I can't stand it. I watch news on TV often, and now it seems that the media are covering this one issue and ignoring a lot of other things that are going on right now. What a waste.
Next time someone proudly says your school is a gun-free zone, keep this event in mind.
I am for the Second amendment. I just think it needs some control in what it permits.
Really? It doesn't say anything about exceptions. It does not say the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed... except when the Democrats and Republicans think it is good for us." It says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and then there's a period at the end.
What law would
you have written to stop the VA Tech killer?(really, I want to know- In everything, I act under the assumption that I could be wrong, so...) The law didn't stop him from killing people and I don't think law would discourage him from getting a gun.
What if he had been ordered to stay of the school grounds? Would the law stop him from tresspassing, if he was willing to kill 30+ people? Same as with the gun issue, if you want you kill a bunch of people (then yourself) you won't care what the law is.
Big money thinks if we start with the little things it will spread to limit the whole thing, But when cops get out gunned by the bad guys... we have problems.
But what about when the cops
are the bad guys...?
You don't want to live in a place where the
people are subject to whatever the
state throws at them, and there is nothing that can be done about it?
If you want the state to protect you from guns, at least keep in mind that the state is not morally perfect, and is just as capable of being the "bad guy" as Cho Seung-Hui was.
No, the Second Amendment is anything but outdated.
Yeah, and if people don't like it, please, remember: it is the
Supreme Law of the Land. If you don't like the law, if you don't like the way the government is supposed to function, either work to change the law, or "boycott" the government.
SD PokéMom said:
Don't get me wrong: I have compassion for all the victims and their families, and the ultimate responsibility for his actions rests solely on Cho; this is just unspeakable. But I'm also not sure what have could been done to prevent this, given the regulations and laws as they are. Starting down the slippery slope of locking up hundreds or thousands of people considered 'strange' in order to 'prevent the next VA Tech' is NOT the answer, no more than 'homeland security' has been anything other than a reduction of our own rights in the name of 'protection from terrorism'...
Yep
I have a gun because xxxx has/might have a gun.
I have a semi automatic because I need a bigger stick than yyyyy.
I need an automatic because....
I'm a computer artist with Photoshop version CS2 and I want Photoshop version CS3, because my competitors have Photoshop CS3. Weapons are no different from any other technology. Things get updated and changed. Competition leads to change.
I understand the cultural things you bring up about guns in the UK, but, darn, whoever does have a gun there will sure be powerful- hope it's not someone evil. Your government is getting bigger everyday, with its ban on knives and its recent establishment of a National ID card. I hope you guys aren't too pacified and stupified (not to mention unarmed) to fight back when the time is right.
Well, given the state of the so-called "trained professionals", I think that your "Joe Amricans" would do a better job. In case you don't read the other sources of American newspapers and such, a lot of the "trained professionals" (ie Policemen, Army grunts, etc) seem as trigger-happy, if not more than your average person with a firearm.
And they have sovereign immunity. When they screw up, they don't have to answer to anyone.
Also to me, this shows how funky and misleading the English language actually is, as things can always be interpreted differently by different people.
Well that's just silly. The Constitution says what it says. It's not written in Java, Klingon, or something like that. It's written in English. The mainstream media and the Republicrats make people believe that there are tons and tons of confusing things about the document, and that you have to study for 10 years at Princeton to understand it, to even come close to the "great" insight that our Supreme Court judges have. The govnerment officials use this misperception to their advantage. But, in truth, it is written in English and, for example, when you see the words "Congress shall make no law" it means "Congress shall make no law".
It really is simple. But the msm wouldn't want you to know that.