Isn't it pathetic to see gun nuts trying to spin this tragedy?

Question

Obviously, if you couldn't buy handguns, semi-automatics, and high capacity clips, many people would still be alive.

second amendment doesn't say anything about an individual's right to own guns. That right does not exist.

It would have been much harder for this guy to do this without such powerful weapons. That is a fact.

kristin - "the People" in the second amendment refers to citizens acting together asserting their sovereign rights against the state. Just like "the People vs. Larry Flynt" wasn't one Person.

No, dojoman - if NOBODY had been armed with weapons, that would have saved EVERBODY'S life.

No kristin, the state is bringing the case on behalf of "the People", i.e. the same collective citizenry who have the rigtht to form a "well-regulated militia".

Not any individual person.

Answer 1

People kill not guns. Guns were also banned on campus, didn't seem the killer cared about that either. It is the anti-gun nuts that actually bring up the gun points.

Answer 2

What you call "gun nuts" - I call defenders of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights states:

"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."

Since you lack education and apparently are unable to google the Constitution to find the language you proclaim doesn't exist - I provided you a link below. Maybe you have a Conservative spam blocker that only allows you to see liberal propaganda. Maybe if you lift this blocker you would know what "people" kristen refers to. All the rights in the Constitution are individual rights and freedoms. What you describe as "people acting together to assert their sovergn rights against the state" in your definition are still rights guaranteed each and every individual in our country.

The "gun nuts" counter your spin that if the VA State Legistlature had passed the conceal carry law, that many people would still be alive.

You mentioned that there is no reason the shooter should have had such a powerful weapon - it's irrelevant and inaccurate. The shooter used handguns - not automatic weapons. So your "fact" is in fact opinion.

The fact of the matter is - this South Korea national (and legal green card holder) broke the law. He knows he broke the law as he then proceded to take his own life. This is a national tragedy and we should all pray for those that lost their lives and the families they have left behind.

Answer 3

Read the second amendment.

"Right to Bear Arms (1791)"
- 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. -

do not misinterpret that.

Remember, if you outlaw guns, people will only make bigger things. People that do this type of thing aren't stupid. They're brilliant, they just use what they know for the wrong reason.

*UPDATE*
My friend, you obviously know nothing about law.
"The People v. Larry Flynt"
In this situation would be the STATE acting as the people.
The constitution was made to give people their individual rights as a US Citizen. Not that once one person uses up one right no one else in "the people" can have it any longer. It's used to show that the Federal Govt. hold superiority over the State, the State over the Municipal, etc.

The well-regulated militia is formed by the STATE not the PEOPLE. If every state had a separate militia/military..it would be more violence and fighting than it is now. WITH GUNS!

You won't ever be able to take them away, so stop trying.

Answer 4

What IS pathetic is to have such a vivid imagination as to believe that all the handguns and semi-automatics etc. could be removed from society. We have gun laws in place, and they need to be enforced better. The right to own a gun is spelled out clearly in the law. The criminals could care less about any provision that is meant to restrict us, that just makes us an easier target.

Don't you think that this ENGINEERING student could figure out a different way to "get the job done" if he didn't have access to guns? How about a bomb instead? He could have blown up the building and the body count would have been much higher.

My point is that if this individual was hell bent on making a "statement", there are many other ways that would have accomplished the same results. Banning guns would not have prevented this, it would have just made the results different.

And to clarify for all of you gun grabbers out there, I don't own a firearm, but I will support an individuals right to own one if they are legally qualified.

Answer 5

i think of this is greater disgusting how the anti-gun paranoid freaks are politicizing the reality that thirty-3 harmless human beings died with a view to push their anti-freedom time table. by way of fact the VA Tech shootings, i've got been listening to no longer something yet "while are we going to prohibit weapons?" people who honestly help gun rights have been placed on the protective to describe why weapons can honestly be reliable. So, please, do no longer pull this crap on me. If something, this is any incorrect way around. Why might the pro-2nd exchange human beings worry to assert we pick greater weapons after a terrible tragedy? That'd merely be style of random and nonsensical, till, of course, somebody such as you have been asking them if we would desire to consistently ban weapons as a reactionary reaction to this crime.

Answer 6

If you knew anything at all about the Constitution and the amendments you would know that the intent and purpose was to limit the powers of the government not the citizens. The second amendment cleary states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It can't get any clearer than that.

Answer 7

I'm just curious....do you have a list of all of the registered handguns and stores that are liscensed to sell guns in Philadelphia? Obviously, since this happens only where you can buy guns, Philly must have tons of stores in the ghettoes, right? I mean, that's the only way people get shot is if the gun is PURCHASED, right?

Get over it.

Answer 8

A gun is a very simple device to make. If they were illegal only criminals would have them. And the good guys would have no protection.

Don't say if they were illegal nobody would have them I just told you they are easy to make.

Answer 9

He was not a legal citizen, so obviously did not obtain firearms by legal means. How effective is the prohibition on drugs? A criminal act will not be stopped by some long-haired laws.

I own several handguns because I feel self protection is a necessary evil. You should feel free to die whining and crying if confronted with a gun in your home.

I prefer to go out fighting.

Answer 10

What "guy" are you talking about? What "powerful weapons" are you talking about?
The guy that shot up the school had two pistols!
That does not have skit on what Ive got laying around my house.....

And if you are bent on taking my guns ....As Bob Barker used to say,"Come on down!"....

And Obviously, if the school in question had a R.O.T.C. program worth its salt in place the scenario would have been slightly different.

(Oh well...There goes another Best Answer medal.)

OMG...I'm actually communicating with someone who's screen name is LONGHAIRED FREAKY...My life has tuned into a downhill spiral..........

Answer 11

I agree that the availability of some weaponry should not be available. But, I have a right to bear arms as an American citizen for protection, my handgun doesnt leave the house.