A group of protesters seeking tighter gun restrictions are planning "lie-ins" on Capitol Hill and the steps of the Supreme Court to mark the one-year anniversary of the massacre at Virginia Tech that left 32 students shot and killed.
The protests are slated to begin on the front of the Supreme Court at noon tomorrow and on the lawn of the Capitol 45 minutes later. They will feature "lie-ins," that is, an unknown number of protesters, including family members of Virginia Tech victims and survivor Elilta Habtu, will lie down in groups of 32 to symbolize the 32 victims.
Protesters are seeking tighter controls on gun sales, which they say occur too easily. They are calling for more stringent rules at gun shows and hope to reinstate a ban on assault weapons.
"The American people know that it's too easy for dangerous people to obtain dangerous weapons," Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a release co-sponsoring the protests. "As we remember gun violence victims on April 16, we should urge Congress to close the gun show loophole immediately, and take other common sense steps to fight gun violence."
In the wake of last year's shooting the House and Senate passed a bill signed by President Bush in January to strengthen the prescreening of gun purchasers and limit the mentally ill from buying guns.
Update: CNN just mentioned that anti-gun student protestors would also be holding their own "lie-in" on the campus of Virginia Tech. They earlier also interviewed a student whose friend was killed during the shootings and is now an activist for guns rights.
— Carrie Sheffield, Web editor, The Washington Times
Comments (8)
In the wake of last year's shooting the House and Senate passed a bill signed by President Bush in January to strengthen the prescreening of gun purchasers and limit the mentally ill from buying guns.
Could you please explain for readers what you mean by "the" mentally ill.
Harold A. Maio
Advisory Board
American Journal of Psychiatric Rehabilitation
Board Member
Partners in Crisis
Former Consulting Editor
Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal
Boston University
Language Consultant
UPENN Collaborative on Community Integration
of Individuals with Psychiatric Disabilities
Home:
8955 Forest St
Ft Myers FL 33907
239-275-5798
khmaio@earthlink.net
Posted by Harold A. Maio | April 15, 2008 6:39 PM
Mentally ill is like terrorism or genocide, it is applied to the moral equivalency of the environment you are using it with. The U.N. will not define terrorism because it requires an instantaneous judgement of cause. Prescreening for mental illness is the same, it tells you nothing about a persons future emotional stability. The is one long standing fact, the right to bear arms was important enough to be designated in the Constitution.
Posted by Larry Stone | April 16, 2008 6:09 AM
When we all accept the fact that we need to allow trained, willing, teachers and students to carry weapons on campus. If there were students and faculty on campus who had some real defense training with firearms, they would stop the few crazies who try to terrorize. VT was considered a "GUN FREE ZONE" but in reality it was for the shooter a "VICTIM RICH ZONE". By not allowing students to carry self defense weapons, VT placed all of them in a no win situation and failed to protect them. That too is criminal.
Posted by Steve Evatt | April 16, 2008 10:49 AM
Any comments in response to any current media story inferring the cause of the tragedy to be the inanimate firearm is moot. What was for years an interesting emotional diversion and an easy flame-starter finally will be decided by the Supreme Court, probably in June. At that time, if the justices have any courage, they will determine whether we should spend our time blaming the tool or the misuse of it by a person.
We might as well blame printer's ink for slander.
Another advocate for the strict constructionist interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Posted by Larry Anderson | April 16, 2008 11:20 AM
"When we all accept the fact that we need to allow trained, willing, teachers and students to carry weapons on campus."
A certain percentage of people in the country will always be homicidal. I think having a "Victim Rich Zone"of people allready to be massacred by the crazies must stop. Any number of people that I've met over the years at shooting ranges would have curtailed this latest murderous obsenity within seconds, there is nothing quite like a gun when you need one. Laying down and pleading for your life shouldn't be the only option to the poor student.
Posted by Ron Nord | April 16, 2008 3:16 PM
The background check and ban on gun ownership applies to those who have been adjudicated as dangerous and ordered to undergo involuntary mental health treatment.
Posted by David C | April 16, 2008 5:14 PM
Amazing the warped logic I read. People confusing dangerous places with places where crime is possible, people thinking law abiding citizens will break out into a mass shootout - simply has never happened. One shuld make decision based on data and not emotion. Regardless of level of training of a concealed handgun carrier, I'm willing to bet none of the victims would have told someone to put their gun away because they felt they weren't trained enough. Be serious. People like to classify a "college student" as some class of citizen who is unstable and subject to a meltdown just because they're a student. Be serious. data people, not emotional yadda yadda.
I don't think anyone is advocating "putting" guns into anyones hands but advocating allowing people to exercise their right to arm themselves regardless of where they're located. If I have a concealed weapon permit and am across the street from the campus, does setting foot on campus suddenly transform that law abiding person into a crazed gunman? Be serious.
Some will say....but wait! Suppose that law abiding person is a nut like Cho and snaps. Well guess what? Regardless of the laws you put into place, you're not going to prevent a Cho. History should tell you that. Meth is illegal to take, distribute, possess, sell in any shape or form yet it happens on a mega scale on a daily basis. Laws do not deter criminals. that's why they're criminals. You only curtail the rights of the law abiding citizen who follows them specifically BECAUSE they're a law abiding citizen.
And oh by the way, I'm a retired military officer with over 25 years of experience with weapons and I still have to follow the same restrictive laws as any other citizen. Does that make sense? By law, even I wouldn't have been allowed to carry my weapon on the campus of VT. I'd have to leave it in my car.
Posted by Navywings | April 16, 2008 10:47 PM
Gun freezones have NEVER saved a life. However the toll the have taken keeps rising!
Posted by T.Stewart | April 16, 2008 11:42 PM