Roanoke Firearms threatened.

| | Comments (17) | TrackBacks (0)

According to the Virginia Citizens' Defense League (a very conservative 2nd amendment group), John Markell, the owner of the gun store who legally sold the firearms to the Tech killer, is receiving threats by those who blame him for the tragedy this week.

I've seen the gentleman on tv, and he seems to geniunely regret what happened. However, Mr. Markell did nothing wrong, and these leftwing crazies should back off.

I bet this is one story that the mainstream media will never report.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Roanoke Firearms threatened..

TrackBack URL for this entry:


You want to see something that will get your blood boiling, check out the front page story in the local paper of record:

Here is the caption to the (print edition) photo of his Temporary Detention Order:

"After the second of Cho's two stalking incidents in 2005 investigated by Virginia Tech police, a counselor found Cho to be a suicide risk and requested be be put in a hospital. A Montgomery County, Va, district court official granted the request and Cho was take to Carillon Saint Albans Behavioral Center in Christiansburg, Va."

How in the world was this guy eligible to buy a gun? I think the lack of any database recording anti-social behavior such as stalking incidents, and detention for mental disorder, will be a big topic of discussion in the aftermath.

I understand the privacy issues involved, but there has to be some sort of tripwire when someone acts this way.

Jack said:

No charges were filed against him, and the judge declined to have him committed. Had either occurred, he would not have been allowed to buy a gun.

Tom James said:

I love how the police say there was nothing they could do.

Seems like they always find a way make a persons life miserable when they want to?

The Old Town Observer said:


The problem is that there is no law enforcement accessible data-base for people who are adjudged to be a danger to themselves or others.

jacob said:

So the current database only looks for felons and not the insane?

Jack said:

The database does look for the insane, which I fully support. However, there seems to have been a lapse in reporting on the part of the state or county. This lapse seems to be systemic, and needs to be corrected.

Kevin said:

Ha! I just heard a reporter on NBC say, "Gun control is very hard to come by these days as the liberal Democrats are afraid to back it because they feel they lost the election with Al Gore because of his stance. Now, the NRA is trying to work with the Democrats to. . ."

That's some pretty good spin! You gotta admire the moxy.

Kevin said:

The anchor's solution? Update the federal database to include those receiving outpatient treatment! HA HA! What a nightmare.

zimzo said:

It's just a plot to take away guns from people who only seem crazy. That damn liberal media!

Jack said:

It is difficult to tell yet, but it seems that the laws were in place to prevent Cho's legally buying a gun, but for some reason the data on his mental condition did not get into the database as it should have:,0,1362784.story?coll=la-home-headlines

If this is correct, then it is another example of how the government failed to protect those whom they required to be defenseless.

David said:

I find myself in 100% agreement with Joe. How is it that these stalking incidents were allowed to slip into the ether just because the young women decided it would be more trouble than it was worth to follow through with their complaints? It is, as some administrator or another keeps saying, a typical outcome with this kind of behavior.

Jack said:

It is unfortunate that these women did not press charges. I have been on the other side. When I was at VT, a good friend was accused of assault by his girlfriend. The case went to court in Blacksburg. Under examination by the judge (neither party had a lawyer), the woman admitted she made up the story to get back at him.

Never mind "innocent until proven guilty," should we take away someone's rights when they are not even been formally accused of a crime?

jacob said:

Face it, there always will be a case that will either thwart the process, or show up an injustice in the process. The question is not what is the perfect set of proceedures, but, what is the risk we are willing to live with. Risk being defined as danger from either our fellow man or the government that is meant to serve us.

Jack said:

I have heard some rumors of people trashing Korean businesses up here in NoVa, but have seen nothing in the papers. Does anyone have any credible source to back this up?

I pray that it is not true.

The Old Town Observer said:

I think the Fed. Regs. are pretty clear that to be ineligible you would have to be adjudged to be a "threat to yourself or others". Simply being an outpatient or under a doctor's care would not trigger the prohibition. In my above post, the writer at the link seems to suggest that the Va. magistrate should have reported his finding to the national data base. As far as I know, a "staking" conviction would not have prevented Cho from obtaining a firearm, unless the magistrate would have also issued a "protective order", in which case he would have been barred.

zimzo said:

I agree with Jack. Better that 32 people die than that one person who is not really crazy but just seems crazy have their Second Amendment rights taken away.

Jack said:

Sarcasm aside, zimzo, it would not be one person whose rights would be taken away. It would be thousands. We are not even talking about "seeming crazy." We're talking about an accusation that is never even filed.

Do you really want a nation where anyone can do that to anyone else?

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Old Dominion Blog Alliance


Technorati search

» Blogs that link here