W. Gerald Massengill, the chairman of the panel that investigated the Virginia Tech murder spree, blames Cho's atrocity on the "proliferation" of guns.
The former Virginia State Police superintendent focused on gun control laws and the gun purchase and campus policy recommendations set forth by the eight-member review panel.Well, there you have it--"there just has to be some reasonable processes and procedures"--Massengill says so. If he says there "just has to be" a way to reconcile "reasonable processes and procedures" (what--the word "restrictions" is a bit too honest for you, Massengill?) with "shall not be infringed," who am I to argue?
"There just has to be some reasonable processes and procedures out there to address these issues," Massengill said, predicting that gun control will be debated "to a new height" in the upcoming Virginia General Assembly session.
"The thought ... of people losing their firearms is just something that Americans can't tolerate and quite honestly shouldn't. But on the other hand, we cannot allow the proliferation of guns to continue like they're continuing," Massengill said.Now, suddenly, he shifts this to a debate about confiscation, and assures us not to worry--he certainly doesn't advocate that. By the way, " . . . cannot allow the proliferation of guns to continue like they're continuing"? That's some . . . interesting grammar.
The article then goes on to say that Massengill and his panel support legislation requiring background checks for all firearm sales (with a possible exception for transfers between family members--gee, thanks, buddy).
"The instant background check for everyone, maybe except family, to me is just a reasonable approach," Massengill said. "There's just a lot of good reasons in today's society to tighten up these restrictions on buying guns."At least now he's admitting that his "processes and procedures" are really "restrictions." Anyway, we have "just a lot of good reasons in today's society to tighten up" these very same restrictions--enough reasons (good reasons, no less), I'm sure, to far outweigh some pesky, old-fashioned Bill of Rights, and the rantings of the paranoid, homegrown terrorist types who insist on reading it literally.
Wanna hear Massengill's idea of the "perfect system"?
Massengill said the perfect system would have everyone undergo a mental health screening before being able to get a gun, but said "that's not going to happen."Don't be modest, Massengill--it's not the "perfect system"--it's the Final Solution.
What, no mention of lifting policies of victim disarmament? Actually, there was, right at the end:
Audience members also brought up the discussion of people being able to carry guns in college campuses, which some argued could have lessened the casualties during the massacre. The panel recommended banning guns on campus grounds and in buildings unless mandated by law."Unless mandated by law," eh? Does mandated by the Constitution count?
"When you analyze it in totality, it's just not a good idea," Massengill said of guns on campus.Well, as long as Massengill says so, and states his reasoning so clearly (and with a four syllable word!), I guess it must be true. Apparently, the best way to keep students safe is to ensure that the only armed person in the building is the sick bastard who wants to kill everybody. Sounds counterintuitive to me, but I've never been a high-ranking "Only One," so I'm obviously not going to know this stuff unless wise masters like Massengill tell me what to believe.
The proliferation I would like to see the end of is the proliferation of statist herbivores who would trade liberty for . . . not even safety, but for the illusion of safety--I guess that's not going to happen, either.
Stumble it!
7 comments:
I think his last name is appropriate, considering what he's proposing.
Massengill, Isn’t that the name of a feminine hygiene product?
+1 Opaww
Illusion of safety. A clever ruse to pillage our rights in front of our faces.
I think you've given Massengill's statements far more analysis than they deserve. One could easily reduce all his drivel to one sentence, "I'm a member of the elite, and I prefer that you peasants remain unarmed."
As far as I know, we don't impose prior restraint to prevent abuse of any of the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Needless to say, this argument would cut no ice with Massengill. See the paragraph above.
Notice that it is always one of the political cops who spouts this junk. The cops on the street, in my experience, have no problem with honest citizens being armed.
I dunno, Joe--it's gonna be that "cop on the street" who busts you for exercising your RKBA," not his bosses.
I will say this again. I once told this to a cop in Mount Vernon, Illinois who stated he did not understand why cops were so hated.
I said,"Because there aren't any good ones."
He took great umbrage until I proved to him, that even he was not a good cop, though he was trying very hard to be. (He was a very nice young man and was doing his best)
He later took an honest job in his own two businesses and is doing very well for a young man.
I did prove my point in front of witnesses and he did understand what I said.
If you are interested, I will post details. If not, suffice it to say, that I did convince him that the hatred was deserved. He decided that he could not continue in a corrupt system. (I told you he was a very nice young man)
Post a Comment