I agree strongly with the points made in this commentary on the Tuscon shootings. http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/09/gergen.pointing.fingers/index.html?hpt=C2 I have been complaining for quite some time about the hateful vitriol that is so pervasive today in American politics and in the political media. It is also imperative we examine the laws that allowed this looney......this deranged kid who was not allowed in his JC because of his lunacy to purchase an effing gun only a month ago. I ask you.......who is loonier.......the kid or those that think he should have had every right to own a gun?
I know Jif.....I won't debate it because it is not a right or left problem......it's everybody's problem. And I think the article points that out and in addition it is very unclear I think what motivated this crazy idiot. But the legal gun purchase only one month ago makes me shake my head in wonderment.
You know who is the looniest, those that think that passing a law will prevent some conduct. Last time I looked, murder was against the law. Only a really gullible person would think that passing a low against gun ownership would prevent criminals from owning guns.
Loonies will be loonies that's true Gipper. But It doesn't make sense to facilitate their crimes by making gun purchases so easy. If the kid's own junior college says no way....uh uh....you're nuts and you're outta here.... something should be in place to block such an individual from buying a lethal weapon legally.
Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Infringe infringe vb [Latin infringere] 1: violate, transgress 2: encroach, trespass Source: NMW In the context of the Constitution, phrases like "shall not be infringed," "shall make no law," and "shall not be violated". Sounds pretty unbendable.
Some laws have changed AJ. You have to admit that not everyone should have the right to bear arms. How about.....everyone deemed to be sane and responsible has the right to bear arms. I could agree with that.
It's a terrible tragedy, but no law or laws can prevent things like this. Here in Houston we had a woman beat up and kill a neighbors kid and then burned the body and dumped it in a ditch. What law would you propose that prevent or lessens this from happening?
Terry...the kid could have bought an axe at the hardware store instead of a gun. But I think he is stopped before so many were affected as were because of the ease of using a gun with a magazine holding so many rounds.
Massachusetts has a law...anyone caught with a gun on person...in car..in house , goes directly non stop to the Big House
Jif you have to be wrong on that, that would be clearly in violation of the constitution. Now it's certainly possible that Mass gun laws are different from Texas or AZ or any other state. But no way can the prohibit gun ownership, it's a violation of the constitution. Most of the fights over gun ownership, have not been to take guns out of the hands of citizens but over how they are to be sold, what types of weapons and ammo can be sold, and how they can be carried...such as concealed carry or open carry, etc.
My first thought when I heard that the 'suspect' was meeting with the judge was "why wasn't he meeting with his maker?" All those people and no one else was carrying to stop him right there (as he apparently was expecting to happen)? A legally armed citizen acting in self defense could have stopped him before probably half the injuries/casualties.
Jif, Now I know why you have not made it down to Florida for some time. It is legal for me to shoot you in the street if I fear for my life...And you know now that with the Tampa Bay Rays doing great any obscure comment from a Bosox fan could be considered a threat... 8)
In all honesty look for this arguement to be regulated by the Feds by the control of ammunition. I have many guns in my possesion and have never been tempted to shoot anyone with (Well maybe one) them but the 2nd amendment is fuzzy when it comes to our legal right to buy ammunition to actually fire the guns... :!:
The news report is out now that 31 shell casings were found in Tuscon. I am sure this guy had quite a need and certainly the right to have that kind of rapid fire capability. I thought the need for something like that is why we had Marines in the first place.