Thankfully this time it was not at the level of Columbine, but two children were wounded when an adult male fired into a crowd of kids as Deer Creek Middle School (3 miles from Columbine High) was getting out.
Two people were shot when a man opened fired on a group of students waiting outside a Colorado middle school Tuesday afternoon, KDVR.com reported. […]
A Deer Creel Middle School student who witnessed the shooting in Littleton said a man with long blonde hair, wearing a hat fired at least two shots.
“From what I could see he was older, not like a teenager,” the student, who was only identified by her first name, told the station. “It sounded like fireworks. It was a very big gun, looked like a rifle.”
One victims [sic] was rushed to a nearby hospital with a gunshot wound to the chest and the other reportedly sustained a gunshot wound to the arm, according to KDVR.com.
Initial reports say both kids are likely to survive and that the shooter is in custody. However, please don’t tell me that this incident, and all the other mass shootings incidents we have had in this country at offices, schools, churches, etc., would have happened even if these animals were armed only with knives and clubs. That kite won’t fly no more.
Maybe so, but the Constitution says we have to allow it. Doesn’t mean we can’t limit it though, that’s only reasonable.
That’s debateable. Here is the ENTIRE SECOND AMENDMENT IN FULL:
The right to bear arms was only granted in the context of a well regulated militia, per the constitution. People have argued the rights go beyond that, but that’s not what the constitution ever said.
Look it up. That’s all she wrote. 😉
Sorry, I’ve got a J.D. and I’ve studied this a LOT, it really did seem to mean a personal right to arms and not the national guard to the founders.
The Well-Regulated stuff is in terms of arming the individual populace so that when they are called up by the state into the state militia they are ready to fight. (Since training wasn’t what it is today.)
Now you can argue that the concept should be different now, but that is what it meant to the framers.
And that’s the point. There’s no way one can argue that guns help keep the state defended, which was the original intent. It makes us less secure. How many times a day is someone killed with a handgun? How many times a day is someone killed in an act of war on our soil?
“The Well-Regulated stuff is in terms of arming the individual populace so that when they are called up by the state into the state militia they are ready to fight.“
When was the last time members of the individual populace were called upon by the state into the state militia to fight? How long as it been since militias were anything but the refuge of right wing wack jobs?
Logic says that if the purpose of allowing citizens to bear arms was so that they could be called up at a moment’s notice to fight in a state militia, and if those state militias no longer exist and therefore citizens are no longer liable to be called up at a moment’s notice, then the whole purpose of the amendment is moot. It seems to me that now that the purpose of the amendment is moot, then the amendment itself is moot, and should not be repurposed to suit the gun-toting crowd.
you may have a J.D., well so does Samuel Alito – means nothing imo
I’m not trying to appeal to credentialism with the statement. Merely that I have been trained in the law and I have had access to numerous resources to read what others thing on the law.
Since we have a common law system, what judges think of the law is what it actually means, like it or not.
yes, I was responding to implied credentialism – there are many credentialed opinions, conflicting with each often. I didn’t realize this was completely settled already.
Probably just another tax protester.
How is that situations like this are not akin to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater? If there are reasonable limitations on speech, then how is it that we are still arguing over reasonable limitations on gun ownership? Why do politicians cower at full out PR assaults by the NRA?
I know that perhaps in this situation, even a reasonable limitation might not have prevented this tragedy, but what kind of society doesn’t even want to have a civil conversation about it?
A crazy one.
Geography (4.00 / 2)
And from a Vancouver resident, a lesson in geography (from the LA Times).
“If you`re seeing mountains, you`re facing North.
If your feet are wet, you`re in the ocean… that`s West
If you`ve just had your car stolen, you`re in Surrey, to the East.
But if you see people without healthcare & waving handguns…
you`re in the States.”