English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

First off, I am willing to bet fire arms are illegal to have on that campus. Second, that person had fire arms even though it was illegal. Now if some others there had fire arms, couldn't they have defended themselves? I am not saying they should have fire arms, i just don't understand why people are blaming this on the second amendment.

2007-04-16 09:51:21 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

super rut... my point is, you can't just magically replace his guns with bats. How do you expect that to just happen?

2007-04-16 10:00:41 · update #1

justagra... you have to register your gun, and what would insurance do? Help pay reparations to the victims that were shot with it?

2007-04-16 10:19:25 · update #2

21 answers

Because emotional people would rather blame an inanimate object for problems because it's the easy way out.

2007-04-16 09:54:30 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 5

To answer your question, fear. Someone will use the fear created by this terrible incident to pass sweeping political legislation to forward their own agenda. This is a tragedy and a very sad occasion, and some self-serving politician will use this for their own political gain. That is also a tragedy. I don't care if you are a republican or a democrat, you should be doing everything you can to get to the bottom of why this happened and how can it be prevented in the future. Some will say outlaw firearm's. They will attack a constitutionally guaranteed right instead of looking at facts. In countries where firearms are outlawed, the criminal element walk around armed. They can get these weapons despite tough, highly restrictive laws. Meanwhile, the average citizen has no means of self-defense or self-preservation. I feel sorry for all the families that have suffered today and my heart and my prayers go out to them. This shouldn't be a gun control issue, but it will turn into one. And perhaps that to is a tragedy. Only time will tell.

2007-04-16 17:03:42 · answer #2 · answered by Robert L 4 · 2 0

The gun grabbers will always blame the guns. Have you ever heard of any of the gun grabbers talk about punishing the criminal? The criminal is a criminal because he doesn't obey the law to start with. All the gun laws do is disarm law abiding citizens. If the people at the campus had been allowed to exercise their 2nd amendment rights then I bet no where near that many would have been killed. All the anti gun laws have showed us is that they disarm only the ones who should have guns

2007-04-16 17:02:29 · answer #3 · answered by lost 1 6 · 1 0

First, for clarity let me state that there is no getting the toothpaste back in the tube, gun control is not practical in any respect anymore. Everyone and his sick brother has a gun or access to one. That's why 31 people died. The gun didn't go off by itself, but its availability was what enable the man to kill 31 and wound 29 others. You couldn't do that with a knife. It has to be a gun. When the Constitution was written, it gave arms so that we could protect ourselves from foreign powers, not so that we could shoot each other because we drank too much or though our wives cheated or dinner was late, or the guy dissed me.
The second amendment never realized to what depths we would sink as a society.
We can't take it back, but lets be realistic, we don't have to make it so easy. I have to register my car, can't you register your weapon? I have to carry insurance on my car, can't you lock up your guns so that they can't be stolen? Isn't there something between shooting Bambi with an Uzi and the freedom for a militia to keep and bear arms?
Isn't the NRA willing to do anything at all so that we don't have to carry sidearms to go to school?

Guns are sold and stolen all the time without being registered. Tighter observation of the laws we already have would be good. The point I'm trying to make is that we do limit or put restrictions on various items that are legal there isn't any reason not to put restrictions on guns as long as you are still allowed to own them. I hadn't thought of insurance for guns to fund victims, but its interesting, I meant insurance against theft, by locking them up securely, not buying a policy from Allstate.
Isn't there any pro-gun person who can think of anything but all the bullets of any kind I want....all the guns of anykind I want....no restrictions? Isn't there some kind of middle ground?

2007-04-16 17:08:42 · answer #4 · answered by justa 7 · 0 1

It is what socialists do, take your arms so they can control your life. Pretty simple. Ask someone who supports freedom if they support the second amendment, the answer is always yes. Ask a socialist if there should be gun "control" laws, they will always say yes. This is fact as sure as the sun rises each day.

2007-04-17 08:48:25 · answer #5 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0 0

Because they want the government to have total control over our destiny. Part of the reason the 2nd Amendment is there, is so that the government will know the citizenry is armed.

Every time someone goes nuts like this, they want to ban all guns, even though most gun owners are law abiding. What gets me is over 100 people (123 on average every day in the U.S.) will die in car accidents today and nobody calls for banning cars, or even driving more safely - you know the NRA promotes safe gun owning courses.

2007-04-16 16:58:48 · answer #6 · answered by Yo it's Me 7 · 2 3

There ignorant. They blame the 2nd Amendment because it feels like the right thing to do. They will pass more laws and something like this will happen again and they will pass more laws. This is a societal problem NOT a gun problem. Those guns he used would have killed not a single person by themselves, the shooter killed those people. Not the guns.

2007-04-16 16:55:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

any time a gun is used in a crime the 2nd amd get blamed..and people forget the real meaning of the 2nd amd ...its in place to prevent tyranny...what would the liberals do if Bush declared him self president for life and he had the backing of the military..how would they over throw him..sticks and stones...more people are killed by cars then guns in this country...you cant blame crime on guns..its just a tool...its like blaming arson on matches...

2007-04-16 17:04:25 · answer #8 · answered by xjim7 2 · 2 0

YOur right, the blame game is already starting. Guns do not kill people, people kills people. Sort of makes me wonder, was this a conspiracy since the Liberal President wanna be wants to be sure she can disarm all US citizens, this way, we can not fight back. Figured I would go ahead and put my two cents in, since the conspiracy theory has already started and some will try to blame Bush for this too. lol.

2007-04-16 17:01:04 · answer #9 · answered by zack 4 · 2 1

If we can blame it on the 2nd amendment, then we can blame this on James Madison, seeing as he wrote the Bill of Rights, or maybe the Virginia General Assembly, who founded the school. I agree with you completly.

2007-04-16 16:57:30 · answer #10 · answered by The Great Hobo 3 · 4 1

Because they're angry. An event like this stirs up the emotions, and reminds us all that the world is not a completely safe place, no matter how hard we try. Tragedy affects us all in different ways.

2007-04-16 17:00:18 · answer #11 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers