People would rather blame xyz than accept we have scumbags who need to be put down. They would rather believe we can child proof the World than actually address these scumbags.

Jay: Rather than banning left (or right) wing off the wall comments. I would prefer to see you ban any two bloggers that get into a "pissing" contest over whose is bigger, or the meaning of "is". It seems as if once they get started they are unable to quit hitting the "post" button.

REHAB....lol now if only you had used the other "F" word....ya know............ say HI to Ann for me.

Damn it all to hell!

I HATE satire tags. I want REALITY!

civil[mis]behavior should have been gone long ago.

CURSE you satire tags.

(DISCLAMER: This commmet is not meant, nor intended to be satire)

P.S I blame the satirists that write for The Simpsons for my extreme disappointment.

A common thread that one can observe running through many public blogs is the impulse to "ready, post, aim."

That is, some (like Jack) spew emotion without doing the least but of research. It wasn't the Bush administration who blamed someone for this tragedy. Predictably, it was Democrats and their flacks.

And animus is present right from the get go with these individuals. Something is under their skin and you're going to have it stuck right in your face.

I hope to God Jack doesn't own a gun.

Unless you drive down the highway with an unretrained infant, get out of a limo with your crotch showing and shave your head, I can't take your rehab attempt seriously.

Okay, that's the first step, admitting you have a problem. There's 11 more but it's one day at a time.

That's the first laugh I've had in a couple of days...thanks.

Also, if anyone has any way I can get hold of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, I understand that their forgiveness is a key step in my public rehabilitation...

Not to put you down, Jay, but I think you may not be high profile enough for them. Perhaps you could have a sit down with Oliver Willis?

/ducks

There seems to be no end of people willing to disregard/discard the plain language of the constitution. Takes my rights...please, is the Dangerfieldesque call of the day. Unbelievable.

"I would prefer to see you ban any two bloggers that get into a "pissing" contest over whose is bigger, or the meaning of "is"._USMC pilot"

Ergo.
There's "pissing" and debating. They're not the same. I like seeing who is first to shift the argument. Wheel their flank for a rear action. Can their center hold? Nope. Which make it a fair system. A "pisser" has his poor reasoning pinned to the undertaker's wall!

Adds DEPTH IMO.

JayTea:

I listen to FOX Radio (all day!) so I know: no one was clambering for Don Imus's head like 2 certain Fox programs. Before Obama or Sharpton said a thing, Gibson and Kilmeade were doing the PC cha-cha all over the ballroom floor. DISGUSTING!

Wheel their flank for a rear action. Can their center hold? Nope.

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. WBY

Yeats. (yeah, the clue!)

Show-off:)

Jay,

Thanks for the laugh!

"Objects in rear-view mirror are closer than than they appear."

Mere words are loosed upon the world.
Electron wracked, and whipped into frenzy,
They're hurled, heavily laden,
Eroding the rock of ages,
And smoothing the shining shore.
======================

Ah well, were we not so plastic, we wouldn't be here.
===============================

"The gunman blamed for the deadliest shooting in modern U.S. history had previously been accused of stalking two female students at Virginia Tech and had been taken to a mental health facility in 2005 after an acquaintance worried he might be suicidal, police said Wednesday." (source)

This guy should never have been able to buy a gun. The gun laws need to be changed.

"Unfortunately, some of them were more emotional than I was prepared to handle. For comments that were too intense, I found I banned"

NOT TO WORRY Jay.....I'm sure you had a pile of "comment intensity" credits on hand.

Give our best to Britney, Jay.

We'll see you in 28 days.

Lee,

This guy should never have been able to buy a gun. The gun laws need to be changed.

I agree in theory, but what you need to take into account is this guy was never commited, he never went to prison, he had no record. There was no little red sticker on his license that said "Accused of stalking two female students"

I'm not sure what change in the existing laws would rectify this problem.

Heh, woops. I just re-read your link, Lee. It doesn't say if he was actually committed to the facility though, just that he was taken.

"Objects in rear view mirror are NOT the objects in front of you.

Please watch where the f you are going."

OK, Lee, I read your link. What is the matter in that English Department?
===============================

Lee, quite frankly I agree that this Cho should not have been allowed to have a gun. I ask this question: Had he carried one openly would he have been allowed to keep it?
========================================

Lee:

I liked you satirical piece. I just wish you weren't so quick on the trigger when others are satirical.

"It doesn't say if he was actually committed to the facility though, just that he was taken."

The police had been alerted back in 2005 (this from the same article I linked above).

Cho Seung-Hui had concerned one woman enough with his calls and e-mail in 2005 that police were called in, said Police Chief Wendell Flinchum.

He said the woman declined to press charges, and neither woman was among the victims of Monday's massacre on the Virginia Tech campus.

During the stalking second incident, also in late 2005, the department received a call from an acquaintance of Cho's who was concerned that he might be suicidal, and Cho was taken to a mental health facility, Flinchum said. About the same time, in fall 2005, Cho's professor informally shared some concerns about the young man's writing but no official report was filed, he said.

The second amendment and the current gun laws protected Cho's right to legally buy a handgun.

That needs to be changed.

Lee, so accusing somebody without any proof is enough to take away somebody's Constitutional rights? Accusing somebody without following through is enough to take away their Constitutional rights?
Interesting.
I guess that's a good way to get around the 2nd amendment. Anti-gun people would just hang around gun stores and gun shows, write down some license plate numbers, call the cops and accuse the people of "stalking" them, never actually follow through on it, and that person can never buy a gun again.
That's a nice way to take away rights.

Question for you Lee, is there some way I can accuse you of something so you lose your right to free speech? Just curious.

And no, I'm not saying the guy didn't stalk the girls or do whatever he was accused of, I don't know, but there was no follow up and no criminal record. That's the point.

"Lee, so accusing somebody without any proof is enough to take away somebody's Constitutional rights?".

In my opinion, the police should have been alerted when Cho tried to buy the gun, allowing them to investigate. If they determined that he had an adequate reason then they would let him buy the gun, fine --

-- but given the history we now know about Cho (and that the police knew at the time he purchased the gun a couple of months ago) I would hope the police would come to the conclusion that he should have been denied his constitutional right to murder 32 people, yes.

It amazes me that the dimmers cannot come to grips with the second amendment. Alright, let's change it. You have to be licensed to purchase. Also, you have to get a license to voice your opinion on web site, t.v. and other media. The press needs to be licensed before they can print or report a story. Where would it end. Many people have been harmed permanently by words.

The second amemdment protects us from the government. As the other Bill of Rights do. Come to terms with it. It is there and it will stay. ww

OK, Lee, given these set of circumstances, how would you have prevented him from getting a gun. And I noticed you didn't answer my question, would he have been allowed to continue to carry a gun had he done so openly?

Remember, I grant he shouldn't have gotten one. As someone pointed out, his ID didn't come with stickers announcing his stalkerhood. The police didn't charge him. He wasn't committed. He may or may not have taken anti-depressants, presumably as a result of mental health care. He did no overt act that was a threat to himself or others, yet people feared him. How would you have kept him from getting the gun?

I think the police failed, I think the mental health team failed, I think the English Department and the University failed. This guy was not in connection with reality, people knew it, and no one was able to do anything about it. That's not a problem with gun laws. I blame it on society.
======================================

but given the history we now know about Cho (and that the police knew at the time he purchased the gun a couple of months ago) I would hope the police would come to the conclusion that he should have been denied his constitutional right to murder 32 people, yes.
He was accused not convicted. As such, the police had no such right.

My scenario for people falsely accusing all gun owners is where your solution leads.

I've got the analogy that fits. In many jurisdictions felons can't vote . So I accuse you of a felony. I never follow through, you are never convicted.
Therefore, following your logic, you can never vote again.
See? We are a nation of laws, not feelings or hindsight.

"I've got the analogy that fits. In many jurisdictions felons can't vote . So I accuse you of a felony. I never follow through, you are never convicted. Therefore, following your logic, you can never vote again. See? We are a nation of laws, not feelings or hindsight."

I didn't say he should have been denied solely on the basis of previous accusations, did I?

I said given what the police knew two months ago at the time Cho bought the gun --- specifically the previous stalking accusations (two), his mental health facility "visit", and the concern expressed to the police by one of Cho's professors regarding the violence in CHo's writings, should certainly (in aggregate) have been reason for the police to question Cho on his need for a handgun.

As I said, if after questioning him the police then determined that he had a valid reason for the gun, then fine -- but given these red flags I would hope that he would have been denied.

It all depends on the answers he gave to the police at the time he would ahve been questioned baout his desire to buy a handgun -- and I'll go so far as to say perhaps someone with Cho's history should be required to have a lie detector test and be asked why they want a gun as a condition of getting a gun while connected to a lie detector.

It's fine to have a law that denies all felons convicted of violent crimes the right to buy a handgun. The question is at one point do we draw the line for those who haven't been convicted, but who have shown valid reasons for concern?

At a minimum, Cho should have been questioned by the police about his reason for buying a handgun. He wasn't.

Note to self: accuse Lee of a major felony a day or two before the 2008 elections.

J.

J'accuse!

There's no doubt to me that people saw this coming.

Our politically correct, hurt no one's feelings and leave not one out attitude stopped preventative steps from being taken.

"Note to self: accuse Lee of a major felony a day or two before the 2008 elections."

Fine, but make it a really cool felony - like kidnapping Bill O'Reilly and forcing him to be Rosie O'Donnell's maid for a week.

You can't be excused with a visit to 'rehab' unless you are a member of a clearly designated (D)emocrat-party approved victim-class.

Failing that you have to humiliate yourself to the point no one ever worries you will ever have an erection again and THEN you can request temporary admission from a leader of a clearly designated (D)emocrat-party approved victim-class.

Imus was failed in spite of his previous contributions.

Lee, you are still avoiding the point, he was convicted of nothing. You can't deny Constitutional rights on suspicions. That's one of the reasons America is.
China, Russia, the EU and various other dictatorships are where you get denied your rights based on suspicions.

What we have here is a failure of properly characterizing this guy's mental illness.
Yes, the symptons were all there, but..... what about the hospital where he voluntarily committed hims