April 16, 2007, - 10:07 pm

Taking Bets: How Long Until Rosie O’Donnell . . .

. . . starts spouting off about how the VTU massacre, today, is cause for renewed efforts for gun control?
I give her two minutes into the start of ABC’s “The View,” tomorrow (that’ll give her time to walk on stage and sit down). Unfortunately, intellectual midget–no, giant airhead–Elisabeth Hasselbeck won’t have a clue how to respond. (She doesn’t know what the 2nd Amendment is and will have to wait until gets his talking points from his people and then hand them down to her. That means a few days.)
Don’t forget that the Columbine massacre occured when Rosie O’D had her own daytime talk show. She used the attack as an excuse to push for gun control (despite her armed bodyguards), to march and speak at the Million Man March, and–most memorable–to attack Tom Selleck on her show.

Rosie O’D Likes Gun Control For YOU . . .,

But Not For Her Bodyguards

Don’t expect a difference on “The View,” beginning tomorrow (Tuesday) morning. Mark my word.
Remember, if even one student in proximity to the killer, today, had a gun, he/she might’ve stopped the mass murders at VTU and saved some lives.

Tags: , , , , ,

39 Responses

Our culture is seriously broken. Our culture is to blame for this tragedy, nothing more. Rosie O’dumbassdyke is leading the crusade to further destroy our culture, followed by those who coarsen us as a people. From Hollywood to Howard Stern, to political correctness, our culture is broken. This has nothing whatsoever to do with gun control or George Bush, but the media and our schools will continue to brainwash young minds into believeing just that.

spiffo on April 16, 2007 at 10:45 pm

“The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.” Patrick Henry, “Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death” speech delivered on March 23, 1775.
Where would we be if our Founding Father’s had been disarmed by gun control laws?

FreethinkerNY on April 16, 2007 at 10:54 pm

You know Hasselbeck will be dumbfounded as usual. I was appalled by her shallowness when I saw her on Hannity. Hannity likes her on because he figures she makes him look intelligent.

lexi on April 16, 2007 at 11:27 pm

Boy thats one ugly mug…from now no more Rosie pictures for the love of God.

the_don on April 16, 2007 at 11:51 pm

From everything I’ve seen the shootings seem to be more of an effort to due *something* about global warming than anything else.
And, as had been pointed out elsewhere, the large body count is a result of gun control where only the criminals have guns. Isn’t it odd that criminals won’t obey gun laws?

Curly Smith on April 17, 2007 at 12:02 am

Rosie’s gone crazy lately defending the first amendment, and democracy (she never acts like she’s aware that we’re a democratic republic), but will cry foul when it comes to the 2nd amendment. She’s claimed on The View that the first amendment exists so that Americans can freely express their opinions, negative or otherwise, about our government. She can’t entertain the thought that maybe the right to keep and bear arms was for the same reason?

CaptShady on April 17, 2007 at 1:09 am

Maybe she should wonder if she is to blame after her slur against Asians. Her “hate speech” might have triggered this, isn’t that what she says about Christians with regards to gays.

mennyiben on April 17, 2007 at 1:54 am

Rosie is a liberal. Liberals like to make people suffer.
See, gun-free campus means everyone is a target! That EQUALS more suffering. Liberals love to see people suffer.
They think it’s unfair for regular people get to enjoy themselves, earn a good living, etc.
So, liberals raise taxes, outlaw guns for citizens, socialize medicine, etc.
Of course, none of this applies to them!

ReallyReallyStupid on April 17, 2007 at 3:08 am

Rosie doesn’t have armed bodyguards. Those are her armed Twinkie guards.

cdahlkvist on April 17, 2007 at 6:59 am

This incident should be compared to the U. Texas sniper of some 40 years ago. At that time, students took rifles from their car trunks and helped police shoot down the sniper. Individual and collective self-defense are concepts which most of the media have forgotten.

chsw on April 17, 2007 at 8:52 am

The U of T sniper was killed by a police officer who went into the tower. There were civilians armed with rifles shooting at the sniper, but he was killed by a cop.
I disagree with the earlier post which speculated that the shooter may have military training or some such. The way you compensate for average marksmanship is to close with the target. It’s easy to hit what you’re aiming at when you’re close in, as in the same room.
Somebody here wrote >Our culture is to blame for this tragedy, nothing more.
No. The man who pulled the trigger is to blame.
Finally- yeah, Rosie will be all over this incident like a drooling hyena on fresh meat. She will have no qualms about standing on the backs of the dead to spew her leftist bile.

Barry in CO on April 17, 2007 at 9:06 am

The University is to blame for outlawing CC guns on campus. They are legal every where but the schools in Virginia.I do not recall the 2nd amendment saying you cannot have a gun any where in the Constitution.
I used to carry before I moved back to Mexifornia. It saved my life when a robber tried to take my money in a shopping mall parking lot.
There are thousands of crimes prevented every year because average citizens are packing.
When a crook is looking down the barrel of a gun they tend to become very compliant.

ScottyDog on April 17, 2007 at 9:33 am

Gun control will work just like the ammo control laws work(ed). Be really interesting if the gun was smuggled into the country. The type of guns the guy used are very very hard to find locally; it’s my understanding that you’d have to special order to get them. I’ll bet anything they were smuggled in or bought from criminals.

Duke on April 17, 2007 at 9:40 am

Everyone should have a gun. We clearly do not have enough guns here. Look at how many people are killed by guns in the US. Not nearly enough. We need to have every man, woman, and child armed to the TEETH with at least a semi-automatic pistol. I wouldn’t let my kids go to school without strapping on their 9 and ready to kill some brown people! Wouldn’t you all agree? More killing! Criminals shouldn’t be the only ones having a good time!
Come on Debbie, let’s make love under my gun rack.

assaholic on April 17, 2007 at 10:19 am

Anyone noticed that the other O’…O’Reilly was so preoccupied with him and DeLay being “slandered” that he didn’t really give a crap about the shootings??? But then again, that kidnapped little boy who was being molested ENJOYED IT according to Mr Bill.
Now if all those kids at Virginia Tech were packing…WTF??? Just hope homie from Korea was had country muzak on his iPod because i KNOW y’all will have a field day if he was into NWA!!!!

EminemsRevenge on April 17, 2007 at 11:05 am

For those liberals who want reduce the 2nd amendment to shreds…do you ever think to yourself that mentality plays the largest role in violent crime? If it wasn’t a gun…it would be knife or in some cases a fuckin sword. My only fear is when these wackos start copying the tactics of jihadist suicide bombers god forbid. There is no absolute way you can prevent these kind of things because you can have all the security you want but if someone is intent on killing people in a suicide mission they will definitively find a way to do so. A well thought out plan can circumvent almost any security measure. The only we really can do is to be more “conscious” of all the “wierdos” running around.

the_don on April 17, 2007 at 11:09 am

“It doesn’t say you can have guns without regulation”
“You know Hasselbeck will be dumbfounded as usual. I was appalled by her shallowness when I saw her on Hannity.”
I can say one thing for sure about MS Hasselbeck. If she is an example of a “Conservative” then I know for sure I am not.

AlturaCt on April 17, 2007 at 11:45 am

The right to possess firearms is not dependent on membership in the militia. If it did it would extend only to able bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 and female members of the National Guard. [U.S.Code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 311]
The 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right shall not be infringed. Restricting the right is infringement.
There have been 6 SC decisions mentioning the 2nd Amendmant. None have dealt with the issue of federal regulation of firearms possession directly. All have upheld the individual right of the people to own firearms. Other decisions, while not mentioning the 2nd Amendment specifically, have also upheld the individual right.
The decision that comes closest to the issue of firearms possession is {Miller vs. United States, 1939}. Though badly flawed on several grounds, it held that a sawed off shotgun could be regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act (a tax law) on the grounds that a short barreled shotgun has no utility as a military weapon.
source-├ČThe Second Amendment Primer├« by Les Adams

ScottyDog on April 17, 2007 at 11:48 am

All I can say is we ought to be gratefull that “pundits” like Miss not- so- Rosie here is running the country,or at leaste not yet since most of the polititions don’t differ much in that regard. But then again, what the heck would they know about gun possesion since all they do is shoot their beaks off for their own self-interests? The second Admendment unequivocally states our constituttional right to bear arms and yet these gun control freaks want to delude it by putting a regulation on guns. The hypocrisy is outrageous. They claim guns kill people. Well so does abortion. How come these liberals want to push gun control and yet they see no problem with legislating abortion? I know it a whole seperate issue but try arguing with that logic if you liberals are smart enough to do so. Also why is there no bans on knifes? Should we all confiscate anything that might be used as a lethal weapon and give it all to the criminals? So the world would be better off if we were defenseless and willing to be killed,huh? Its so easy for these celebrities to shoot their mouths off becuase they are constantely under the protection of their armed body guards. I’d like for Rosie to walk down the dark alley alone and see if she still wants to push her gun control policy.

Jew Chick on April 17, 2007 at 11:48 am

Agreed. Sadistic mentality kills people not weapons because anything can be used as a weapon. Buying a gun on the street is a easy as buying marijuana or crack cocaine. They can outlaw guns or add more restrictions on guns for law abiding citizens but criminals don’t follow laws or restrictions anyways (hence they are criminals). Now why would we want more guns in the WRONG hands and less guns in the RIGHT hands? Somebody from the anti-2nd amendment camp answer that.

the_don on April 17, 2007 at 12:14 pm

Would guns in the RIGHT hands mean Law Enforcement?
“The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” This statement obviously is open to interpretation. I think most people would agree that the average U.S. citizen should be able to own a hunting rifle, shotgun, etc. But should the average citizen be able to own a nuclear device or tomahawk missile? These are arms correct?
Let’s look at the bigger picture here. Certain weapons are designed merely to kill human beings, such as handguns and assault rifles. You clearly aren’t going to kill an elk with a Glock 9mm or an AK-47.
I don’t really buy the “anyone can buy a gun on the street” argument. The majority of guns used to commit crimes in the country are purchased legitimately. Obviously some of these guns are recycled on the street, but originally they were purchased from a gun store.
If you really want the best protection for you and your family, buy a sawed off shotgun and take the time to learn how to use it. I believe that the people do have a right to own firearms, but saying there should be no restrictions on what they can and can’t own is ridiculous. Assault rifles, armor piercing bullets, etc, should be illegal for a reason. Try strapping on a bullet proof vest and hitting a few crack houses to alter your perspective.
In case anyone was wondering what Virginia state law is for a resident alien carrying a firearm :
“# Concealed handgun licenses will be issued to green-card holders, not other aliens. See Code of Virginia Section 18.2-308, which says:
The following persons shall be deemed disqualified from obtaining a permit:
* An alien other than an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States. ”
Doesn’t sound to me that the shooter had his green card, but I will wait to hear more facts. If he does not have a green card, it will be interesting to see how he was able to purchase a firearm. (perhaps in another state)?

ICEAGENT on April 17, 2007 at 12:41 pm

If we ban guns how about banning alcohol?
I’d be willing to bet drunk driving has killed more than guns. Not to mention alcohol is behind much of domestic violence and other social ills.

Jeff_W on April 17, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Why does every gun control debate become about either banning guns or allowing all types? Why can there be no middle ground? The polarizing of issues is killing politics in this country and spirited debate in general.

ICEAGENT on April 17, 2007 at 1:10 pm

Looks like he did have his green card, and was therefore legally able to purchase a firearm in according to Virginia state law.

ICEAGENT on April 17, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Why shouldn’t I be able to own an Assault Rifle?
“The law in question bans many very ordinary types of rifles and ammunition, while limiting magazine capacity for both rifles and pistols that are still legal. Many of the vilified “assault rifles” outlawed by the ban are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoors men. Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer.”
There is nothing in the 2nd amendment which says for hunting use only, in fact, the founders made sure that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed the right to own and bear arms to prevent a tyrannical government.
“The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America” — but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.”
quoted passages from http://www.gunowners.org

ScottyDog on April 17, 2007 at 1:51 pm

“I don’t really buy the “anyone can buy a gun on the street” argument. The majority of guns used to commit crimes in the country are purchased legitimately. Obviously some of these guns are recycled on the street, but originally they were purchased from a gun store.”
You must have very limited knowledge of the street.
So I guess all the “drug dealers” “gang bangers” and “convicts” commit gun crimes with legitimately purchased guns? Maybe on the planet you live on.
Guns and drugs are synonymous. Getting one is as easy as the other. If you disagree “your in denial” or grossly unaware of whats goes on the streets. Ask any high school or college aged youth how easy it is to get a gun.

the_don on April 17, 2007 at 2:24 pm

I served in a HIDTA (high intensity drug trafficking area) task force. I think its safe to say I may have more “street knowledge” than the average citizen. Yes guns and drugs go hand in hand, my point (which obviously you failed to read) is that the guns are in circulation because they are INITIALLY purchased legitimately. Of course after the initial purchase they are traded, swapped, sold, etc. But hell what do I know, I only worked narcotics and gun cases for the first part of my career.
If you are waiting around for the apocalypse with your shoulder fired weapon waiting for the people to rise up against the tyrannical government, your logic makes sense. Last time I checked, the United States is a government of the people, not a monarchy being ruled from a despot of the UK. Maybe its time to adjust our thoughts and actions to the year 2007, and not 1807.
Again, a ban on assault weapons does not equal a ban on all guns. That is a slippery slope argument that is a logical fallacy.

ICEAGENT on April 17, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Ok so you do know what your talking about. My only question is if not guns…why not swords,bombs,etc?
Whats to stop wackjobs from switching to other violence weapons? Is there anything to stop them?

the_don on April 17, 2007 at 3:44 pm

Gun control? I’m for it…for non-citizens and that includes permanent residents. If you want a gun, become a citizen.

KOAJaps on April 17, 2007 at 4:27 pm

Why guns? Because they are small, lightweight, easily concealed, and extremely effective at killing. It’s more difficult for someone to walk into a school or a place of business with a sword and kill or injure 60 people. Bombs? They require some sophistication to build and are more difficult to acquire.
I realize that the United States has a deep gun culture that runs to the very roots of the country. It’s obviously a very complex issue that is probably a little more complicated than “ban them all, or allow everything”.

ICEAGENT on April 17, 2007 at 4:37 pm

ICEAGENT, ban the non-citizens

KOAJaps on April 17, 2007 at 5:08 pm

Thanks to liberals if they don’t have guns, they will bump themselves up to the next most efficient mass weapon. The SUICIDE BOMBER!
Thanks to Rosie and all liberals. Liberals = more suffering, more taxes, more socialized medicine, less G*d, less religion (unless it is NOT Christianity), less personal responsibility, etc.
I say don’t ban guns, BAN LIBERALS!!!

ReallyReallyStupid on April 17, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Hey ice drugs are illegal right?
But I can run down the corner and buy a 20 of rock right?, and if guns were made illegal I’ld still be able to go down the corner and buy a glock! PROHIBITITION doesnt work! 100 years of a drug war and we still have drugs. What makes you think we’ll be able to get rid of guns? OUTLAWING GUNS ONLY PUTS GUNS IN THE HANDS OF THE OUTLAWS!!!

colin5656 on April 17, 2007 at 7:16 pm

You fricken morons who want to legislate your fear can ES AND D. They day you try to take away my rightS and responsibility to protect my family and myself is the day we will have civil war. You want to live with the government nanny help your damn self but don’t you EVER think you can take my God given rights away from me. The Nazi’s LOVED gun control! Wonder why that was???????

AlturaCt on April 17, 2007 at 8:58 pm

35,000,000 handgun owners did NOT go on a shooting spree this week.

Barry in CO on April 18, 2007 at 2:52 am

BUT A FUCKING MURDERER FROM KOREA KILLED 32 PEOPLE! So do you gun-right advocates want that to happen with Abdullah the terrorist? Ban all guns to non-citizens! this is an American right!!!!!

KOAJaps on April 18, 2007 at 5:39 am

Yeah lets ban guns so the mexican drug runners can make more money. Idiot

colin5656 on April 18, 2007 at 8:40 am

Yeah lets ban guns so the mexican drug runners can make more money. Idiot
Posted by: colin5656 [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 18, 2007 08:40 AM
You dumb shit, I saId NON-CITIZENS!!! YOU WANT TERRORIST FROM THE MIDDLE EAST TO LEGALLY PURCHASE GUNS? NON-CITIZENS!!!!! U.S. CITIZENS CAN BUY NOT NON-CITIZENS…JESUS! This is the reaction of a jesus-freak Republican? I’m a fucking Athiest Republican and I don’t want non-Americans to buy guns. If they want a gun BECOME A U.S. CITIZEN!!!!! Well, maybe the Jesus republicans believe non-citizens should have to right to purchase guns. you know, share with your brothers and sisters? FUCK JEUS AND FUCK YOUR RELIGIOUS POLITICAL BELIEF! THINK!!!!!

KOAJaps on April 21, 2007 at 12:18 am

No comments, eh? Typical religious Christian gun-right kooks!. I betcha Muhammad Atta bought a gun too.

KOAJaps on April 21, 2007 at 2:32 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field