posted April 16, 2007
The Virginia Tech massacre made me grateful for Andy Griffith.
I usually watch Keith Olbermann, but tonight he began to describe the Virginia Tech events. I could not watch.
The 1969 Griffith episode seemed naive - until I recalled the parallel Vietnam War news.
I thought of the Second Amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...."
Americans, in general, being human, fearful of death, for 216 years have clung to the clause, believing it gives security, including inalienable right to commit acts that the "laws of nature and nature's God" endow us to do.
We need to rethink this. We rethought the prohibition, "noble experiment," amendment.
The right to keep and bear arms. It's tied to a time when we feared Indians, the British, and bears. We needed to bear arms.
Consider what the right to arms did at Virginia Tech.
Jack Reeves
Rutledge, GA
LakeOconee@aol.com
* * *
It's tragic what happened at Virginia Tech. Let me point out that VT is a "gun free" school. Laws to prevent guns have never stopped the criminals. However, law abiding citizens allowed to carry guns always win.
Banning guns from America is like the ban on cocaine. Yet, we still have cocaine coming into the country.
Also, one more point, this last winter a man in a Minneapolis suburb was buglarized. He took to self defense with a gun and shot the perpertrator. Would you want to be the one being burgularized without any defense? Certainly the police would not get there within seconds.
Todd Kim Hatherly
hath5@charter.net
* * *
Mr. Reeves writes that the right to keep and bear arms is tied to a time when we feared Indians, the British and bears. It's almost as if he is fearing the gun rather than the evil heart of the perpetrator. Although this type of response is to be expected in the aftermath of such a grievous tragedy, challenging the right to defend ourselves because crazy people have access to guns doesn't make sense.
I would fear any person who began gunning down my classmates regardless of their ancestry, gender or how they like their steaks cooked. And you can bet that I would still fear a bear, even here in good ol' 2007, although that fear would be greatly reduced, "equalized" if you will, if I had a 7 mm Rem. Mag. or a .30-06 handy. This is called self-defense.
The shooter's "right to bear arms" had nothing to do with the massacre at Virginia Tech. I seriously doubt that anybody's "rights" were in his mind at all. To believe that the shooter at Virginia Tech became a multi-murderer because he had a gun handy implies that the other students or professors, if armed, would have turned the guns on the innocent students rather than using them to take out the one who went to the school intent on taking lives.
Multiple murder is the act of a warped mind, not the product of second amendment rights. It wasn't until we started regulating guns at every turn that school shootings ever started in the first place. Robert Heinlein wrote that an armed society is a polite society. Strict laws reducing gun ownership and availability in areas like New York City, Washington D. C. and so-called "gun free" areas are an open invitation to those intent on murder. School shootings such as this one are effective because the poor victims have to wait for help to arrive. Even crazy people don't open fire on police stations...and why? Because everybody there is packing. Leave the emotions out of this argument and do the math.
Stephanie Birmingham
Chattanooga
* * *
Perhaps if one or more of those who were in either of the buildings at Virginia Tech yesterday morning had a personal weapon the shooter wouldn't have been able to kill as many as he did, Mr. Reeves.
It's all fine and dandy to shout out that if guns weren't as available we wouldn't have as much violence perpetrated with them. The facts state otherwise.
Australia has experienced a higher incidence of violent crime since they collected all the private firearms.
Look at Washington, DC, and New York City. Both have outlawed personal firearms. Both have serious problems with violent crime. Washington, DC, has a higher death rate per capita than our GIs in Iraq. New Orleans had one killing per day for at least the first nine days of this year, 2007.
Last month a street shooter was subdued by two armed citizens in Memphis, several minutes before Memphis police could arrive and before anyone on the street was harmed.
A woman, a 53-year-old grandmother of two, in St. Petersburg, Fl., stopped a knife wielding thief in a Wal-Mart store who had already assaulted and cut several employees and had another down on the ground about to attack...with her licensed .40 caliber handgun.
Pearl, Mississippi...West Paducah, Kentucky...Jonesboro, Arkansas...Edinborough, Pennsylvania...Fayetteville, Tennessee...Littleton, Colorado...perhaps if people had personal weapons in their possession incidents such as these either wouldn't have occurred or there wouldn't have been so many lives lost before someone put a stop to the insanity of these situations.
Perhaps Mr. Reeves knows how to defend himself and understands the value of a pencil or a pen in a physical conflict...how and where to use them to inflict maximal damage to an aggressor. The average citizen probably does not. However, there's also an old saying that one should never take a knife to a gunfight. Anyone who would advocate prohibition of law abiding citizens owning firearms obviously has never looked down the business end of a weapon, held by an aggressor, perhaps while holding a child in his arms. Anyone advocating as Mr. Reeves does has never imagined himself huddled in a room trying to figure out what to do if the person down the hall shooting his friends were to come after him next.
Royce E. Burrage, Jr.
RBurrage@bellsouth.net
* * *
I am a bit confused about Mr. Reeves’ statement. Is he saying we should ban guns from America? VT campus police chief Flinchum said weapons are not allowed on campus. US Dept of Education stats show VT reported eight weapons possession charges from 2003 through 2005. It seems that guns are already banned from the campus, yet this incident still happened.
As usual, only the criminals have guns, not the "law-abiding" citizen. A properly trained citizen with a carry permit and the gun to go with it might have stopped the death toll at two or three instead of 33. A criminal usually preys on easy targets, not ones that will fight back.
Our children today know very little about personal responsibility. Maybe it's because we try to legislate all their opportunities for decision making away, since they certainly couldn't know what is right for them.
Thomas Cook
Ooltewah
* * *
This country was founded on revolutionary principles, so in that context, the right to bear arms must be protected. The reason why the founding fathers wrote it in as one of the first things into the constitution was that it symbolized a stand against tyranny and oppression.
Back in colonial times guns were essential. They were used to hunt for food and fend off against wild animals and dangerous raiders. Living on the frontier in those days was not for the faint hearted.
In our society guns have become toys, a fetish to some people. Some people are just hoping and praying for someone to break into their house so they can get the thrill and rush of blowing somebody away legally.
Guns themselves are not the problem, they are just another tool, and it's our culture of glorifying guns that takes the blame.
Guns are for killing, period. They have no other use for anything besides that.
They must be handled with care and stored with care.
How much firepower does one need to protect oneself? A handgun maybe, but an M-60 and a couple of grenade launchers? Come on.
I'm not one for a complete gun ban, but somehow we need to bring common sense to public when it comes to guns.
Leo Mayfield
geomayfield@hotmail.com
* * *
Better a gun in hand than a cop on the phone.
Mark Barker
firstpog@yahoo.com
* * *
The 2nd amendment did not give this idiot the right to do what he did at Virginia Tech. What the 2nd amendment does is to give the students the right to protect themselves...sadly, the students were denied this right because of a Virginia Tech ruling this past year that does not allow concealed carry on the campus - even though the state of Virginia does issued concealed carry permits.
So, Virginia Tech does not allow guns on campus. Evidently this law doesn't work and can't be enforced. Had students not been banned from their Constitutional right to bear arms, this could have been stopped quickly.
When will the Libtards ever learn that gun control has never and will never work? Look at the murder rates in Washington D.C. versus any city in Tennessee - the state that has the highest per capita concealed weapon carry of any state in the nation.
Stewart Chastian
* * *
In a way, I envy you, Mr. Reeves. How nice it must be to live in your world - a world in which undesirable behavior can be completely eliminated simply by passing another law.
Now, let’s be honest. Do you really, really believe that crimes committed by criminals with guns will no longer exist if guns are completely outlawed? Will criminals no longer have access to a firearm? After all, firearms will be illegal.
Wake up. They're criminals. They don't obey the law.
Illegal drugs haven't eliminated from our society, despite our best efforts. You cited prohibition. Alcohol was outlawed with prohibition, but it was still available to those willing to break the law.
Making guns illegal will only prevent law-abiding citizens from owning one. It will also make those same citizens easy marks for crime, since they will no longer be able to defend themselves.
Jeff Davis
Hixson
* * *
Mr. Mayfield stated "In our society guns have become toys, a fetish to some people. Some people are just hoping and praying for someone to break into their house so they can get the thrill and rush of blowing somebody away legally." This is one of the most absurd things I have ever heard. I hardly think that people sit around hoping for the day they have to take someone's life just because it’s legal for them to do so in certain situations.
I, for one, am certainly glad I have the right to protect myself. Sometimes law enforcement can't help you in time. Proof being what happened yesterday. It's not their fault, and at the same time, law enforcement would probably say they have no problem with law abiding citizens protecting themselves when they can't be there.
I own two handguns myself. I'm a young, intelligent female and I understand the necessity of personal protection. I know a ball bat can be taken away from me and I know a knife puts me entirely too close to a crazed felon. Why would I want to take that chance? I can assure you sir, I am not just praying for the day that I can "blow someone away legally." On the contrary, I do pray that day never comes, but I also pray that if that day should come, I can legally protect myself.
In regards to "Guns are for killing, period. They have no other use for anything besides that." I also disagree with you there. For one, some people shoot as a sport. No problem there. For two, some people shoot for food. Now I will agree you must kill your food first, but is this really what you are talking about? For three, I promise I will try to shoot for your knee caps to disable you from doing anything else to me or society ever again. I won't try to take your life unless you try to take mine. I see no problems there either.
We have a right to bear arms for many good reasons. It is highly unfortunate that Mr. Reeves, who is currently living in a dream world, disagrees. The right to bear arms didn't cause what happened at Virginia Tech. A fruit loop caused what happened at Virginia Tech. The right to bear arms should have enabled someone at Virginia Tech to protect themselves and others. Unfortunately, the liberals of the world continue to put restrictions on how we do that. It would have been lovely if someone could have stopped Cho Seung-Hui to hold hands and sing "Cum-ba-ya" long enough for the cops to get there, but let's be realistic for once.
Kelly Bennett
* * *
I'm not real sure the parallel that Mr. Reeves is attempting to draw. While it's true that Andy did not normally carry a gun, because he normally didn't need one, Otis was usually pretty calm, there was always a rack full of firearms in the office.
Andy was not an aggressive cop, but Andy was nobody’s fool.
Don Hill
Signal Mountain
* * *
Mr. Reeves obviously is not attuned to history, even recent history. Prohibition proved to be one of the largest blunders of "Legislation" that our illustrious attorney law makers ever created. Why? To garner some votes and keep their jobs so they wouldn't be in the soup lines too.
Prohibition spawned one of the most lawless periods of time ever recorded in our short history. It caused more death, more mayhem, and more illegal activities than our government could keep up with. All this in a time of sheer desperation for our people, the greatest depression in our history. Did it stop the liquor from flowing? Absolutely not. It just made millionaires out of people like Capone and his big time buddies while the rest of the country scraped dirt to eat. Sounds like a plan Mr. Reeves.
I worked in Youth Detention in Georgia, back in the 1980's and early 1990's. I knew the gentleman whom worked feverishly to have a local ordinance passed that required every male citizen of Kennesaw, Ga. to carry a loaded gun. During my time with the state in Youth Detention, I personally saw lawless street thugs and drug dealers decide that Kennesaw was no longer a place to hang out and "do business." They decided to leave the town alone and as a direct result of this local ordinance (law) the crime rate there dropped so dramatically that it made national news and garnered a tremendous amount of attention because the lawless were leaving and would not enter out of fear of law abiding citizens toting loaded guns.
And they say capitol punishment is not a deterrent. Wonder what made the lawless suddenly leave Kennesaw? Coincidence? During the time of public executions, I would dare say that a lot of would be outlaws made life changing decisions while watching lawless dangle from the end of a rope. I know I would have.
The terrorist whom decided to mass murder 33 young people and injure many more yesterday at Virginia Tech, was not a law abiding citizen. His actions that he decided to take had absolutely nothing to do with gun control. He was no different than Capone and his cronies during prohibition that decided to murder at will and for no reason at all. This terrorist from yesterday died by a bullet. Capone died of VD, nice and slow. A quick death was too good for the VA Tech terrorist.
I am certain from Mr. Reeves stated convictions, that he gladly supports our governor and his power to confiscate all personal weapons across Tennessee should the good governor decide that their is a "crisis" in our state. Our right to bear arms is our right to self protection and preservation and should never be removed regardless of whom may decide that a crisis exists. Was 9-11 a crisis? Is a drought that causes the farms to go under a crisis? Is the threat of possibly losing an election a crisis?
Mr. Reeves seems also to elude to the Vietnam War with disgust and disdain as well. I for one have personally followed Vietnam Vets into parking lots just to thank them for their service and sacrifice for me and my family. I have a very good friend whom buried his buddy's leg in the jungle because that was the only thing left after those nice VC done as they pleased. You will not find a more upstanding, kind and helpful person than my friend. He was doing his job and he was protecting our butts at home. These warriors were welcomed home by spitting on them calling them names that Mr. Reeves wouldn't dare call the VA Tech terrorist, the insurgents in Iraq, Osama or even the VC. The only thing that made the Vietnam War different from WWI or WWII was the lying, liberal press. The very same press that is not telling the truth about our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq today. The technology was not available in WWI or WWII. It should be removed from them today.
I am liken to Ms. Bennett, I pray that the day never comes when I have to protect myself or family from some lawless fool attempting to harm me or my family. But should I ever be confronted in a situation like that, I will remove the deadbeat, thug from society.
Just one thing to Ms. Bennett... ma'am taking the kneecaps of your assailant will only get you sued by some ambulance chasing attorney in a court that will destroy you and your family for the remaining of your life while at the same time treat your perpetrator as a god. Aim somewhat higher.
Kenneth McKinney
Cleveland
kenneth.mckinney@gmail.com
* * *
I have read all of the pro-gun hate-filled replies and think, yep, that's another person that needs a gun. On the other hand, I do agree that criminals and the mentally ill will never obey gun laws, no matter how many more you enact.
That being said, do you really think giving binge drinking college students access to firearms would have solved this problem? Oh sure, maybe one time in a hundred it would have helped, but I hate to think how many times it would have been a disaster having hung-over, pissed off, stressed out, testosterone filled young kids encouraged to carry guns on college campuses.
A textbook case of the solution being as bad or worse than the problem.
I think horrific tragedies like this are just the price we pay to have an armed society. It's the same price we pay in our dependence on mid-east oil in order to drive our SUV's.
Wes Ellis
we552003@yahoo.com
* * *
The authors of the U.S. Constitution did not include the 2nd Amendment to give Americans the right to protect themselves from bears or Indians. They did not write the 2nd Amendment as a means of giving citizens anything but to reinforce that they recognized the right of all free people to defend themselves. They wished to preserve that right which they understood as being granted by God, primarily to give citizens the means of defense against a tyrannical government. Understandably, they mistrusted government authority and viewed standing armies as instruments of evil and abuse.
They had just emerged from a war for independence against what they perceived as a tyrannical government. The first shot of that war occurred when the king’s troops attempted to disarm the citizens. They felt the best insurance against a despot was a free thinking, free speaking well-armed citizenry.
Disarming free citizens is not the path to safety but it is a road that leads to slavery and peonage. Hitler used the same “crime control” argument to disarm citizens before he began rounding up Jewish and other “undesirable” folks into concentration camps.
No gun control law would have prevented the Virginia Tech massacre. Anyone willing to commit mass murder would hardly mind breaking a misdemeanor gun law. The killer violated federal law by bringing the gun on campus.
We have outlawed a host of physical items, drugs, child pornography, explosives, etc. Determined criminals have no trouble obtaining any of those. Gun control laws that restricted students and faculty from possessing weapons on campus only enabled the murderer to spend two hours killing people without fear of being a target himself.
Jeff Young
Soddy Daisy
* * *
First and foremost, shame on you Jack Reeves for taking the tragedy at Virginia Tech and making it a political issue. Our thoughts and prayers should be focused on the victims, their families and friends, and for the Blacksburg community - not political agendas.
The Second Amendment has been eloquently defended in the replies to your letter. Thanks to all for doing so.
While political debate is important, we should remember that there is a time and place for all things.
Jay Ware
Ooltewah
jayware@comcast.net
* * *
I think the quote from Larry “The Cable Guy” is a pretty good one. “If guns kill people, then I can blame misspelled words on my pencil.”
Blame the idiot behind the gun. The gun wouldn’t go off without his finger on the trigger. Are we to outlaw cars when a wreck happens?
Personal responsibility is what it’s all about.
Diane Cranford
* * *
After reading Mr. Reeves article and one of the responses from Mr. Mayfield, I am still amazed at how some people perceive guns and the right to bear arms.
First, in response to Mr. Reeves’ article: most states have now adopted conceal carry laws which means that an individual can go to the local sheriff’s office and apply for a permit to carry a concealed weapon. After filling out an application, the applicant goes through an extensive back round check to make sure he or she is eligible to receive a carry permit. The applicant must also go through a training class to make sure he or she can use the firearm correctly and be educated on when they can use the firearm. Upon receiving the carry permit he or she also receives instructions that the permit holder cannot carry a weapon on school property or on government property. What a shame.
I do not believe it is a good idea for a high school or college student to carry a gun on campus but what about teachers, coaches, administrators, janitors, cafeteria works, etc. Let’s take a college like Virginia Tech. Let’s say they have 2,000 employees and 10% are willing and able to obtain a conceal carry permit. I have to believe that if there were 200 qualified individuals carrying guns on Virginia Techs campus on Monday, the death toll would be considerably less. The point is that our schools are an easy target. Maybe it’s time to change that.
Both Mr. Reeves and Mr. Mayfield pointed out that guns were a necessity 200 years ago and are not today. It is very apparent that neither one of them has read a newspaper or listened to the news. I believe both Mr. Reeves and Mr. Mayfield should get in touch with the Hamilton County Sheriff’s department and the Chattanooga Police department and get a count on the number of rapes, murders, robberies, home invasions, and assaults that were filed last year. There is no telling how many went unreported.
Mr. Mayfield said that “Guns are for killing people and they have no use for anything besides that.” It is apparent that Mr. Mayfield has never shot a round of skeet or a round of sporting clays or tried to take a center fire rifle and put three bullets in the same hole at 100 yards. I believe Mr. Mayfield would be astounded by the number of sportsmen that compete in the shooting sports and the amount of money that they spend on their sport each year. Can you imagine a sport where a large group of individuals gather to compete on an individual basis and when the competition is over the one with the best score wins? What a thrill it must be to be the best in the sport that you have chosen to compete in. I am not talking about golf; I am talking about the hundreds of shooting competitions that take place in this country every year where the competitors spend hundreds of hours practicing and thousands of dollars to be the best that they can be in their chosen sport. My point being, Mr. Mayfield, guns are not for killing people (people kill people) they are not toys and they are not a fetish. They are part of our culture and have been since our forefathers set foot on American soil.
Chip Rennick
Chattanooga
inc1590@bellsouth.net
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |