T
Theo520
Guest
Are you rambling? I thought this sad incident was accomplished using a revolver and a shotgun, no high capacity magazines present.
- Status
It is my main concern, too. I start from the baseline that the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right, upheld by the SCOTUS twice in the last 20 years.
From there, we have to find a way to prevent people who are mentally unstable or dangerous from getting their hands on guns. We need to do a better job of requiring law enforcement and officials to enforce laws already in place. And we need to do a better fob of securing schools.
That’s a start
The weapon that causes the most death and murder is the handgun, not the semiautomatic rifle. Most of that is in the inner cities, and because it’s mostly black kids, th progressives in office and media ignore it.
As for regulation, it depends on what you mean. The general government has limited power to regulate civilian weapons just like it has limited power to regulate speech or the press or religious free exercise: they are rights.
J
Jump4Joy
Guest
Do you think teachers and other school personnel should be armed on campus?
Then stop the illegal sales. That’s a complaint you and I share; illegal guns.JonNC:
I like how you throw in little barbs about how progressives ignore certain deaths as if you know what you are talking about. Many cities would happily put more regulations on weapons, but find it’s very hard when people will illegally sell them into those cities.
L
Lev
Guest
NARAL believes that killing is a defense of their own personal rights. It’s no different to the NRA agenda. It all results in the same outcome. The death of innocent children for the sake of the rights of the strong.
It depends on the teacher, the school, the community. It certainly isn’t the general government’s decision.
But if a proper plan is in place, if extensive training is provided, and a teacher is willing, I see no reason why not. Right now teachers get to defend their students and themselves with a yardstick, not match for a firearm.
J
Jump4Joy
Guest
I think it is sad that public schooling has came to this
It is part of the decline of the morality of the culture.
L
Lev
Guest
… in the US. Other parts of the world experiencing the same decline in morality simply don’t and never will tolerate the massacre murders of children.
No they don’t. They don’t believe it is killing at all. And they don’t think it has anything to do with their rights. They consider it their right to convenience in most instances.
Absolutely false. Site an NRA document that holds that killing is in this way even similar to what NARAL says. Show me how the unborn child is guilty of being a threat to anyone’s right in a manner similar to what we’ve seen tyrants do over the last century. That to me would be a dastardly comparison.
Non sequitur. One has nothing to do with another. Owning a firearm is a right. Killing others with it is not a right, with the exception of self defense.
This is another way that gun rights and abortion are entirely unrelated. Owning a gun Does not confer a license to kill a human being. Abortion, by its very nature, confers a power (not a right) to kill a human being. Blaming 100 million law abiding gun owners for the actions of murderers is like blaming the baby for the abortion
The vast majority of gun death of children are by gangs and inner city youth, youth who typically have no father in the home. It is directly related to the unwed birth rate. It has nothing to do with the number of guns, because the percentage of privately and legally owned firearms involved in crimes is almost zero.
If you want to stop the killing, address the real issues, and gun ownership is not among them.
A national registry is an excuse and prerequisite for confiscation. It is a nonstarter. Keeping track of law abiding citizens in that way is fascistic.
There are other ways to find the entry of firearms into the black market. The 100 million law abiding are not the cause.
J
Jump4Joy
Guest
I always have to wonder why these mass shootings seem reoccurrent in USA.
L
Lev
Guest
No they cite their rights to do with their bodies what they will. The first legal abortions were justified by ‘self defense’ ie. to preserve the life of the mother. Once abortion was legalised under that guise, it gradually became legitimate in almost every circumstance. That is no different to the 2nd Amendment legitimising gun ownership for the purpose of defending the welfare oft he State… progressing to a state now where the ‘defense’ clause is a novelty toted out anyone dares express intolerance of massacred children.Lev:
No they don’t. They don’t believe it is killing at all. And they don’t think it has anything to do with their rights. They consider it their right to convenience in most instances.
L
Luke6_37
Guest
NARAL most certainly is committed to defending a woman’s reproductive rights, which is defined as freedom from state coercion to become pregnant, remain pregnant or end a pregnancy.
They are exactly like the NRA, because they would rather witness the slaughter of innocent children than compromise this ideal of absolute personal autonomy.
The culture of death thrives in a world where personal autonomy is worshiped above God. This is a form of idolotry.
Worshiping idols is not about receiving your reward in the next life, it’s about getting ahead or avoiding catastrophe in this one. Every woman who has an abortion does it because she thinks it will make her present life better. Every responsible gun owner seeks the power to kill in order to avoid possible calamity. In both cases the price is human sacrifice.
Now think of what God is revealing to you in Christ crucified. Do you have enough faith to follow his Way? To those without faith, Christianity is kind of crazy.
1 Corinthians 1:23 NABRE - - Bible Gateway
Last edited:
The starting point is to recognize that it is not the law abiding that should be the target. Start with the understanding that it is a right to keep and bear arms. Not a privilege, not a convenience. Not granted by the state. It is a right antecedent to the existence of the state.
Now, target the law breakers. You don’t stop bank robbers by targeting the law abiding bank customer. You don’t address drunk driving by targeting the driver who doesn’t drive drunk.
If you want a starting place, don’t start by targeting the innocent.
The law abiding are as guilty of gun violence as the law abiding car driver is of drunk drivers. The claim you make itself is intended to stop debate, in my view.
A
AlNg
Guest
No, it is not all. There is more to blame. There were no or too few armed and trained security guards at the school and there was no secure fence surrounding the school and there was no metal detector at the entrance to the school. In brief, security was lax and enabled an insane murderer to get through. Americans spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to supposedly provide safety to the people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Americans spend billions putting armed troops in Europe, supposedly to protect people against Russian invasion. But Americans are very cheap when it comes to providing security for school children. IMHO, Americans have their priorities wrong. I would recommend that they consider placing the safety and security of the lives of young American school children first.
S
starshiptrooper
Guest
Do some actual police work and get a warrant perhaps?
- Status