No they won’t. Some right-wing rag will post an idiotic conspiracy theory, Drudge will repost it, and they’ll accept it as true and post it everywhere.
The rational result of that would be to rethink the sources you use (that is posted a lot of places, even though it’s been known to be false from basically day one).
Really? Hmmm…general internet search for “Sandy Hook”. Start reading links.
I don’t have a certain set of sources. An no, it was not known to be false from day one. Plenty of news outlets were reporting it to be in the vehicle. I researched quite a bit about it back when it happened. I just wasn’t aware of the report presented in the link. I’m trying to be civil here guys. Don’t spoil it.
April 21, 2016 at 11:31 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Yes, if you have information that is undeniably wrong, the logical thing to do is question your sources.
“An no, it was not known to be false from day one.”
Incorrect, but also irrelevant, because it’s not day one, it’s years later, and you are still reciting incorrect information. The only sources (as in “news” sources, not necessarily you) saying the Bushmaster was in his car are people trying to deflect criticism from these types of weapons and conspiracy theorists.
CNN, and others reported the correct weapons right off the bat, and kept reporting the correct weapons. The only time that changed at all was when the nuts started their lies. There is also a video the day of the shooting where a cop clears the gun in his car in a way that a shotgun is cleared, and not an AR-15, but 99% of people wouldn’t know that, and wouldn’t be expected to know it. People saying the media and police were wrong about the guns should though.
They had it right immediately, and some places definitely misreported it, or changed it after there were contradictions, but within days it was confirmed over and over that the initial reports were right. Plus, we aren’t talking about information right after the fact here, we are talking about incorrect information you are citing years after the fact.
I’m definitely not saying you are pushing an agenda, or a conspiracy theorist, because you aren’t, just that you have information that is wrong, and I would question my sources if I found out something I thought was true was known to be wrong from the start, with a few exceptions. The ONLY place you read what you stated are insane nut job sites.
April 22, 2016 at 1:41 pm
Get your facts straight... says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
So if all the information I had said one thing, how is one to know it is “undeniably” wrong. Ron provided the best response, save the sarcasm, by posting a source with corrected information.
If saying it is irrelevant to talk about day one, why did you bring it up?
I never disputed the weapons used, just was incorrectly informed about their locations.
I regularly read cnn, so since there’s a good change that was one of my sources at the time, you are insinuating I should question my sources, yet you quote a cnn article to back up your claim. And that being an article dated 4 days after the fact, so not day one. (Yes, I’m being picky there.) I guess cnn is one of those insane nut job sites.
I also did not cite incorrect information. I stated incorrect information without a citation. Something for which I acknowledge I should have done a thorough check.
April 25, 2016 at 4:16 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Facts aren’t determined by what all your sources say. I have zero interest in the Bs right wing fantasy world. If all your sources say one thing, and that isn’t true, yes, by definition the statements are making are undeniably wrong. Your belief, and your source have no bearing on the reality of a situation.
It is relevant, and I brought it up because you are listening to, Ave believe sources that are wrong.
You claim you never disputed the weapons used. Maybe not explicitly, but again, you are then utterly clueless about the incident. The shooter died at the scene; if the weapon was in the trunk of could not have been used in the shooting, and the company could face no liability, which is the natural outcome for your argument, and the topic of the article.
I brought up relevance from the start because you are supporting a theory pushed by gun advocates to deflect criticism from the types of weapons, and because you claimed your sources misreported this, and again, my only reply was to question your sources, because you are repeating as fact, with the user name “Get your facts straight,” information that is undeniably false, and had you aren’t doing so immediately after the fact, but years later.
April 15, 2016 at 1:45 pm
the OCG says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29
6
So it’s the guns that kill people. Why stop at Bushmaster, sue every gun maker that had a gun in the house. May as well include the knives and swords too.
It wasn’t the gun, it was Lanza.
I tend to be pretty liberal, but I can’t support a suit against Bushmaster for Lanza’s actions. People kill people and have since the dawn of man. Sticks and stones, guns and bullets: Man will find a way to kill.
Guns make it easier to kill and with less emotion.
Semi-automatic weapons make it even easier to kill multiple people in less time. I am guessing that is why they are not suing the other gun manufacturers.
Guns are made to kill people, and are protected in this country because of their ability to kill people, and there are ways to make guns like this, which are made to kill a lot of people quickly, unusable if taken by somebody who isn’t the owner. They refuse to do this, so they shouldn’t be free from questioning in the courts.
True, but pressure cookers also make it easier to kill, and with less emotion. In fact, the perp can be miles away when the destruction happens. Should pressure cooker manufacturers be sued? Like OCG, I tend to lean liberal, but I think this case goes too far.
Explosive vests make it easier to kill people with less emotion. Let’s sue all the Terrorists doing this or at least give them a job and they won’t hate us and kill us with less emotion.
Agent, you are by far the least thoughtful person I have ever encountered.
“Explosive vests make it easier to kill people with less emotion.”
In this case we would OBVIOUSLY be opening the makers of explosive vests to liability. Based on your moronic comments there is no argument that you even understand the topic being discussed here. The question isn’t suing shooters, because you can already do that, moron. The issue is opening up companies that make products to liability for their products. If a company made explosive vests, would you also agree that the country should enact a law so they could be immune from liability?
Please, for the love of God, make one statement anywhere showing you understand anything that is written.
April 15, 2016 at 8:31 pm
Ron says:
Hot debate. What do you think?
12
9
Don’t Call Me Shirley,
1. Pressure cookers were not originally invented to kill nor modified over time to kill more people quickly.
2. Should companies be allowed to sell pressure cookers with instructions on how to make them into bombs?
And Ron, if they added a combustion chamber, to increase their explosive power, should the US create a law saying they cannot be sued?
April 18, 2016 at 8:24 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
7
8
UW,
I am not sure why you are asking me this question. I clearly believe that companies that manufacture products specifically designed for the mass killing of people, then distribute them to citizens, should be held liable.
April 18, 2016 at 10:17 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
5
1
I was just adding to your points above, I agree with you.
If I recall the details correctly, this was a gun purchased and owned by Lanza’s mother, that he took without her permission, and then shot people he didn’t know at the school. Now can anyone blame the gun or the manufacturer, in these circumstances? Guns don’t kill
people, people kill people. Just plain stupid to blame the gun or its maker. Maybe we need to keep better track of our mentally ill folks. We can know who they are – we can’t ever know which gun will be used improperly. Also, please do remember we have a Second Amendment to our Constitution. Let’s not repeal or rewrite that. Far too much thought and consideration went into our Constitution by really bright people.
Can we agree that it is far easier to kill 20+ people with a semi-automatic weapon compared to a knife, hammer, or a weapon that requires each round be loaded manually?
Please tell me the name of the well-regulated militia to which Nancy Lanza belonged that would allow her, under the 2nd amendment, to bear arms?
The right likes to bring up the mentally ill. here are some issues they do not address:
1. What about their privacy?
2. What if a someone is misdiagnosed as being mentally ill?
3. What if the mentally ill lives in a home with someone who is not. Are they all disqualified from owning a gun?
4. Who is going to pay to diagnose, treat and monitor these people? More government?
Based on your post I can only assume you are anti-Trump since he is anti-Constitution.
I would agree that the AR-15 offered sufficient design defect to warrant a consequential products liability cause of action. Bushmaster could have easily redesigned the gun to require single chamber loading while still maintaining its “Rambo assault weapon appearance” A submissible case can be made that Lanza would not have been able to NRA the two dozen innocent students and teachers during his temper episode if he had to reload after every murder. I seriously doubt that the drafters of 2nd Amendment intended for sophisticated machine gun technology to be available to satiate the psychological deficits of those who feel a 50 mm machine gun is required to go rabbit hunting.
This post automatically excludes you from further participation in the discussion as you obviously have no knowledge of firearms or the crimes committed by Adam Lanza. Purely emotional blather.
” I seriously doubt that the drafters of 2nd Amendment intended for sophisticated machine gun technology to be available to satiate the psychological deficits of those who feel a 50 mm machine gun is required to go rabbit hunting.”
The Founders stated specifically exactly what the reason for gun rights were when they wrote, “A well regulated Militia[…]” if you aren’t in a well-regulated militia, which based on all readings by the Founders is analogous to our National Guard, you had no individual right to gun ownership, until a few years ago when the right-wingers on the supreme court legislated from the bench, and created that right. I would argue, unless you are in a well-regulated militia, or fighting against violent government oppression (which was what they feared) you have no right to a gun based on the Constitution-only from the supreme court’s “legislation”, and that Congress should overturn that judicial activism. Funny how no conservatives whined about that judicial activism.
I think there are many, many situations where trained people would benefit from guns, but it is not a right created in the Constitution, and companies making this product certainly should not be shielded from all liability on their product.
The phrasing is “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.”
Taken in whole and not piecemeal to suit your interpretation, this means the people have a right to arms so that they will be able to form a Militia when needed. Not they must be in a Militia to own a firearm. So the people do have an individual right to own a firearm.
If we get to take it only by the piece we like, it could also be stated “..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Get your…
But, this was written before there was a standing army, right? And that standing army is a well regulated militia, right? And, I’m pretty sure they have all the weapons they need to arm all of those individuals in the standing army, right? Playing devil’s advocate here, I don’t care if you own a gun. I do think there has to be lines drawn on the types of guns you own, though. I’ll admit to that. I’m fairly positive the FFs did not imagine we’d ever have weaponry like we do today.
No, a standing army is usually one backed and maintained by a government, consisting of professional soldiers. A militia is a group formed by citizens ideally to keep government in check.
April 21, 2016 at 11:48 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
3
Facts, that is not true when viewed in the context of what the Founders wrote.
In the Federalist Papers, and in the Articles of Confederation a militia was clearly a state operated force, not a force of individuals.
“but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”
If they were individuals coming together they wouldn’t be disciplined, regulated, etc. “Well-regulated” refers to well-trained, and watched over by the states, as well as by Congress which gave authority to the militias. The Founders, and George Washington in particular were not fond of militias, because they were bad and undisciplined at the start of the Revolutionary War, hence the desire for them to be regulated/controlled by the federal government.
The individual right to gun ownership was a fringe belief on the supreme court until it went far to the right recently, because viewed in context that is clearly not what the Constitution called for. The individual right was created by activists judges in DC v Heller, in 2009 and another case of a person v the City of Chicago.
That is the law now though, so unless people are going to pass an amendment, or have the supreme court overturn it the law will stay as it is.
April 22, 2016 at 1:58 pm
Get your facts straight... says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Does it state the militias are to be regulated by a government authority? I read it as every state should have a militia, not that the state government should regulate the militia. I also do not think they would have wanted the federal government to control the state militias. That defeats the purpose of having militias at the state level.
For the sake of argument as well, wouldn’t the authors have taken care to write the constitution as a complete document in and of itself so as to reduce misinterpretation? Wouldn’t taking meanings from other sources opens the door to many alternative interpretations?
I have to say, that is the first time I ever heard someone say we did not have the right to own a firearm before 2009. What sources are you reading?
April 21, 2016 at 1:35 pm
Get your facts straight... says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
A 50 caliber would not leave enough of the rabbit for dinner. 50 cals are for deer hunting.
What happened at Newtown is just horrible beyond imagination. As I
remember that mentally ill person killed his mother and murdered those children and educators. He could have killed using a 22 caliber semiautomatic rifle or shotgun, and the carnage would have
been just as horrific. What is the solution? Ban all firearms?
I do NOT want to be disarmed, one can see what happened with tired old men, women, and children regarding the jews and Armenians.
Approximately the same number of people die from dui that do from guns. Why not sue alcohol manufacturers when someone is killed in a dui? Why is one more horrible than the other. I think if you ask someone who lost a loved one due to a dui, their view is not different. The out come is the same between the 2…people die when either one is not used properly. Or better yet, how about the cars that are driven when someone is drinking and driving, sue the car manufacturers.
Ron, really?? So all people who own guns should use them to kill? Do you see how ridiculous your statement is? I have and own guns, but have never just set out to kill anyone. So anyone who uses a gun to kill means no one ever should own guns? If you try and I mean try real hard with your little pea brain, what is the actual problem? Guns -NO – it is a mental health issue and that is what needs to be addressed. Quit trying to distract what the real issue is with guns.
One other thing. Since you brought up the mentally ill, maybe you can address the following issues:
1. What about their privacy?
2. What if a someone is misdiagnosed as being mentally ill?
3. What if the mentally ill lives in a home with someone who is not. Are they all disqualified from owning a gun?
4. Who is going to pay to diagnose, treat and monitor these people? More government?
Sandra, pay no mind to idiots like Ron who are Progressive Liberals who want to violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms. It is the whackos out there who do the killing and many buy guns illegally like they do in Chicago. One of the first things a left winger wants to do is disarm America. That is a big goal of there’s and it is in vain. This suit will go nowhere because the Supreme Court has already ruled on it.
Agent, don’t other countries have whackos and mentally ill people?
I do not want to disarm people. I am an Independent for reasonable gun control, though. For example, I don’t think you should be able to own a nuke. We can start the conversation there.
Except this wasn’t used. It was found in the car. I’ll need to look up a citation for that.
Get your facts straight,
Next time maybe YOU will get your facts straight before posting.
http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284
No they won’t. Some right-wing rag will post an idiotic conspiracy theory, Drudge will repost it, and they’ll accept it as true and post it everywhere.
If I did that, then I’d deprive you of the opportunity to make a witty jab at my posting name.
Thanks for the link though. Everything I had read till that had indicated the assault rifle was in the car.
I would much prefer see well researched information presented than have an opportunity to take a jab.
The rational result of that would be to rethink the sources you use (that is posted a lot of places, even though it’s been known to be false from basically day one).
Really? Hmmm…general internet search for “Sandy Hook”. Start reading links.
I don’t have a certain set of sources. An no, it was not known to be false from day one. Plenty of news outlets were reporting it to be in the vehicle. I researched quite a bit about it back when it happened. I just wasn’t aware of the report presented in the link. I’m trying to be civil here guys. Don’t spoil it.
Yes, if you have information that is undeniably wrong, the logical thing to do is question your sources.
“An no, it was not known to be false from day one.”
Incorrect, but also irrelevant, because it’s not day one, it’s years later, and you are still reciting incorrect information. The only sources (as in “news” sources, not necessarily you) saying the Bushmaster was in his car are people trying to deflect criticism from these types of weapons and conspiracy theorists.
CNN, and others reported the correct weapons right off the bat, and kept reporting the correct weapons. The only time that changed at all was when the nuts started their lies. There is also a video the day of the shooting where a cop clears the gun in his car in a way that a shotgun is cleared, and not an AR-15, but 99% of people wouldn’t know that, and wouldn’t be expected to know it. People saying the media and police were wrong about the guns should though.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/18/us/connecticut-lanza-guns/index.html
The police department got so sick of it that they also offered clarification shortly after the fact.
http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284
They had it right immediately, and some places definitely misreported it, or changed it after there were contradictions, but within days it was confirmed over and over that the initial reports were right. Plus, we aren’t talking about information right after the fact here, we are talking about incorrect information you are citing years after the fact.
I’m definitely not saying you are pushing an agenda, or a conspiracy theorist, because you aren’t, just that you have information that is wrong, and I would question my sources if I found out something I thought was true was known to be wrong from the start, with a few exceptions. The ONLY place you read what you stated are insane nut job sites.
So if all the information I had said one thing, how is one to know it is “undeniably” wrong. Ron provided the best response, save the sarcasm, by posting a source with corrected information.
If saying it is irrelevant to talk about day one, why did you bring it up?
I never disputed the weapons used, just was incorrectly informed about their locations.
I regularly read cnn, so since there’s a good change that was one of my sources at the time, you are insinuating I should question my sources, yet you quote a cnn article to back up your claim. And that being an article dated 4 days after the fact, so not day one. (Yes, I’m being picky there.) I guess cnn is one of those insane nut job sites.
I also did not cite incorrect information. I stated incorrect information without a citation. Something for which I acknowledge I should have done a thorough check.
Facts aren’t determined by what all your sources say. I have zero interest in the Bs right wing fantasy world. If all your sources say one thing, and that isn’t true, yes, by definition the statements are making are undeniably wrong. Your belief, and your source have no bearing on the reality of a situation.
It is relevant, and I brought it up because you are listening to, Ave believe sources that are wrong.
You claim you never disputed the weapons used. Maybe not explicitly, but again, you are then utterly clueless about the incident. The shooter died at the scene; if the weapon was in the trunk of could not have been used in the shooting, and the company could face no liability, which is the natural outcome for your argument, and the topic of the article.
I brought up relevance from the start because you are supporting a theory pushed by gun advocates to deflect criticism from the types of weapons, and because you claimed your sources misreported this, and again, my only reply was to question your sources, because you are repeating as fact, with the user name “Get your facts straight,” information that is undeniably false, and had you aren’t doing so immediately after the fact, but years later.
So it’s the guns that kill people. Why stop at Bushmaster, sue every gun maker that had a gun in the house. May as well include the knives and swords too.
It wasn’t the gun, it was Lanza.
I tend to be pretty liberal, but I can’t support a suit against Bushmaster for Lanza’s actions. People kill people and have since the dawn of man. Sticks and stones, guns and bullets: Man will find a way to kill.
first paragraph is sarcasm.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Guns are made to kill people, and are protected in this country because of their ability to kill people, and there are ways to make guns like this, which are made to kill a lot of people quickly, unusable if taken by somebody who isn’t the owner. They refuse to do this, so they shouldn’t be free from questioning in the courts.
True, but pressure cookers also make it easier to kill, and with less emotion. In fact, the perp can be miles away when the destruction happens. Should pressure cooker manufacturers be sued? Like OCG, I tend to lean liberal, but I think this case goes too far.
Explosive vests make it easier to kill people with less emotion. Let’s sue all the Terrorists doing this or at least give them a job and they won’t hate us and kill us with less emotion.
Agent, you are by far the least thoughtful person I have ever encountered.
“Explosive vests make it easier to kill people with less emotion.”
In this case we would OBVIOUSLY be opening the makers of explosive vests to liability. Based on your moronic comments there is no argument that you even understand the topic being discussed here. The question isn’t suing shooters, because you can already do that, moron. The issue is opening up companies that make products to liability for their products. If a company made explosive vests, would you also agree that the country should enact a law so they could be immune from liability?
Please, for the love of God, make one statement anywhere showing you understand anything that is written.
Don’t Call Me Shirley,
1. Pressure cookers were not originally invented to kill nor modified over time to kill more people quickly.
2. Should companies be allowed to sell pressure cookers with instructions on how to make them into bombs?
And Ron, if they added a combustion chamber, to increase their explosive power, should the US create a law saying they cannot be sued?
UW,
I am not sure why you are asking me this question. I clearly believe that companies that manufacture products specifically designed for the mass killing of people, then distribute them to citizens, should be held liable.
I was just adding to your points above, I agree with you.
Very good!
All the firearms were semi-automatic.
If I recall the details correctly, this was a gun purchased and owned by Lanza’s mother, that he took without her permission, and then shot people he didn’t know at the school. Now can anyone blame the gun or the manufacturer, in these circumstances? Guns don’t kill
people, people kill people. Just plain stupid to blame the gun or its maker. Maybe we need to keep better track of our mentally ill folks. We can know who they are – we can’t ever know which gun will be used improperly. Also, please do remember we have a Second Amendment to our Constitution. Let’s not repeal or rewrite that. Far too much thought and consideration went into our Constitution by really bright people.
Expert,
Can we agree that it is far easier to kill 20+ people with a semi-automatic weapon compared to a knife, hammer, or a weapon that requires each round be loaded manually?
Please tell me the name of the well-regulated militia to which Nancy Lanza belonged that would allow her, under the 2nd amendment, to bear arms?
The right likes to bring up the mentally ill. here are some issues they do not address:
1. What about their privacy?
2. What if a someone is misdiagnosed as being mentally ill?
3. What if the mentally ill lives in a home with someone who is not. Are they all disqualified from owning a gun?
4. Who is going to pay to diagnose, treat and monitor these people? More government?
Based on your post I can only assume you are anti-Trump since he is anti-Constitution.
It’s cute when people who know nothing about weapons talk about them.
Instead of making it harder to get guns, why don’t we just make murder illegal. Then no one will kill anymore.
I would agree that the AR-15 offered sufficient design defect to warrant a consequential products liability cause of action. Bushmaster could have easily redesigned the gun to require single chamber loading while still maintaining its “Rambo assault weapon appearance” A submissible case can be made that Lanza would not have been able to NRA the two dozen innocent students and teachers during his temper episode if he had to reload after every murder. I seriously doubt that the drafters of 2nd Amendment intended for sophisticated machine gun technology to be available to satiate the psychological deficits of those who feel a 50 mm machine gun is required to go rabbit hunting.
Before I get corrected by the gun nut whackos, I was referring to 50 caliber, not 50 mil.
This post automatically excludes you from further participation in the discussion as you obviously have no knowledge of firearms or the crimes committed by Adam Lanza. Purely emotional blather.
How so, other than from your “expert” knowledge on the subject?
” I seriously doubt that the drafters of 2nd Amendment intended for sophisticated machine gun technology to be available to satiate the psychological deficits of those who feel a 50 mm machine gun is required to go rabbit hunting.”
The Founders stated specifically exactly what the reason for gun rights were when they wrote, “A well regulated Militia[…]” if you aren’t in a well-regulated militia, which based on all readings by the Founders is analogous to our National Guard, you had no individual right to gun ownership, until a few years ago when the right-wingers on the supreme court legislated from the bench, and created that right. I would argue, unless you are in a well-regulated militia, or fighting against violent government oppression (which was what they feared) you have no right to a gun based on the Constitution-only from the supreme court’s “legislation”, and that Congress should overturn that judicial activism. Funny how no conservatives whined about that judicial activism.
I think there are many, many situations where trained people would benefit from guns, but it is not a right created in the Constitution, and companies making this product certainly should not be shielded from all liability on their product.
The phrasing is “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.”
Taken in whole and not piecemeal to suit your interpretation, this means the people have a right to arms so that they will be able to form a Militia when needed. Not they must be in a Militia to own a firearm. So the people do have an individual right to own a firearm.
If we get to take it only by the piece we like, it could also be stated “..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Get your…
But, this was written before there was a standing army, right? And that standing army is a well regulated militia, right? And, I’m pretty sure they have all the weapons they need to arm all of those individuals in the standing army, right? Playing devil’s advocate here, I don’t care if you own a gun. I do think there has to be lines drawn on the types of guns you own, though. I’ll admit to that. I’m fairly positive the FFs did not imagine we’d ever have weaponry like we do today.
No, a standing army is usually one backed and maintained by a government, consisting of professional soldiers. A militia is a group formed by citizens ideally to keep government in check.
Facts, that is not true when viewed in the context of what the Founders wrote.
In the Federalist Papers, and in the Articles of Confederation a militia was clearly a state operated force, not a force of individuals.
“but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”
If they were individuals coming together they wouldn’t be disciplined, regulated, etc. “Well-regulated” refers to well-trained, and watched over by the states, as well as by Congress which gave authority to the militias. The Founders, and George Washington in particular were not fond of militias, because they were bad and undisciplined at the start of the Revolutionary War, hence the desire for them to be regulated/controlled by the federal government.
The individual right to gun ownership was a fringe belief on the supreme court until it went far to the right recently, because viewed in context that is clearly not what the Constitution called for. The individual right was created by activists judges in DC v Heller, in 2009 and another case of a person v the City of Chicago.
That is the law now though, so unless people are going to pass an amendment, or have the supreme court overturn it the law will stay as it is.
Does it state the militias are to be regulated by a government authority? I read it as every state should have a militia, not that the state government should regulate the militia. I also do not think they would have wanted the federal government to control the state militias. That defeats the purpose of having militias at the state level.
For the sake of argument as well, wouldn’t the authors have taken care to write the constitution as a complete document in and of itself so as to reduce misinterpretation? Wouldn’t taking meanings from other sources opens the door to many alternative interpretations?
I have to say, that is the first time I ever heard someone say we did not have the right to own a firearm before 2009. What sources are you reading?
A 50 caliber would not leave enough of the rabbit for dinner. 50 cals are for deer hunting.
What happened at Newtown is just horrible beyond imagination. As I
remember that mentally ill person killed his mother and murdered those children and educators. He could have killed using a 22 caliber semiautomatic rifle or shotgun, and the carnage would have
been just as horrific. What is the solution? Ban all firearms?
I do NOT want to be disarmed, one can see what happened with tired old men, women, and children regarding the jews and Armenians.
Approximately the same number of people die from dui that do from guns. Why not sue alcohol manufacturers when someone is killed in a dui? Why is one more horrible than the other. I think if you ask someone who lost a loved one due to a dui, their view is not different. The out come is the same between the 2…people die when either one is not used properly. Or better yet, how about the cars that are driven when someone is drinking and driving, sue the car manufacturers.
Sandra,
Sa Bob would say, false equivalency.
Guns were invented to kill when they are used properly. Semi-automatic guns were invented to kill multiple targets more efficiently.
None of the examples you cited were invented as a tool for death.
Ron, really?? So all people who own guns should use them to kill? Do you see how ridiculous your statement is? I have and own guns, but have never just set out to kill anyone. So anyone who uses a gun to kill means no one ever should own guns? If you try and I mean try real hard with your little pea brain, what is the actual problem? Guns -NO – it is a mental health issue and that is what needs to be addressed. Quit trying to distract what the real issue is with guns.
Sandra,
Please don’t be the female Agent. Take off the emotional hat and put on the analytical hat for a moment.
Please tell me where I said all people who own guns should use them to kill?
If they were not invented to kill, why were they invented?
In case you haven’t noticed, I have gone out of my way to not say “kill people”.
For the record, I am pro 2nd Amendment and believe every citizen has the right to bear arms. I have absolutely no problem with citizens owning guns.
Sandra,
One other thing. Since you brought up the mentally ill, maybe you can address the following issues:
1. What about their privacy?
2. What if a someone is misdiagnosed as being mentally ill?
3. What if the mentally ill lives in a home with someone who is not. Are they all disqualified from owning a gun?
4. Who is going to pay to diagnose, treat and monitor these people? More government?
Complex problems require complex solutions.
Sandra, pay no mind to idiots like Ron who are Progressive Liberals who want to violate the Second Amendment right to bear arms. It is the whackos out there who do the killing and many buy guns illegally like they do in Chicago. One of the first things a left winger wants to do is disarm America. That is a big goal of there’s and it is in vain. This suit will go nowhere because the Supreme Court has already ruled on it.
Agent,
What’s with the insult? I thought you were against insults.
If you cannot dispute what I wrote, keep your misinformed opinions to yourself.
I agreed with an agent post once – it was when he said anyone who insults someone else on this site should be banned from posting.
Agent, don’t other countries have whackos and mentally ill people?
I do not want to disarm people. I am an Independent for reasonable gun control, though. For example, I don’t think you should be able to own a nuke. We can start the conversation there.