Their answer to school shootings and violence is to have loaded weapons around children everyday and rather than having one person firing in a classroom you should have two people. No way that could go wrong!
You’re thinking about it wrong. Mount machine guns on your vehicle, and the second amendment will protect you. Your right to drive that vehicle around can’t be infringed upon, nor will you be required to register that weapon any longer, nor will you need a license to operate that weapon. Easy peasy!
Americans are idiots.
So I’m imagining that there’s such thing as assault weapons?
The killer in CT used a high-capacity magazine. That sounds like something designed to optimize killing and maiming. What other purpose does it serve? To make target practice go faster?
A rottweiler can be just as dangerous as a tiger. So I say we should treat both of these animals the same. Tigers for everyone!
Tigers with guns!
A society armed with tigers is a *polite *society.
And Seung-Hui Cho used multiple 10-round magazines. Capacity limits didn’t stop him. or even appreciably slow him down.
the question is not “why do you ‘need’ these things.” The question is “will restricting/banning these things make a difference?” I submit that the VT shooting demonstrates that magazine capacity is irrelevant.
I just want to highlight this part for additional hair-raising purposes. Don’t create additional gun registries - just register all the crazy people!
I guess it depends on whether you consider that a “solution.” You’ll certainly make it more difficult for people to keep a bunch of guns at home, but I’m not sure people keeping a bunch of guns at home is the problem. I’m not sure 20 guns in a home is really more dangerous than one handgun.
My main point was that there’s suddenly a TON of talk about how to make schools safer, when in reality, schools are VERY safe. That school was not a safe place to be on that day, but statistically that’s a tiny anomaly that probably shouldn’t spark huge-scale reforms (like having an armed guard patrol every school in the nation).
If all people really cared about was saving kids’ lives, there are places to look other than guards in schools and gun laws that will save MANY, MANY more kids’ lives.
I’m not a gun guy at all. My only interest in defending the second amendment comes from the same place as my interest in defending our right to free speech, or the freedom of the press, or our rights against illegal search and seizure. I believe that our constitutional rights are what makes America great, and that we should fight to keep those rights from being eroded – not just the ones that affect us personally, but all of them.
And once we register them, what do we do?
Technically, if the rumors are to be believed, the CT didn’t have a mental illness but a neurological disorder.
So let’s register all the Parkinson’s, Tourette’s, Alzheimer’s, and autistic people while we’re at it!
Civil liberties? That just for gun nuts, dontchaknow. And it’s not like people ever make mistakes when diagnosing the mentally ill.
By all accounts, Nancy Lanza was a devoted mother trying to get her son all the help he needed. Why he was being cared for in the home isn’t clear, but it doesn’t seem like it’s due to lack of access to mental health services. Unless people are saying that the government should have forced Nancy to commit her son just for being a reclusive basement dweller, I don’t know what more society could have been done for this family.
Personally, I don’t want to live in a society where simply being weird gives the government enough cause to do something to you–which seems to be where some of these arguments are headed. That’s a lot scarier than the government clamping down on guns.
I propose that the NRA pay for placing an armed guard at a bunch of ‘test’ schools - maybe 200. Find some schools that are willing to allow it. Try Texas. If, after 5 years, none of the ‘good guy’ guns has shot somebody except a ‘bad guy,’ then maybe we look into expanding the program.
I bet, though, within those 1000 guard-years we’d have a few guards shooting themselves, or mistakenly shooting someone they thought was a threat but turned out to be a brown person with a cell phone, or the guard having their gun taken when they weren’t paying attention and one kid killing another kid with it.
There are two gun owners. One owns a single handgun, currently stowed away in the drawer of his nightstand. The other owns 20 guns, strewn about hither and thither. Both have regular visitors to their houses. Both have dealt with thieves breaking into their homes.
These individuals are not engaged in equally risky behaviors.
I generally agree with the ACLU on civil liberties issues, and used to be a card-carrying member. Strangely, despite defending to the extreme every other constitutional right, they have no position whatsoever on gun control. They do not consider gun ownership or gun control laws to fall under the category of “civil liberties.”
Personally, I think this has as much to do with them not wanting to piss off their supporters (who may be quite likely to be anti-gun, anti-NRA types) than anything else.
And when a guard is shot up to pieces as a mass shooter makes his entrance, what is the NRA going to propose then? Arming every elementary school kid?
I was thinking of somewhat more responsible individuals, I guess. a gun safe with 1 gun inside isn’t really less “dangerous” than one with 20 guns inside. I wasn’t really considering people who just leave loaded guns laying all around and then invite children and others not trained in handling firearms over to their house. But if I’m a responsible gun owner, why can’t I have a collection of firearms much like a car enthusiast would do with sports cars?
Limiting the number of guns a law-abiding citizen is allowed to own doesn’t solve, in my mind, the problem of what criminals do with guns. When everyone has one gun and the next school gets shot up, where do we go from there?
Couldn’t have said it better.
And you know - I’m not opposed to better and more widely available options for healthcare for the mentally ill, including better residential care. But that’s not what this shill for the gun manufacturers is talking about, is it. No, he just wants congress to appropriate however much money is needed to buy guns for every school guard in the next two weeks. Over in a different thread, someone pointed out that putting cops in schools would cost about twice the annual budget of the National Institute for Mental Health - but we all know what would happen if Obama proposed expanded their services. Somehow, the conservatives in government can just magically conjure up money when it comes to buying weapons - but money for healthcare is a dangerous communist plot to bankrupt our children. Funny how that works, isn’t it.
The assumption being, all amendments are of equal value and benefit to society at large. But what if they are not? What if, First Amendment = great idea & benefits a civil democratic society, meanwhile, Second Amendment = not so much.
I have no doubt, for instance, that if the Fourth Amendment wasn’t taken seriously, we could stop more crime before it happens, keep more drugs off the streets, etc. I don’t walk around carrying a bag of dope or anything else illegal, so I wouldn’t go to jail, but I still don’t want to live in a place where cops can throw me up against the wall and search my pockets for no reason.
If we’re concerned with being a safer country and saving lives, we could throw away some of THOSE rights…but we’d also throw away part of what this country was founded upon, and part of what makes America what it is.
I don’t really care to own a bunch of guns, but I think letting our constitutional rights be stripped away is a bad thing. You never get them back once you do so, and it makes it easier for them to take the next one…and the next one might be something I do care about. You could make the argument that people being able to own semi-automatic rifles isn’t a great benefit to society as a whole…but I think keeping our rights intact, by and large, IS a benefit.
The thing that is often overlooked is the intent of the Constitution and it’s amendments. All of the rights enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are to regulate interaction between the government and the citizens, not between citizens themselves. The government cannot abridge your right to free speach, but I can in my own property. I can kick you out for saying “Boo” if I so desire, and the 1st amendment does not come into play. I can have a policy that no one enters my home without a thorough search. I can curtail your liberty as well. Ask my kids. The Government cannot.
The intent of the second amendment is to protect the citizens from the government, not each other. I understand it is debateable to try to “get into the heads” of our Founding Fathers, but I believe this to be the case in light of the intent of the other amendments. If considered in the light of “What firearm can a citizen own to protect themself from a government gone bad?” it takes on a whole new meaning.
Don’t think that could ever happen? Ask a Syrian.
I’m not proposing that we allow tanks in driveways or F-15’s in private hangars, but intent must be considered in any true debate.
I think he was talking more about cops being the good guys with guns in this case, as Adam Lanza only stopped shooting other people and killed himself when he saw police approaching.
But go ahead, guy, keep reducing a complicated societal issue to ridiculous strawmen like this. It just shows the rest of us how deluded and simple minded you are.