But they aren't going to do that. Plus you are talking about putting multiple guns in the presence of children. I hardly think that is a good solution. Or what happens when one disgruntled teacher holds an entire school hostage? Do we think it is such a good idea? All of this is getting off point. These guys aren't targeting gun free zones because they are gun free. They are targeting gun free zones because those locations typically have large concentrated groups of people. The Oregon mall shooting was not a gun free zone. That didn't stop that guy from targeting that location.
What is stopping a disgruntled teacher from holding a school hostage now? I'd much prefer other teachers to be armed if a teacher did attempt to do that. What worry is "guns in the presence of children"? You train teachers on gun safety and responsibility. No different than you having guns in your house if you have children, except they'd actually have the gun on them at all times and hidden from the children. I believe these guys are going after soft targets because they're both heavily populated and soft targets. I guess we'll agree to disagree.
Adam Lanza went to Sandy Hook because he had a connection to Sandy Hook. There was a reason for him to go there. People always seem to want to imagine that these killers are some kinds of criminal masterminds. They're not. They're just people... people who are sick in the head, people who have something broken inside of them that allows them to think that killing lots of people is a good idea. Some of them might be meticulous about it, but let's not pretend that densely populated soft targets are what's driving them. Otherwise, every single mass shooting would be at my local bingo center. Good lord, that place is a mess.
How would gun control even affect anything? Unless you have a nuke, you're pretty much the government's bitch when it comes to firepower, so having some ground rules that prevent the mentally ill and the like from gettings guns legally isn't a bad thing. Same with the gun registry lists, whoopee you have to register your gun like your car big whoop. Oh no the big, bad, government knows you bought a shotgun. So does it prevent you from buying or using it? Nope. Heck before 2008 you technically didn't have the right to own a gun since you weren't part of a militia. "In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". This ruling has been widely described as ambiguous, and ignited a debate on whether the amendment protected an individual right, or a collective militia right. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"[9][10] but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment" As for the other crimes technically I do have the right to kill, steal, and drive drunk, well at least I did until the states made it illegal(9th & 10th amendments). Simple question back are you for or against the Patriot Act?
The problem I have with gun registry lists is that I feel it would lead to police banging down the doors of people with no connection to a crime just because they possessed said type of gun used in a gun crime. I'm ok with the law the way it is now, where the government can get info on who bought what gun from where only if the police have the murder weapon in their possession. I don't see any reason for the government to know the specific type of gun I have, just that I have one in general. But that's just me.
Our forefathers didn't protect us from our government they used the State Militia and armed citizens to take over the existing government. They created a Constitution so weak it ended up dividing the country and causing the bloodiest war in our countries history. After that war the Constitution was amended and put much more power into the hands of the Federal government. The State Militia's were federalized under Nixon. They don't have to register them because they buy them from people who bought them legally. If those people were held liable for reselling the gun to a criminal they might not engage in doing it. Are you actually making the argument that all of these guns that criminals get have been stolen from law abiding citizens? Here's a clue legally bought fire arms are being sold to criminals.
I think the Patriot Act is very dangerous. You think you have the right to kill steal and drive drunk? You think I didn't have the right to own a gun before 2008? You want me to take anything you say seriously? Gun control DOES NOT PREVENT mentally ill from getting guns. Gun control prevented Lanza from trying to buy a gun. Then he just stole one.
Glad to see that you didn't like it as well. I said had the right since there must of been some point in time in which they weren't laws yet especially drunken driving. The first drunk driving law wasn't created until 1910 but the car was around for quite a while. So before 1910 you could drink & drive. Other than that I was just making a point since until the state writes a law to prohibit something you have the right to do it at least according to the 9th & 10th amendments. If there were gun control then Lanza couldn't steal the gun since there wouldn't of been a gun to steal since his mother would of failed the background check since her son is mentally ill. At least if it covered family members and not just the person buying the gun. As for the 2008 thing just read what the SC wrote, individual right to own a gun wasn't defined until then. Their words, not mine.
I don't think that's really what gun control means. Think of it this way. If a kid tries to buy alcohol and gets denied but is able to steal some from his parents, and the parents are subject to no type of legal penalty, do we have successful alcohol control policies? I don't think so. The idea of "control" laws is to stop things from getting into the hands of people we don't want to have said things. If there are loopholes/ways to circumvent these laws then they aren't really working. And a law against stealing can't "fail" because it isn't a preventative-type law like gun control so it isn't really comparable. It is strictly punitive/deterrent.
The FBI did a background check on the boston bombers in 2011 btw. That obviously worked out well. Can you believe they didn't have gun permits either? Perhaps if we put a federal agent in every household in america to monitor our every move it would help. Let's pass that legislation. It's for the safety of our children! Get on it comrades!
That doesn't match Obama's blame the GOP rhetoric (which will make it more difficult to pass any future subsequent legislation) nor, most importantly, does it explain as to how any future introduction of the bill would give it any more realistic chance to pass. This is Harry Reid posturing for votes (and only that). No re-introduction could realistically help the cause and the momentum won't increase unless there's another major shooting, so saying a vote in the near future is meaningful makes zero sense.
I thought the purpose of gun control was to prevent gun violence? If that was the purpose, how can you possibly consider the gun control a success in that case? If that's not the purpose, then what is the purpose?
Nancy Lanza's ability to purchase guns should've been restricted given who lived in her household. If not, then she should've been legally required to secure the guns outside of Adam's access or face criminal and civil liability.
The FBI interviewed one of the bombers, not did a background check on both. And yes, it's conceivable to believe that people who will commit a crime in 2 years aren't necessarily doing anything wrong today. You fail to explain how measures that reduce or dissuade against gun theft and trafficking wouldn't reduce violence.
Fine, I actually have no problem with that. If you have a fucking nut case living in your house you can't have a gun. Don't you think Lanza would have been able to get a gun anyway? Or maybe he would have used something else? He killed his mother to steal guns. I don't think much of anything was going to prevent him from doing this. Evil people are evil. Gun control doesn't stop that.
I've posted several articles showing facts that gun control doesn't work. If you chose to ignore them, that's your own ignorance at work.
