The guy isn't White, didn't use an "Assault Rifle" and didn't use a large capacity magazine...

[M14 Shooter]

Are you really falling for the idea that the Constitution can't be interpreted & modernized for today's world.

It was.
It covers firearms in common use at the current time.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The only double-action revolvers with external safeties are unusual cases available only on special order or modified through aftermarket conversions."

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Wanting reasonable gun controls is not anti-gun.

Reasonable gun control starts with an argument not based on fallacious appeals to emotion, ignorance and/or emotion.

 

[sakinago]

And yet assault rifles kill fewer people each year than knives or clubs or bare hands.....of he weapons you should fear most...fear knives.....

Assualt rifles are not a problem....criminals are...and again...it was a gun free zone...and he used an anti gun activist approved weapon....a pistol with a 9 round capacity magazine....

now of course you will want to limit that capacity too...

Expanded Homicide Data Table 8



For 2014 included......


All rifles: 248 ------------(2013....285 (that means AR-15s kill even fewer than that))

Knives: 1,567-------------( 2013....1,490)

Hands and feet: 660----( 2013 .......687 )

You people have no logic, just bulldshit.

Yea 2 aguy is ripping you in the logic aisle and you're only response is to call bullshit. Try some logic yourself. If you're right you'll easily beat him. Should be easy for you, go ahed.

 

[sakinago]

He was still nuts. We know that's the kind of people you want to be armed.

Nuts is a pretty broad definition, what's going to be considered "nuts" and how is the government going to fairly apply "nuts" without infringing on people's constitutional rights? What about "nuts" and harmless? Should they have their rights stripped? It's very hard to make the distinction of whose dangerous and whose not, especially when it comes to people who are "nuts". There's a lot of them out there that claim a lot of crazy things like this guy did, and a large large majority are harmless, and just need help.

This guy didn't even need to be on a no fly list (which is a whole other BS issue), to commit this crime. Even if he was, he still would have been able to commit it since he snuck into baggage claim.

And again gun control would not have worked to prevent this crime, or many of the mass shootings we have seen. San Bernadino shooter was not clinically insane, just fanatical. He worked for years among the non fanatical without any problems.

If you want to do something that will actually work, we have to stop giving these killers notoriety, and encouraging the very few crazies out there to do something to make a splash and be all over the news.

The guy said the FBI was controlling his brain and trying to force him to join Isis. That's nuts enough.

And yet...he walked out....and flew.......

You NRA nutjobs want people on the No Fly List to buy guns.

When there was talk about how vets areeasy targets to get sucked into ISIS, you NRA nutjobs had a fit.

Well if you believe ted KENNEDY, should have his constitutional rights restricted than you have a problem. If you believe that
law abiding citizens with the name Ahmed Muhammad should be on the no fly list just for having the same name as 1 terrorist.l, then you have a problem. If you believe toddlers are denied a right to fly based on what the government makes of their name then you have a problem. And that problem is with you think it's ok for a non elected organization, to deem you dangerous without any formal charges, without you being able to face your accuser, and without any formal trial...no wonder the ACLU is against the no fly list, even when it pertains to gun ownership

 

[sakinago]

Republicans will fight to the last man to protect the rights of insane mass murderers to own as many guns as they want.

Translation: Republican Congressional representatives will fight to the end to support and defend the Constitution.

Yes, that is correct. Democrats, though, want to rewrite the Constitution into their own image and really, really hate anyone who disagrees with them.

You think that you Founding Fathers wanted crazy people running around armed?

Why not make all guns legal that were in use when the Constitution was signed.

Are you really falling to that level of argument?

Are you really falling for the idea that the Constitution can't be interpreted & modernized for today's world.

First you claim you want it exact & then you want to change it to fit your needs. The Founding athers said you can have a musket. Have fun with it.

Founding fathers BORs speaking said the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed. In their writings outside of BORs at the time affirmed the fact that government should not have a monopoly on force. At the the time of the writing of the BOR, a musket was the equivalent of a military firearm. So how do you prevent he government from having a monopoly of force (like all dictatorships current and past have)?