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.
I agree. Some psycho wakes up one day and decides to do this.. How could anyone have stopped it.
I usually agree with you on most topics MQ but he didn't just wake up this morning and decide to do this. This was definitely a planned event with a pre-existing mental condition. There are now reports that he had some sort of mental disorder (really?!) and the guns were registered to his mother. If this is the case then having guns in your home along with a mentally disturbed kid is beyond stupid. And my comment has NOTHING to do with gun control, it has everything to do with common sense.
But a Timmy McVeigh can come along with a little fertilizer and diesel fuel and kill hundreds at a time with no gun. You can't legislate crazy mass killers out of killing.
Yes, but now they make it tougher to buy all the fertilizer you want for no good reason. After the LIRR shooting, they reduced the size of clips. We have gun control already.
The 2nd amendment dealt with well-regulated militias, which we've had for centuries. Not the right of every yahoo to have an arsenal in his/her basement. I hope the amendment is re-interpreted one day thanks to senseless violence like this. Let's tick off the insanity:
I was commenting on another site after the mall shooting earlier this week - what would cause us to say "THAT'S ENOUGH!" and thought it would either be a shooting up of a maternity ward or an elementary school. It was only a matter of time unfortunately in our gun-crazy country.
Yes, but now they make it tougher to buy all the fertilizer you want for no good reason. After the LIRR shooting, they reduced the size of clips. We have gun control already.
The 2nd amendment dealt with well-regulated militias, which we've had for centuries. Not the right of every yahoo to have an arsenal in his/her basement. I hope the amendment is re-interpreted one day thanks to senseless violence like this. Let's tick off the insanity:
I was commenting on another site after the mall shooting earlier this week - what would cause us to say "THAT'S ENOUGH!" and thought it would either be a shooting up of a maternity ward or an elementary school. It was only a matter of time unfortunately in our gun-crazy country.
A guy hell bent on mass murder won't be blocked by such laws. Farms are not patrolled by armed guards 24/7, fertilizer is easy to steal on a big piece of property. Magazines of any capacity are readily available and anyone with a welder can make up some of their own. The only way to protect schools is with more security.
You have a flawed understanding of what was meant by militia (and what it means when it says the right of the people). Here's a handy quote to dispell that myth:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." A Pennsylvanian, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788
A guy hell bent on mass murder won't be blocked by such laws. Farms are not patrolled by armed guards 24/7, fertilizer is easy to steal on a big piece of property. Magazines of any capacity are readily available and anyone with a welder can make up some of their own. The only way to protect schools is with more security.
You have a flawed understanding of what was meant by militia (and what it means when it says the right of the people). Here's a handy quote to dispell that myth:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." A Pennsylvanian, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788
Yeah, it's talking about fighting an oppressive power which we as a young country had just successfully done. And militias were in fact "well-regulated" back then. Young men were expected to train & drill under the oversight of officers. Now it's defended by the NRA to such an extent that we have unstable people with access to arsenals. The Founding Fathers are doing backflips.
But a Timmy McVeigh can come along with a little fertilizer and diesel fuel and kill hundreds at a time with no gun. You can't legislate crazy mass killers out of killing.
Not even close to being equivalent. (and btw, there already is legislation to limit access to explosive fertilizer)
You can't hide a u-haul truck full of ammonium nitrate in a dufflebag . . . but you can load 500 or 600 rounds into magazines and fit them comfortably in a reasonably sized school backpack. edit: per your follow-up post - having a crazy idea in your head that you're going to kill a bunch of people then tucking a handgun in your waistband, throwing on a coat with a few extra magazines in the pockets then going to some crowded place takes zero planning. None. You get pissed off, you have a gun, you kill. It's that easy. Making a bomb out of a truck takes weeks (most likely months) of planning and prep and almost always requires an accomplice. But this a ridiculous exercise . . . if you're really going to compare the number of truck bomb deaths to the number of homicides by firearm you're just grasping at straws.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion that we will ever be completely free from "crazy mass killers" but we should be able to go to the movies, we should be able to go to church or temple, we should be able to go christmas shopping and we should be able to send our kids to school without worrying about how easy it is for someone with a gun to kill dozens up on dozens of people and without worrying about when and where that crazy person will strike this week.
Last edited by drive carephilly; 12-14-2012 at 06:18 PM..
Yeah, it's talking about fighting an oppressive power which we as a young country had just successfully done. And militias were in fact "well-regulated" back then. Young men were expected to train & drill under the oversight of officers. Now it's defended by the NRA to such an extent that we have unstable people with access to arsenals. The Founding Fathers are doing backflips.
Well regulated in the late 18th century meant well trained and equipped.
You have a flawed understanding of what was meant by militia (and what it means when it says the right of the people). Here's a handy quote to dispell that myth:
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." A Pennsylvanian, The Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788
First of all, the 2nd Amendment begins with "a well regulated militia". I was in that well regulated militia for 4 years. It's called the NJ National Guard. Having 2 rifles, a shotgun and a handgun in your basement doesn't make a well regulated militia.
2nd, your quote doesn't dispel any "myth". It has no legal bearing because it's not legislation or part of a legal decision. It's an op-ed in a newspaper.
Not even close to being equivalent. (and btw, there already is legislation to limit access to explosive fertilizer)
You can't hide a u-haul truck full of ammonium nitrate in a dufflebag . . . but you can load 500 or 600 rounds into magazines and fit them comfortably in a reasonably sized school backpack. edit: per your follow-up post - having a crazy idea in your head that you're going to kill a bunch of people then tucking a handgun in your waistband, throwing on a coat with a few extra magazines in the pockets then going to some crowded place takes zero planning. None. You get pissed off, you have a gun, you kill. It's that easy. Making a bomb out of a truck takes weeks (most likely months) of planning and prep and almost always requires an accomplice. But this a ridiculous exercise . . . if you're really going to compare the number of truck bomb deaths to the number of homicides by firearm you're just grasping at straws.
I don't think anyone is under the illusion that we will ever be completely free from "crazy mass killers" but we should be able to go to the movies, we should be able to go to church or temple, we should be able to go christmas shopping and we should be able to send our kids to school without worrying about how easy it is for someone with a gun to kill dozens up on dozens of people and without worrying about when and where that crazy person will strike this week.
This wasn't a spur of the moment mass killing. Most of these people plan well ahead. The Unabomber made some very effective weapons in tiny packages. Diesel and fertilizer isn't the only option. Anyone with a good knowledge of chemistry can make explosives out of readily available materials. The point of course is crazy killers will always find a way to kill.
Speak for yourself but normal people don't kill when they get angry, even if armed. I don't worry about guns. I generally carry one myself, and I haven't killed anyone yet (imagine that).
First of all, the 2nd Amendment begins with "a well regulated militia". I was in that well regulated militia for 4 years. It's called the NJ National Guard. Having 2 rifles, a shotgun and a handgun in your basement doesn't make a well regulated militia.
2nd, your quote doesn't dispel any "myth". It has no legal bearing because it's not legislation or part of a legal decision. It's an op-ed in a newspaper.
The national guard is not the militia. SCOTUS says that. The national guard is a part of the U.S. Army.
Primary source materials from the founding era are routinely used by the courts to determine the meaning of the Constitution. I'd suggest you read the Heller Decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
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.
