Yes, that's how it happened.  Check out this interesting post at Physics Geek Jesus Freak:

I had a brief mini-debate with a couple of co-workers yesterday, one of whom was appalled that people would advance any pro-gun argument in response to the Virginia Tech shootings. Ironically, I - who have never fired or even held a gun - was defending gun rights to two guys who have both fired weapons. They also expressed disbelief over the recent D.C. Circuit decision to overthrow a thirty-year-old gun ban in the District of Columbia.

Fuddites, no doubt.

From KnoxNews:

As states and colleges across the country review their gun policies in light of the tragedy, many in Utah are proud to have the nation's only state law that expressly allows the carrying of concealed weapons at public colleges.

"If government can't protect you, you should have the right to protect yourself," said Republican state Sen. Michael Waddoups.

There are some foolish statements in the article. Like this:

"What happened at Virginia Tech might have been stopped," said Christine Zabawa, a medical researcher at the university. However, she said it is a bad idea to allow guns in dormitories, and fears an accident could happen during a party on campus.

"Alcohol and guns. It's a bad combination," she said.

Well then, Christine, why don't you just ban alcohol, since bans always work so well?

Oda said banning guns on campus might do more harm than good. He said people bent on violence might resort to other, perhaps bloodier methods, such as swords.

"A person that's got skill with a sword in a very big crowd could put a lot more people down with a sword than a gun," he said. "They're silent. You'll have people screaming, but nobody knows what's going on."

Or some psychotic killer might, you know, just ignore the ban and bring a gun anyway. I've heard that kind of thing has happened before.

Via Of Arms and the Law.

Lots of other bloggers have talked about this already, but just in case you haven't seen it yet, I want to point out this opinion piece by one Dan Simpson.  This is yet another example of why there can be no compromise with enemies of freedom.  They can talk about what they call "common-sense gun laws" all they want, but every now and then, one of them slips up and reveals the real agenda.

Although I do believe Simpson is an elitist and a fascist, I don't think he's crazy.  I think he's just abysmally stupid.  This passage, for example:

America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-gun dealerships installing themselves in Mexico, and perhaps in more remote parts of the Canadian border area, to funnel guns into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time.

There could conceivably also be a rash of score-settling during hunting season as people drew out their weapons, ostensibly to shoot squirrels and deer, and began eliminating various of their perceived two-footed enemies. Given the general nature of hunting weapons and the fact that such killings are frequently time-sensitive, that seems a lesser sort of issue.

The suggestion that hunters would quickly "settle scores" during the brief time they are allowed their weapons is despicable and reveals his own contempt for his fellow humans.  But the first paragraph there reveals his utter stupidity.  Our so-called "authorities" can't stop truckloads of people from illegally crossing the border.  How would they ever stop illegal guns?  Guns can be stashed in places that a person can't, and they don't have to be kept alive.  Like I said, abysmally stupid.

However, this is not to be taken lightly.  This is what they really want.  Read the whole article.

Seen first at The War On Guns.

Technorati Tags: dan+simpson,, rkba,, second+amendment

UPDATE:  I'm bumping this old post back to the top because some other folks have made similar posts lately, and I am adding links to them all from this post.  Scroll to the bottom for the links.  If you have a similar post, let me know and I'll add it, too.

---

I've been thinking about this some lately. It has lurking in the back of my mind for a while, and some thoughts were more recently crystallized because of this post at South Park Pundit.

I didn't always carry a gun. I actually only carried a concealed weapon one time previous to having a CHL, and then it was in my vehicle, not on my person. As if that makes any difference to the "authorities." Even after then-Governor Bush signed the law that established legal concealed carry in Texas, I didn't take advantage of it for several years.

I suppose many other people who carry have been asked the same question I have a few times: Why do you want to carry a gun?

My honest answer is: I don't want to carry a gun.

I don't want to do a lot of things. I don't want to hold down a regular job that drains me of all my energy so that by the end of the day, most of the time, all I can do is come home, eat, shower, and go to sleep. I don't want to rely so heavily on gasoline for my well-being. Having grown up in the country where there aren't many decent jobs, I have come to rely heavily on gasoline for commuting to the city where there are better opportunities. Having a family with two small children I have to do whatever I can to provide for them, which means I take the best jobs I can get, even if I hate them, which I usually do. Sure, I could move to the city and use less gas. But then I would also have to pay more for less land, be crowded into higher population densities, and my children would be exposed to a higher rate of drugs, crime and danger than they are now. I prefer to stay where I am.

Which brings me to the gun. I carry it for them. As a father, and as a more or less decent human being with a fairly well-honed conscience, I would be failing them if I didn't do what I had to to provide them with food, clothing, shelter, and protection.

I have heard people say that they are big enough and strong enough to handle anyone who threatens them or their family. Anyone who thinks he or she is big enough and strong enough to use their bare hands against a criminal armed with a gun is a fool. I am neither big nor strong, but I have dedicated myself to their protection, and I will do what I can and what I must, if I am forced to.

It means I must examine a number of guns to find the one that works best for me. It means I must weigh the destructive potential of a caliber against the number of times a given gun is capable of delivering that potential before reloading. It means I must carry different guns to discover which is easiest for me to carry, draw and wield. It means I must learn about different types of ammunition so that I can decide which ones are best able to deliver that potential.

My children already know this. I know they know it because they have both asked me something along the lines of, "If a bad person tried to get me, would you shoot them?" I answer them honestly, "Yes, if I had to, to keep you safe." This has not had the effect of making them paranoid, to my knowledge. On the contrary, it seems to be working for them. My very young son has even gone so far as to say that when he grows up, he will help keep me safe, too.

If something were to happen that abolished the Texas CHL law, I don't think I could go back. I know that their protection is my responsibility, and it's a responsibility that I can't rely on anyone else to provide.

If I lived in my ideal world, I would spend all my time puttering around a large ranch with nothing but a .22 hanging from a gun rack behind the seat of my truck. I would probably not own a handgun at all. Well, maybe a .22 handgun, just because they are so universally useful. But I don't live in my ideal world and I doubt that very many people do.

So when someone asks me why I want to carry a gun, this is my answer. I don't carry because I want to. I carry because it's the right thing to do.

SEE ALSO:
Confessions of a Deathbeast at Hell in a Handbasket.
Why I Carry at What Would John Wayne Do?
Last words on why I carry at When Your Only Tool Is A Hammer.
Why Carry? at Random Ramblings of a Republitarian.
Become Just. One. Person at Joe's Crabby Shack.

If you don't subscribe to The Shooting Wire, you need to go sign up now.  Today's email is full of good information.

First, this:

Here's a fact that is guaranteed to drive anti-gun groups absolutely insane: there is no corollary between the rate of firearms ownership and homicide and violent crime rates.

This might come as a total shock to many reporters, editorial writers and elected officials, but it is the result of a lengthy - and scientific look - at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence by criminologists Prof. Don Kates of the United States and Prof. Gary Mauser of Canada. In fact, their summation is one that will more than likely rock the misconceptions of many: "nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates than those which allow guns."

Wow.

The Kates/Mauser report appears in no less than the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. Entitled "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence" is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it, in fact, bears no relation to the incidence of murder and violence.

And in other news, I have mentioned before how some district attorneys have turned vigilante and decided to ignore Texas law.  Shooting Wire has more news on this:

In a report called "Above the Law: How Texas prosecutors are placing their own judgment over that of the Legislature and the law of the land" the American Civil Liberties Union has collaborated with the Texas Criminal Justice Coalition and the Texas State Rifle Association to unveil the actions of some Texas prosecutors who don't care for the clarifications made to Texas' concealed-carry laws. The clarification states, simply, that citizens have the right to carry a legal handgun in a private vehicle.

Some Texas prosecutors didn't like that new law — to the point several directed local police to ignore the statute.

In the joint report, it appears that in at least 13 jurisdictions in Texas, that is, indeed the case. 13 county/district attorneys, including district attorneys for counties in large metropolitan areas like Houston and Fort Worth, have instructed police officers to interrogate Texans unnecessarily, arrest Texans, or take their guns even if they are legally carrying the gun in a car under HB 823 standards.

According to the report, one County Attorney One "advised police officers that it's simply too complicated to try and determine whether a Texan is legally carrying a stowed gun in the car, so officers should arrest for "unlawful carrying" as before and let the prosecutor's office 'sort out the legal niceties.'"

Those are fighting words to the authors of "Above the Law" and they have countered by naming those County Attorneys, citing examples of their having instructed officers to either circumvent or ignore the law, and publishing a guideline of "what to do if you're stopped".

In fact, the law is very simple and clear.  It states that if you are in your car and not otherwise involved in unlawful activity, not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm, and not a member of a street gang, you can have a gun concealed in your car.  Period.  I'm sure eventually someone will try to define those of us who believe in self defense as gang members before it's over with.

Finally, this news from Illinois:

As was reported in yesterday's edition of The Outdoor Wire, Pike County, Illinois has fired back at Illinois legislators who seem intent on passing progressively restrictive gun laws. With an economy that's heavily dependent on the hunting industry, Pike County's Commission passed a resolution which has told state legislators Pike will not recognize legislation that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms as is guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Word of that action is spreading across the United States and other small counties are beginning to discuss their own measures to prevent the usurpation of their rights by legislators they feel are either disconnected or indifferent to their jurisdiction's needs.

Now that's some amazing activism.  Some might go so far as to call it rebellion.

[Senator Chuck Schumer] told O'Reilly on Monday that while he and Rep. McCarthy had previously worked together on this legislation, he now wants Congress to take up HR 297 quickly. "The Brady Law is a reasonable limitation," Schumer said. "Some might disagree with me, but I think certain kinds of licensing and registration is a reasonable limitation. We do it for cars."

Get the picture? First, he wants the Brady Law strengthened with the McCarthy-Dingell-Schumer legislation. Then it's off to pass more gun control -- treating guns like cars, where all gun owners are licensed and where bureaucrats will have a wonderful confiscation list.

In the O'Reilly interview, Schumer showed his hand when he revealed the strategy for this bill. Because it could become such a hot potato -- thanks to your efforts -- Senator Schumer is pushing to get this bill passed by Unanimous Consent in the Senate, which basically means that the bill would get passed WITHOUT A VOTE.

Read the whole thing at the Gun Owners of America website.

Philip van Cleave of VCDL in The Raw Story:

"This is a huge nail in the coffin of gun control," said Philip van Cleave president of the gun rights group Virginia Citizens Defense League.

"They had gun control on campus and it got all those people killed, because nobody could defend themselves," he told AFP.

"You want people to be able to defend themselves -- always," he said.

Van Cleave said the tragedy could give a boost to a years-long effort in Virginia to pass legislation allowing students to carry weapons on campus -- especially since existing laws failed to prevent Cho's murderous rampage.

"Gun control failed. That student under university rules was not to have a gun," Van Cleave said.

He's more optimistic than I am. I hope he's right.

Interesting editorial from Investor's Business Daily:

Bernard Goldberg, in his book "Arrogance" (Warner, 2003), reports how the media reported the tragic events of that day. He notes that Lott did a LexisNexis search and found that only four of 208 news reports mentioned the rescuers had guns. James Eaves-Johnson did his own LexisNexis search for the Daily Iowan (University of Iowa) and found that only two of 88 stories mentioned that armed students subdued the killer and prevented more deaths.

Commentary on how the bias against guns relates to the recent atrocity.

From Oleg Volk.

Follow the link for lots more images on this topic.

Technorati Tags: Virginia+Tech, self+defense

To the commenter from Georgia who spent 4 hours here when you probably should have been teaching, or whatever you do there:

Hincker is "a butcher with immaculate hands."  It is people like him who are partly responsible for those deaths because they work so hard to make sure that everyone is a potential victim.

And let me make one thing perfectly clear:  It  is not people like me who become mass murderers.  It is people like me who may one day save your life from a crazy like that.

To the other commenter:  No, I don't feel better.  And I won't feel better until victimization lunatics like Hincker no longer have the influence to brainwash people like you into thinking that everyone must be a victim.