BuffettNews.com

moog wrote:Boy, the military could use guys like this.

moog wrote:

12vmanRick wrote:if more people carried guns things like this would be less prone to happen

Nah. More angry and depressed people shooting it up. However, yea maybe someone could have shot him in the leg to stop him. Although he would sue you.

moog wrote:

12vmanRick wrote:if more people carried guns things like this would be less prone to happen

Nah. More angry and depressed people shooting it up. However, yea maybe someone could have shot him in the leg to stop him. Although he would sue you.

creeky wrote:simple - tighter gun control .....

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

creeky wrote:simple - tighter gun control .....

He obtained the weapon illegally. More gun control laws would not have prevented this tragedy. One legally armed individual in the vicinity might have been able to lessen it.

creeky wrote:

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:

creeky wrote:simple - tighter gun control .....

He obtained the weapon illegally. More gun control laws would not have prevented this tragedy. One legally armed individual in the vicinity might have been able to lessen it.

But tighter gun control .... improved border security - means harder to get illegal guns. I know it is more difficult to police over there with land borders though ....

The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.

Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.

The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.

. . .

"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."
— The Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
— U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)

Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.

If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms.

Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the d*m of Constitutional protection. Once that d*m is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.

In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies certification to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.

creeky wrote:keep having free right to guns - gonna keep getting coverage of massacres - mentally deranged people with guns ... bad news.

The Second Amendment wrote: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.

springparrot wrote:If we don't want this guy to be famous, why are we discussing it.

Lock the thread.

Y-NO-9-O wrote:Springparrot, please accept my apology. You were simply trying to do what is right by stopping this nonsense. I got caught up in the moment.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:Personally, I'm a big fan (and legally a defender) of the Constitution of the United States, including Amendment II:
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.

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:You can scream all day long about making more laws, but the laws we HAVE were already being broken.....