imported post
Repeater wrote:
According to Elita Habtu, a
survivor of Cho's murder spree, he is:
<snip>
That means no background checks to help prevent dangerous individuals, like the Virginia Tech and NIU shooters, from wreaking havoc with easily obtained handguns and assault weapons. SCCC and VCDL might be content to settle matters by engaging in shootouts with disturbed individuals who have gained easy access to firearms, but the rest of us deserve more thoughtful, practical solutions on how to prevent violence on America’s college campuses.
Actually,
Elita Habtu is an
extremist. She wants to go to
great lengths to restrict, if not outright ban, ownership and possession of firearms. The VCDL is the antithesis of extremism because the organization intends to have the unproven, exaggerated legislation repealed from law. The goal of the VCDL is to adhere to and uphold the U.S. and Virginia Constitutions. She'd have a point if the VCDL were pushing for legislation to
force everyone to bear arms. That's not what the VCDL wants; it is pro-choice.
She is naive to think that any amount of paperwork, eg. background checks, forms, laws, would ultimately prevent anyone and everyone from committing violence. The only
practical answer to the
reality of violence is to take cover and return fire. The MW dictionary specifically states that practical is "
not theoretical or ideal." Her words ooze of theory and idealism. The results of a background check are nothing more than a theory. They are not and never could be proof that a person is not and will never become homicidal. What I don't hear coming from these extremists are any
thoughtful ideas on how their admittedly failing background checks could be better. They just argue that there should be more of them. I believe that is because there is no
practical way to make them better; they're as good as they'll ever be.
She willingly admitted that George Sodini had a background check and still became a homicidal maniac, but subsequently contradicts herself by proposing more background checks. It's well known that even Cho Seung-Hui went through background checks to purchase his firearms, but in the next paragraph she still praises how mandatory background checks help prevent "havoc." Mandatory background checks have succeeded in creating a false sense of security leading to widespread, voluntary disarmament. To that, I cite the plethora of unarmed people who beg the question "why do you need a gun here?" Anyone who regularly carries, especially openly, has no doubt heard that question more than once.
She implies that we, the armed citizenry, do not
deserve the same as the "rest of [them]?" What does anyone really
deserve? The pursuit of life, liberty, property, happiness. We all deserve to pursue those things, but only to the extent to which we do not infringe on anyone else's rightful pursuits. Elita Habtu has the right to refuse to take-up arms. I respect her decision and expect her to respect mine.
