“Hey, Hey Casey K, How Many Kids Did You Kill Today?”

Yeah, that title is crass, crude, and uncalled for. And it’s what we can expect the GOP to endure should it got through with the NRA’s suicide mission of voting on the NRA’s stupid little gun bill before the bodies of the students at Virginia Tech are even buried.

Hey, hey Casey K, how many kids did you kill today?

Casey Cagle seems intent on going forward. The Democrats are willing to give the GOP an assist because they see what the rest of us see — the NRA going into the General Assembly and gunning down Republican Senators.

Hey, hey Casey K, how many kids did you kill today?

And then I wonder if we’ll see the relatives of Ryan Clark and Jamie Bishop on television talking about how a lone gunman gunned down Ryan Clark and Jamie Bishop, both from Georgia, on Virginia Tech’s campus and the GOP has just enabled employees to do the same on their employers’ property.

Hey, hey Casey K, how many kids did you kill today?

If the NRA were smart, it’d drop this and pursue it next year. It’s the victim of bad timing. Now the only question is, will the GOP also fall victim to it.

Hey, hey Casey K, how many kids did you kill today?

P.S. — is there an exemption for college campuses in the bill?

Hey, hey Casey K, how many kids did you kill today?


  1. ToddH says:

    I thought this was over but, then again, Glenn Close was quite persistent.

    “At 10:25 p.m., the Senate Republican caucus returned to the chamber, members grim-faced. Balfour quickly made the motion to adjourn. Powell, the Democrat, shouted his objection for a roll call vote.

    Cagle ignored him. There was no roll call vote.

    The Republican caucus apparently had persuaded its lieutenant governor to back off.

    We’re told that this is the end of the guns-in-parking-lots bill, at least for this year.”

    So says the Political Insider.

  2. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    “P.S. — is there an exemption for college campuses in the bill?”
    HA HA, I love it. And great post Erick.

    Wasn’t the NRA’s excuse for Columbine that all the guns used then were either illegal, stolen, or used without permission? Now, the guns used at VT were purchased legally, so I can’t wait to hear what the NRA has to say.

  3. StevePerkins says:

    I thought this bill was overreaching on the NRA’s part, and it doesn’t break my heart to see it go away. At the same time though, the first thing I did after waking up yesterday morning was renew my NRA membership that I had allowed to lapse. There will no doubt be turbulence ahead over the next few months for the 2nd Amendment, and conservatives shouldn’t let the feather-ruffling over this bad bill cause them to take their eyes off the ball.

  4. Doug Deal says:


    Gun advocats just need to point out that the University was an example of gun control in action. The only one armed was the crazed gunman, so no one could have respond if they had the opportunity.

    When liberals get their way, the entire country will be like the Va Tech campus.

  5. LoyaltyIsMyHonor says:

    That’s right Steve, because the liberal-fascists who run the ATF are going to knock down your door and confiscate all your guns. I know it will happen soon, I’m burying my stash in an undisclosed location.

  6. Nicki says:

    Gun advocats just need to point out that the University was an example of gun control in action.

    A) No, it wasn’t. Students and faculty weren’t warned in any way, so they had no ability to defend themselves. The state of armament had nothing to do with it.

    B) On the flipside of the coin, what if the gunman was unable to acquire a gun that was both clip-loaded and rapid-firing? Significantly fewer people would likely have died.

    C) Imagine how different this situation would have been if a warning and description were issued at 7:15 a.m. His guns were concealed, so the gunman probably crossed campus with nary so much as a glance from anyone he passed. He then looked into the class he killed multiple times before he opened fire. As it is the students were lambs to the slaughter.

    I ranted a bit more at my blog, btw. Come see.

  7. Holly says:

    Steve, firstly, I do believe in the 2nd Amendment.

    That said, after reading the Political Insider’s article, I don’t think the best way to show one’s pro-2nd Amendment beliefs is through supporting the NRA. I am really appalled at the way the NRA has handled SB 43, HB 89, and the aftermath of the Virginia Tech massacre.

    From reading the article, it seems to me that the NRA has forgotten that they aren’t in control of the state of Georgia. Personally, after following this bill fight, I’d be delighted to vote for someone they assigned an F to for not following their “mighty” commands.

    Yesterday was not the time to push this bill. The NRA headquarters is in Virginia. Shouldn’t they be a little more sympathetic? Heavens, no, apparently! We can’t let a little thing like 32 dead college students stand in the way of passing a useless bill. Lets threaten the senators, regardless of the fact that everyone will think it’s in poor taste.

    What gall.

    As a lobbying group, it’s understandable that the NRA would want this bill passed, but seriously, yesterday? And with threats? Yes, I’m aware this kind of stuff goes on often. However, it should be noted that the NRA is usually far less. . . loud. In the past, they haven’t been willing to make their intentions so public, so it’s been harder for the general public to know what they’ve been up to.

    However, when you let it get into the AJC and political blogs that you’re threatening legislators, it’s much harder not to come across as an organization of thugs.

    Surely we can band together as pro-2nd Amendment supporters without being pro-ridiculous legislation and pro-bullying lobbyist groups.

  8. rugby_fan says:

    Erick, the problem with that logic is that, I would assume, few people would be trained and certified so it would only marginally increase the liklihood of any serious protection.

    Now, I support gun ownership, but I don’t buy the concept that students having guns would have saved lives. This was a lunatic, if the whole campus were armed, he would have tried to kill people.

    Moreover, I also reject this idea because I find it hard to believe that adding more gunfire to the equation would make things safer. I know that you could kill the gunman, but that doesn’t mean you won’t hit as many bystanders.

  9. griftdrift says:

    You know the Rs made a few stumbles this session. That can be expected for those in power for the first time. Kind of like toddlers. But last night they fell flat on their face. Who’s in charge in the Senate? Cagle and the Republican caucus or the NRA? Some of us will not it be forgotten.

  10. Doug Deal says:


    “B” is ludacris. Felons will always have access to guns and other weapons, and they will use them, on law abiding citizens who have laid their weapons down.

    This guy killed 33 people with handguns. Do you know how long that takes? It only takes one person to stop a shooting, and I bet one of the reasons the lunatic did what he did was because he knew everyone was disarmed.

    Ever notice how people do not shoot their way into police headquarters or a military base? They attack what is weak.

    “A” and “C” are irrelevant. People do not need to be warned to protect themselves, especially when the shooter expends at least 33 rounds, and more likely around 100 or more.

    Also, the expectation that the campus needs to be closed with every domestic situation is hysterics. We will end up like the news today out of Oklahoma, whe

    Things like this would happen with far greater rarity if the perpetrators had to risk death at the hands of targets. If deer shot back, how many people would hunt?

    I am not a gun toter, never went hunting, never joined the NRA, and I have never even fired a gun of any type (if you excuse the occassional “squirt” varierty. But, it is the fact that many of my fellow citizens are packing heat that allows me to lead such a life.

  11. patriot says:

    The response to Monday’s senseless slayings should not be FEAR, but REASON.

    Obviously the school’s “no guns”policy did not prevent the slayer from bringing guns onto campus…A failure of the enforcement of their own policy. A FINE EXAMPLE OF GUN CONTROL!!

    The “no guns” policy DID keep ROTC trained individuals, or any of the likely holders of Concealed Carry Permits – students OR faculty from having a concealed weapon on their person or in a briefcase/bookbag. Then Cho MIGHT have had a slight deterrent, knowing he might encounter an armed individual. What was the only object that could be used to subdue him- throw a desk or chair at him? (Maybe pepperspray? Or use a fire-extinguisher?)

    In GA, we need to provide more opportunity for rational citizens to defend ourselves, rather than for us to be expected to cower and wet our pants when confronted with unexpected danger.

    I applaud the Senators for not “cowering” in confrontation with the NRA. No one special interest group should wield that much power.

    Reverse the scenario… what if the lobbying pressure were coming from an “anti-gun”group?

  12. patriot says:

    The Media, and even the President of VT have been very wrong in their portrayal of the weapons used. The Pres. referred to the semi-automatic pistols as “automatic weapons”. I can’t count how many times the description “assault weapons” has been repeated. (What if the “assault-weapons ban” still was in place? — no Effect whatsoever!)”Rapid-fire”- no more than a revolver.
    The only mechanical advantage was ease of reloading, with pre-loaded clips. There hasn’t even been any evidence of “high-capacity”clips.
    Standard capacity … 10-15 shots.

    what I believe would haave helped more is “student oversight.” After multiple accounts of stalking, talking of suicide, “coarse” written assignments,mental health referral, Dept. head concerns… would it not have been prudent for his room assignment to have been changed so he would have had an ROTC officer room-mate who could have observed his behavior much better?

  13. Paul Shuford says:


    A) Students and teachers both had time to barracade the doors of their classrooms – that means that if they had been able to carry without fear of expulsion, any present would have had plenty of time to access a legally-carried firearm.

    B) This is patently ridiculous. The “gunman” chained the doors of the area he was in, and no one was willing to actively resist him (as he was the only one with a firearm). He could have loaded the rounds one by one into a revolver and would have had plenty of time and ability to do what he did. And revolvers are just as “rapid-firing” as any other gun, one round is fired every time you pull the trigger. Do you even understand how firearms work? Or are you simply going off of the talking points sheet? I’ve read the term “rapid-firing” , written exactly like that, without any context in too many news articles lately for it to be coincidence, who are you getting your marching orders from?

    C) Warnings can only be issued so quickly, and if they are done by e-mail, then most of the students there would have already been on their way before they could have recieved one. What actually would have made a difference is if the teachers and students were allowed to be armed without fear of expulsion, and could have resisted – as happened at another school in Virginia, where students retrieved guns from their cars and stopped a situation like this from getting worse.

  14. meaculpa says:

    Yes, the bill was a “victim of bad timing.” But it was a victim of the NRA’s own thug lobbying tactics. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! And it was just stupid legislation. Most insiders at the Capitol believe bill would have narrowly failed on crossover day — before the tragedy at Virginia Tech.

  15. Nicki says:

    People acting like NRA puppets accuse me of getting my marching orders from a partisan organization? That’s rich. Especially since said individuals seem to have no interest in any solution that doesn’t address their aim of increasing the legality of carrying a gun, any gun, no matter how appropriate/inappropriate.

    (I had a permit to carry in the late 90s, so don’t waste your time on the gun control partisan b.s.)

    A correction or two: students did not have time to barricade a door until the shooter had opened fire. Again, gun use is irrelevant. They simply weren’t prepared because they had no reason to be. (And there wouldn’t have been time to go acquire guns, either.)

    VT ^%$%#ed up. Period. And all the NRA operatives can do is be their usual classy selves and use this issue as a political football.

  16. Doug Deal says:

    Bah, I didn’t finish a paragraph in an earlier post. I meant to go on to say in Oklahoma where a school was shut down because a man was walking down the street with an unbrella that someone mistook for a rifle.

  17. Paul Shuford says:

    Nicki, you’re wrong, yet again:

    “One of them was in Norris when it happened. And he said his class barricaded the door and he tried to get in, the gunman, but he was OK, thank god,” Kording said.


    If they had time to barricade that door, any of them would have had time to access a legally-carried firearm.

    And let’s get it straight – they weren’t prepared for this because they knew they would be expelled if they did carry a gun at school. They most certainly had reason to be – school shootings aren’t terribly uncommon, because they’re known gun-free zones, where murderers know that their victims won’t be armed.

    And be certain, you and your talking points have made this a political issue, not me. I’m not even an NRA member.

  18. gatormathis says:

    The “barricading the door” part of one classroom bears to take note of.

    Over the years, I keep seeing the same cartoon drawing, where the egret bird has the frog in his mouth, but the frog has his hands around the bird’s throat.

    The caption says,”Never give up”.

    The classroom that didn’t give up faired the best.

    None of us have any idea if a day like this will come for any of us.

    I salute the defiant class, and hope to have as much wit and courage about me, should I need it one day.

    Like the ill-fated Flight 93, they changed the odds.

    It is sad to think about how terrorized these students were, and the thoughts and nightmares they will live with for a long time.

    It is more sad to live in a world as advanced as ours is today, and read about so many people getting killed senselessly these days. Surely life has more meaning than this to folks.

  19. DavidAtlanta says:

    This incident may end up changing the way people behave in situations like this, much like 9-11 changed the way people behave when a terrorist or hijacker attempts to take control of an airplane. Now, people might fight back, even when they are unarmed.

    I don’t think it makes any sense to try to second guess what anyone did in this situation. So many of the details are still unknown. I wish people would stop playing the “what-if” game. It’s disgusting and made even more so when people use “what-if” scenarios to push their own pet political objective, whether it’s for more gun freedom or more gun control.

  20. bowersville says:

    “So many of the details are still unknown.”

    Exactly…a question I have other than the 2 hrs. is how quick did the police enter the Norris building once the killer started shooting again. Yes, the doors were chained, but there were windows.

    Did they enter the Norris building on arrival and eliminate the active shooter, or wait on SWAT? I don’t know because I don’t know how long the shooting went on.

    This evil person’s tape on NBC reminded me of those on a suicide bombing mission in the middle east. There is so much more to come out and so many lessons to be learned.

    But it will probably take the news media to hound it all out.

Comments are closed.