It's just so very sad

[tzznandrew]

The atrocities that occured during the end of the Roman Empire and the dark ages were at least as ugly as this. They didn't need guns. Swords, a mace, rope and horses were sufficient to wipe out entire villages, including women and children. Humans are imperfect and humanity occasionally goes off the rails. Fix the people.

Yes, committed by the armies, thugs, or roving bands of people. Therefore, either perpetrated by the state, or perpetrated because there was no state.

That's entirely different than one person killing 27 people. In the Classical or Medieval eras, one person didn't walk into a place and kill tons of people single-handedly.

 

[Dougsts]

While I agree that there is something else going on besides guns, suggesting it has nothing to do with guns is also a problem. There weren't mass shootings in the Roman days, or in the Renaissance. Why? Part of it was that there weren't guns capable of doing this available to anyone, let alone the public. We didn't have mass shootings over the first 200 years or so because people couldn't get guns powerful enough to do this.

Humans have been killing each other since we have started crawling on this earth. The point is, what ever weapon is available will be used if someone really wants to reek havoc. If this same guy had used his moms car to mow down a bunch of kids standing in line waiting to get on the bus, would it have been less tragic? I do believe our society has has soul searching to do on how to curtail this kind of thing. Is it the way we treat the mentally challenged, is it the violent video games these kids play, is it the violent rap music that is listened to, is it the breakdown of the basic family unit, is it a gun owner not securing his or her weapons properly, or a combination of many things? I also feel that taking the easy way out by banning guns will do next to nothing to solve the long term problem. The folks who think banning guns will bring about a safe society are the same folks who think throwing money at the inner city failing schools will magically do something to improve the education of these youths, when the problem has nothing to do with the cost per child being educated. But thinking or otherwise is just not politically correct even for discussion. Just one persons opinion.

 

[Charlie Brown]

It's enough - something has to change. I no longer care that a bunch of folks 250 years ago thought that they might have needed guns...I suspect they'd change their minds if they'd ever thought of what we'd start doing with those guns.

Well, this post won't get 33 or more likes, like the OP, to be sure. Reason, equanimity, circumspection - all lost in moments of emotion and panic, which is, of course, what the response to the massacre has been.

The OP posits that he "no longer cares" what a "bunch of folks 250 years ago" thought.

That's too bad. Because, unlike all of us with the leisure to eat Cheetos and type on message boards in the abundance of modern day America, in virtually absolute safety from attacks from other nations, with more freedom than most who have ever lived, those "folks" you refer to lived under the tyranny of a monarch and gave us the freedom we currently have.

The monarch they fought saw fit to implement laws after the fact, making criminals of "folks" who had behaved according to the law.
That monarch forced those "folks" to board soldiers in their homes.
That monarch taxed those "folks" at will, for whatever purpose deemed.
That monarch made it illegal to question his authority or speak out against him or assemble to protest him.
and
That monarch attempted to retain his dictatorship by making illegal the ownership of guns by his subjects - those "folks" to whom you refer.

Unlike us, those "folks," who lived under that tyranny, fought for their freedom and offered their lives. They knew what tyranny was, they fought it, they earned their freedom - and OUR freedom by extension, with their blood and courage.

Excuse me greatly if I believe that their perspective on the necessity of the personal right to defend oneself from aggression is far superior to your perspective on the matter. They fought for and created the greatest lasting bastion of liberty ever - as Jefferson said - they watered the tree of liberty with their blood. You? You post clever quips on a college basketball message board that other posters "like".

If the founding fathers were here today, the OP believes, they would not agree to the current right to bear arms because it's not what they would have wanted.

Excuse me. If the founding fathers were here today, they would look around aghast and wonder what the hell happened to the beautiful republic they left us. They would look at our rotting culture, breakdown of values and family, obesity, drug dependency, doping of children to cover for poor parenting, incarceration of victimless criminals, controlled election system, and rampant public debt and think, "wow. How did they let it get this bad?"

The founders were hardened men who lived through oppression and war, not suburban beer-bellies who lived through Jersey Shore. They would not only not entertain your visceral response to a tragic event, they would recognize that the real issue was the state of the country and the culture, which produced a monster who would kill children, and they would recognize that the evil that they fought to remove was returning through the erosion of personal liberty and the expansion of government control of the people.

They would, no doubt, recognize that the right to bear arms is more needed today than ever.

 

[Dogbreath2U]

I hate guns but know the necessity to many and will not get in to any of the politics and pretend I know.......I have a 34-32 demarini bat located in my house strategically just in case (2 actually) so if they have a gun I'm in trouble but at 53 why start now?

Anyway I get a single mom wanting to feel safe at home alone but 6 guns including an assault rifle? C'mon the world is ridiculous, how about the Glock in the drawer next to your bedstand and done?!?!?!

Having these guns in a house with a son who has serious behavioral or emotional problems was obviously a really, really bad idea. I am sure that there are many different problems that need addressing that can be brought to light by this tragedy, but his mother made a horrible mistake that cost her her life and the life of many others. I'm sure that many parents with teenage or young adult children with some form of autism or mental illness would never imagine this kind of act to be possible by their child, her decision to have guns in the home appears to have been extremely irresponsible. This assumes that the shooter showed indications of anger problems/rage, poor control, and strange thinking in the past.

Having said that, I would strongly support steps to immediately ban and retrieve all guns such as the semi-automatic rifle used to kill so many in so short a time. I would like to see all guns removed from the public, but one step at a time.

 

[metsfan2323]

Having said that, I would strongly support steps to immediately ban and retrieve all guns such as the semi-automatic rifle used to kill so many in so short a time.

It's time to start calling these weapons what they are: Weapons of mass destruction.

Why are WMD's legal in this country?

 

[zls44]

They would, no doubt, recognize that the right to bear arms is more needed today than ever.

This is stupid, this is scary and this is wrong.

You speak if monarchs and tyranny as if those are things that we interact with on an ongoing basis. We don't. The only remaining monarch on Earth of any significance was one of the first people to speak out about the horrors of what happened here, a friend to this country.

We don't need the right to bear arms in our communities. England learned this. Australia learned this. Japan learned this. They all learned this from seeing the horrors of gun violence destroy communities forever.

When is the blood enough? How many innocents need to die before you are satisfied?

If you think Jersey Shore is a sign of the end times, I get it. So why does that mean you need to own an M16? What is that doing to enhance your life? How is that helping your safety.

It isn't. It never has, and it never will.

Enough with the madness. It's Sunday. Go to church and hug somebody. Lay down your arms in peace.

 

[ctchamps]

Humans have been killing each other since we have started crawling on this earth. The point is, what ever weapon is available will be used if someone really wants to reek havoc. If this same guy had used his moms car to mow down a bunch of kids standing in line waiting to get on the bus, would it have been less tragic? I do believe our society has has soul searching to do on how to curtail this kind of thing. Is it the way we treat the mentally challenged, is it the violent video games these kids play, is it the violent rap music that is listened to, is it the breakdown of the basic family unit, is it a gun owner not securing his or her weapons properly, or a combination of many things? I also feel that taking the easy way out by banning guns will do next to nothing to solve the long term problem. The folks who think banning guns will bring about a safe society are the same folks who think throwing money at the inner city failing schools will magically do something to improve the education of these youths, when the problem has nothing to do with the cost per child being educated. But thinking or otherwise is just not politically correct even for discussion. Just one persons opinion.

It is a complex problem. People who want gun control are correct about one thing. If someone snaps (that is loses all resolve for self control) guns are very convenient and the technology of some types of guns do what they were meant to do, inflict large numbers of casualties in a short span of time. If they weren't available it would be a lot less convenient for the person who snaps to cause mass casualties.

My wish list would be simple: figure out a way to eliminate all greed, distrust, hatred, bigotry, paranoiac fear, inequity, and mental instability. And replace all this with love, compassion, responsibility, acceptance, caring, and resolve. Most rational people want this and that means most of the people in the world. The problem is we can't agree what specific parameters constitute these various attributes, nor can we determine the best pathway to evolve in this fashion. And the reason for this is that every solution is filled with potential problems equal to or greater than the problem. Furthermore the moment some grandiose idea is decided upon something or someone develops an idea to corrupt it.

I've literally tortured myself for decades trying to resolve this. I've thought of ideas like jleves, and the moment I come up with a solution like a chip in guns that monitor them I know someone will develop technology to subvert this idea. And that subversion will infiltrate itself rapidly in society starting off with the criminal element.

I think humanity is primarily good. As a whole we've come a long way. There have been studies that show the % of deaths due to violence has gone considerably down over the centuries. And that is a result of many changes that have taken place which have removed the need for our species to resort to force to survive. But the inherent attributes that give us the gift for survival, also can turn us into beings of destruction under the right circumstances and that is the fear all of us have should have. Can circumstances arise that revert us to conditions that existed centuries ago?

I've argued since the 80's that our technology was exceeding the rate of our dealing with human flaws. And of course I was late to the discussion. It has always been a concern throughout the ages, although not necessarily amongst the vast majority of people involved in the discussions. I've resolved myself that we have to be realistic, that implementation of any idea, no matter how noble and wonderful it appears, has limitations. But that doesn't mean we don't try things. It means that we have to monitor our ideas. The moment we see them going askew we fix the new problem or abandon the idea all together. But everyone gets together to ensure it has the best chance for success.

The contribution "The Boneyard" made to honor JC is a great example of how difficult even seemingly simple, very noble, deeds are to implement. There were a lot of great ideas being bandied about but it ultimately took five or six individuals to take the ideas, come up with one idea and implement it for JC's cardiac charity. It went relatively fast because there was no passionate divide amongst the people who wanted to do something. That is there were no voices that argued against contributions. There are certainly people who don't believe JC deserves that honor, but they were not being pressed upon to contribute and the only thing they had to deal with was the distaste of the idea.

Realistically, in many cases, this doesn't occur. First we fight amongst each other to see whose idea wins. An idea gets discussed, implemented, and most people go on with life without oversight of the idea. The losers leave angry hoping for failure, with some actively trying to destroy the idea. The winners believe the losers are acting immaturely and just need time to see their error. They are so sure of themselves, they forget entropy is inherent in the universe . And humans have the capacity to resist entropy or contribute to entropy.

 

[husky91]

Maybe it's an unfair characterization, but with what I've read so far I almost consider Nancy Lanza (mother) an accomplice and not a victim. I mean, the guns, taking her sick child to the range, giving him access to these illegally, etc.

Sure she had no idea, wasn't premeditated but reading about her makes me pissed and angry, not sad.

 

[Huskymaniac]

This is stupid, this is scary and this is wrong.

You saying it doesn't make it so. The first sign of a profound lack of wisdom is the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be "wrong". That is your ego talking and being scared is your mind fearing that it could be wrong.

Have you considered that a completely abusive government doesn't exist in our country because we have the ability to organize a large group of armed citizens to rise up against the government? No, the people can't fight tanks and fighter jets but they can do enough to scare the crap out of those in charge.

 

[metsfan2323]

Have you considered that a completely abusive government doesn't exist in our country because we have the ability to organize a large group of armed citizens to rise up against the government? No, the people can't fight tanks and fighter jets but they can do enough to scare the crap out of those in charge.

You should shorten your screen name to just "Maniac", it's more fitting....or maybe "Coo Coo Bird"

 

[Dogbreath2U]

You saying it doesn't make it so. The first sign of a profound lack of wisdom is the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be "wrong". That is your ego talking and being scared is your mind fearing that it could be wrong.

Have you considered that a completely abusive government doesn't exist in our country because we have the ability to organize a large group of armed citizens to rise up against the government? No, the people can't fight tanks and fighter jets but they can do enough to scare the crap out of those in charge.

Do you really believe that this is what prevents the government of the United States of America from becoming "abusive"? The elected officials are concerned about not being re-elected, not about being shot. The mother of the shooter was reported to be concerned about the collapse of society, possibly leading to her having the stockpile of guns and giving her son the means to bring about a catastrophe.

 

[Huskymaniac]

This is stupid, this is scary and this is wrong.

You saying it doesn't make it so. The first sign of a profound lack of wisdom is the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be "wrong". That is your ego talking and being scared is your mind fearing that it could be wrong.

Have you considered that a completely abusive government doesn't exist in our country because we have the ability to organize a large group of armed citizens to rise up against the government? No, the people can't fight tanks and fighter jets but they can do enough to scare the crap out of those in charge. Ever he

You should cut your screen name to just "Maniac", it's more fitting....or maybe "Coo Coo Bird"

Typical response from a fearful person who is a slave to their ego. Like the rest of the weak minded fools, you convince yourself I must be a crazy idiot because the alternative is that you are very wrongminded yourself and that would make you a.......

Such is the life of someone who has bought into dualistic reasoning.

 

[The Funster]

Setting aside the politics behind what happened, I'll just say that I still cannot wrap my head around what happened. The depravity of the shooter, the innocence of the children and the heroism of the educators whose actions saved many more lives leaves me with feelings of revulsion, sorrow and profound awe.

 

[8893]

Tyranny used by gun lobby and its insecure, paranoid supporters to justify private ownership of mass assault weapons = none.

Mass murders of innocent children by the hand of those assault weapons = many.

Mass murders of innocent children if those assault weapons were not readily available to private citizens, as in every other modern country = less.

It's a choice. Let's stop allowing a manufactured, imagined fear perpetrated by insecure fear mongerers be used to justify a choice that every other country faced with this issue has recognized leads to more senseless killing, not less.

 

[Huskymaniac]

Do you really believe that this is what prevents the government of the United States of America from becoming "abusive"? The elected officials are concerned about not being re-elected, not about being shot. The mother of the shooter was reported to be concerned about the collapse of society, possibly leading to her having the stockpile of guns and giving her son the means to bring about a catastrophe.

Ultimately, yes. This is what the founders had in mind. Their fear of death is stronger than their greed. But, you are right, both drive their actions. Consider what the president and congress could do if they wanted to. We could quickly lose what little democracy we have left. It is already bad enough that the vast majority of our highest government officials come from a select group of people dictated primarily by money and power. We have many checks and balances in place but it is not so impenetrable as to make it impossible for the government to gain absolute power and become corrupted absolutely. The ability of the people to rise up against the government in revolt is THE last line of defense.

Let me be clear, I don't own a gun or hunt nor am I a member of the NRA. I just see the second amendment differently than many people here and I still see its value, 250 years later.

 

[tzznandrew]

Humans have been killing each other since we have started crawling on this earth. The point is, what ever weapon is available will be used if someone really wants to reek havoc. If this same guy had used his moms car to mow down a bunch of kids standing in line waiting to get on the bus, would it have been less tragic? I do believe our society has has soul searching to do on how to curtail this kind of thing. Is it the way we treat the mentally challenged, is it the violent video games these kids play, is it the violent rap music that is listened to, is it the breakdown of the basic family unit, is it a gun owner not securing his or her weapons properly, or a combination of many things? I also feel that taking the easy way out by banning guns will do next to nothing to solve the long term problem. The folks who think banning guns will bring about a safe society are the same folks who think throwing money at the inner city failing schools will magically do something to improve the education of these youths, when the problem has nothing to do with the cost per child being educated. But thinking or otherwise is just not politically correct even for discussion. Just one persons opinion.

It would be no less tragic if he had mowed kids down with a car. But we don't really see that happen? Why? Why is the weapon used to kill a lot of people not a car, not a knife, not (in the US) a bomb? Why is it always an assault weapon?

Because someone doing it with a car would not have had much success. And someone doing it with a knife wouldn't have either. A bomb is a different scenario, I'll grant, but I think it has other issues.

I agree--there are lots of problems with our society, and working on only one will not fix all the problems. But that doesn't mean we sit on our hands and do nothing.

I don't think you would talk to someone who knows what their doing, or who has worked in an inner-city public school (my wife works in Boston Public Schools), who would say the only problem they have is funding. It's one of them, but many of the other issues (poverty, single-family households where the single parent cannot provide adequate support, 0-parent households where there is nothing there, etc. etc.) are really big problems. But when your textbooks are falling apart, or your science books are out of date, it doesn't help.

 

[tzznandrew]

Ultimately, yes. This is what the founders had in mind. Their fear of death is stronger than their greed. But, you are right, both drive their actions. Consider what the president and congress could do if they wanted to. We could quickly lose what little democracy we have left. It is already bad enough that the vast majority of our highest government officials come from a select group of people dictated primarily by money and power. We have many checks and balances in place but it is not so impenetrable as to make it impossible for the government to gain absolute power and become corrupted absolutely. The ability of the people to rise up against the government in revolt is THE last line of defense.

Let me be clear, I don't own a gun or hunt nor am I a member of the NRA. I just see the second amendment differently than many people here and I still see its value, 250 years later.

I don't want there to be no guns (some on this board said so, but I don't). I don't think your automatic weapons are stopping the government. Sorry. You can try to shoot down a droid, but even if you do, you didn't kill anyone.

Our government is not Syria. It would be a lot more difficult to bring into a state of civil war. And even if we did, I think at that point--the point of open rebellion--it would be a lot easier to get access to these guns, when they were actively needed. And people with hunting rifles and handguns could defend themselves.

I don't think that the government doesn't do things because they're afraid of the citizenry. I think that is borderline crazy.

 

[cohenzone]

Very late to most of this thread, and it's too long now for me to review all that's been said. Personally, I don't own a gun, don't want to own one, had a guard job in college where I had to carry a loaded revolver and never got attached to the sucker. Would it bother me if all the guns on earth disappeared. Not a bit. Do I think our Constitution is going to change any time soon, no. Do I think we have a lot to fear from our government the way the Founding Father's felt at the time that they were writing. No, but I never say never.

But, if one looks at the language of the 2nd amendment, it seems to me that some specific conclusions can be reached and some matters of definition arrived at. As to conclusions, the language seems much more directed to the right to bear arms in some organized fashion as a means to keep the government from taking advantage of the population. As such, it does not necessarily support using weapons to do anything but that. But okay, so it gets silly to think that an argument would succeed that disallows weapons from being used for the manly sport of animal hunting while the supermarket is down the block, or to have some sort of weapon around the house . So the conclusion is relatively easily reached that so long as the Amendment exists, the citizens must be allowed the right to have arms.

The language in the Amendment refers to "arms", not guns. So it is legitimate to look at what the Founders considered to be "arms" and argue that only the sort of "arms" that they knew are allowed. Muskets, cannons, bow and arrow, single shot pistols, a knife or a sword.

But that would be an absurd conclusion, right? So one should then look at the modern equivalent to give meaning to the word "arms". And to effectuate the meaning of the whole Amendment as assuring the right of citizens to combat a tyrannical government, the word "arms" logically means having at the citizens ready disposal, all "arms" necessary to counter the "arms" that the tyrannical government might have. "Arms" then, as properly interpreted under the Constitution does not guarantee us the mere right to own guns, but the right to own bombers, tanks, drones, bombs of every strength, etc etc. How else can we defend ourselves against the power of the tyrant? Otherwise, it want us to wage a doomed resistance. So, I'm out shopping for a tank to replace my Prius.

Of course, I've had too much wine to be thinking clearly, but I've wondered, for all of the enlightened who think we are allowed the right to own "arms" because we need to be able to keep the government in line, how do you feel about Kent State, for example. (Read up about May 1970 if you don't know what I'm referring to.) Those damned stupid students almost cost me the right to take my bar exam. What could they possibly have been doing? Oh yeah, exercising their right of assembly and speech. Would the folks who think that we can oppose a tyrannical government have agreed that any student who shot back and killed a Guardsmen had a perfect defense under the 2nd Amendment that they were doing what the Constitution permitted? Who decides when that right is being exercised properly or not? Um, I think it's that same tyrant.

If this country does not at long last give the finger to the NRA and impose sensible gun laws that do not deprive hunters of their joy, or the folks who need a loaded gun at the ready to deter the armed intruder (probably keeping the loaded weapon in a place the law frowns on as being too accessible) I fear we will never have the will.

 

[Huskymaniac]

I don't want there to be no guns (some on this board said so, but I don't). I don't think your automatic weapons are stopping the government. Sorry. You can try to shoot down a droid, but even if you do, you didn't kill anyone.

Our government is not Syria. It would be a lot more difficult to bring into a state of civil war. And even if we did, I think at that point--the point of open rebellion--it would be a lot easier to get access to these guns, when they were actively needed. And people with hunting rifles and handguns could defend themselves.

I don't think that the government doesn't do things because they're afraid of the citizenry. I think that is borderline crazy.

Reagan, two Kennedys and several other presidents and members of congress have been victims of attacks by simple hand guns. And those were unorganized nutjobs. Imagine what a motivated and organized militia could do. I'm not saying that fear of assasination drives the daily votes in congess or the actions of the president today. We are not currently close to a situation where they need to fear that. But if any of them had notions of trying to grab excessive power in the future, yes, it would cross their minds and maybe stop them.

 

[jleves]

Reagan, two Kennedys and several other presidents and members of congress have been victims of attacks by simple hand guns. And those were unorganized nutjobs. Imagine what a motivated and organized militia could do. I'm not saying that fear of assasination drives the daily votes in congess or the actions of the president today. We are not currently close to a situation where they need to fear that. But if any of them had notions of trying to grab excessive power in the future, yes, it would cross their minds and maybe stop them.

Assassinating a president and overthrowing a tyrannical government are pretty different things. Your argument sucks.

 

[Charlie Brown]

This is stupid, this is scary and this is wrong. You speak if monarchs and tyranny as if those are things that we interact with on an ongoing basis. We don't.

It's a wonderful position that you hold, and I'm sure it helps you sleep warmly at night.

Your position is - "we don't need the right to bear arms because there are no monarchs left."

That's equivalently naive to believing that you should throw out your rat traps because you killed the last rat in the barn.

 

[TerryA88]

There is no registry in regard to people diagnosed with any type of mental disorder. Such a registry would likely have the impact of making people even more reluctant to seek help. The privacy of medical records is a pretty big deal and such a registry would violate that privacy.​

You are correct. No such registry currently exists , but my point is there needs to be one. The majority of parents / grandparent/ foster parents realize when something 'isn't quite right' with a child. The overwhelming majority of these 'mass murder' shooters HAVE been diagnosed with a mental disorder.
Automobiles are tracked more thoroughly than handguns in America. Our educational system will test kids who under-perform, or seem to have behavioral or learning disabilities. This young man was in Newtown, CT one of the best High Schools in the state. Once he was diagnosed as having a mental disorder, if the database I'm saying needs to exist did, the parent should be given 30 days to either turn in firearms, or provide proof of sale, or a transfer of ownership to individuals/parties not at their address . Local ranges can store and keep them so we won't have issues with the NRA.
If proof isn't provided that firearms are no longer at the address... exorbitant per-firearm fines/ possible jail time.

 

[zls44]

It's a wonderful position that you hold, and I'm sure it helps you sleep warmly at night.

I'd sleep a lot better knowing it was in a country that had the decency and intelligence to ban assault weapons.

 

[zls44]

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article...red-in-gun-buy-back-4121621.php#ixzz2FBAlRltP

 

[Gurleyman]

What about the people, say, who think that a democratically-passed law designed to increase access to health care, that they disagree with (and are entitled to disagree with), constitutes some form of "tyranny" in their warped mind. Should they be allowed to form a militia and start assassinating people in DC?

I don't want crazy "the black hawks are coming for me next" people who have $100,000 worth of ammo (like the guy arrested today in Indiana threatening to set his wife on fire and shoot up a school) deciding when there's tyranny. They aren't bright enough to operate a toothbrush without supervision.

 

[metsfan2323]

Imagine what a motivated and organized militia could do. \

I spent a few minutes imagining what an "organized militia" with assault rifles can do. The only thing I could come up with is kill a lot of people before being killed themselves. That's about it.

And BTW a proper synonym for an "organized militia" in action that loses is "terrorist group". The Founding Fathers if they had lost would be known now as a terrorist group because the winners get to write the history.

Fidel Castro led an organized militia against what he thought was a tyrannical government in the 50's and they won, but I suspect you don't like the government he installed and I doubt any of us would like the government any organized militia in this country would install.

The only type of government overthrow that could possibly succeed in this country would be a right wing military coup. It's possible it already happened and we just don't know it, because again, its the winners who get to write the history.

 

[8893]

Very late to most of this thread, and it's too long now for me to review all that's been said. Personally, I don't own a gun, don't want to own one, had a guard job in college where I had to carry a loaded revolver and never got attached to the sucker. Would it bother me if all the guns on earth disappeared. Not a bit. Do I think our Constitution is going to change any time soon, no. Do I think we have a lot to fear from our government the way the Founding Father's felt at the time that they were writing. No, but I never say never.

But, if one looks at the language of the 2nd amendment, it seems to me that some specific conclusions can be reached and some matters of definition arrived at. As to conclusions, the language seems much more directed to the right to bear arms in some organized fashion as a means to keep the government from taking advantage of the population. As such, it does not necessarily support using weapons to do anything but that. But okay, so it gets silly to think that an argument would succeed that disallows weapons from being used for the manly sport of animal hunting while the supermarket is down the block, or to have some sort of weapon around the house . So the conclusion is relatively easily reached that so long as the Amendment exists, the citizens must be allowed the right to have arms.

The language in the Amendment refers to "arms", not guns. So it is legitimate to look at what the Founders considered to be "arms" and argue that only the sort of "arms" that they knew are allowed. Muskets, cannons, bow and arrow, single shot pistols, a knife or a sword.

But that would be an absurd conclusion, right? So one should then look at the modern equivalent to give meaning to the word "arms". And to effectuate the meaning of the whole Amendment as assuring the right of citizens to combat a tyrannical government, the word "arms" logically means having at the citizens ready disposal, all "arms" necessary to counter the "arms" that the tyrannical government might have. "Arms" then, as properly interpreted under the Constitution does not guarantee us the mere right to own guns, but the right to own bombers, tanks, drones, bombs of every strength, etc etc. How else can we defend ourselves against the power of the tyrant? Otherwise, it want us to wage a doomed resistance. So, I'm out shopping for a tank to replace my Prius.

Of course, I've had too much wine to be thinking clearly, but I've wondered, for all of the enlightened who think we are allowed the right to own "arms" because we need to be able to keep the government in line, how do you feel about Kent State, for example. (Read up about May 1970 if you don't know what I'm referring to.) Those damned stupid students almost cost me the right to take my bar exam. What could they possibly have been doing? Oh yeah, exercising their right of assembly and speech. Would the folks who think that we can oppose a tyrannical government have agreed that any student who shot back and killed a Guardsmen had a perfect defense under the 2nd Amendment that they were doing what the Constitution permitted? Who decides when that right is being exercised properly or not? Um, I think it's that same tyrant.

If this country does not at long last give the finger to the NRA and impose sensible gun laws that do not deprive hunters of their joy, or the folks who need a loaded gun at the ready to deter the armed intruder (probably keeping the loaded weapon in a place the law frowns on as being too accessible) I fear we will never have the will.

Thank you for this thoughtful, insightful, intelligent post. I've been one to give up on the hopes of better gun control because I think that you can't fight crazy, and the dialogue about this issue has been dominated by crazy talk for years. The more that we can have dialogue like this that diffuses the crazy talk, the more hopeful I am that something helpful might happen here after all.

 

[minidarren]

Can someone who is against assault rifles please give me their description of what one is? Their personal definition, without looking it up.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Gurleyman]

Can someone who is against assault rifles please give me their description of what one is? Their personal definition, without looking it up.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

One that puts too many bullets in too many kids too quickly. How's that?

I'm against hot bats in baseball/softball too, but I can't tell you the exact model of Louisville Slugger that crosses the line or give you the math of inertia per inch of where the threshold is. Ball comes off bat too fast = bad.

 

[minidarren]

So you are against assault rifles due to the magazine size, but you have no issue with 16 round handgun magazines? Are handguns with hi-cap magazines assault rifles? Your definition makes no sense.

I had an argument with my girlfriends sister yesterday. She kept asking why people needed automatic assault rifles. I corrected her by saying that the rifle used was not automatic and was semi-automatic. The misconception is very apparent. Ill continue to say that the problem that needs to be addressed is the individuals how have these tendencies, not the weapons themselves. I do agree that if the guns didn't exist then the problem would go away. However, there will always be a black market for this type of thing and they will never be completely removed from our society.