Student Legal Services attorney at Tech, said he's heard differing interpretations of the policy at Tech. Robertson, whose position is funded through the Student Government Association's budget, does not represent students in disputes with the university but offers free legal advice and services to students on civil and criminal matters.
Robertson said he would like to see either a court or the state Attorney General's Office resolve the matter. As for a university's refusal to honor a concealed-carry permit, Robertson added: "I am dubious that one particular arm of the state can do so without a particular statute."
Hincker acknowledged that the concealed guns issue had "never been tested" and that the university could be opening itself up to legal action.
"But we stand by the policy unequivocally," Hincker said.
Did Virginia Tech's Gun Ban Contribute To Massacre?
Tuesday, 17 April 2007
In light of the recent Trolley Square Shootings, which were brought to a quick end by an armed off-duty Ogden Police Officer, we can't help but wonder if the tragic Virginia Tech shootings could have been stopped much sooner if someone, anyone, in that campus building was armed.
While the State Of Virginia allows licensed law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons, Virginia Tech forbids them on campus.
We unearthed this little gem, originally posted on April 13, 2005.
Would the chance of an armed response by faculty or students deter school shooters?
*************************************************************************************
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Virginia Tech's ban on guns may draw legal fire
Some people question whether the university has the authority to ban the carrying of firearms.
By Kevin Miller
From roanoke.com
BLACKSBURG - Virginia Tech's recent action against a student caught carrying a gun to class could draw unwanted attention from groups already angry about firearms restrictions on public college campuses.
University officials confirmed that, earlier this semester, campus police approached a student found to be carrying a concealed handgun to class. The unnamed student was not charged with any crimes because he holds a state-issued permit allowing him to carry a concealed gun. But the student could face disciplinary action from the university for violating its policy prohibiting "unauthorized possession, storage or control" of firearms on campus.
Tech spokesman Larry Hincker declined to release the student's name or specifics of the incident, citing rules protecting student confidentiality. But Hincker said Tech's ban on guns dates back several decades.
Students who violate the school policy could be called before the university's internal judicial affairs system, which has wide discretion in handing down penalties ranging from a reprimand to expulsion.
"I think it's fair to say that we believe guns don't belong in the classroom," Hincker said. "In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear."
Most public colleges in Virginia ban or restrict guns on campus. But the root of that authority is murky, according to some observers.
Virginia law already prohibits students or visitors from carrying guns onto the grounds of public and private K-12 schools. The state also prohibits concealed weapons in courthouses, places of worship during a service, jails and on any private property where the owner has posted a "no guns" notice. State employees are barred from possessing guns while at work unless needed for their job.
But Virginia code is silent on guns and public colleges. And two bills seeking to give college governing boards the authority to regulate firearms on campus died in committee during this year's General Assembly session.
David Briggman, a resident of Keezletown in Rockingham County, has made it his personal mission to challenge state colleges' authority to enact tougher gun restrictions than the state.
Briggman, who is a former police officer, said he forced Blue Ridge Community College to allow him to carry a gun onto campus while a student. And he sued James Madison University over its ban on concealed weapons even among permit holders. While JMU's policy still stands, Briggman said he has been told by campus police officials that they will not arrest visitors who carry a gun legally.
"It's extremely easy to challenge university policy by looking at ... whether they are given the statutory authority to regulate firearms on campus, and of course, they're not," Briggman said Tuesday.
Hincker, meanwhile, said it is not unusual for colleges to have more restrictive policies than the state. As an example, Hincker said certain chemicals and explosives that are legal on the outside are prohibited in the classroom or in dormitories for safety reasons.
"We think we have the right to adhere to and enforce that policy because, in the end, we think it's a common-sense policy for the protection of students, staff and faculty as well as guests and visitors," Hincker said.
Virginia Tech also has the backing of the Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police. In a policy position paper dated April 1, association executive director Dana Schrad wrote that the presence of guns on college campuses "adds a dangerous element to an environment in which alcohol is a compounding factor." Students should not have to be concerned about guns on campus, Schrad wrote.
"The excellent reputation of Virginia's colleges and universities depends in part on the public's belief that they are sending their college-age children to safe environments," the policy paper reads.
At least one attorney who represents college students would like to see the concealed-carry permit issue clarified.
John Robertson, the Student Legal Services attorney at Tech, said he's heard differing interpretations of the policy at Tech. Robertson, whose position is funded through the Student Government Association's budget, does not represent students in disputes with the university but offers free legal advice and services to students on civil and criminal matters.
Robertson said he would like to see either a court or the state Attorney General's Office resolve the matter. As for a university's refusal to honor a concealed-carry permit, Robertson added: "I am dubious that one particular arm of the state can do so without a particular statute."
Hincker acknowledged that the concealed guns issue had "never been tested" and that the university could be opening itself up to legal action.
"But we stand by the policy unequivocally," Hincker said.
Pelosi May Be To Important To See Her Own Supporters
Marine's Mom Arrested
Associated Press | April 17, 2007
WASHINGTON - The mother of a Marine who tried to kill himself after two tours of duty in Iraq was arrested Monday while protesting the war outside the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Tina Richards of Salem, Mo., was charged with disorderly conduct, said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, a U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman. Schneider said Richards would be issued a citation and released.
Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, D-Calif., said Richards was with a group of 15 to 20 protesters when she was arrested in the hallway outside the speaker's office. He added that Pelosi's office made no complaint about the presence of the protesters and was informed of the arrests after they had taken place.
Gael Murphy, a spokesman for Codepink, an anti-war group that helped organize the protest at Pelosi's office, said Richards was arrested after chanting anti-war statements.
"I have been trying to meet with Speaker Pelosi since November because she needs to listen to the moms and other women affected by the war," Richards said in a statement.
Hammill said Richards' request for a meeting with Pelosi is pending. "She's met repeatedly with staff, and we've passed her concerns to the speaker," he said.
Last month, Richards confronted Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, in her effort to persuade lawmakers to cut off funding for the war. That exchange was videotaped and played widely on YouTube.
"You can't end the war if you vote against the supplemental. It's time these idiot liberals understand that," Obey told her during the exchange. He later apologized.
Associated Press | April 17, 2007
WASHINGTON - The mother of a Marine who tried to kill himself after two tours of duty in Iraq was arrested Monday while protesting the war outside the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Tina Richards of Salem, Mo., was charged with disorderly conduct, said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, a U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman. Schneider said Richards would be issued a citation and released.
Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Pelosi, D-Calif., said Richards was with a group of 15 to 20 protesters when she was arrested in the hallway outside the speaker's office. He added that Pelosi's office made no complaint about the presence of the protesters and was informed of the arrests after they had taken place.
Gael Murphy, a spokesman for Codepink, an anti-war group that helped organize the protest at Pelosi's office, said Richards was arrested after chanting anti-war statements.
"I have been trying to meet with Speaker Pelosi since November because she needs to listen to the moms and other women affected by the war," Richards said in a statement.
Hammill said Richards' request for a meeting with Pelosi is pending. "She's met repeatedly with staff, and we've passed her concerns to the speaker," he said.
Last month, Richards confronted Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, in her effort to persuade lawmakers to cut off funding for the war. That exchange was videotaped and played widely on YouTube.
"You can't end the war if you vote against the supplemental. It's time these idiot liberals understand that," Obey told her during the exchange. He later apologized.
The Way I See It
I received this from my brother so I can not give credit to where it was originally published.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
From John McCain via AOL
Mr. McCain recently came under fire from Democrats and other critics for what they called an overly optimistic assessment of security conditions in a Baghdad market, which he toured under the protection of more than 100 soldiers. Mr. McCain later said that he would have been prepared to tour the market with much less protection.
In the interview, Mr. McCain said that if he became the commander in chief, he might keep Robert M. Gates as defense secretary. For the post of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he suggested that he would consider Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander in Iraq, and Adm. William J. Fallon, the newly appointed head of the Central Command. They are carrying out the new strategy in Baghdad. Mr. McCain has been critical of their predecessors, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the former American commander in Iraq, and the former secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld .
Mr. McCain also said he would seek to attract corporate leaders to improve the management of the Pentagon, citing figures like Frederick W. Smith, the chief executive of FedEx Corporation, and John T. Chambers, the chief executive of Cisco Systems.
“I would go to these people and say: ‘Look, you’ve made a billion dollars. Come on now, and do what David Packard did years ago. Serve your country,’ ” Mr. McCain said, referring to the co-founder of the Hewlett Packard Company who served as deputy defense secretary in the first Nixon administration.
Mr. McCain also described retired Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander and Marine commandant, as one of his closest friends, adding he expected he would “play a key role.”
Mr. McCain discussed Iraq during an hourlong session on Thursday at his Senate office, sipping cappuccino and talking in measured if intense tones in the presence of two aides. He ended the interview to go to the White House for a meeting with Mr. Bush.
“One of the things that I’m going to tell him, and I don’t often talk about my conversations with the president, is that the American people need to be told more often what’s happening,” he said. “Where we’re succeeding; where we’re failing; where we’ve made progress; where we haven’t, here’s the state of readiness, here’s why we continue to see suicide bombers.”
“There’s got to be more communication with the American people,” he added. “Franklin Delano Roosevelt did it.”
“So how do you motivate the Maliki government? Well, one of the ways is go sit down and have dinner with him like Lindsey Graham and I did last week,” he said, alluding to his Republican colleague from South Carolina. He said that he and Mr. Graham had warned Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that the patience of the American public was running out. Many members of the Bush administration and other lawmakers have met with Mr. Maliki to make the same point.
“We’re telling you, there’s been votes in both houses of Congress which portend, unless the American people see measurable success, that we’re going to be out of here,” Mr. McCain said, recalling the message he had delivered to the Iraqi leader. “No matter whether I happen to agree with it or not.”
“He gets it. He gets it,” Mr. McCain said of Mr. Maliki. “The question is whether they do it or not.”
According to the military’s deployment schedule, only three of the five additional combat brigades that are to be deployed in and around Baghdad under Mr. Bush’s plan have arrived. Mr. McCain said the prospects for the new strategy would be known “within months.”
Even more unclear is what Iraq might look like by the time a new president takes office in the United States. The most optimistic course of events he envisioned involved a steady reduction in violence and a gradual turnover of security responsibilities to the Iraqis during the remainder of the Bush administration. Under those circumstances, Mr. McCain said, the United States military would gradually withdraw to its bases in Iraq, though he did not provide a timetable for how long that might take.
American air and ground forces could continue to operate from those bases when needed but then eventually leave, he said. He said that he had recently met with Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, and had been told that Pakistan and other Muslim nations would be prepared to help Iraq if the country was secure.
One plan proposed by some Democratic lawmakers is to withdraw American troops to Kuwait, from where they might carry out strikes against terrorists in Iraq belonging to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Mr. McCain argued that this approach reflected a naïve understanding of the difficulties in obtaining intelligence and conducting operations in Iraq. “The fact of modern warfare is that you can’t parachute into places,” he said. “You can’t go in without a solid base of support if you’re going to be engaged in heavy fighting.”
Another plan, advocated by Mrs. Clinton, would maintain a reduced force at bases in Iraq to stabilize Kurdistan, deter neighboring nations from intervening and to fight terrorist groups there. “That assumes somehow that the place has not descended into chaos,” said Mr. McCain, who warned that reducing the force without first stabilizing Iraq would put the American forces in the position of being “rocketed in their bases.”
Putting additional emphasis on training the Iraqi Army, Mr. McCain also argued, would not be effective unless security in Iraq was improved. “I’d be very reluctant to send your men into a country where there is chaos and tell them they’re going to be trainers.”
Partitioning Iraq into Sunni , Shiite and Kurdish enclaves, as some experts have proposed, was “totally unrealistic,” Mr. McCain argued, because the Iraqis are opposed to measures that would lead to the further dislocation of the population and even divide families.
He also suggested that setting deadlines for withdrawing troops — as many lawmakers were seeking to legislate — would backfire, hamstringing commanders and giving opponents a way to wait out the Americans.
Mr. McCain acknowledged that his message — that a long, hard and uncertain road still lies ahead in Iraq — was not a popular one, and could mark the end of his political ambitions. However, it could be as politically treacherous for Mr. McCain to back away from his support of the war as it is for him to stay with it.
During a recent speech at the Virginia Military Institute, Mr. McCain noted that he had recently met Petty Officer First Class Mark Robbins, a member of the Navy Seals who was shot in the eye in an ambush outside Baghdad, in a military hospital in Germany and that he planned personally to award him the Purple Heart.
“Oh, God, I’ve seen a lot of things in my life,” Mr. McCain recalled in the interview. “I’ve seen a lot of things. That kid sitting up there. His head. Blood all over the back of him.”
“Grabs my hand and says, ‘I’m honored you’re here. Thanks for your support. We can win this fight.’ You know, I’m supposed to worry about my political future?”
In the interview, Mr. McCain said that if he became the commander in chief, he might keep Robert M. Gates as defense secretary. For the post of chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he suggested that he would consider Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander in Iraq, and Adm. William J. Fallon, the newly appointed head of the Central Command. They are carrying out the new strategy in Baghdad. Mr. McCain has been critical of their predecessors, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the former American commander in Iraq, and the former secretary of defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld .
Mr. McCain also said he would seek to attract corporate leaders to improve the management of the Pentagon, citing figures like Frederick W. Smith, the chief executive of FedEx Corporation, and John T. Chambers, the chief executive of Cisco Systems.
“I would go to these people and say: ‘Look, you’ve made a billion dollars. Come on now, and do what David Packard did years ago. Serve your country,’ ” Mr. McCain said, referring to the co-founder of the Hewlett Packard Company who served as deputy defense secretary in the first Nixon administration.
Mr. McCain also described retired Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander and Marine commandant, as one of his closest friends, adding he expected he would “play a key role.”
Mr. McCain discussed Iraq during an hourlong session on Thursday at his Senate office, sipping cappuccino and talking in measured if intense tones in the presence of two aides. He ended the interview to go to the White House for a meeting with Mr. Bush.
“One of the things that I’m going to tell him, and I don’t often talk about my conversations with the president, is that the American people need to be told more often what’s happening,” he said. “Where we’re succeeding; where we’re failing; where we’ve made progress; where we haven’t, here’s the state of readiness, here’s why we continue to see suicide bombers.”
“There’s got to be more communication with the American people,” he added. “Franklin Delano Roosevelt did it.”
“So how do you motivate the Maliki government? Well, one of the ways is go sit down and have dinner with him like Lindsey Graham and I did last week,” he said, alluding to his Republican colleague from South Carolina. He said that he and Mr. Graham had warned Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki that the patience of the American public was running out. Many members of the Bush administration and other lawmakers have met with Mr. Maliki to make the same point.
“We’re telling you, there’s been votes in both houses of Congress which portend, unless the American people see measurable success, that we’re going to be out of here,” Mr. McCain said, recalling the message he had delivered to the Iraqi leader. “No matter whether I happen to agree with it or not.”
“He gets it. He gets it,” Mr. McCain said of Mr. Maliki. “The question is whether they do it or not.”
According to the military’s deployment schedule, only three of the five additional combat brigades that are to be deployed in and around Baghdad under Mr. Bush’s plan have arrived. Mr. McCain said the prospects for the new strategy would be known “within months.”
Even more unclear is what Iraq might look like by the time a new president takes office in the United States. The most optimistic course of events he envisioned involved a steady reduction in violence and a gradual turnover of security responsibilities to the Iraqis during the remainder of the Bush administration. Under those circumstances, Mr. McCain said, the United States military would gradually withdraw to its bases in Iraq, though he did not provide a timetable for how long that might take.
American air and ground forces could continue to operate from those bases when needed but then eventually leave, he said. He said that he had recently met with Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, and had been told that Pakistan and other Muslim nations would be prepared to help Iraq if the country was secure.
One plan proposed by some Democratic lawmakers is to withdraw American troops to Kuwait, from where they might carry out strikes against terrorists in Iraq belonging to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia. Mr. McCain argued that this approach reflected a naïve understanding of the difficulties in obtaining intelligence and conducting operations in Iraq. “The fact of modern warfare is that you can’t parachute into places,” he said. “You can’t go in without a solid base of support if you’re going to be engaged in heavy fighting.”
Another plan, advocated by Mrs. Clinton, would maintain a reduced force at bases in Iraq to stabilize Kurdistan, deter neighboring nations from intervening and to fight terrorist groups there. “That assumes somehow that the place has not descended into chaos,” said Mr. McCain, who warned that reducing the force without first stabilizing Iraq would put the American forces in the position of being “rocketed in their bases.”
Putting additional emphasis on training the Iraqi Army, Mr. McCain also argued, would not be effective unless security in Iraq was improved. “I’d be very reluctant to send your men into a country where there is chaos and tell them they’re going to be trainers.”
Partitioning Iraq into Sunni , Shiite and Kurdish enclaves, as some experts have proposed, was “totally unrealistic,” Mr. McCain argued, because the Iraqis are opposed to measures that would lead to the further dislocation of the population and even divide families.
He also suggested that setting deadlines for withdrawing troops — as many lawmakers were seeking to legislate — would backfire, hamstringing commanders and giving opponents a way to wait out the Americans.
Mr. McCain acknowledged that his message — that a long, hard and uncertain road still lies ahead in Iraq — was not a popular one, and could mark the end of his political ambitions. However, it could be as politically treacherous for Mr. McCain to back away from his support of the war as it is for him to stay with it.
During a recent speech at the Virginia Military Institute, Mr. McCain noted that he had recently met Petty Officer First Class Mark Robbins, a member of the Navy Seals who was shot in the eye in an ambush outside Baghdad, in a military hospital in Germany and that he planned personally to award him the Purple Heart.
“Oh, God, I’ve seen a lot of things in my life,” Mr. McCain recalled in the interview. “I’ve seen a lot of things. That kid sitting up there. His head. Blood all over the back of him.”
“Grabs my hand and says, ‘I’m honored you’re here. Thanks for your support. We can win this fight.’ You know, I’m supposed to worry about my political future?”
It's Not Massachusetts' Fault, Somebody Else Has To Be Responsible
This sounds like a good job for the Massachusetts National Guard. Place them all around the border to prevent the evil citizens of the United States of America from sending all of those nasty firearms to the citizens of Massachusetts who are misbehaving (committing crimes sounds so BAD).
In my honest opinion, when the honest citizens are restricted from firearm ownership, then the less honest and more willing to issue harm citizens can then have their own way.
I know the State of Massachusetts disagrees with me and I can only say:
How is it working out doing it your way?
Massachusetts Named Most Violent in the Northeast
Updated: April 13th, 2007 05:18 PM EDT
E-mail Story Print Story Most Read Most Emailed
Story by thebostonchannel.com, taken from Officer.com on 4-14-07:
Amid an increase in youth violence, Massachusetts is now the most violent state in the northeast, according to the FBI.
NewsCenter 5's Steve Lacy reported that community leaders met on Thursday to look for ways to combat the trend.
"The proliferation of guns in my neighborhood and my community where I go to bed and hear gunshots -- I hear them. I don't come into my community and talk about it. I live it," said Rep. Marie St. Fleur.
Lawmakers are calling for new legislation to crack down on the number of guns flooding the city's streets.
"Gun violence tears at the soul of our community," said the Rev. Jeffery Brown of the Ten-Point Coalition.
The proposed changes would make it illegal to fail to report a lost or stolen gun; it would create a state database to track the resale of guns in the secondary market; and when setting bail, judges would be allowed to consider whether a suspect was in possession of a gun at the time of their arrest.
"We also want to see police with better tools at their finger tips when investigating these crimes," said Sen. Jarrett Barrios.
The renewed call to crackdown on guns comes as the city struggles to combat a recent spike in violent crime.
But not everyone is sold on creating new gun laws saying there are enough restrictions on lawful gun ownership and greater enforcement of existing laws is needed. People who live in some of the city's hardest hit neighborhoods disagree, saying any law that can reduce the number of guns is welcomed.
"We need to be using all of our forces at every border that surrounds Massachusetts and stop this flow of guns and drugs in our communities," said Rep. Gloria Fox.
There have been 17 homicides so far in 2007. Thirteen of the victims were 25 or younger.
In my honest opinion, when the honest citizens are restricted from firearm ownership, then the less honest and more willing to issue harm citizens can then have their own way.
I know the State of Massachusetts disagrees with me and I can only say:
How is it working out doing it your way?
Massachusetts Named Most Violent in the Northeast
Updated: April 13th, 2007 05:18 PM EDT
E-mail Story Print Story Most Read Most Emailed
Story by thebostonchannel.com, taken from Officer.com on 4-14-07:
Amid an increase in youth violence, Massachusetts is now the most violent state in the northeast, according to the FBI.
NewsCenter 5's Steve Lacy reported that community leaders met on Thursday to look for ways to combat the trend.
"The proliferation of guns in my neighborhood and my community where I go to bed and hear gunshots -- I hear them. I don't come into my community and talk about it. I live it," said Rep. Marie St. Fleur.
Lawmakers are calling for new legislation to crack down on the number of guns flooding the city's streets.
"Gun violence tears at the soul of our community," said the Rev. Jeffery Brown of the Ten-Point Coalition.
The proposed changes would make it illegal to fail to report a lost or stolen gun; it would create a state database to track the resale of guns in the secondary market; and when setting bail, judges would be allowed to consider whether a suspect was in possession of a gun at the time of their arrest.
"We also want to see police with better tools at their finger tips when investigating these crimes," said Sen. Jarrett Barrios.
The renewed call to crackdown on guns comes as the city struggles to combat a recent spike in violent crime.
But not everyone is sold on creating new gun laws saying there are enough restrictions on lawful gun ownership and greater enforcement of existing laws is needed. People who live in some of the city's hardest hit neighborhoods disagree, saying any law that can reduce the number of guns is welcomed.
"We need to be using all of our forces at every border that surrounds Massachusetts and stop this flow of guns and drugs in our communities," said Rep. Gloria Fox.
There have been 17 homicides so far in 2007. Thirteen of the victims were 25 or younger.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
I Believe
When I was growing up, all my heroes could make the world right. Whether it was Superman or Batman & Robin in the comic books or Roy Rgers, the Lone Ranger or Lash La Rue in the movies. As I got older there was Audie Murphy (a real hero as well as a movie hero) and John Wayne among many others.
When I graduated from high school, I tried to emulate my heroes by joining the U. S. Navy.
However, soon after I enlisted the world began to change drastically. People who did not like they way the world turned began to commit what they called acts of "civil disobediance." The incidents of "civil disobediance" continued in many different venues. Suddenly it was fashionable to leave the country to demonstrate "civil disobediance" then the acts of "civil disobediance" continued until they often became traitorous.
But our government did not prosecute those who committed tratorious acts. In fact one of the most famous went on to become President of the United States of America. Another ran for the same office not to long ago.
Now we are in the position where many of those who grew up on "civil disobediance" are now in high levels of government where they are still committing irresponsible acts in and out of the government.
They say they are exercising their rights of free speech, that honest discourse is necessary in our government.
I say these people are , as in the past, only interested in their own interests. Whether it is keeping their ass out of harms way, insuring their political survival or increasing their wealth.
There are still citizens who feel like I did then and still do now. However, they are busy supporting their country, trying to protect their fellow citizens from those who would destroy us.
Unlike their fellow citizens who use the rights obtained by the U. S. citizen soldier, sailor or airman for their own personal gain these citizens put themselves in harms way .
After a 30 year career in the U. S. Navy, I understand life sucks sometimes and then you die. But until that time, I believe in protecting this country from those who would do us harm and supporting the military who makes it all happen.
Whenever I take one of those on-line quizzes to determine whether I am a liberal or a conservative I come up on the liberal side. Whenever I look at the liberal politicians I see really scary people. When I look at the conservative side I feel they are somewhat more honest, but not to bright.
At this point in time, I do not believe that either political party is doing what they are voted in for at this time. I really can not believe the opportunities each side is throwing away in their stampede for power, for their side.
When I graduated from high school, I tried to emulate my heroes by joining the U. S. Navy.
However, soon after I enlisted the world began to change drastically. People who did not like they way the world turned began to commit what they called acts of "civil disobediance." The incidents of "civil disobediance" continued in many different venues. Suddenly it was fashionable to leave the country to demonstrate "civil disobediance" then the acts of "civil disobediance" continued until they often became traitorous.
But our government did not prosecute those who committed tratorious acts. In fact one of the most famous went on to become President of the United States of America. Another ran for the same office not to long ago.
Now we are in the position where many of those who grew up on "civil disobediance" are now in high levels of government where they are still committing irresponsible acts in and out of the government.
They say they are exercising their rights of free speech, that honest discourse is necessary in our government.
I say these people are , as in the past, only interested in their own interests. Whether it is keeping their ass out of harms way, insuring their political survival or increasing their wealth.
There are still citizens who feel like I did then and still do now. However, they are busy supporting their country, trying to protect their fellow citizens from those who would destroy us.
Unlike their fellow citizens who use the rights obtained by the U. S. citizen soldier, sailor or airman for their own personal gain these citizens put themselves in harms way .
After a 30 year career in the U. S. Navy, I understand life sucks sometimes and then you die. But until that time, I believe in protecting this country from those who would do us harm and supporting the military who makes it all happen.
Whenever I take one of those on-line quizzes to determine whether I am a liberal or a conservative I come up on the liberal side. Whenever I look at the liberal politicians I see really scary people. When I look at the conservative side I feel they are somewhat more honest, but not to bright.
At this point in time, I do not believe that either political party is doing what they are voted in for at this time. I really can not believe the opportunities each side is throwing away in their stampede for power, for their side.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)