Using School Shooting Victims To Reset Gun Rights Is A Disgrace

[HUGGY]

Including Columbine there have been roughly 200 deaths from mass shootings in the U S including just over 100 in schools. Looked upon objectively a death by shooting is no more tragic than a death by automobile accident. In the same time period since Columbine roughly 400,000 Americans have died violent deaths in cars.

In the same time frame nearly all 300,000,000 Americans have been in public buildings from time to time making them roughly equal in risk to be the possible victims of a mass shooting.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution affects ALL Americans in the past...present and future. Over a hundred years that effect is on over 600,000,000 citizens of the U S.

It is arguable that the parents of the children murdered at Sandy Hook are now and forever insane with hurt and rage. The parents of the 18 children numbering 36 have no business resetting the gun rights granted in our Constitution.

No one can deny that those poor lost souls whose children were butchered have suffered unspeakable tragedy.

Trotting out a handfull of these understandably crazy people to reset gun rights is a disgrace.

What Obama and the democratic congress members are doing is traitorous. They are sworn to preserve and protect our Constitution.

If they are serious about trying to prevent violent death then they should start with deaths in cars. That is where an American is about 2,000 times more likely to meet a violent end than from the barrel of a gun in a mass shooting.

 

[MarcATL]

Calm down Huggy...you are overreacting.

What part of background checks are unconstitional?

 

[Katzndogz]

It's a disgrace because not all the Newtown families are pro gun control. Democrats simply do not permit a dissenting voice because they do not permit debate or discussion.

 

[HUGGY]

Calm down Huggy...you are overreacting.

What part of background checks are unconstitional?

I'm as calm as a clam at high tide!

The Constitution does not stipulate conditions on the second amendment. Speaking technically background checks ARE unconstitutional. I'm not saying that they are wrong in theory but any infringement on the Constitution is going out on thin ice. I am a strict Constitutionalist. I do not believe in background checks. I believe that if one commits a crime then he or she should pay for that crime up to and including the death penalty. I believe that full restoration of all Constitutional rights be afforded to anyone who has paid thier debt for thier crime.

If for instance someone is mentally ill to the degree they would be a clear and present danger owning a firearm then that person should be commited to a mental institution for thiers and societies protection until that person is no longer a threat. If someone commited a crime ..a felony... then thier punishment should take into account that upon thier release they would have access to all rights granted to any citizen.

 

[HUGGY]

It's a disgrace because not all the Newtown families are pro gun control. Democrats simply do not permit a dissenting voice because they do not permit debate or discussion.

The republicans are just as guilty of that tactic.

 

[Harry Dresden]

It's a disgrace because not all the Newtown families are pro gun control. Democrats simply do not permit a dissenting voice because they do not permit debate or discussion.

The republicans are just as guilty of that tactic.

yes they are.....

 

[chikenwing]

Calm down Huggy...you are overreacting.

What part of background checks are unconstitional?

I'm as calm as a clam at high tide!

The Constitution does not stipulate conditions on the second amendment. Speaking technically background checks ARE unconstitutional. I'm not saying that they are wrong in theory but any infringement on the Constitution is going out on thin ice. I am a strict Constitutionalist. I do not believe in background checks. I believe that if one commits a crime then he or she should pay for that crime up to and including the death penalty. I believe that full restoration of all Constitutional rights be afforded to anyone who has paid thier debt for thier crime.

If for instance someone is mentally ill to the degree they would be a clear and present danger owning a firearm then that person should be commited to a mental institution for thiers and societies protection until that person is no longer a threat. If someone commited a crime ..a felony... then thier punishment should take into account that upon thier release they would have access to all rights granted to any citizen.[/QUOTany E]

Having to prove your worthy of an enumerated right,is clearly a gross insult .

We at one time practiced innocent until proven otherwise,until we let the emotional twits run more things than they should be allowed.

 

[BlindBoo]

Calm down Huggy...you are overreacting.

What part of background checks are unconstitional?

I'm as calm as a clam at high tide!

The Constitution does not stipulate conditions on the second amendment. Speaking technically background checks ARE unconstitutional. I'm not saying that they are wrong in theory but any infringement on the Constitution is going out on thin ice. I am a strict Constitutionalist. I do not believe in background checks. I believe that if one commits a crime then he or she should pay for that crime up to and including the death penalty. I believe that full restoration of all Constitutional rights be afforded to anyone who has paid thier debt for thier crime.

If for instance someone is mentally ill to the degree they would be a clear and present danger owning a firearm then that person should be commited to a mental institution for thiers and societies protection until that person is no longer a threat. If someone commited a crime ..a felony... then thier punishment should take into account that upon thier release they would have access to all rights granted to any citizen.

Is a well-regulated Militia still necessary to our security?

 

[HUGGY]

Calm down Huggy...you are overreacting.

What part of background checks are unconstitional?

I'm as calm as a clam at high tide!

The Constitution does not stipulate conditions on the second amendment. Speaking technically background checks ARE unconstitutional. I'm not saying that they are wrong in theory but any infringement on the Constitution is going out on thin ice. I am a strict Constitutionalist. I do not believe in background checks. I believe that if one commits a crime then he or she should pay for that crime up to and including the death penalty. I believe that full restoration of all Constitutional rights be afforded to anyone who has paid thier debt for thier crime.

If for instance someone is mentally ill to the degree they would be a clear and present danger owning a firearm then that person should be commited to a mental institution for thiers and societies protection until that person is no longer a threat. If someone commited a crime ..a felony... then thier punishment should take into account that upon thier release they would have access to all rights granted to any citizen.

Is a well-regulated Militia still necessary to our security?

That sentence is seperate from an individual owning a firearm. As far as "a well regulated militia" goes I see that as the right to assemble for the purpose of "defense" as ultimately governments cannot be trusted.

 

[MarcATL]

Calm down Huggy...you are overreacting.

What part of background checks are unconstitional?

I'm as calm as a clam at high tide!

The Constitution does not stipulate conditions on the second amendment. Speaking technically background checks ARE unconstitutional. I'm not saying that they are wrong in theory but any infringement on the Constitution is going out on thin ice. I am a strict Constitutionalist. I do not believe in background checks. I believe that if one commits a crime then he or she should pay for that crime up to and including the death penalty. I believe that full restoration of all Constitutional rights be afforded to anyone who has paid thier debt for thier crime.

If for instance someone is mentally ill to the degree they would be a clear and present danger owning a firearm then that person should be commited to a mental institution for thiers and societies protection until that person is no longer a threat. If someone commited a crime ..a felony... then thier punishment should take into account that upon thier release they would have access to all rights granted to any citizen.

My friend, I hope you aren't one of those radical gun nutters, I know they are on the right AND the left.

Anyway, there are no absolute rights, one right's stops where the other's ends. As another poster pointed out, there's that "regulated militia" clause, which the gun-nut types like to gloss over, ignore and/or otherwise re-interpret...the words are clear...it has to be regulated, and if you take it further, it's for just the militia.

With that said, no one is trying to take away your guns, we just need to have them regulated.

One cannot scream "Fire!" in a crowded room, so the First Amendment is also "regulated" so-to-speak.

The time for the nuttery is over my friend, folks like you should be working to find the best solution to the regulations vs. fighting it outright and/or miscontruing (sp) it.

 

[Mustang]

Including Columbine there have been roughly 200 deaths from mass shootings in the U S including just over 100 in schools. Looked upon objectively a death by shooting is no more tragic than a death by automobile accident. In the same time period since Columbine roughly 400,000 Americans have died violent deaths in cars.

In the same time frame nearly all 300,000,000 Americans have been in public buildings from time to time making them roughly equal in risk to be the possible victims of a mass shooting.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution affects ALL Americans in the past...present and future. Over a hundred years that effect is on over 600,000,000 citizens of the U S.

It is arguable that the parents of the children murdered at Sandy Hook are now and forever insane with hurt and rage. The parents of the 18 children numbering 36 have no business resetting the gun rights granted in our Constitution.

No one can deny that those poor lost souls whose children were butchered have suffered unspeakable tragedy.

Trotting out a handfull of these understandably crazy people to reset gun rights is a disgrace.

What Obama and the democratic congress members are doing is traitorous. They are sworn to preserve and protect our Constitution.

If they are serious about trying to prevent violent death then they should start with deaths in cars. That is where an American is about 2,000 times more likely to meet a violent end than from the barrel of a gun in a mass shooting.

You're calling the victims' family members crazy?

BTW, as far as cars (a poor example, in my opinion) are concerned, the gov't has been working with manufacturers for decades to make cars safer, as highway fatality death rates show.

 

[lynn63]

True criminals intent on killing don't register their guns. There will always be a black market for guns no matter what laws they create and enforce. Background checks are already mandated even for gun shows. There is an underlying motive for the government right now for pushing their agenda and its not what they want the public to believe is the reason.

The shooting in Ct was due to a young man who had severe mental issues and the person that is responsible for that is his Mother who did not remove all guns from the home and did not have her son institutionalized.

 

[MarcATL]

True criminals intent on killing don't register their guns. There will always be a black market for guns no matter what laws they create and enforce. Background checks are already mandated even for gun shows. There is an underlying motive for the government right now for pushing their agenda and its not what they want the public to believe is the reason.

The shooting in Ct was due to a young man who had severe mental issues and the person that is responsible for that is his Mother who did not remove all guns from the home and did not have her son institutionalized.

So what?!?!?

Criminals commit crimes, that's what they do and is to be expected.

What does that have to do with law abiding citizens?

Based on your argument, there should be NO laws at all, since, you know, criminals will just break the law anyway.

Try again.

 

[9thIDdoc]

The problem with registration is that there are alleged Americans who wish to see all firearms banned and confiscated and registration does nothing but make it easy for them. That is excellent reason to fight registration. That has already happened in Ca. and NY.

 

[HUGGY]

Including Columbine there have been roughly 200 deaths from mass shootings in the U S including just over 100 in schools. Looked upon objectively a death by shooting is no more tragic than a death by automobile accident. In the same time period since Columbine roughly 400,000 Americans have died violent deaths in cars.

In the same time frame nearly all 300,000,000 Americans have been in public buildings from time to time making them roughly equal in risk to be the possible victims of a mass shooting.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution affects ALL Americans in the past...present and future. Over a hundred years that effect is on over 600,000,000 citizens of the U S.

It is arguable that the parents of the children murdered at Sandy Hook are now and forever insane with hurt and rage. The parents of the 18 children numbering 36 have no business resetting the gun rights granted in our Constitution.

No one can deny that those poor lost souls whose children were butchered have suffered unspeakable tragedy.

Trotting out a handfull of these understandably crazy people to reset gun rights is a disgrace.

What Obama and the democratic congress members are doing is traitorous. They are sworn to preserve and protect our Constitution.

If they are serious about trying to prevent violent death then they should start with deaths in cars. That is where an American is about 2,000 times more likely to meet a violent end than from the barrel of a gun in a mass shooting.

You're calling the victims' family members crazy?

BTW, as far as cars (a poor example, in my opinion) are concerned, the gov't has been working with manufacturers for decades to make cars safer, as highway fatality death rates show.

Yes. The loss of a child can and does drive ANYONE crazy. My brother lost a child to drowning over thirty years ago. He still hasn't gotten over it. I'd say in some ways he is crazy as a coot about issues concerning water and boats. His loss is overwhelming and I'm sure he has considered suicide. Ya...THAT'S crazy. Understandable to a point but yes...crazy. I love my brother and have a lot of sympathy for him...that doesn't change the fact that his loss made him nuts.

I have a lot of sympathy for the parents of Sandy Hook. I just feel that thier personal loss has destroyed any possible rational judgement concerning guns rights. Right now they are being led around like show ponies. Taking advantage of thier grief is beyond disgusting.

 

[MarcATL]

The problem with registration is that there are alleged Americans who wish to see all firearms banned and confiscated and registration does nothing but make it easy for them. That is excellent reason to fight registration. That has already happened in Ca. and NY.

They can already track who buys guns in most cases very easily as it stands.

Don't be so silly.

The only people that are anti-background checks are those that know they can't pass them.

 

[HUGGY]

Calm down Huggy...you are overreacting.

What part of background checks are unconstitional?

I'm as calm as a clam at high tide!

The Constitution does not stipulate conditions on the second amendment. Speaking technically background checks ARE unconstitutional. I'm not saying that they are wrong in theory but any infringement on the Constitution is going out on thin ice. I am a strict Constitutionalist. I do not believe in background checks. I believe that if one commits a crime then he or she should pay for that crime up to and including the death penalty. I believe that full restoration of all Constitutional rights be afforded to anyone who has paid thier debt for thier crime.

If for instance someone is mentally ill to the degree they would be a clear and present danger owning a firearm then that person should be commited to a mental institution for thiers and societies protection until that person is no longer a threat. If someone commited a crime ..a felony... then thier punishment should take into account that upon thier release they would have access to all rights granted to any citizen.

My friend, I hope you aren't one of those radical gun nutters, I know they are on the right AND the left.

Anyway, there are no absolute rights, one right's stops where the other's ends. As another poster pointed out, there's that "regulated militia" clause, which the gun-nut types like to gloss over, ignore and/or otherwise re-interpret...the words are clear...it has to be regulated, and if you take it further, it's for just the militia.

With that said, no one is trying to take away your guns, we just need to have them regulated.

One cannot scream "Fire!" in a crowded room, so the First Amendment is also "regulated" so-to-speak.

The time for the nuttery is over my friend, folks like you should be working to find the best solution to the regulations vs. fighting it outright and/or miscontruing (sp) it.

I'm neither right nor left. I don't trust politicians. When I vote it is for the individual I feel will do the best job. OR..the least worst job. I am not a "gun nut". The right to bear arms was set out clearly in the Constitution...unless you believe the founders were "gun nuts"...

 

[MarcATL]

I'm as calm as a clam at high tide!

The Constitution does not stipulate conditions on the second amendment. Speaking technically background checks ARE unconstitutional. I'm not saying that they are wrong in theory but any infringement on the Constitution is going out on thin ice. I am a strict Constitutionalist. I do not believe in background checks. I believe that if one commits a crime then he or she should pay for that crime up to and including the death penalty. I believe that full restoration of all Constitutional rights be afforded to anyone who has paid thier debt for thier crime.

If for instance someone is mentally ill to the degree they would be a clear and present danger owning a firearm then that person should be commited to a mental institution for thiers and societies protection until that person is no longer a threat. If someone commited a crime ..a felony... then thier punishment should take into account that upon thier release they would have access to all rights granted to any citizen.

My friend, I hope you aren't one of those radical gun nutters, I know they are on the right AND the left.

Anyway, there are no absolute rights, one right's stops where the other's ends. As another poster pointed out, there's that "regulated militia" clause, which the gun-nut types like to gloss over, ignore and/or otherwise re-interpret...the words are clear...it has to be regulated, and if you take it further, it's for just the militia.

With that said, no one is trying to take away your guns, we just need to have them regulated.

One cannot scream "Fire!" in a crowded room, so the First Amendment is also "regulated" so-to-speak.

The time for the nuttery is over my friend, folks like you should be working to find the best solution to the regulations vs. fighting it outright and/or miscontruing (sp) it.

I'm neither right nor left. I don't trust politicians. When I vote it is for the individual I feel will do the best job. OR..the least worst job. I am not a "gun nut". The right to bear arms was set out clearly in the Constitution...unless you believe the founders were "gun nuts"...

The founders were right..."a well regulated militia" It's all good baby!

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm as calm as a clam at high tide!

The Constitution does not stipulate conditions on the second amendment. Speaking technically background checks ARE unconstitutional. I'm not saying that they are wrong in theory but any infringement on the Constitution is going out on thin ice. I am a strict Constitutionalist. I do not believe in background checks. I believe that if one commits a crime then he or she should pay for that crime up to and including the death penalty. I believe that full restoration of all Constitutional rights be afforded to anyone who has paid thier debt for thier crime.

If for instance someone is mentally ill to the degree they would be a clear and present danger owning a firearm then that person should be commited to a mental institution for thiers and societies protection until that person is no longer a threat. If someone commited a crime ..a felony... then thier punishment should take into account that upon thier release they would have access to all rights granted to any citizen.

Is a well-regulated Militia still necessary to our security?

That sentence is seperate from an individual owning a firearm. As far as "a well regulated militia" goes I see that as the right to assemble for the purpose of "defense" as ultimately governments cannot be trusted.

The Second Amendment is one sentence. At the time the militia was all white men between 17 and 45. Citizens. Well regulated meant they were trained in how to load fast, shoot straight, and in basic military tactics.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Including Columbine there have been roughly 200 deaths from mass shootings in the U S including just over 100 in schools. Looked upon objectively a death by shooting is no more tragic than a death by automobile accident. In the same time period since Columbine roughly 400,000 Americans have died violent deaths in cars.

In the same time frame nearly all 300,000,000 Americans have been in public buildings from time to time making them roughly equal in risk to be the possible victims of a mass shooting.

The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution affects ALL Americans in the past...present and future. Over a hundred years that effect is on over 600,000,000 citizens of the U S.

It is arguable that the parents of the children murdered at Sandy Hook are now and forever insane with hurt and rage. The parents of the 18 children numbering 36 have no business resetting the gun rights granted in our Constitution.

No one can deny that those poor lost souls whose children were butchered have suffered unspeakable tragedy.

Trotting out a handfull of these understandably crazy people to reset gun rights is a disgrace.

What Obama and the democratic congress members are doing is traitorous. They are sworn to preserve and protect our Constitution.

If they are serious about trying to prevent violent death then they should start with deaths in cars. That is where an American is about 2,000 times more likely to meet a violent end than from the barrel of a gun in a mass shooting.

No problem huggy lets make owning a gun like owning a car, yoy can lose your gun license if you fail to pay child support, good idea a 1/3 the rednecks wouldnt be able to hunt with a gun for food!!! lol