And as far as the 2nd amendment goes, answer me this: Do you honestly think Cho should have been allowed to own a gun?
No. But, the way I hear it, the people who were in a position to prevent it, shirked the responsibility or were otherwise dissuaded from performing that function.
In any event, and in a free society, anyone can do the undesirable. If you prevent that, you destroy freedom as well. You deter behavior with a punishment threat. You could also argue (now, of course) that Cho should have been physically restrained since birth. Just think of the lives saved, (also physically restrained?) Should someone have made that decision about you, too? Who makes this decision? Are they also restrained?
Was he part of a "well-regulated militia?"
Yes, actually.
Our first amendment rights have never allowed us to say anything we want--why should the 2nd amendment be construed to mean that any one of us can bear any arm we want?
You can still learn and acquire words that you never use. And, you CAN say anything you want. You can even shout it or use amplification devices, as well as broadcast technology. But, you are still responsible for harm done with those words or assemblage of words. If in the appropriate place and circumstance, no repercussions will take place. Otherwise, you can expect punishment.
why should the 2nd amendment be construed to mean that any one of us can bear any arm we want?
Because when this was written, citizens could be trusted. In fact, it was EXPECTED that all citizens were trustworthy, as it was the people, not the government that needed to retain power.
Should I be able to own a stinger missile or an rpg launcher?
Should be, yes. Do you not trust yourself with powerfull tools? Do you not think you would know when and where these tools should be employed? You certainly seem intelligent enough to know right from wrong. Since you are a gun owner, has the acquisition made you use it in a way that is harmfull to society?
Should high school students across America be subjected to the burden of carrying firearms to school on the off chance a couple of their peers might go off the deep end?
This is certainly phrased to elicit a distinct answer. But, toward the root of the question, yes they should have the option of protecting themselves with firearms if the need is perceived. This is complicated by the fact that personal responsibility and firearms training are not routinely ingrained during the recent and modern youth education process. We train youth to operate powerfull and potentially dangerous tools such as autos (poorly IMHO). But, not readily available powerfull tools such a firearms. A youth growing up on a farm in the 50s had responsibility taught from when they could walk and interact with their environment, firearms training from when they could pick up and hold a firearm, saw animals die from the effects of a firearm, were called upon to kill varmints invading the farm, and even brought guns to school, both with and without the knowledge of school staff. A gun free zone was not required then. Why, exactly, is it now?
I'm an American, a gun owner and not even all that liberal. But this argument that everyone should carry a gun around to either a) protect themselves against other gun owners or b) protect themselves against the government, is ludicrous.
No, not every one need to carry a gun. Only those that feel it is in their best interest to do so. It's a basic right, afterall, to remain unencumbered by bullies and other miscreants.
A) I'm not so much worried about other gun owners. But gun thieves, yes, as well as others out to do harm for whatever reason.
B) An individual against the government has little chance. A populace against the government, does. Much fewer of the populace will be lost if they employ powerful tools in the quest.
Would you also argue that insurance is ludicrous because you may never need it?
I don't think you guys are crying crocodile tears over VT, but I do think you're deluding yourselves when you claim that more guns are the answer to gun violence.
I'll disregard the emotional provocation. Moving on...
Not necessarily more guns, no. Just ones well placed. It's an adequate tool for stopping a rampage at the earliest possible moment, and a powerful tool for deterring it in the first place.
And the idea of fighting off the government with store-bought handguns is a brave but impotent fantasy.
I disagree. 240 million guns is awesome firepower. Even if only half that were employed, there are more than enough bullets to eliminate each and every government official. And if not eliminate, then render them powerless. Remember, that with small arms, more powerful weapons can be be acquired. The Romanian Revolution of 1989 showed the effectiveness of small arms in overthowing an established government fairly well.
Bill 440: The driver is to blame.
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
But comparing guns and cars on the basis that they can both kill people is fallacious. Cars are not made for killing or injuring people.
This seems inconsistent with your previous rationales. How can you say that when more people are killed auto-related than gun-related?
Guns are. In fact, their sole purpose is to kill or injure people.
Clearly, you must know this is a false statement.
Is target shooting not a use?
Is varmint control not a use?
Is game hunting not a use?
Is a presentation threat not a use?
Is gun building not an educational use to teach machining/mechanical skills?
The government regulates all sorts of things that can hurt us and we don't complain about that.
Oh yes we do. But, it is understood you may not have heard of such complaints.
Some old lady dies because there's e coli in her spinach salad and the next day, you can't find one leaf of spinach in any supermarket in the country. Yet when some nut kills thirty people with a handgun, the response is to rush to the defense of the gun industry?
Doesn't make sense to me...
It will, with education and time.
But, gun ownership and the gun industry, while indeed linked, doesn't seem relevant to the rest of the discussion topics at the moment. Has a gun manufacturer wronged you in some way? Are you saying they are somehow responsible for the VT tragedy? Seems like a leap. Especially with your previous statement disassociating cars with death. Is the auto manufacturing industry responsible for all auto related deaths?
Regards,
