Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who knows? The FBI messed this one up. But to assume you could get away with it forever would be a poor bet.
The police did too with 19 different complaints about the suspect and many people took the tried and true "I'd knew he'd do it" response when they found out the murderer's name. See something, say something can only work of something is said. Too manu don't and often times when something is said the police or Feds can't do much because their hands are tied. We need to balance the liberties of the one versus the liberties of us all a whole Hell of a lot better.
The police did too with 19 different complaints about the suspect and many people took the tried and true "I'd knew he'd do it" response when they found out the murderer's name. See something, say something can only work of something is said. Too manu don't and often times when something is said the police or Feds can't do much because their hands are tied. We need to balance the liberties of the one versus the liberties of us all a whole Hell of a lot better.
All the bells and whistles were there with this shooter. The real problem is how do we deal with them when they have not committed the crime? Of course he never should have gotten into the school; especially with a gun case. There are many personal freedom issues on how to treat these 'potential' shooters. You would think that a statement like: 'I want to be a professional school shooter'; would be enough to put somebody in a mental ward for observation. In this case he had the weapon to carry out his 'wish'. In possibly another case somebody could also make a statement like his and not own a weapon. How long can we hold somebody for the words they speak? Can we force mental evaluation and what are the criteria?
The police did too with 19 different complaints about the suspect and many people took the tried and true "I'd knew he'd do it" response when they found out the murderer's name. See something, say something can only work of something is said. Too manu don't and often times when something is said the police or Feds can't do much because their hands are tied. We need to balance the liberties of the one versus the liberties of us all a whole Hell of a lot better.
Yes, a balance is what we need. Americans and all who come to our gracious and beautiful land, have rights under the constitution. We have a right to live, not to die at the hands of killers.
Sure, knives and other forms of murder can happen. Bullets are too fast and too deadly. 6 minutes and this man killed and wounded so many young people, with lives ahead of them. Dreams smashed into eternity.
All the lives that have been lost in these mass murders are so senseless and wasteful. From Columbine and even before. These lives could have been future leaders, scientists, at least they should have had a chance.
God, I hope our lawmakers come to their senses and put the NRA on notice. I am sick of our lawmakers acting like dorks in a minefield.
Our constitution is not a piece of paper, that gives the right to kill, when you are having a bad day or life.
LOL, you guys always take that quote out of context. Let's try again.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What part of "well regulated" do you not understand?
The definition of Well Regulated can vary, regulated by who, the governing entity, commanders in the militia? The right of the people is the key word and we are the people. Plus, there are more than enough regulations with the Second Amendment, adding more will only infringe on the rights of the people who want to own guns. Let's focus on the real issue, mental illness.
That's what my shotgun is for. Stick with the point please. No one "needs" a semi auto.
Do you realize how much deadlier a shotgun loaded with buckshot with a cut barrel in a crowd would be than a semi-auto rifle firing a single bullet at a time?
Militias in the time of the FF were organized and regulated by the states, and often had officers appointed by the states. This isn't even arguable. A well regulated militia means exactly what it sounds like. An official militia with officers and such, controlled and answerable to some authority such as the state or the federal government.
So why are there no historical accounts of the government enforcing this interpretation of the 2nd amendment?
If, after all, the Founders only intended a "well regulated militia" to have the right to own firearms and they felt so strongly about that limitation that they put it in the Bill of Rights, second only to the freedom of speech.......
You'd think there would be many historical accounts of that rule being enforced upon citizens.
But there isn't.
Citizens indeed owned all manner of arms including "weapons of war".... artillery and even battleships.
So history itself proves that arguing over the definition of "well regulated" is irrelevant folly.
Responses are neither constitutional nor constitutional. They are just responses. No one is trying to take away your rights. We're trying to figure out how to stop our children from being murdered in schools. I think that is something everyone can agree on.
If no one is trying to take away rights.....
Then what is the purpose of those making the "well regulated militia" argument?
If you believe that interpretation of the 2nd amendment was to limit arms only to the militia....would that not entail taking away the rights of the general public to own a firearm?
If not, why bother with that argument at all?
Seems to me that any gun control advocate who brings up the "well regulated militia" argument and then claims not to want to take guns away from citizens is lying through their teeth.
If you want to be really constitutional, you'd have muskets. The founding fathers didn't know what assault weapons even were.
Muskets were "assault weapons" when the Constitution was written.
They were more advanced, more reliable, more powerful, more accurate and faster to reload than weapons of just a few decades prior.
Semi automatic weapons even existed decades prior to the signing of the Constitution, they just hadn't figured out how to mass produce them yet.
So the argument that the Founders could not envision more advanced weapons is also nonsense when subjected to historical scrutiny.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
