In April 2007, a mentally disturbed student showed up at the campus of his school, Virginia Tech, brandishing two semi-automatic pistols, and murdered 32 students, teachers and school employees and wounded 17 others. Then he took his own life.
It was one of the deadliest mass shooting incidents in American history.
The nation was in shock, as it is now following the December mass murder at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
The press and public outcry was the same then as now. How can we stop horrors like this from occurring? We've got to stop criminals and nut cases from getting their hands on guns.
The Virginia Tech tragedy spurred passage of the first major piece of federal gun control legislation since the assault weapon ban was passed in 1994.
Signed by President George W. Bush in January 2008, the law appropriated $1.3 billion for states to get the names of those deemed mentally ill into the FBI national data base used for gun-purchase screening. This supposedly would solve the problem of lax state compliance and make the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) more effective.
If only this had been the law of the land a year earlier, commentators opined, the Virginia Tech tragedy might not have happened.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a co-sponsor of the legislation, said it would "close the wide gaps in our nation's firearm background-check system to ensure that violent criminals and the mentally ill no longer slip through the cracks and gain access to dangerous weapons."
But a more sober message came at the time from the now-late professor, American Enterprise Institute scholar and presidential Medal of Freedom recipient James Q. Wilson.
He wrote then: "The tragedy at Virginia Tech may tell us something about how a young man could be driven to commit terrible actions, but it does not teach us very much about gun control."
Even if there were tougher background checks, Wilson continued, "access to guns would be relatively easy ... many would be stolen and others would be obtained through straw purchases by a willing confederate. It is virtually impossible to use new background-check or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow."
Now, five years after Bush signed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act into law, we have "deja vu all over again."
Not only have we tragically witnessed another deranged young man entering a school and murdering innocent youth, but we now must witness again politicians offering the same non-solution to allegedly deal with the problem: wider background checks.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, who is pushing legislation for universal background checks, was one of the original sponsors of the law that Bush signed five years ago.
It is even worse now. Adam Lanza, the deranged young Sandy Hook murderer, used a rifle from his mother's collection in their home. No background check could deal with something like this.
Schumer will not solve the problem, yet he will make things worse by making it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights to bear arms and protect themselves.
And exactly how might expanded checks impinge on both our privacy and our rights?
Those who have ever seen a psychologist may be at risk. Those who have any kind of infraction on their record may be at risk.
Some states require doctors to counsel women who are considering an abortion that the procedure can result in various emotional problems. Might women receiving abortions in these states have difficulty purchasing a gun?
Let's stop playing games. The problem is people, not guns. Our society suffers from a deficiency of personal responsibility -- not from an excess of personal freedom.
I agree with Rubio, America is losing ground in the world today because it is not being America. (comments)
Elizabeth Warren and Bill de Blasio's dream is that they get to run everybody's life. (comments)
Rules rooted in biblical tradition that enable virtue and self-governance have been increasingly displaced by government and moral relativism. (comments)
This is a battle about redefining the values of our nation's culture and, hence, redefining our nation itself. (comments)
Social Security taxes preclude wealth creation for low-income workers by taxing away the only funds they have available... (comments)
Is the American public happy with the socialism they've gotten thus far? (comments)
The objective of pro-homosexual campaigns is to de-legitimize and annihilate Christianity in America. (comments)
Ted Cruz sees American freedom centered not in government, but in individuals taking personal responsibility for their lives. (comments)
Pastors know that blacks pay a high price for the havoc that moral relativism has caused. (comments)
A war is taking place in our country to delegitimize religion. (comments)
Can John Kerry really be serious that he knows better what makes Israel safe than Israel's own Prime Minister? (comments)
Dr. King was outspoken in his support of Israel and today there is a street named for him in Jerusalem. (comments)
Who is looking out for black interests -- the Black Caucus or the white Republican they call a racist? (comments)
After Martin Luther King's speech, what followed were government policies defined and motivated not by content of character but by race, gender, and income. (comments)
By 2022, the percentage of white students in public schools will be down to 45.9 percent and the minority percent will increase to 54.7 percent. (comments)
Don't tell people where to live, which is what government low-income housing does. (comments)
The basis of humanity, civilization, and decency is respect for and awe of the miracle of life. This must take precedence over all. (comments)
The American recovery is happening despite government, not because of it. (comments)
How far do we let liberals go in censuring speech and ideas in America? (comments)
Why focus on trying to make government more efficient rather than on what government should or should not do? (comments)