Is this the real deal or a publicity stunt? Right in the middle of a speech to the NRA (of all people), Rudy Giuliani takes a cell from the Mrs.

"Wait just a second," he told the perplexed crowd. "This is my wife calling, I think."

"Hello, dear," he said in a syrupy voice.

"I'm talking to the members of the NRA right now. Would you like to say hello?" he said to confused chuckles.

"I love you, and I'll give you a call as soon as I'm finished. OK, have a safe trip. Bye-bye. Talk to you later, dear. I love you."

According to the rest of the article, there was disbelief, outrage and skepticism. This has to be a stunt. Politicians don't do this, no one does this, not in the middle of a speech. I'd bet you bottom dollar that this is the hare-brained idea of some campaign aide, or even Rudy himself to try to appear more "real" in front of a normally hostile crowd. It didn't work. And how does the NRA feel about Rudy now? Well, let's ask Fred Thompson.

Call it a case of strange bedfellows. On Friday, Rudy Giuliani will take the stage at the NRA's annual convention and try to convince the organization he's their man. Meanwhile:

...even as the former New York mayor strives to burnish his Second Amendment credentials at the gathering in Washington, a panel of federal judges in his home town will be hearing arguments on the lawsuit that Giuliani filed seven years ago aimed at punishing the nation's manufacturers for violent crimes involving firearms.

Don't get me wrong, I'm on Giuliani's side on the issue of guns. In 1995, Rudy went on Charlie Rose and declared that the NRA goes,

"overboard. The extremists on the left and the extremists on the right have essentially the same tactic," he said, adding later that "the NRA's, in essence, defense of assault weapons, and their unwillingness to deal with some of the realities here that we face in our cities is a terrible, terrible mistake."

Amen. And I applaud America's Mayor for teaming up with then president, Bill Clinton, to push through the assault weapons ban. Clearly, tougher legislation is needed to close up all the loopholes. Let's see what proposals Giuliani puts forth in front of the NRA crowd.

This editorial in the Washington Post reminded me that when the Supreme Court begins their session (on the first Monday in October) they will be deciding whether the District of Columbia's handgun ban is in violation of the 2nd amendment. In the meantime, national Democrats like Al Gore and John Kerry have run away from gun control as fast as they could even while they lose long held Democratic states like West Virginia.

This could be very, very bad for Hillary Clinton, or she might squeak by. The squeaking scenario entails that both of her husband's appointees to the court rule against the District. That's not a likely scenario. Far more likely is that both of the very liberal appointees, Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, rule with the gun control lobby either with the majority or in a minority.

In the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings, it looks like some good consensus decisions have been made about improving background checks. And by consensus I mean the improvements are made with the full approval of the NRA. Proving that not only can we apply some common sense to the problem, but also that gun owners are not one-issue extremists blind to public safety concerns.

UPI:

The National Rifle Association and Democratic legislators have agreed on a proposal to improve the U.S. system of background checks for gun purchases.

The proposal was inspired by the massacre at Virginia Tech, The Washington Post reported. The gunman, Cho Seung-hui, was able to purchase weapons and ammunition legally even though he had been ordered by a court to submit to a psychiatric examination because Virginia did not submit his name to a federal database.

The legislation would give states financial incentives to provide information to the federal National Instant Check System. There would also be penalties for failing to act.

In this case, the details of the deal are less significant than the fact that the NRA and Democratic party are getting together at all. I'm taking this as a sign that the gun control issue is actually being removed as an issue with which to hammer away at political opponents. That's a good thing.

Former Ambassador Dan Simpson goes way off the rails:

Now, how would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.

Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. When hunters submit a request for their weapons, federal, state, and local checks would be made to establish that they had not been convicted of a violent crime since the last time they withdrew their weapons. In the process, arsenal staff would take at least a quick look at each hunter to try to affirm that he was not obviously unhinged.

Reading this screed, my guess is that Mr. Simpson would not qualify under his proposal because he is completely unhinged. This man is advocating confiscation of every gun and entrusting the safe keeping of those weapons to the government. Perhaps Simpson should read up on his history, he'll see that the reason the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution was specifically to allow citizens to protect themselves from the government. They realized that a government that is all powerful will be corrupted quickly without recourse for the citizenry. When the Nazi's invaded their European neighbors, the first thing they did was confiscate all guns. This former public servant is advocating a police state in which citizens could be searched and imprisoned without due process. Liberals scream about the loss of rights under Bush and the Patriot Act but were probably nodding their collective heads in agreement with this drivel.

Gun control advocates will fight to save every other right granted by the Constitution except to own and bear weapon. Liberals will also fight to keep a woman's "right" to an abortion even though it's not even a Constitutional right, but you bring up gun rights and they want to take a pair of scissors to the greatest document the world has ever seen.

It's been a terrible week in Iraq and at Virginia Tech. On Monday, Virginia Tech senior Cho Seung-Hui killed 33 people (including himself) in two separate shooting attacks. And on Wednesday, 233 people died or were found dead in Iraq. This cartoon focuses on both tragedies.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, there is a serious effort to revive a bill to put mental health problems in the background check system.

Under the bill, states would be given money to help them supply the federal government with information on mental-illness adjudications and other run-ins with the law that are supposed to disqualify individuals from firearms purchases. For the first time, states would face penalties for not keeping the National Instant Criminal Background Check System current.

The legislation, drafted several years ago by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), has twice passed the House, only to die in the Senate. But Cho Seung Hui's rampage Monday has given it new life.

Since 1968, individuals deemed mentally ill by the legal system are not supposed to be able to buy guns. A court's ordering Cho into treatment in late 2005 should have been reported to the federal background check system, congressional aides said. Instead, his background check came up clean, and he legally bought the two handguns used to kill 32 students and teachers before he committed suicide.

I did not know that last part. The problem is that mental health is protected private information according to our laws. This protects your medical history from becoming public knowledge. This is a good thing if you've ever had a problem and need a job. It's a bad thing if your mental condition is a threat to society.

Concealed-carry gun permits are not the cure-all for school shootings that some people think.

Ann Coulter argues, "In a comprehensive study of all public, multiple-shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, the inestimable economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed-carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect." She suggests a reason: "Apparently, even crazy people prefer targets that can't shoot back."

There is evidence supporting this. As the Wall Street Journal reminded us, three years before Monday's tragedy at Virginia Tech, another gunman, Peter Odighizuwa, killed three people at the Appalachian School of Law, also a Virginia institution. One of the students who helped subdue Odighizuwa told the "Today" show that "We saw the shooter, stopped at my vehicle and got out my handgun and started to approach Peter."

While Coulter's argument sounds persuasive, it is flawed. She implies that if only we had students or professors bringing guns to campus, the scope of future tragedies would be lessened. Perhaps. But this begs the question of how many students or professors actually want to carry guns to class? If a school OKs concealed-carry permits and no one uses them, does this not create the same vulnerable situation that existed at Virginia Tech Monday morning?

There is a pressure in this country for relaxed gun-control laws, and presidential candidates of both parties have pandered to gun owners (John Kerry in 2004, Mitt Romney now). But any politician who picks up Coulter's call for concealed-carry permits ought to consider whether it truly is the solution she claims it to be.

The Virginia Tech shootings transported us back to the horror we felt on April 20, 1999, when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold went on a deadly rampage at Columbine High. And the gun control debate, which prompted the 2002 documentary "Bowling for Columbine," has re-surfaced after 33 people (including the shooter) died on Monday.

"In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, a few Democrats renewed the call for gun control legislation, and more are expected to join them," the Associated Press reported.

Any such legislation, however, must face significant logistical and political obstacles. The statements of Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho suggest that having a law in place does not automatically prevent people -- such as the identified shooter, Cho Seung-Hui -- from breaking it.

Craig "noted that the student who police say was the shooter at Virginia Tech had brought a weapon onto campus in violation of restrictions," the AP reported, and "said he doubted a law could be passed that would protect 'any of us when somebody who is mentally deranged decides to do this.'"

And both the AP and the San Francisco Chronicle note the difficulty of making gun control a viable campaign issue.

"Gun control divides Democrats in Congress, and it is an issue that anti-gun-control Republicans have used effectively in House and Senate races," the Chronicle reported. "In the Democratic-controlled House, where the party's majority is due in part to victories in November in conservative to moderate districts formerly represented by Republicans, the party's winning candidates often campaigned as advocates of gun owners' rights."

With the next election cycle already going full-bore, every event in the news is examined through the prism of politics. The tragic shootings at Virginia Tech are the most significant issue yet. The nation's views on gun control will change for a short while than return to the status quo. The candidates on both sides will have to be nimble when discussing it.

On the Democratic side, no candidate that is against gun control will ever have a chance at gaining the nomination. They must be for strict gun control and must be on record as opposing groups such as the National Rifle Association. This will, of course, hurt them in the general election with voters in swing states like Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Virginia.

Republicans on the other hand must support the NRA and the constitutional right to bear arms. There's no gray area on this with the exception of some assault rifle issues. If a candidate comes out as anti-gun, he will have a difficult time winning the nomination in fly-over states. Again, he will than be hurt in the general in slightly "blue" states such as California, Florida and Ohio.

The way this event at VA Tech plays out will have a major effect on the candidates' options when talking gun issues. Let's examine how this event has been portrayed by the media.

In the face of the Virginia Tech tragedy, gun control proponents have their hopes up. They shouldn't. Democrats aren't about to take up this cause except in a few interviews here and there. Why? The short answer is that they like to win elections. The long answer is handled very well at this recent Salon article (free after viewing advertisement).

Democrats have been turning away from gun control ever since Al Gore's run for the presidency. The then-vice president and his advisors had tried to out-gun-control liberal challenger Bill Bradley during the Democratic primaries. Campaigning against George W. Bush in the general election, Gore decided to quiet his criticism of the NRA and mute his support for gun control to build support in battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan where support for gun rights runs high. In the wake of Gore's loss, many Democrats blamed the defeat on previous pro-gun control positions Gore had taken, and pulled the party further back from where it had been on the issue.

Harry Reid, Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Howard Dean. All are against gun control. Even my new governor, Ted Strickland, is a pro-gun liberal.

My guess is that the Democrats like having control of the senate. And if they do, don't expect to see a major push on this issue. In fact it goes back way before 2000. Democratic reluctance goes back to 1993 when they passed the original assault weapons ban. Immediately after that they lost control of both house of congress for the first time in 40 years.

If the American people want gun control, they're going to have to be a lot more convincing, because the only party that's going to even think about pushing it has had their fingers burned too many times.

Previously on 'The Stump' and 'AOL News Bloggers':
· Cho Seung-Hui's Plays
· Politics on Hold
· What if There Were Thirty Virginia Tech Shootings a Day

McCain and Giuliani have cancelled their schedules for tomorrow and I expect others to follow suit if they haven't already. The Edwards campaign has a new front page.

This is an appropriate response as the usual politics will grind to a halt over the next few days. At this moment the gunman has not been identified, but might be a 24-year-old Chinese man who is also a recent immigrant. Still waiting confirmation on that.

I'm not going to push the usual political buttons on this. Yes there are some points that could be made, but I think the more important reality is that it could have been a bombs or plane hijackings as well as guns. We've seen it all and know that evil finds a way. Politicians and the media can help most by just getting us the facts without any political overtones. Who did it and why? Were there any warning signs? Could anything have been done?

If you're not helping to answer questions like this, it's probably best to stand to the side.

Victims Identified So Far

32 students were shot by a man who systematically walked through two buildings and commenced firing. This is the worst school shooting ever. Details are emerging every minute, but his name and specifics are not yet known. Info is constantly being updated at several sites (including a jilted boyfriend angle) including ABC. The Blotter already is blaming guns instead of the gunman.

Interestingly, last year, the Virginia legislature rejected in committee a bill that would have allowed guns to be brought on campus:

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

In what could only be explained as words one would like to take back, a spokesman for VA Tech, who was against the bill, had this to say:

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."

What if one person in proximity to the gunman had a weapon and knew how to use it? How many people could've been saved from this psycho? Gun control advocates will say that we need stronger gun control laws. That is exactly the wrong reaction, but it's visceral after events like this. Shockingly, an ABC News poll shows that at 4:31 PM, twice as many people think that more gun control is needed than not.

My prayers go out to the families of those killed and wounded.

Update (1910): Several questions come to mind after watching the earlier presser. First, why did they wait so long to lock down the school? I imagine it did appear that it was a love triangle gone bad but they didn't have the guy in custody. Second, Why did it take nearly two hours to alert the students the first murder had occurred? Lastly, was it me or did the police sound as if they may be searching for more than one murderer?

Boston Mayor Tom Menino, who has reigned over Boston without any effect on the upsurge in violence, is criticizing former Governor Mitt Romney for being a member of the National Rifle Association and claiming to be a lifelong hunter.

An infuriated Mayor Thomas M. Menino yesterday slammed former GOP governor Mitt Romney for boasting about his National Rifle Association membership and "bragging" about shooting varmints with a semiautomatic, even as his former capital city is besieged by gun violence.

"How could you be hoping to talk about public safety in this country when the proliferation of illegal guns is at an epidemic stage and you are proud to say I am a gun proponent," Menino said.

"It's nothing to brag about for votes. That's what he is doing. He wants to use this as a way trying to get votes, bragging about guns."

Well Mr. Mayor, weren't you the one who made the claim in a campaign ad that you have been effective as mayor in reducing crime, yet, violent crime is up 11% in the Hub. It was you and then Police Commissioner Kathleen M. O'Toole who kept blaming the rising crime on everything else. It was you and O'Toole who presided over rising crime rates, and not enough police officers making it on to the streets. It was your pathetic gun buyback program that did nothing to reduce gun violence. Like you said Mr. Mayor, the new cops coming to the force this year, it's only part of the solution--what else do you got?

Once again Mr. Mayor, you are blaming someone else for your shortcoming. You are the mayor of Boston, not Mitt Romney. This is your quagmire, Mayor Menino.

Guns have been a mainstay in the U.S. since the Founding Fathers wrote the greatest Constitution ever penned. They understood that guns, like freedom of speech and the right to assemble are paramount to a successful nation.

Unfortunately, we now have a culture in which guns are used to kill without thought or remorse. Many states and cities have attempted to stem this tide of violence by doing the exact wrong thing: passing stricter gun laws that are worse than meaningless. They've given politicians a warm, fuzzy feeling and gained them credence with the electorate without actually doing anything to stop the violence.

One of the strictest gun laws ever passed in the nation was passed in Washington D.C. How effective has it been? Not very:

The D.C. law banning the purchase, sale, transfer or possession of handguns by civilians was enacted in 1976. In 1991, a group of researchers from the University of Maryland published a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that examined the effect of the law on the frequency of homicides and suicides by looking at the period 1968 through 1987.

The study concluded there was a "prompt decline" in homicides and suicides by firearms in D.C. not replicated in adjacent Maryland and Virginia jurisdictions without a handgun law. The data suggested that, after the law was enacted, an average of 47 deaths per year were prevented in D.C.