Elementary school shooting

[bigrebnc1775]

27 killed including himself. How many shots were fired? Certainly a bolt action hunting rifle, a six shot revolver or even a pump action shotgun could not hold enough ammunition to wreck so much carnage. He must have used an assault rifle to kill so many.

Shouldn't such weapons belong in a "well regulated militia" and not on the streets or in an elementary school?

Six shot revolver? ever heard of speed loaders for revolvers?

Shouldn't such weapons belong in a "well regulated militia" and not on the streets or in an elementary school

Maybe you should ask the murderer why he did that?

Without weaponry of this kind, his toll would never hve climbed beyond a handful. It's high capacity magazines and automatic weaponry that has no place, no defendable, logical, reasonable place in our society. Such weapons should be in the hands of "WELL REGULATED MILITIAS" not in the hands of the public.

There is no justification for such weapons other than to fulfill the purient yens of Rambo wannabes and potential mass murders. Neither of those two groups deserve respect or the right to hold such weapons.

No defense can be made to hold such weapons as they have one and only one legitimate design use: to kill as many people as quickly as possible. They are a blight on our society and the sooner we all realize the truth about these weapons, the sooner we can get about the important work of ridding our streets of them now and forever.

Without gun free zones their would not be any mass shooting

 

[Ravi]

4:17 p.m.: Federal sources initially identified the suspect as Ryan Lanza, 24, of New Jersey, but there appears now to be confusion over the gunman’s identity.

LIVE UPDATES: Newtown, Conn., School Shooting - ABC News

 

[jillian]

When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it. ~ Jillian's sig

Using your second amendment right is apparently NOT to be excerised however.

again... there are reasonable restrictions on speech, too, or libel and slander wouldn't be actionable.

people lose their common sense when they talk about guns.

 

[Nosmo King]

Six shot revolver? ever heard of speed loaders for revolvers?


Maybe you should ask the murderer why he did that?

Without weaponry of this kind, his toll would never hve climbed beyond a handful. It's high capacity magazines and automatic weaponry that has no place, no defendable, logical, reasonable place in our society. Such weapons should be in the hands of "WELL REGULATED MILITIAS" not in the hands of the public.

There is no justification for such weapons other than to fulfill the purient yens of Rambo wannabes and potential mass murders. Neither of those two groups deserve respect or the right to hold such weapons.

No defense can be made to hold such weapons as they have one and only one legitimate design use: to kill as many people as quickly as possible. They are a blight on our society and the sooner we all realize the truth about these weapons, the sooner we can get about the important work of ridding our streets of them now and forever.

Without gun free zones their would not be any mass shooting

You can make that staement shorter and then it would make sense. Without guns there would not be any mass shooting.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

27 killed including himself. How many shots were fired? Certainly a bolt action hunting rifle, a six shot revolver or even a pump action shotgun could not hold enough ammunition to wreck so much carnage. He must have used an assault rifle to kill so many.

Shouldn't such weapons belong in a "well regulated militia" and not on the streets or in an elementary school?

If you can carry it, you should be able to own it.

And why not? The US Gov't does. In fact they use our Tax Money to pay for those weapons and ship them to Mexico or use them in Undeclared Wars in the Middle East but there's never the same amount of rage from gun-grabbers when the Military and the Gov't commit even worse atrocities.

Why shouldn't we be able to own many of the same things?

Bazookas? RPGs? Nuclear warheads? Abrams M-1 A-1 tanks? There is a sensible line that has been obliterated by the gun lobby. Automatic weapons, weapons with high capacity magazines have no legitimate use other than in war. Such weapons have no real reason to be other than weapons of war. They should be banned and outlawed and destroyed when confiscated. And that work needs to begin now.

The second amendment protects only military style firearms that are to be used in protection against the government.
Your agenda is a NO FUCKING SALE.

 

[saveliberty]

When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it. ~ Jillian's sig

Using your second amendment right is apparently NOT to be excerised however.

again... there are reasonable restrictions on speech, too, or libel and slander wouldn't be actionable.

people lose their common sense when they talk about guns.

You act as if no restrictions on gun ownership exist. We know better.

 

[Si modo]

just because there is an amendment doesn't make a 'right' absolute. heller was a terrible decision. breyer's dissent is much more on target. that said, even the right to free speech is subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions... commercial speech is subject to controls..

the 4th amendment has restrictions to the warrant requirement.. and there are reasonable circumstances absent a warrant when someone can be searched.

i'm certainly not asserting any type of ban. but i don't think the answer to gun violence is more guns. and honestly, i'm not sure we can ever address the real problem... which is the childishness of certain pro gun types... as if it's a toy and not a weapon. they actually like the idea of the wild west where in their minds they get to shoot the bad guys.

Your a lawyer?
REMIND me what the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringe means.

you understand half the court disagreed with heller, right?

How many persons are half of nine persons?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Without weaponry of this kind, his toll would never hve climbed beyond a handful. It's high capacity magazines and automatic weaponry that has no place, no defendable, logical, reasonable place in our society. Such weapons should be in the hands of "WELL REGULATED MILITIAS" not in the hands of the public.

There is no justification for such weapons other than to fulfill the purient yens of Rambo wannabes and potential mass murders. Neither of those two groups deserve respect or the right to hold such weapons.

No defense can be made to hold such weapons as they have one and only one legitimate design use: to kill as many people as quickly as possible. They are a blight on our society and the sooner we all realize the truth about these weapons, the sooner we can get about the important work of ridding our streets of them now and forever.

Without gun free zones their would not be any mass shooting

You can make that staement shorter and then it would make sense. Without guns there would not be any mass shooting.

Mass shootings always happen in gun free zones.
When the police military and obama's secret service detail dis arm we'll talk

 

[saveliberty]

I like lawyers. Many can play bridge and some can make a good argument.

 

[Si modo]

When the Founding Fathers protected our right to free speech, I think that meant we were supposed to use it. ~ Jillian's sig

Using your second amendment right is apparently NOT to be excerised however.

again... there are reasonable restrictions on speech, too, or libel and slander wouldn't be actionable.

people lose their common sense when they talk about guns.

Of course there are zero restrictions on gun ownership.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

just because there is an amendment doesn't make a 'right' absolute. heller was a terrible decision. breyer's dissent is much more on target. that said, even the right to free speech is subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions... commercial speech is subject to controls..

the 4th amendment has restrictions to the warrant requirement.. and there are reasonable circumstances absent a warrant when someone can be searched.

i'm certainly not asserting any type of ban. but i don't think the answer to gun violence is more guns. and honestly, i'm not sure we can ever address the real problem... which is the childishness of certain pro gun types... as if it's a toy and not a weapon. they actually like the idea of the wild west where in their minds they get to shoot the bad guys.

Your a lawyer?
REMIND me what the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringe means.

you understand half the court disagreed with heller, right?

Again what does shall not be infringed mean?

 

[Nosmo King]

If you can carry it, you should be able to own it.

And why not? The US Gov't does. In fact they use our Tax Money to pay for those weapons and ship them to Mexico or use them in Undeclared Wars in the Middle East but there's never the same amount of rage from gun-grabbers when the Military and the Gov't commit even worse atrocities.

Why shouldn't we be able to own many of the same things?

Bazookas? RPGs? Nuclear warheads? Abrams M-1 A-1 tanks? There is a sensible line that has been obliterated by the gun lobby. Automatic weapons, weapons with high capacity magazines have no legitimate use other than in war. Such weapons have no real reason to be other than weapons of war. They should be banned and outlawed and destroyed when confiscated. And that work needs to begin now.

The second amendment protects only military style firearms that are to be used in protection against the government.
Your agenda is a NO FUCKING SALE.

It must sicken you to defend the indefensible. And when reading the 2nd amendment, why ignore the entire clause outlining "well regulated militias"? There is no reason,. no rational reason why citizens should be armed as soldiers. When they are, we endure unspeakable tragedies like the one today in Connecticut.

But there remains intractable, unreasonable, wholly ignorant people who somehow jettison all morality and step up to defend such horrid weapons. Senseless.

 

[TNHarley]

Keep trying to kill our freedom libys

 

[Nosmo King]

Without gun free zones their would not be any mass shooting

You can make that staement shorter and then it would make sense. Without guns there would not be any mass shooting.

Mass shootings always happen in gun free zones.
When the police military and obama's secret service detail dis arm we'll talk

If specious logic drives your argument, you have no argument.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The worst mass school murder in American history took place on May 18,1927 in Bath Township, Mich., when a former school board member set off three bombs that killed 45 people

CBS News: 27 Dead, Including 20 Children, In Elementary School Shooting « CBS Connecticut

 

[saveliberty]

Can the mods carry sidearms? I mean if the liberal keep firing blanks...

 

[Ravi]

Keep trying to kill our freedom libys

What about the freedom of the kids to attend school without getting killed?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Keep trying to kill our freedom libys

What about the freedom of the kids to attend school without getting killed?

Arm the teachers.

 

[Ravi]

Keep trying to kill our freedom libys

What about the freedom of the kids to attend school without getting killed?

Arm the teachers.

No. Too many teachers abuse kids they don't need weapons.

 

[koshergrl]

If the teacher had had a gun, they wouldn't have been killed.

If the principal had had a gun, they wouldn't have been killed.

You want to see kids continue to get killed? Continue to lock them up in schools with absolutely no method of defense.

Israeli teachers are armed.