No. It happens because America is dominated by pro-gun fanatics with zero concern for human life. America is full of gun lovers who would cheerfully sacrifice the lives of their own children in the name of the only thing that matters to them: guns.
I’m sure you’d personally hand an arsenal to the next mass murderer to come along, and then masturbate over the resulting corpses if you thought it served the cause of Guns.
No, no, the “masturbating” rhetoric is theirs, not ours. Remember? We’re the ones who masturbate over dead children.
They simply fetishize guns.
How so?
I know there isn’t any point in arguing with the gun fetishists, but I can’t resist:
So that would seem to undermine the argument that more guns lead to less violence, but let’s be honest, the gun fetishists are all about compensating for their deep seated sense of inadequacy. It was never about the constitution, it was about them living a fantasy life in which they are empowered and significant.
Sure. Those “Super close out sale! Everything must go!” signs won’t hold themselves up, after all.
Thank you for your service.
And please Supersize it, thanks.
Opinions are like assholes, and you ain’t any nice guy.
I dare you to try parsing that. That supernumerary comma, by rendering the passage syntactically meaningless, arguably invalidates the entire Amendment ([del]you’ll note[/del] I’ll point out that there’s no severability clause).
You’d probably do better to accept the version that’s actually a sentence. 
Also, while you’re correct that Jefferson didn’t “ratify” the amendment under any punctuation at all, he did authenticate it, following ratification by the Senate. Cite.
We should support gun control here, but we should arm rebels in other countries that want freedom from an oppressive government.
Hmmm.
Not sure if that’s apropos of anything, but never mind; it’s just good to know you’re still looking in on the thread now and then.
Could I ask you, as a special favor, to address my questions in post 66? Thanks awfully.
Good to know the strokers are still holding to their view that any democratically-passed law that annoys them authorizes an armed uprising. Consistent of 'em, anyway, mass murders notwithstanding.
The fact that anyone has engaged you after this post is worse than the sum of everything you’ve posted thus far.
Has the OP noticed that one of the first victims of the Naval Yard shooting was an armed police officer. That was the source of one of the handguns used in the shooting. He took it of the dead officer. Good thing there was an armed person there to prevent this…oh, wait…
[
All I’ve got to say on the subject is that the second amendment is the last remaining effective article of the Bill of Rights. Guns, murders and suicides will continue to proliferate in the United States. Nothing can be done about it. The cause is hopeless.
The NRA leaders and gun executives have blood on their hands and are perfectly happy about it.
To hell with them.
No problem.
For reference, here was your post…Sorry for the delay. I’ll have you know that my staff was strictly reprimanded for not notifying me of this, or else I would have dropped everything and given a prompt response to such important questions.
Yes. It’s a name for a certain group of people that want to disarm the US populace, so it isn’t a name calling name.
Name calling isn’t a slogan tugging on emotions. Gun worshipers might be a name calling name. Gun grabbers is something that actually exists. Now if you said gun right’s worshipers, I would not argue that that is a name -calling name. I’d say it is a name that defines people who believe in the right of gun ownership. I hope that explains how I answered a question about something I have never heard of…a name-calling name.
Speaking of name calling, I could compare the names I have been called here to transcripts of playground conversations at recess back in elementary school with some of the names I’ve been called in this thread. Pretty funny stuff. Kinda gives you a good idea when someone has nothing.
That dang NRA should not have given those guns to the Mexican cartels. When is the media going to go after the NRA for that Fast and Furious stuff? The NRA has blood on it’s hands. I hope Obama gets Holder on that ASAP when they are done getting Zimmerman.
Of course it is name calling. And quite transparently so. That you don’t see that it is is very sad and speaks to a lack of proper upbringing.
Disclaimer: I own guns and hold a CHL in Texas.
ETA: Oh, and to be more clear (as you don’t seem to have the best grasp on etiquette, vocabulary, or intelligence), “gun grabber” is a perjorative term. Whether or not it is accurate (or accurate about some people and not about others), it is meant to convey contempt or disrespect about a certain group of people. That’s virtually the textbook definition of name calling, which should not be a trait of “a nice guy”.
I guess an unarmed guard would be better. Please advise Obama to disarm the secret service.
Can we just dismiss this notion that the Navy Yard was a gun free zone? There were armed guards at the Navy Yard, in fact there were more armed guards there than are in the NRAs proposal for armed guards at schools.