Friday, March 6, 2009

Paul Helmke on the Virginia Tech Shooting

After the Virginia Tech. massacre, Congress and President Bush unanimously passed a law which would prohibit mentally ill people from purchasing guns.



Paul Helmke is the President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. His comments on this video seem to be the epitome of common sense. Who could have a problem with what he said? Who could disagree with what he said? I guess they're the same ones who deny or object to discussions about the so-called "gun-show loophole."

What's your opinion? Why would the poster of the video on Youtube call Mr. Helmke a reptile? Aren't you concerned that mentally ill people, and criminals for that matter, can buy guns privately with no background checks? I am.

Please feel free to leave a comment.

8 comments:

  1. The fact is is that there was already a law preventing mentally ill people from purchasing firearms. The NICS Improvement Act (which the Brady Campaign had NOTHING to do with) was to push states to actually enforce the laws on the books.

    There's also the fact that the Brady Campaign sent out an e-mail just hours after the news hit the airwaves asking for donations of $32, yes that's right, $32 to 'fight the gun lobby'.

    That's why Helmke's lower than a reptile.

    Do you still think he's the 'epitome of common sense'? Do you support those actions?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Aren't you concerned that mentally ill people, and criminals for that matter, can buy guns privately with no background checks?

    Mike, why don't you learn about the existing gun control laws. Not all criminals are barred from owning firearms.

    Those that are barred are already covered by the laws preventing that. If people won't obey the law telling them not to commit the crime that got them prohibited, what makes you think they will obey the law against buying a firearm? Or asking someone who can to buy one, or stealing one or making one or using a different weapon.

    People who won't obey the law against murder, rape, assault really aren't going to be convinced to not get a gun if they wanted it by a background check.

    Aren't you concerned that the mentally ill and criminals can buy computers privately with no background checks? After all the child porn that is produced, much of it in my OPINION by ex-pats living in Italy, shouldn't we prevent these terrible devices from falling into criminal hands?

    How about printers and cameras; shouldn't those privately owned items be controlled to prevent the mentally ill and criminal from owning them?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thirdpower, Wasn't the law passed unamimously by Congress and signed by Bush? Didn't that happen right after the VT shooting as a result of the tragedy? What's that got to do with the Bradys?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Armed with a simple manual Vegematic device which the defendant Louise Doodlewitx bought by ordering from an 1-800 number after seeing a demo on the Home Shoppers Network, walked into the classroom of the elementary school and proceded to slice, not only dice but to make thousands of julienne fries in just seconds out of the panicking children.

    After she subdued by authorities, it was discovered that Louise had made multiple references of culinary mayhem to institutions throughout the greater Phlegmville area and had a history of kitchen appliance abuse.

    "If we had only passed a law to require background checks on food processor buyers, perhaps hideous massacres like this could be avoided in the future" said sherriff Boyd Dunlump, adding,"The defendant did have a certain flair for garnishes."

    Okay, Bob, does that work for you?
    Does that make possession of a food proccessing implement somehow equal to buying an assault weapon?

    Does buying an assault weapon somehow equal downloading child porn from the internet and printing it out which is what you imply.

    There truly seems to be a certain disregard for logic and common sense here.
    While I find so many aspects of libertarianism very attractive, the logic used by many of its proponents to promote their agendas such as no taxes, doing away with public education or access to any weapon they want to be absolutely infantile.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wow Mike, feeling especially disingenuous today?

    Perhaps you didn't actually read my comment. Cho wasn't a 'prohibited purchaser' because he was never ordered to obtain mental health treatment, only encouraged to by the system. So Paul lied.

    Perhaps you didn't read what the actual Brady response was to VT. I take it you have no problems with them dancing in the blood of the VT victims to call for donations (of $32) and use the victim's grief to call for laws that had NOTHING to do w. how Cho got his guns?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Microdot,

    Okay, Bob, does that work for you?
    Does that make possession of a food proccessing implement somehow equal to buying an assault weapon?


    Would the children be any less dead if she used a vegematic, a car, a baseball bat or an "assault weapon"?

    NO.

    By the way, love how you throw in the assault weapon canard. None of the weapons used in any recent school shoot would qualify as assault weapons under the 1994 Assault Weapon ban. (Guys, correct me if I'm wrong). So what does that have to do with anything?

    Can't you see that no system is proof against mistakes, proof against misuse?

    I find it fascinating that the anti-gun crowd is completely schizo on the issue of firearms. Banning firearms is needed because if it saves even one life, that is enough......but then they focus on how MANY lives can be lost due to firearms. Isn't even one life lost due to a vegematic attack too many, isn't one life lost due to a knife attack too many, isn't one life lost due to a car plowing into a crowd too many?

    The anti-gun crowd tries to distract people with those types of bait and switch schemes...forgetting that many lives--documented-- have been saved by the PRESENCE of a firearm. Mike is a perfect example of this, rarely recognizing even a single defensive gun use, but willing to find a single instance of somebody misusing firearms.

    Does buying an assault weapon somehow equal downloading child porn from the internet and printing it out which is what you imply.

    No, the two actions do not equal each other.

    Here is a phrase for you to remember "specifically enumerated constitutional right".

    Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc is a "specifically enumerated constitutional right." The same equipment, the same objects that are used in acceptable and beneficial ways can be used to commit horrendous crimes, such as producing child porn wouldn't you agree?

    So, if people wanted to reduce the availability of child porn (how much is produced by ex-pats living overseas anyways?) would it make sense to impose the same restrictions as what are on firearms?

    Firearms are also a "specifically enumerated constitution right". Yet greater restrictions, greater limitations are imposed on firearms then any other right.

    The logic, which seems to escape the "pro-ignorance, anti-freedom" crowd like the Brady Campaign is that many rights are protected by the Constitution. Limiting the freedom of the press, the freedom for people like Mike to spew distortions and lies could be prevented by imposing restrictions on computers, printers but we don't. We use the existing laws against the misuse of those freedoms instead of banning any equipment.

    Firearms, as much as the pro-ignorance, anti-freedom (h/t to Weer'd for a great phrase) are simply tools. Just like the vegematic, just like a car, just like a computer, camera, printer.

    We argue that it is not in the best interest of the country to implement every increasing restrictions on our "specifically enumerated constitutional rights".

    Certainly that logic even you can see?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thirdpower, I guess I didn't understand what you were saying about Cho and the passing of that law.

    But are you another one like Weer'd who can't allow for disagreement except through ignorance or lies? Isn't it possible that some of us think we'd be better off with fewer guns? That's what Helmke is all about, in my opinion. So, how hard do you want to work to prove him a liar? Aren't you derailing the discussion when you do that?

    About the contributions, if you say that's what they did, fine I accept that. Is it that despicable, really? Don't organizations that depend upon donations need to do stuff like that?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I don't need to do much to prove how disingenuous Helmke is. He takes care of that himself.

    It is despicable Mike. That you don't think so says alot on your character.

    ReplyDelete