TV reporters murdered on air, Gov calls for restrictions on law-abiding gun owners(?)

[Little-Acorn]

A murderer took the lives of a TV reporter and cameraman in Virginia this morning, as they were broadcasting a story.

VA Governor Terry McAuliffe immediately went on the air and called for increased restrictions on people who obey laws. They included background checks and other measures. McAuliffe didn't know the name of the murderer when he made this pronouncement, and had no idea whether a background check would have affected the murderer's actions.

In further comments, McAuliffe insisted that "There are some people who shouldn't own a gun", implying that government should restrict gun ownership, a flat violation of the 2nd amendment.

A number of people were also killed in automobile accidents in Virginia this year, but McAuliffe has yet to call for increased restrictions on law-abiding drivers.

-------------------------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/cbs-journalists-shot-killed-live-broadcast-130723506.html

CBS journalists shot and killed during live broadcast in Virginia; police in pursuit of suspect

WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward died shortly after on-air interview

Dylan Stableford
By Dylan Stableford
1 hour ago

Yahoo News

A pair of television journalists at a CBS affiliate in Virginia were shot and killed during a live broadcast Wednesday morning, and authorities say they are in pursuit of the suspected shooter.

The victims, WDBJ-TV reporter Alison Parker, 24, and Adam Ward, her 27-year-old cameraman, died shortly after the shooting, which occurred at approximately 6:45 a.m. at Bridgewater Plaza in Moneta, Va., near Smith Mountain Lake.

Part of the shooting was captured on the air as Parker was interviewing Vicky Gardner, the head of the Smith Mountain Lake Chamber of Commerce. According to the Roanoke Times, Gardner was shot in the back and taken to a hospital for surgery. Gardner's condition was not immediately clear.

[Black Diamond]

McAuliffe pulled an Obama. What a jackass.

[Perianne]

McAuliffe pulled an Obama. What a jackass.

What did you expect? They are both cut from the same cloth. Or fell out of the same tree. Or whatever.

[fj1200]

In further comments, McAuliffe insisted that "There are some people who shouldn't own a gun", implying that government should restrict gun ownership, a flat violation of the 2nd amendment.

Are you saying that anyone should be able to own a gun?

[gabosaurus]

A murderer took the lives of a TV reporter and cameraman in Virginia this morning, as they were broadcasting a story...
A number of people were also killed in automobile accidents in Virginia this year, but McAuliffe has yet to call for increased restrictions on law-abiding drivers.


http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/same-old-shit-just-a-different-day-2.png

[NightTrain]

Are you saying that anyone should be able to own a gun?


I don't know, what does the 2nd Amendment say?

[fj1200]

I don't know, what does the 2nd Amendment say?

Apparently a couple of different things.


As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Archives_and_Records_Administration), with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scribe)William Lambert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lambert_(writer)):[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-29)


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-loc-30)


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Be that as it may I don't think there are many who think anyone should be able to get a gun. But I was just curious.

[Black Diamond]

Apparently a couple of different things.

[/INDENT]

Be that as it may I don't think there are many who think anyone should be able to get a gun. But I was just curious.
What criteria would you use?

[NightTrain]

Apparently a couple of different things.

[/INDENT]
Be that as it may I don't think there are many who think anyone should be able to get a gun. But I was just curious.


Seems abundantly clear to me. Shall not be infringed.


I don't care what other arguments there are about why people disagree with it. It's the constitutional law of the land and it needs to be followed until such time as it's modified or annulled.

[fj1200]

What criteria would you use?

I don't know but most people don't want the crazies to get a gun.


Seems abundantly clear to me. Shall not be infringed.

I don't care what other arguments there are about why people disagree with it. It's the constitutional law of the land and it needs to be followed until such time as it's modified or annulled.

I agree that it seems clear but that doesn't mean that we don't have restrictions that have survived SCOTUS review.

[NightTrain]

I agree that it seems clear but that doesn't mean that we don't have restrictions that have survived SCOTUS review.


And that's the slippery slope.

There is no ambiguous wording there, but somehow people think that you can pick and choose when that's not how it's supposed to work. If you can pick and choose the 2nd, then by precedent you can pick and choose any of them. We might as well not even have a constitution.

I understand the logic behind the folly of allowing crazies to have guns, and so the 2nd needs to be amended. Until then, that batshit lunatic has a constitutional right to have a gun.

[Black Diamond]

I don't know but most people don't want the crazies to get a gun.



I agree that it seems clear but that doesn't mean that we don't have restrictions that have survived SCOTUS review.
How would that word be defined?

[fj1200]

And that's the slippery slope.

There is no ambiguous wording there, but somehow people think that you can pick and choose when that's not how it's supposed to work. If you can pick and choose the 2nd, then by precedent you can pick and choose any of them. We might as well not even have a constitution.

I understand the logic behind the folly of allowing crazies to have guns, and so the 2nd needs to be amended. Until then, that batshit lunatic has a constitutional right to have a gun.

Very true about the slope which is why I didn't add felons and minors because they are easily excluded via the Constitution. But every time we have a crazy go on a shooting spree it generally becomes clear that they shouldn't have been allowed to buy the gun because of X and those laws have, presumably, passed Constitutional muster.


How would that word be defined?

Very good question but that's why we have a Constitutionally defined legislature but first we/you? would have to accept that the "crazies" should be denied their 2A right.

[Abbey Marie]

Seems abundantly clear to me. Shall not be infringed.


I don't care what other arguments there are about why people disagree with it. It's the constitutional law of the land and it needs to be followed until such time as it's modified or annulled.

No, no, no. That kind of rule is only for those rights that the SC had to find written in invisible ink in the Constitution. You know, like a "woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child".

[Little-Acorn]

Be that as it may I don't think there are many who think anyone should be able to get a gun. But I was just curious.
TRANSLATION: I don't want to obey the 2nd amendment.

BTW, if there's someone you think shouldn't have a gun, then stop him.

[Olivia]

Are you saying that anyone should be able to own a gun?


At this point there are so many guns in America, a gun band would do squat. You must know that

[Little-Acorn]

Are you saying that anyone should be able to own a gun?

(yawn) http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44061-The-2ndAm-doesn-t-say-quot-except-for-felons-quot-or-quot-except-by-due-process-of-law-quot-Why-not&p=759549#post759549

[DragonStryk72]

Are you saying that anyone should be able to own a gun?

Well, no. LA was specifically referring to the point that this person immediately, before knowing whether it would have helped anything or not, called for restrictions. For all that he knew, gun control would have done nothing to stop this tragedy from happening.

It would be like there being a car crash, and me immediately cracking down on texting while driving, even though I don't know if that was involved in the case.

Further, VA does have backgrounds checks for gun sales, so either the gun was obtained illegally, circumventing the laws, or it was obtained legally, meaning there wasn't a block to gun ownership for the murderer. In either instance, the restrictions being called for would do nothing.

[DragonStryk72]

A further point of discussion: In VA, there's a bartender rule. If the gun seller believes you're going to do something illegal with the weapon, that you're not in the right head, or otherwise, they can deny sale.

This means that even if you have a sterling background check, any gun store in VA can deny sale based on your behavior in the store.

Of course there should be some obvious restrictions. Those who are deemed mentally incapable, of course, should not own a gun. Those who have abused their gun rights should have them stripped, as is only sensible.

[Surf Fishing Guru]

No, no, no. That kind of rule is only for those rights that the SC had to find written in invisible ink in the Constitution. You know, like a "woman's right to choose to kill her unborn child".

So am I to understand that you believe we only have rights written in visible ink?

I would rather have government restricted to just what's written in visible ink.

[fj1200]

TRANSLATION: I don't want to obey the 2nd amendment.

BTW, if there's someone you think shouldn't have a gun, then stop him.

That was an incorrect translation and not an answer to the question. :)


At this point there are so many guns in America, a gun band would do squat. You must know that

Show me where I suggested a gun ban. :)


(yawn) http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?44061-The-2ndAm-doesn-t-say-quot-except-for-felons-quot-or-quot-except-by-due-process-of-law-quot-Why-not&p=759549#post759549

Is that the thread where you answer the question? :)


Well, no. LA was specifically referring to the point that this person immediately, before knowing whether it would have helped anything or not, called for restrictions. For all that he knew, gun control would have done nothing to stop this tragedy from happening.

It would be like there being a car crash, and me immediately cracking down on texting while driving, even though I don't know if that was involved in the case.

Further, VA does have backgrounds checks for gun sales, so either the gun was obtained illegally, circumventing the laws, or it was obtained legally, meaning there wasn't a block to gun ownership for the murderer. In either instance, the restrictions being called for would do nothing.

I suppose he could have answered the question that way. :) But you bring up VA and background checks, I'm going to guess that those have passed Constitutional muster because some seem to suggest that they are contrary to 2A.

[DragonStryk72]

That was an incorrect translation and not an answer to the question. :)



Show me where I suggested a gun ban. :)



Is that the thread where you answer the question? :)



I suppose he could have answered the question that way. :) But you bring up VA and background checks, I'm going to guess that those have passed Constitutional muster because some seem to suggest that they are contrary to 2A.

Essentially, though they did get more anal-retentive after the VA Tech shootings, with a lot of pressure to do "something" pushing them to add restrictions that, really, were unnecessary.

Conservatives have been in this fight with liberals a long time, and paranoia and fear seem to be kind of winning. Most cons I've seen tend to think that the libs are trying to take their guns away for malevolent reasons, which is not actually the case, and would be better than the real reason: Fear.

Liberals do not realize how much power they have given to firearms. Seriously, they make it seem like guns can literally go off at any time, even if unloaded, and otherwise law-abiding citizens, in possession of a gun, will one day snap, and turn into a violent psychopath.

[fj1200]

Essentially, though they did get more anal-retentive after the VA Tech shootings, with a lot of pressure to do "something" pushing them to add restrictions that, really, were unnecessary.

Conservatives have been in this fight with liberals a long time, and paranoia and fear seem to be kind of winning. Most cons I've seen tend to think that the libs are trying to take their guns away for malevolent reasons, which is not actually the case, and would be better than the real reason: Fear.

Liberals do not realize how much power they have given to firearms. Seriously, they make it seem like guns can literally go off at any time, even if unloaded, and otherwise law-abiding citizens, in possession of a gun, will one day snap, and turn into a violent psychopath.

"Do something" is the great liberal rallying cry. :laugh:

[red state]

And that's the slippery slope.

There is no ambiguous wording there, but somehow people think that you can pick and choose when that's not how it's supposed to work. If you can pick and choose the 2nd, then by precedent you can pick and choose any of them. We might as well not even have a constitution.

I understand the logic behind the folly of allowing crazies to have guns, and so the 2nd needs to be amended. Until then, that batshit lunatic has a constitutional right to have a gun.


So true and....... You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to NightTrain again. I wish you or Jim could figure this out cuz if you deserve to be repped....you should get a REP!

As for your post....SPOT ON! I don't like crazy folks or thugs having a gun either but I sure as HELL don't want them having them while I abide by silly laws that THEY will not abide by. Perhaps our sane, genius writers of the Constitution saw this insanity so long ago.

Bottom line, I want to be able to shoot back (like that soldier at the recruitment office). Look, B.O. and ilk like FJ want nuthin' more than TOTAL control (as with B.O. health care-less). THEY want loop-holes to be able to classify our military from protecting themselves and, likewise, it is a slippery slope when you can label someone unstable with varying degrees of unstable and deny them a gun.

My opinion: NO GUN CONTROL.....unless it involves CENTER MASS!!!

[fj1200]

... FJ want nuthin' more than TOTAL control...

:facepalm99: Link please.