quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: And it doesn't have a semicolon. And it doesn't make it more ambiguous, like you asserted, it makes it less ambiguous.
Dan wasn't addressing the ratified Amendment. How are you not seeing that?
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
Orincoro, I know what the 2nd Amendment says. But, once again, Tom quoted me wherein I was talking to Kate about the original draft and what it meant. So I thought he was, you know, responding to what I had said there. About the original draft. And what it meant.
Sam, how ambiguous the actual 2nd Amendment is is the subject of many debates in the courts and elsewhere. I did eventually assert that it is ambiguous, but now you're glossing over the posts about the semicolon. Tom was already "correcting" me before I made that assertion.
And yet, when I was talking about semicolons, I wasn't talking about the 2nd Amendment.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
So because lots of people disagree about something means there is no right answer?
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: In context, I was referring to the document Kate linked. I was 100% correct.
WHOOAAAAAAAA..... Bull**** 12 o'clock. You made a mistake and trusted a poorly edited source. Your problem. Don't compound your mistake now by weaseling out of it behind that. Just admit it was a mistake, and think about why you made it.
If you actually expect us only to ever argue with you based on specific *typo ridden* versions of official documents, you're insane.
Orincoro... I'm going to try to explain this, one last time.
Scroll up. Kate linked to an article, about the original draft of the 2nd Amendment, before it was ratified. It talked about what light that draft might shed on the ultimately ratified 2nd Amendment. It had some conclusions I disagreed with.
It wasn't typo-ridden. It was and is, to my knowledge, the accurate text of George Mason's original draft.
I argued with the points the article was trying to make. Points Kate agreed with, I believe, which is why she posted the article in the first place.
The fact that the source she linked wasn't the second amendment is not some shocking surprise. It was clearly spelled out from the beginning.
Do you understand now?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: So because lots of people disagree about something means there is no right answer?
No, Blayne, the point is that by the time I made that assertion Tom had already grossly misunderstood me, and wasn't "correcting" jack ****.
The lack of intellectual integrity on display here is really staggering, guys. The conversation is right up there for you to see, as is the article I was referring to. And yet you keep not referencing it, and making all sorts of ridiculous assertions. Yikes.
posted
I'm going to try one more time to make my point clear:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You and Godric are right that what actually ended up in the Constitution has comma-separated values, and is far more ambiguous.
No, it's not remotely ambiguous. It is completely unambiguous. That is the point I am making: that the text, as discussed and ratified, is unambiguously asserting a right to bear arms in furtherance of a well-regulated militia. It's not possible to be confused on this point if you understand English grammar.
Not even gonna acknowledge the rest of my post, huh? Good God, Tom, show a little bit of integrity. The "point you are making" has nothing to do with what I had said, what you were ostensibly replying to/arguing against.
A comma separated value is not more ambiguous. It's less ambiguous. He's talking about that, and the actual ratified document, not other ones you may or may not have been talking about before. If you think it makes it more ambiguous, you're wrong, and that's what you're getting harped on for here.
Among other things, I guess, but I don't care all that much? Continue to be disappointed in our lack of intellectual integrity or whatever. You were really unclear earlier.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
By the time he'd said that, Sam, he'd already taken what I said out of context. Badly. But you go on not caring.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I went back and reread it a few times, I get what you're getting at now re: semicolon versus ratified comma
note: it is not the result of intellectual dishonesty that you got implicated in all this bs, it was something that could be easily mistaken
anyway, second amendment doesn't have a semicolon and is hopelessly outdated anyway, so I expect it to get continually chipped away at
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose it would be too much to ask, for everyone to forget the discussion of the semicolon amendment-both in defense and attack-and ask the question of the actual amendment, with a comma: doesn't its wording make it quite clear that the right to bear arms *isn't* an absolute right, that it is always a qualified right? Because in the very amendment that grants it, is also the context in which the right exists?
I'm not talking about what the Founders initially intended, which to me has always seemed a profoundly stupid way to examine the Constitution-it does to everyone, actually. I'm not talking either about what past Supreme Courts have made of it-I'm asking where we should go from here. Pretend for a moment the 2nd Amendment didn't make it-SHOULD there exist an absolute right for private citizens to be able to own firearms? Or should they be tools which the state, from the start, has some right to regulate?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the federal government has an obligation to allow a militia to be formed under the auspices of the state governments. The fear in the amendment was of a standing army, which since WW2 has been a reality, and the various Militia Acts have subborned locally controlled militias with national guard units that have a sort of joint control structure. People have no individual right to own weapons outside of militia service. Historically this interpretation is only a couple decades old.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not talking about what the Founders initially intended, which to me has always seemed a profoundly stupid way to examine the Constitution
Well, why not? That way the second amendment only necessarily defends the right to own smoothbore flintlocks and we can get rid of all these weapons the founders would not ever have known of. What is this "magazine fed" weapon you speak of, sir? Are they to defend our lands against indians not taxed?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yeah I went back and reread it a few times, I get what you're getting at now re: semicolon versus ratified comma
note: it is not the result of intellectual dishonesty that you got implicated in all this bs, it was something that could be easily mistaken
anyway, second amendment doesn't have a semicolon and is hopelessly outdated anyway, so I expect it to get continually chipped away at
Thanks, Sam.
And I shouldn't have attributed it to dishonesty, you're right. That was an unfair assumption on my part. Maybe a little laziness, but nothing worse than that.
Anyway, I think there are some compelling arguments for why the 2nd Amendment isn't just about militias. Even if there aren't any semicolons!
But, even if we're going by a strict constitutionalist perspective (which, to be clear, I don't specifically advocate), it certainly does allude to regulation. And we certainly regulate the extent to which the other rights in the bill of rights actually get to be exercised.
Setting aside constitutional issues, though... I'm not specifically opposed to reasonable regulation of firearms, in case that hasn't been clear. Particularly some sort of simple competency test, akin to driver licenses, so long as it isn't overly burdensome.
I'd prefer a few more regulations on the "keeping" of arms, if we loosened regulations on the "bearing," frankly.
PS: Sam, why just smoothbore? The Framers loved rifled flintlocks too. They may have been more specialized, but they still had their uses.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, even if we're going by a strict constitutionalist perspective (which, to be clear, I don't specifically advocate), it certainly does allude to regulation. And we certainly regulate the extent to which the other rights in the bill of rights actually get to be exercised.
Setting aside constitutional issues, though... I'm not specifically opposed to reasonable regulation of firearms, in case that hasn't been clear. Particularly some sort of simple competency test, akin to driver licenses, so long as it isn't overly burdensome.
Alright, some starting points from someone further to the right on this issue. Ok. I agree with all of what you've said. What would you describe is the first thing that needs to happen before these sorts of things can take place, and what is likeliest to inhibit that process? What compromises are you willing to make, and what compromises do you think we should be willing to make? So on and so forth.
This is obviously a trick question, so feel free to fast forward to the trick if you like. Bottom line is: if you and I agree, heck if the entire Democratic party is still not in favor of demolishing or even sharply weakening the 2nd Amendment, then there must some person, group, or phenomena which explains why this meeting of the minds isn't yet reflected in our laws.
*What is that* inhibitor, and what can we do about it?
---------
The trick:
Obviously the single biggest inhibitor to this sort of meeting of the minds would be the NRA-not the only, but easily the biggest. Or would you disagree, Dan? They are such an impediment and so tone deaf they cough up the ball doing the usual (that is to say, oft-repeated) post-massacre media event, spending time pleading victimization at the hands of the media and blaming violent video games.
If you agree that this is the first, major stumbling block-what can be done about it? Who can do it? If not, why not?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In other fun cognitive dissonance news: if the NRA and hard conservatives would have us believe that you cannot prevent this sort of tragedy by screening out for crazies such as this shooter...why are we to suppose that dramatically increasing the amount of armed personnel in schools wouldn't miss quite a few of them, too?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: What compromises are you willing to make, and what compromises do you think we should be willing to make? So on and so forth.
You're welcome to start that exchange. I'm wary of re-entering a conversation that was seriously degraded by a couple of bad actors, though I'm really interested in examining legislative proposals on gun control, how they would be effective, and how they would be implemented. I realize you believe the NRA to be a large inhibitor to progress on this issue but having a concise and effective plan of action is going to be the best way to circumvent the NRA.
(Anyone who has previously called this conversation "stupid" won't be considered a good-faith participant. So feel free to sit out this round if you have.)
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I say let's cut even further to the case: how should the second amendment be clarified and updated?
I'm on my phone or I might take a crack at it...and will take a swing when next in front of a real keyboard.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're welcome to start that exchange. I'm wary of re-entering a conversation that was seriously degraded by a couple of bad actors, though I'm really interested in examining legislative proposals on gun control, how they would be effective, and how they would be implemented. I realize you believe the NRA to be a large inhibitor to progress on this issue but having a concise and effective plan of action is going to be the best way to circumvent the NRA.
To be clear, then, you think the NRA isn't? It sounds like you think they stand in the way of bad laws, but wouldn't be an impediment to good laws.
Anyway, alright, here's one: make illegal (lots of questions of detail, here, but I'm putting this out there as a goal) any assumption of ownership of a firearm that isn't tied to a criminal and mental health background check. Any. Whether it's gun shows, a gift of a gun, private sale of a gun between two individuals, or inheriting of a gun.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I'm pretty sure rifled guns (for sharpshooters) didn't come into prominence until the Napeolonic wars, I don't think they would be widely used in the America's.
I would probably make an exemption for old vintage hunting rifles, if you live clearly in a rural area.
IP: Logged |
posted
Rak, I think I'd support something like what you propose, but only for the purchase of semi-automatic weapons (including pistols). And some other restrictions.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to be clear, that would exclude weapons such as hunting rifles and shotguns?
I know rifles are very rare in street crime, but I'm less certain about shotguns-also in terms of, hmm, domestic crime? But for the interests of compromise, I would say semi-automatics and pistols would be a requirement, given how favored they are in gun violence.
That said, why would you oppose criminal and mental health background checks in the case of those other weapons? That's a seeking clarification question, not a gotcha question.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Rak, I think I'd support something like what you propose, but only for the purchase of semi-automatic weapons (including pistols). And some other restrictions.
Me too.
Non semi autos don't really pose a threat to groups of people because of their low capacity and high reload time (leavor action, revolvers, pump action, bolt action, etc).
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just to be clear, that would exclude weapons such as hunting rifles and shotguns?
I know rifles are very rare in street crime, but I'm less certain about shotguns-also in terms of, hmm, domestic crime? But for the interests of compromise, I would say semi-automatics and pistols would be a requirement, given how favored they are in gun violence.
There are semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns, actually. So it would only exclude bolt and lever action rifles, as well as pump and double barrel shotguns (either over/under or side by side).
quote:That said, why would you oppose criminal and mental health background checks in the case of those other weapons? That's a seeking clarification question, not a gotcha question.
I'm just giving my first take impression on this one, but in general it's because I don't favor restricting constitutional rights any more than is necessary. If we agree that gun violence is a major problem in American society, but also agree that the ability to possess a firearm is an integral part of our Bill of Rights, then I think restricting/licensing semi-autos is an OUTSTANDING first step. Make a significant, but manageable change, and then step back and take ten years to look at the data to see whether or not it's enough of a change.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
All citizens in good standing have the right to show themselves safe to keep and bear arms and upon doing so shall not have the right of reasonable firearm possession be infringed upon.
Well, I know it's not great, but it is a jumping off point.
posted
Non-felon, no open warrants, appropriate age, not currently committed to a psychological facility, no history of domestic abuse, proof of residency in state of purchase...um, that's all I can think of at the moment.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
AND DENY CRIMINALS THE RIGHT TO DEFEND THEMSELVES!?
IP: Logged |
posted
Um, just not currently committed to a psychological facility? People who are currently committed can't exactly run down to the gun shop anyway.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I'm pretty sure rifled guns (for sharpshooters) didn't come into prominence until the Napeolonic wars, I don't think they would be widely used in the America's.
Rifles were used during the revolutionary period, primarily by militia, because these were often the types guns that militia members had or could get. They played a decisive role in a few cases, but were not the factor that firing lines continued to be for another several decades. And of course by the American civil war, grouped firing became a catastrophic tactic, partly due to the changes made in technology in the intervening 80 years.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, even in the Revolutionary war plenty of guerrilla militia forces used rifles. They were a minority of American forces, but they were still an important minority.
By the Civil War they had the Minie ball and percussion caps. So using rifles became a lot more viable. Loading them was no longer the gigantic pain in the ass it was in 1777.
(And of course, later in the Civil War they had things like metal cartridges and guns you could load on Sunday and shoot all week.)
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Um, just not currently committed to a psychological facility? People who are currently committed can't exactly run down to the gun shop anyway.
Escaped ones ...do you think having been in one in the past should exclude you from buying a gun, and if so for how long? Life? One year?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that it makes it right, but it can be all but impossible to *vote* if one has been convicted of even non-violent felonies. We certainly have no problem as a nation prohibiting constitutional rights indefinitely on the basis of past crimes.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Question: had a mass shooting of kids happened in a church's Sunday school class, would the NRA's recommendation be armed guards at every church? Would gun enthusiasts be asking for every clergyman, deacon, elder and Sunday school teacher to carry a weapon?
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: Question: had a mass shooting of kids happened in a church's Sunday school class, would the NRA's recommendation be armed guards at every church? Would gun enthusiasts be asking for every clergyman, deacon, elder and Sunday school teacher to carry a weapon?
We have had mass church shootings (one in the past year), but perhaps some of them weren't of the proper sect or stripe to get the NRA much concerned. I suspect, too, that they might object to the very thing they claim to wish for unless of course it were extremely privatized training and arming.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? Didn't mean it to be. I think the answer could have something to say both politically and theologically. As a Christian (one that leans liberal politically), I sometimes have a hard time defining where I come down on social issues. In other words, I often hold a political view (for the best interest of society) that contradicts a spritual view (for the best interest of a Christian). For example, I support legal abortion, but argue against it in practically every one-on-one conversation.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: We have had mass church shootings (one in the past year), but perhaps some of them weren't of the proper sect or stripe to get the NRA much concerned.
Yeah, I'm aware. But I'm happy to answer one question at a time here.
quote:I suspect, too, that they might object to the very thing they claim to wish for unless of course it were extremely privatized training and arming.
Yeah, I see an inherent contradiction among many "hard right" lobbyists in this argument: arm teachers (teachers are state employees). Also, police state = evil. Of course, my own opinions (see above post) tend to get a lot of flack from fellow Christians especially.
But all that said, I'm genuinely interested in the answer anyone here would give.
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: We have had mass church shootings (one in the past year), but perhaps some of them weren't of the proper sect or stripe to get the NRA much concerned.
Yeah, I'm aware. But I'm happy to answer one question at a time here.
quote:I suspect, too, that they might object to the very thing they claim to wish for unless of course it were extremely privatized training and arming.
Yeah, I see an inherent contradiction among many "hard right" lobbyists in this argument: arm teachers (teachers are state employees). Also, police state = evil. Of course, my own opinions (see above post) tend to get a lot of flack from fellow Christians especially.
But all that said, I'm genuinely interested in the answer anyone here would give.
Many (Most? All?) calls to "arm teachers" are not "let's force teachers to carry guns/let's make teachers into cops."
They're saying "allow teachers who have concealed carry permits to carry in schools if they so choose." Some states already have this policy, by the way.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, the NRA's press conference called for several things not limited to existed concealed carry teachers/guards. An indirect call to slash the foreign aid budget to pay for cops in every school (as though it would be nearly enough), heavy implied attacks on the First Amendment, overt call for Congress to put cops in every school, to the NSSERP.
As the single most powerful lobbying group in the discussion, I don't think their calls can be dismissed as some sort of outlier or non-representative. Gun rights advocates are calling for a hell of a lot more than merely utilizing civilian resources as you suggest, Dan.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've pieced together some thoughts and ideas regarding gun control. They aren't incredibly well-stated or fully-developed but they could prompt discussion. These are restrictions to reduce, not stop, the unlawful use of firearms and are hopefully balanced enough that the right of the 2nd Amendment won't get swallowed up in fees and exhaustive restrictions. A well-crafted law shouldn't breed a massive, bureaucratic mess or tie up the courts for years. If, in a few years, any new law has become a burdensome formality for the overwhelming majority of lawful gun owners, and hasn't proven successful at limiting gun crime, it should be replaced.
To start, I could support background checks for all firearm purchases if it was accompanied by a system such as this:
Any legal citizen with a clean background could obtain an official certificate of some sort that one must renew yearly. The certificate would only be for purchasing handguns, revolvers, hunting rifles, and shotguns, and would not be required for possession of these firearms (concealed-carry permits would still be necessary where required). This certificate should cost no more than 20 dollars for the first one, 10 dollars for renewal, and take no longer to acquire than 2 weeks from the date of application. The background check requirement would be limited to monetary transactions only and wouldn't apply to gifts/inheritance. Additionally, current laws requiring background checks would remain in place. Meaning, if you don't intend to purchase multiple guns in a year, or one while at a gun show, or one from another citizen, you can request a background check at the time of purchase from an authorized dealer and receive the gun when your background clears. A background check in this instance wouldn't result in a certificate being issued, but would be a one-time deal, costing no more than 10 dollars. This proposal would, in part, address the so-call gun show loophole.
In addition to the background check certificate, I would modify and expand the scope of the National Firearms Act, essentially reworking the entire act to create a citizens category. Anything outside handguns, revolvers, hunting rifles, and shotguns would fall under the new NFA regulations. Fees for acquiring a Federal Firearms License for regular citizens would be greatly reduced (nowhere near where they are now), with the focus being on alerting local law enforcement, etc. that you have passed a background check and are registered and authorized to purchase, own, and use NFA firearms and accessories. The FFL must be on the person of anyone possessing, using, or transporting NFA firearms - basically anytime the firearms aren't securely stored in a fixed location. Any felony conviction would result in forfeiture of both background certificates and Federal Firearms Licenses.
One point missing in this plan is the language necessary to identify "hunting rifles and shotguns" from the other NFA-controlled firearms. It would have take into account certain features like barrel length, etc. (much like the current NFA does) but in the end it would also come down to ergonomic features and aesthetics. Some firearm types are more suited for hunting and, frankly, people with little firearm education are afraid of guns which look "menacing," regardless of the actual threat they pose. This method wouldn't be an incredibly accurate or effective way to classify firearms but it would allow for a workable system. Any current use of the word "assault" or words similar wouldn't be found anywhere in the law. "Assault weapon" is a misnomer, as it implies purpose. Firearms have no purpose, they have a function. A bat used for baseball becomes a weapon of assault if it's use to assault someone. Avoiding this kind of language would greatly increase the possibility of bipartisan support.
Many, I'm sure, will take issue with my proposal as it relates to handguns, but this is my reasoning: Semi-automatic handguns are the firearm type most critical to personal self-defense. I don't think covering these firearms under the new NFA regulations I've proposed would be a concession gun-rights proponents would make. Given the 2nd Amendment, the relevant Supreme Court rulings, and the fact that these firearms are part of the core of the non-sporting, non-hunting gun-rights ideology, placing substantial restrictions on handguns would be a non-starter. A background check alone should be all that is required to own and use these firearms.
In addition to certain type of firearms, a Federal Firearms License would be required for purchasing large quantities of frequently misused bullet types. This would only really impact someone trying to buy a thousand 9mm, 7.62×39mm, or 7.62×51mm rounds all in one go. Someone buying 30 rounds for their concealed-carry firearm or .308 hunting rifle wouldn't be affected. This would do more to stop a North Hollywood style shootout and not smaller shootings but it's an effort. As an additional restriction, magazines with capacities between 15 and 30 rounds would be considered accessory items not critical to the function of the firearm. As such they will be regulated under the NFA. Anything over 30 round capacity would require a higher level of NFA licensing (ATF permission, practically) and would be accompanied by very strict usage guidelines (such as exclusively within controlled environments like firing ranges and gun clubs).
A few final thoughts: I'm not fully behind registering firearms. I understand it would be useful to track gun ownership as a way to fight crime so this would likely be a point where I could make a concession (registering handguns... possibly). I'm even further from supporting mandatory psych evaluations. Earlier in the thread I outlined the negatives of such evaluations. In short, psychological evaluations would be too costly, restrictive, invasive, and flat-out too arbitrary to be levied against the right to bear arms. Also, I intentionally avoided the "grandfathering" can of worms.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: Nope. But then you did convey two contradictory messages: they certainly didn't suggest merely that we make use of existing permits. It went much much further than that.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: We have had mass church shootings (one in the past year), but perhaps some of them weren't of the proper sect or stripe to get the NRA much concerned.
Yeah, I'm aware. But I'm happy to answer one question at a time here.
quote:I suspect, too, that they might object to the very thing they claim to wish for unless of course it were extremely privatized training and arming.
Yeah, I see an inherent contradiction among many "hard right" lobbyists in this argument: arm teachers (teachers are state employees). Also, police state = evil. Of course, my own opinions (see above post) tend to get a lot of flack from fellow Christians especially.
But all that said, I'm genuinely interested in the answer anyone here would give.
Many (Most? All?) calls to "arm teachers" are not "let's force teachers to carry guns/let's make teachers into cops."
They're saying "allow teachers who have concealed carry permits to carry in schools if they so choose." Some states already have this policy, by the way.
Understood and didn't say they were. Again, the question I pose is: had a mass shooting of kids happened in a church's Sunday school class, would the NRA's recommendation be armed guards at every church? Would gun enthusiasts be asking for every clergyman, deacon, elder and Sunday school teacher to carry a weapon?
Posts: 382 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably, since they work for the gun manufacturers who would sell a lot of guns that way.
Virginia Tech has a police force. Columbine had an armed guard. Ft. Hood was a military base. It is possible that "good guys" with guns slowed down those mass shootings (though that is suspect); the sure as heck didn't prevent them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
