Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[Wry Catcher]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.

So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?

Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."

My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?

Let's review the 10th A: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

A clear statement, correct?

Why didn't Heller discuss the 10th? It took a whole lot of spin to incorporate McDonald v. Chicago, and another 5-4 decision, to protect gun owners from the efforts of city, county and state representatives to pass even benign laws to control guns.

IMO it is a fundamental imperative for local government to make the jurisdiction under their watch safe and secure. Some will argue that means more guns, others believe some restrictions are necessary to accomplish the same goal.

The former will argue that tens of thousand or more times a gun is used in defense and not fired; the facts prove guns are used everyday to commit acts of murder, murder suicide, suicide, robbery and the accidental injury or death of adults and children.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

Translation:
You know you do not have a sound response to the questions put to you.
As per the norm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?

The 2nd has been incorporated against the actions of the states thru the 14th amendment.
You are either ignorant of this or know of this and choose to ignore it.
Either way; like all anti-gun loons, you argue from emotion, ignorance ad/or dishonesty.

 

[kaz]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.

We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed; we penalize those who provide a firearm to an unlicensed person.

So Wry, maybe one time in all your posts on the thread you could address my actual point in the OP post. Pot is actually illegal in most of the country. It's against the law, period. Yet high schoolers, not even criminals can get all the pot they want.

How can gun laws possibly work? There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. Drugs travel easily across the border, guns can follow the same routes. When pot laws work to a degree they just drive up the prices and the drug lords work all the harder to get the money. And the pot buyers I am discussing are teens, not even criminals with criminal networks.

How can you possibly believe gun laws will work on criminals? So then, how can you not believe you are only restricting the rights of people to protect themselves from criminals? As evidenced by mass shootings one after another happen in ... gun ... free ... zones.

You keep mocking the right for denying what you believe is science with global warming, you mock the religious right for not believing in abortion. Yet you deny basic, obvious evidence with guns that all contradicts your argument. Whats up with that?

1. The war on drugs is a failure. We are doing the same things today we have been doing for decades with few positive results. Thus your comparison has merit, IMO both drugs and guns need to be controlled, but how is the question.
2. Pot (MJ) must be dropped from schedule I and each state should have the right to regulate or outlaw it
3. Thus, each state could have the right to regulate gun ownership or allow any citizen of their state to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun. That would be a great test of the merits or demerits of universal gun ownership

Well, I think neither drugs nor guns should be "controlled" but I support liberty, not a State with ubiquitous power, but that's a matter of opinion. No where in there am I seeing a single idea on how you are going to keep pot from teenagers or guns from criminals. What is it you think you just addressed exactly?

Climate Change is in effect, only a fool believes otherwise. That statement does not suggest that climate change is exclusively a product of human behavior. However, we see how the Internal Combustion Engine created SMOG and how the use of catalytic converters has mitigated that weather anomaly - our air is cleaner

Whether the climate is warming, whether it's part of a cycle, whether it's man made, nothing is established scientific fact. But my point was that you think the right isn't following basic logic and yet you have still no idea how to control pot or guns. The consequence of the State trying to control them is clear and it's bad.

1. Abortion is about the right of women to make bodily decisions. Pregnancy can be mostly prevented by education (age appropriate in the public schools) and freely provided contraceptives. Pregnancy is also a means use by an abuser to control his spouse, a pregnant women will stay with an abuser when they have no means of support when pregnant and after she has given birth. Yet Planned Parenthood is under attack.

I meant evolution in this one, sorry. I fixed it but you'd already quoted it.

1. I mock the religious right for hypocrisy. Denial of contraceptives and opposition to abortion is oppressive and a tactic used by authoritarians. Few like the idea of abortion, but those opposed to abortion and oppose my points in #5 deserve to be mocked.

My point is that you think you are logical with global warming and climate change, but you can't face that you have no actual plan to control guns. And that doesn't change even when shooting after shooting is in a so called gun free zone. The only ones who were gun free were the law abiding victims. Which is my point

 

[kaz]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.

So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?

That was then, this is now. Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.

I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts. I tend to think it would be.

They actually did think of that, and they gave us a solution. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They did not give us 5/9, the State gave us that solution. And yes, times have changed. Now it's as important if not more than ever to be able to defend yourself. What a different story Sandy Hook and other tragedies would have been if only a few people had been armed. Yet you and your side made sure they weren't and you don't question it, not at all. The idea that 5/9 justices can rewrite the Constitution is an abomination to liberty

 

[kaz]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.

So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?

Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."

My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?

Let's review the 10th A: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

A clear statement, correct?

Why didn't Heller discuss the 10th? It took a whole lot of spin to incorporate McDonald v. Chicago, and another 5-4 decision, to protect gun owners from the efforts of city, county and state representatives to pass even benign laws to control guns.

IMO it is a fundamental imperative for local government to make the jurisdiction under their watch safe and secure. Some will argue that means more guns, others believe some restrictions are necessary to accomplish the same goal.

The former will argue that tens of thousand or more times a gun is used in defense and not fired; the facts prove guns are used everyday to commit acts of murder, murder suicide, suicide, robbery and the accidental injury or death of adults and children.

You realize the 14th extended the bill of rights to apply to State governments as well, no?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?

The 2nd has been incorporated against the actions of the states thru the 14th amendment.
You are either ignorant of this or know of this and choose to ignore it.
Either way; like all anti-gun loons, you argue from emotion, ignorance ad/or dishonesty.

You offer nothing but personal attacks, my comment was my first take on the comment upon which I commented, but, not before I did a little research:

Noting once again a Supreme Court - experts on the law, disagree 5-4. I agree with the four justices in the minority, but for reasons all my own.

Try thinking sometime, most of your responses are personal attacks or the opinions of others (a fallacy of an appeal to authority); in fact this thread creates a False Dilemma (i.e. No in-betweens) supported by you and others who oppose alll efforts to reduce gun violence in America by the use of Red Herrings, Slippery Slopes and your favorite, circular reasoning.

 

[kaz]

Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?

The 2nd has been incorporated against the actions of the states thru the 14th amendment.
You are either ignorant of this or know of this and choose to ignore it.
Either way; like all anti-gun loons, you argue from emotion, ignorance ad/or dishonesty.

You offer nothing but personal attacks, my comment was my first take on the comment upon which I commented, but, not before I did a little research:

Noting once again a Supreme Court - experts on the law, disagree 5-4. I agree with the four justices in the minority, but for reasons all my own.

Try thinking sometime, most of your responses are personal attacks or the opinions of others (a fallacy of an appeal to authority); in fact this thread creates a False Dilemma (i.e. No in-betweens) supported by you and others who oppose alll efforts to reduce gun violence in America by the use of Red Herrings, Slippery Slopes and your favorite, circular reasoning.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to restrict government powers, and you're arguing there is no restriction, government can do anything. So why did they bother putting it there? You OK with rights like free speech and freedom from illegal searches and seizures requiring you apply to government for permission, pay a fee and they get to decide if you get the right or not? We are not treating gun rights differently from other rights, you are

 

[Wry Catcher]

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.

So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?

That was then, this is now. Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.

I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts. I tend to think it would be.

They actually did think of that, and they gave us a solution. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They did not give us 5/9, the State gave us that solution. And yes, times have changed. Now it's as important if not more than ever to be able to defend yourself. What a different story Sandy Hook and other tragedies would have been if only a few people had been armed. Yet you and your side made sure they weren't and you don't question it, not at all. The idea that 5/9 justices can rewrite the Constitution is an abomination to liberty

What they didn't know is that corporations, associations and an unlimited amount of money would create a Congress beholden to a faction which will use a mass media to instill hate and fear of any member of Congress to speak out for the repeal or modification of the Second Amendment.

It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.

Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook? Do you imagine each classroom in America should have an armed guard locked and loaded, or that every Kindergarten Teacher should be armed and would have the wherewithal to respond quicker than an attacker who planned his or her attack?

You should read up on the Supreme Court, and especially those issues upon which they decided on issues not directly authorized by the COTUS.

Start with Marbury v. Madison.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?

The 2nd has been incorporated against the actions of the states thru the 14th amendment.
You are either ignorant of this or know of this and choose to ignore it.
Either way; like all anti-gun loons, you argue from emotion, ignorance ad/or dishonesty.

You offer nothing but personal attacks, my comment was my first take on the comment upon which I commented, but, not before I did a little research:

Noting once again a Supreme Court - experts on the law, disagree 5-4. I agree with the four justices in the minority, but for reasons all my own.

Try thinking sometime, most of your responses are personal attacks or the opinions of others (a fallacy of an appeal to authority); in fact this thread creates a False Dilemma (i.e. No in-betweens) supported by you and others who oppose alll efforts to reduce gun violence in America by the use of Red Herrings, Slippery Slopes and your favorite, circular reasoning.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to restrict government powers, and you're arguing there is no restriction, government can do anything. So why did they bother putting it there? You OK with rights like free speech and freedom from illegal searches and seizures requiring you apply to government for permission, pay a fee and they get to decide if you get the right or not? We are not treating gun rights differently from other rights, you are

First sentence: Straw Man Fallacy

The Second was put in there do to the Realpolitik of the time.

Your third sentence runs on, in pieces:

a. Free Speech has limits
b. A search can be legal without a warrant as can a seizure
c. Pay a fee for a license, BFD
d. You and others are treating the Second as sacrosanct, which has been proven to be false.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The first stop in problem solving is to identify the problem.

Kaz, M14 and et al, don't see a problem, that is the basic difference between them and those of us disturbed by mass murders, road rage shootings and other violent acts committed by people with a gun.

 

[2aguy]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

Okay dipstick.....again, tell me what forcing people to get a license would do that we can't already do without the license? Not one of you anti gun extremists have been able to tell me what the license does, why it is needed and how it would stop crime or mass shootings.

Considering the fact that armed citizens have already been in those situations and shown that law abiding people are responsible even in the worst situations, The Klackamas mall shooting, the Gabby Giffords Shooting, the Pear Mississipi shooting, The Smokey Mountain law school shooting.....all had armed citizens who used their guns to stop the attacker or who decided they did not need to shoot.

You guys have no idea what you are talking about so you talk out of your asses on this subject. Do some research instead of just "feeling" what you think should happen.

 

[2aguy]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

We have all the gun laws that we need. This guy went through your background check and passed it. If he was still alive he would have been arrested and put in jail.....done and done.

What you want wry, is an office of Pre Crime, where you send in Tom Cruise to stop the gun crime before it happens....sadly, we don't have 3 precognitives to allow you to do that. So, gun crime is treated like all the other crimes in the world, we have laws against murder, and when someone murders someone we arrest them and lock them up. Dittos drunk driving, stealing and rape.

You mention the limits on the First Amendment.....those limits happen AFTER you break the laws. You do not have to get a license to speak, you do not have to get a license to talk in a crowded theater, but if you yell fire in the theater you can be arrested.

You do not have to get a license to prove you will not slander or libel another person. If you slander or libel someone you can be taken to court and sued......AFTER, you have slandered or libeled them.....

Dittos with the 2nd Amendment....when you commit a crime with a gun you can be arrested on the spot. There is no need for a license or to register anyone's gun. You can already be arrested as soon as you break the law with the gun.

If you are a felon, you cannot own or carry a gun or have one in your possession. You can already be arrested it you are caught with a gun, no license is needed to do this, they are already prohibited from the gun. No need to register the gun, because they can't have the gun in the first place.

There is no need to license owners or register guns.

You still can't show why they are necessary, useful or productive.

Still waiting for that explanation.

The recent shooter. He would have got a license, he would have registered his gun, he passed a background check, and the he bought the gun 2 months before the shooting.....so not one of your laws that you want would have stopped this shooting.

Dittos criminals, they steal guns or get a straw purchaser to buy the gun......your gun laws would not stop this.

 

[kaz]

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.

So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?

That was then, this is now. Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.

I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts. I tend to think it would be.

They actually did think of that, and they gave us a solution. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They did not give us 5/9, the State gave us that solution. And yes, times have changed. Now it's as important if not more than ever to be able to defend yourself. What a different story Sandy Hook and other tragedies would have been if only a few people had been armed. Yet you and your side made sure they weren't and you don't question it, not at all. The idea that 5/9 justices can rewrite the Constitution is an abomination to liberty

What they didn't know is that corporations, associations and an unlimited amount of money would create a Congress beholden to a faction which will use a mass media to instill hate and fear of any member of Congress to speak out for the repeal or modification of the Second Amendment.

It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.

Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook? Do you imagine each classroom in America should have an armed guard locked and loaded, or that every Kindergarten Teacher should be armed and would have the wherewithal to respond quicker than an attacker who planned his or her attack?

You should read up on the Supreme Court, and especially those issues upon which they decided on issues not directly authorized by the COTUS.

Start with Marbury v. Madison.

Guns actually aren't that hard, especially at close range. You aim, fire. BTW, most of the attackers weren't trained either. And seriously, you're safer if the bad guy has a gun and you don't? That's nuts.

If you want to learn to use a gun properly and safely, your NRA would be a wonderful place for you to go.

You still have given zero in terms of specifics of how you would keep pot away from teenagers or guns away from criminals.

 

[kaz]

Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?

The 2nd has been incorporated against the actions of the states thru the 14th amendment.
You are either ignorant of this or know of this and choose to ignore it.
Either way; like all anti-gun loons, you argue from emotion, ignorance ad/or dishonesty.

You offer nothing but personal attacks, my comment was my first take on the comment upon which I commented, but, not before I did a little research:

Noting once again a Supreme Court - experts on the law, disagree 5-4. I agree with the four justices in the minority, but for reasons all my own.

Try thinking sometime, most of your responses are personal attacks or the opinions of others (a fallacy of an appeal to authority); in fact this thread creates a False Dilemma (i.e. No in-betweens) supported by you and others who oppose alll efforts to reduce gun violence in America by the use of Red Herrings, Slippery Slopes and your favorite, circular reasoning.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to restrict government powers, and you're arguing there is no restriction, government can do anything. So why did they bother putting it there? You OK with rights like free speech and freedom from illegal searches and seizures requiring you apply to government for permission, pay a fee and they get to decide if you get the right or not? We are not treating gun rights differently from other rights, you are

First sentence: Straw Man Fallacy

The Second was put in there do to the Realpolitik of the time.

Your third sentence runs on, in pieces:

a. Free Speech has limits
b. A search can be legal without a warrant as can a seizure
c. Pay a fee for a license, BFD
d. You and others are treating the Second as sacrosanct, which has been proven to be false.

That the Bill of Rights was created to limit government powers is a ... straw man? Wow, your knowledge of history is flat line

 

[2aguy]

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.

So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?

That was then, this is now. Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.

I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts. I tend to think it would be.

They actually did think of that, and they gave us a solution. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They did not give us 5/9, the State gave us that solution. And yes, times have changed. Now it's as important if not more than ever to be able to defend yourself. What a different story Sandy Hook and other tragedies would have been if only a few people had been armed. Yet you and your side made sure they weren't and you don't question it, not at all. The idea that 5/9 justices can rewrite the Constitution is an abomination to liberty

What they didn't know is that corporations, associations and an unlimited amount of money would create a Congress beholden to a faction which will use a mass media to instill hate and fear of any member of Congress to speak out for the repeal or modification of the Second Amendment.

It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.

Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook? Do you imagine each classroom in America should have an armed guard locked and loaded, or that every Kindergarten Teacher should be armed and would have the wherewithal to respond quicker than an attacker who planned his or her attack?

You should read up on the Supreme Court, and especially those issues upon which they decided on issues not directly authorized by the COTUS.

Start with Marbury v. Madison.

Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook?

Because they have prevented other shootings because law abiding people were on the scene with guns.

 

[2aguy]

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.

So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?

That was then, this is now. Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.

I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts. I tend to think it would be.

They actually did think of that, and they gave us a solution. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They did not give us 5/9, the State gave us that solution. And yes, times have changed. Now it's as important if not more than ever to be able to defend yourself. What a different story Sandy Hook and other tragedies would have been if only a few people had been armed. Yet you and your side made sure they weren't and you don't question it, not at all. The idea that 5/9 justices can rewrite the Constitution is an abomination to liberty

What they didn't know is that corporations, associations and an unlimited amount of money would create a Congress beholden to a faction which will use a mass media to instill hate and fear of any member of Congress to speak out for the repeal or modification of the Second Amendment.

It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.

Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook? Do you imagine each classroom in America should have an armed guard locked and loaded, or that every Kindergarten Teacher should be armed and would have the wherewithal to respond quicker than an attacker who planned his or her attack?

You should read up on the Supreme Court, and especially those issues upon which they decided on issues not directly authorized by the COTUS.

Start with Marbury v. Madison.

Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook?

Normal, law abiding people with guns save lives in mass shooting situations when they are actually on the scene....

From church shootings, we have churches that were gun freezones, and churches that allowed people to have guns.....the deaths in gun free zones were way higher, the deaths in churches that allowed people to carry guns way lower.......

Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston church shooting - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia ( 9 dead)

vs.

Deputies Osceola pastor shot church janitor in self-defense ( 0 dead)

6 Shot At New Life Church Gunman 2 Churchgoers Dead - 7NEWS Denver TheDenverChannel.com ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

Remember This SC Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting During Church Service. No Casualties. ( 0 dead)
**********
No guns: 15 dead

Sikh temple ( 6 dead, 4 wounded)

Charleston ( 9 dead)


Parishioners with guns: 2 dead

Osceola ( 0 dead )

New life ( 2 dead, 3 wounded)

South Carolina shotgun guy ( 0 dead)

 

[2aguy]

David_42

So what's your plan, Stan, let's hear it? How you going to keep guns from criminals when we can't keep pot from high school kids? We have open borders, guns are not high tech and the country and world is full of them. You said we can do it, so what's you're proposal?

I'll bite. The same way we keep most people to stop at red lights and not practice law or medicine without a license.
We penalize those who own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm and are not licensed

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.

So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?

Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."

My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?

Let's review the 10th A: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

A clear statement, correct?

Why didn't Heller discuss the 10th? It took a whole lot of spin to incorporate McDonald v. Chicago, and another 5-4 decision, to protect gun owners from the efforts of city, county and state representatives to pass even benign laws to control guns.

IMO it is a fundamental imperative for local government to make the jurisdiction under their watch safe and secure. Some will argue that means more guns, others believe some restrictions are necessary to accomplish the same goal.

The former will argue that tens of thousand or more times a gun is used in defense and not fired; the facts prove guns are used everyday to commit acts of murder, murder suicide, suicide, robbery and the accidental injury or death of adults and children.

The facts show that guns stop crime and save lives far more than they are used to commit crime and murder people. You don't have facts you have feelings and wishes....none of which are true or accurate.

 

[2aguy]

When it is already illegal for criminals, etc to own a gun, why should the law abiding need a license to own a gun?
How does the requirement to have a license in order to own a gun - a precondition to the exercise of the right not inherent to same - not violate the constitution?
How will licenses keep criminals from getting guns?
Oh wait,... there are questions I've already asked you, for which you had no sound response, and ran away from.
Never mind.

If you were honest, and you're not, I would respond to your fatuous response which is trite.

For others, who are not dishonest and not foolish I'll respond, even though you will respond in the same manner you always do - dishonestly and foolishly.

Mass murders, murder and suicides, accidental shootings, and armed robbery are serious societal maladies which deserve honest discussion on potential remedies.

Morons, or more likely those obsessed with guns, will always resort to it is my Right and the Second Amendment says so, which is not only a cliche but not an absolute truth.

Arms, are weapons of war. They are not universally sold in every form and to all people. A license is required to own a fully automatic weapon, a short barrel shotgun, a surface to air missile, an RPG, etc. etc. It is universally agreed by all but terrorist organizations, that some people should never own, possess or have in their custody and control a firearm.

So let's put the Second aside for a moment since the evidence, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that it can be infringed since it always has been.

I've advocated that each state decide by legislative action to require gun possession and ownership be licensed, and that sanctions be enforced for those who fail to obey.

[ See: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf ]

The response from M14 shooter is asinine and emblematic of others who claim nothing will control gun violence unless everyone has a gun. One can only imagine the chaos and carnage of a gun battle in a crowded theater, on a campus or even on a street where untrained citizens fire in panic at others who are shooting in their defense. Hell a smart terrorist would fire a a dozen rounds and calmly walk away as others do his work.

Doing nothing is insane, double down on doing nothing - arming more and more citizens, is too.

So your argument is that when the founding fathers put gun ownership in the Bill of Rights, which means specifically that gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it.

So why bother putting it in the bill of rights then?

That was then, this is now. Times change, the weapons of war have changed - most of the combatants in the Revolutionary War carried the same weapons they used to hunt game, as did their opponent.

I can't imagine, though I can't know and nor can you, if the Second would be worded differently had the authors and signers known what we do today about the use of arms in modern conflicts. I tend to think it would be.

They actually did think of that, and they gave us a solution. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. They did not give us 5/9, the State gave us that solution. And yes, times have changed. Now it's as important if not more than ever to be able to defend yourself. What a different story Sandy Hook and other tragedies would have been if only a few people had been armed. Yet you and your side made sure they weren't and you don't question it, not at all. The idea that 5/9 justices can rewrite the Constitution is an abomination to liberty

What they didn't know is that corporations, associations and an unlimited amount of money would create a Congress beholden to a faction which will use a mass media to instill hate and fear of any member of Congress to speak out for the repeal or modification of the Second Amendment.

It will be up to a Supreme Court to further modify (infringe if you like) a crazy policy allowing crazy and fanatical people easy access to 21st guns.

Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook? Do you imagine each classroom in America should have an armed guard locked and loaded, or that every Kindergarten Teacher should be armed and would have the wherewithal to respond quicker than an attacker who planned his or her attack?

You should read up on the Supreme Court, and especially those issues upon which they decided on issues not directly authorized by the COTUS.

Start with Marbury v. Madison.

Why do you think people regularly untrained and untested in combat situations would prevent the horror of Sandy Hook?

Another time when an armed citizen did the right thing......


Mother Jones: Fewer Deaths Per Mass Shooting in U.S. Versus Attacks Abroad - Breitbart

Sadly, the Mother Jones piece does not mention the state-by-state implementation of concealed carry laws that began sweeping across nation in the late 1980s/early 1990s—right in the middle of the time frame Lankford studied. Concealed carry is now legal in every state. This fact, long under-reported, has contributed to the quick demise of more than one would-be mass shooting in the recent past.

Consider the Clackamas Town Center attack on December 11, 2012—an attack in which alleged gunman Jacob Roberts opened fire on shoppers, killing two. That attack, which could have been far worse, ended when Roberts noticed that carry permit holder Nick Meli was raising his Glock and was preparing to fire. KGW reported that while Meli never pulled the trigger, Roberts ended his alleged attack by taking his own life rather than shoot at another innocent.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Interesting comment ^^^, "gun ownership cannot be restricted by the Federal government, what they meant was that we have the right to own guns as long as government is OK with it."
My first thought by this comment was to focus on the phrase, Federal Government; if it is so that the Federal Government is so restricted, what does that mean for each State Government?

The 2nd has been incorporated against the actions of the states thru the 14th amendment.
You are either ignorant of this or know of this and choose to ignore it.
Either way; like all anti-gun loons, you argue from emotion, ignorance ad/or dishonesty.

You offer nothing but personal attacks, my comment was my first take on the comment upon which I commented, but, not before I did a little research:

And thus, you admit you spoke out of ignorance. As I said.