Yes people kill people, but do we really need easy access

if this nut job was a pothead this probably wouldn't have happened .

 

Definitely would have had motivation problems. A "wake and bake" would have ended any chance of this happening.

 

The investigators' decision not to release information until their investigation is complete has made it impossible to tell what is genuine and what is fabricated on it's face.

 

Do you put them down like a rabid dog?

 

Mental illness is a tricky subject when it comes to forced therapy/medications. Who decides? What oversight is there? Is it not just a form of incarceration with no crime perpetrated? Will this become some kind of Minority Report situation where people are found guilty before they even commit a crime?

I do not think we can go down that road. It leads to authoritarianism and paranoia. We cannot let fear drive us into our homes and looking at all strangers as a potential threat. That is a form of hell.

 

Admittedly, I haven't read each of the 23 pages in this thread, but here are some random points (sorry if someone has already made and/or refuted them):

1. As inconvenient as this truth may be to some, the right to bear arms is as certain as that of free speech, of religion and all of the rest.

2. It is also true that the Founding Fathers could not have predicted, or even forseen, the liberties that many would take with the rights that they guaranteed to all. Some examples:

• They could not have imagined that a single firearm could shoot thousands of rounds per minute from a single firearm.
• That the free exercise of religion would be propped up as a reason to inhibit its very public practice.
• That the freedom of speech could be used to burn an American flag, or to stand in front of a memorial service to hurl hate-filled insults at those who mourn.

Perhaps had they known the path that each would take, they would choose to have written them more narrowly, or even withheld their very inclusion. Or, perhaps not. So no matter had they known or not, is immaterial, really, because the ink has long-since been dry on their inclusion, and their very existence demands our strictest safeguarding and staunchest defense. Should we begin to pick and choose those that are more deserving of this vigilance than another, then none can be safe, as we will be eroding the very foundation upon which they all rest.

3. Fortunately, the Founding Fathers well knew that they could neither predict all that could occur, nor the ensuing ramifications of each, even if it could have been magically and retroactively made known to them. And it is for that very reason that they outlined a very real process by which the document could be amended, as either changing circumstances demanded or the will of the People desired.

So, if you do not want the citizenry to own guns, then you need only to repeal the second amendment. If you believe in the intrinsic value of that right, but wish to limit either its scope of application (i.e. semi-automatic weapons should be banned, etc.), then amend it, accordingly. It's an entirely simple process, really.

4. An armed citizen, skilled in the use of a firearm, knowledgeable of applicable laws and regulations, and keenly aware of the deadly consequences that come with the discharge of any firearm is certainly the most readily available first respondent, and as such, is perhaps the best. I know that this notion is offensive to some, and don't mean to be antagonistic toward that sentiment, but it's nothing more than common sense, IMO. Had you or someone you loved been in that Denver-area theater, or in Sandy Hook - would it be more preferable that you/they had a necessary means to defend themselves, or not? If you had a child at Sandy Hook, would you have preferred that the principal had a greater means to stop this gunman, who was clearly bent on killing as many innocent people as possible, than simply flinging her body at him, in a lesser, desperate and life-giving attempt to stop him, or not?

5. If the right to bear arms is mitigated, or outright removed, is it safe to assume that it would first apply to the US Secret Service? How about law enforcement? The military while serving in a non-combat zone? Surely, the life of one citizen is not more deserving of greater protection than any other, right? And if those groups are exempted, and allowed to continue to bear arms, wouldn't such a notion be predicated on their having a greater possibility of encountering those threats that must be met with similar force, then why am I not given the same means of self-defense, as they are? Does the USSS have a greater duty to protect the President than I do in protecting myself, my family, friends and loved ones? But, in either case, if those groups are allowed to keep guns, but private citizens are not, it can only mean that you either believe that they (or those whom they serve to protect) are more worthy of protection than anyone else, or that they somehow have more of a right to a ready and suitable defense, than others. I'm no lawyer, but either option strikes me as being not only separate but entirely unequal....just like segregation, a woman's right to vote, or the rights of homosexuals to be married. How to show where its wrong in one instance, but entirely correct in another? I don't believe its possible to do so.

 

I don't know if it has shown up in this thread, and don't take this as somehow indicative of my stance on gun rights, but has anyone seen this ridiculous Timothy McVeigh thing making the rounds? It says something along the lines of "Timothy McVeigh killed a bunch of people and didn't use a gun, blah blah blah."

Umm... they are right, he didn't use a gun. I also don't see a bunch of people claiming that if everyone had a concealed bomb permit that they could stop all the terrorists with bombs.

 

There's a reason he's the only guy who has done it in america. If it was easy i'm sure it would have been done again.

 

Honest question - how many people have tried to do it and been caught/stopped?

Honest question #2 - how does this stack up proportionally against the number of people thwarted committing heinous gun crimes?

 

I would imagine that a much larger percentage of bombers are stopped, because it takes more planning/coordination to go bomb something than to pick up a gun and go shoot people. Which is why the McVeigh thing is so damn ridiculous, it represented a major failing in intelligence and security. VaTech, Northern Illinois, Columbine, Sandy Hope, Aurora, etc. were a nut job who might have shown some signs of trouble, but not enough to throw enough red flags for anyone to know what was going to happen.

 

My gut instinct is you are right, but I've never seen any type of numbers on either really. I'm more curious than anything. I really have no hidden agenda.

 

Bomb making materials are highly regulated and tracked.

You would be surprised the frequency people are arrested.

 

Federal law prohibits the amount of fertilizer, in pounds, purchasable, and kept in storage without proper permit.

 

Would you really want to know?

 

Honestly, yeah.

After this, I don't know if it's possible for me to be rattled any more than I am. Might as well get it out of the way at once.

 

So I looked this up and not entirely true. And apparently not really enforced.

 

My next question was going to be how easy was it to get around if you really tried.

 

10-4

 

Apparently is a beautiful word

 

The original act was Secure Handling of Ammonium Nitrate Act of 2007 (bit late.)

But a USA Today article I skimmed said it still isn't highly enforced. But I would like to think if hundreds of pounds of it were being purchased by unknown entities, that BATFE or HLS would be taking a close look.