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.
There's already a lot of guns out there. And if the new laws keep folks from getting a gun, it might be that they don't need guns. Also, school shooters choose schools because that's where the people are they want to kill
From what I understand the shooter did not even get the guy who stole his girl, or the girl herself.
Again, like I mentioned before, Antonin Scalia did not agree with you. If there can be exclusions to the First Amendment, there can be exclusions to the Second.
The 1st amendment doesn't say there are exclusions, or it would say so in the amendment to be as specific as it wanted. Where are the exclusions in the 1st amendment? Man has created the exclusions, not the right I have to say what ever I wish and to believe in what ever I want. No exceptions, or it would say there are exceptions.
You are confusing my liberty, with government control.
First amendment has exceptions like slander and libel, and not yelling "FIRE" in a theater.
Second maybe needs exceptions like not FIRING in a theater.
Or in our context, not having the tools to fire in a theater.
One point raised occasionally in this discussion (and seldom carried any further) is: "What percentage of the shooters had previously been placed on mind-altering psychotropic medication -- usually at the insistence of teachers and administrators afraid to handle the confrontation which, like it or not, is central to daily life?
The dragon's teeth have been sown for years, and we all have to reap the harvest; further concentration of authority will only tie down more safety valves.
From what I understand the shooter did not even get the guy who stole his girl, or the girl herself.
I don't believe he did either. I wasn't necessarily meaning this case specifically or that the shooters got the specific people they were targeting. he mentioned online of becoming a school shooter. Not specific students as far as I am aware.
That guy was a train wreck. Apparently, the gunman chased his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend with a pencil trying to stab him and later got into a fight in school before he was expelled. Should have been charged with assault and a felony place on his record.
I think it's time that high school students who get into violent fights should not be allowed to purchase weapons. This goes for adults too. If a person can't solve an argument with words and needs to resort to violence, then that person has anger problems and shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms. People who initiate fights should be charge with assault.
That guy was a train wreck. Apparently, the gunman chased his ex-girlfriend's new boyfriend with a pencil trying to stab him and later got into a fight in school before he was expelled. Should have been charged with assault and a felony place on his record.
I think it's time that high school students who get into violent fights should not be allowed to purchase weapons. This goes for adults too. If a person can't solve an argument with words and needs to resort to violence, then that person has anger problems and shouldn't be allowed to purchase firearms. People who initiate fights should be charge with assault.
Never lived in a rural area, have you? Fighting is entertainment in some smaller towns. It's not uncommon to fight somebody on Friday night and hang out with them on Saturday. And the only thing the police might do, if they're even called, is tell everyone to go home and cool off.
I think it's time that high school students who get into violent fights should not be allowed to purchase weapons. This goes for adults too.
Do you feel that the American people would be safer in the long run, if we gave government the authority to decide who could carry a gun and who couldn't? By any standards they feel like setting? And the power to enforce it by any means necessary?
Do you feel that the American people would be safer in the long run, if we gave government the authority to decide who could carry a gun and who couldn't?
Not putting words in your mouth, but you seem to want absolutely no background checks, right? Anyone who wants a gun gets a gun? Do you believe any restrictions are fair?
It's also not true that most people who call for some form of gun control want an actual total gun ban.
It's not?
Most of the people calling for that, have been around long enough to know that most of the things they ask for, have been tried before. And most of them have not worked, even when tried multiple times. Crime rates of any kind don't go down. In fact, they often rise when those schemes are enacted.
Yet they keep calling for them anyway. And when they don't work again for the umpteenth time, they call for more. And after the next shooting, even more.
Their pattern becomes clear. They aren't trying to solve the problem. They are simply trying, by hook or crook, to put eventual complete gun bans in place.
It's no longer a question of being mistaken or uninformed, when they call for schemes that have already been tried and failed. By now, they know that. They call for them anyway.
And there is only one reason left, for them to do so.
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.
