Largest School Shooting in American History

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
You're right, there is precedence in the fact that the right guarantees the ability to bear arms for the state against the country, as well outside forces. But in Lambert's version of it, there's a comma between militia and being, making the second clause more pronounced, and changing the "right" drastically.

Proclaiming only the second clause whenever the argument of whether gun retail and trade should be more tightly regulated is somewhat fallacious.

Also I've yet to receive any real input into my query from anyone. What exactly is the appeal of defending a "right to bear arms", and for that matter what exactly is the appeal of bearing arms?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm aware of the comma contraversies, but if anything that only further serves to make this statement ambiguous.

Proclaiming only the second clause whenever the argument of whether gun retail and trade should be more tightly regulated is somewhat fallacious.

Also I've yet to receive any real input into my query from anyone. What exactly is the appeal of defending a "right to bear arms", and for that matter what exactly is the appeal of bearing arms?

no one wants a gun to harm an innocent person, but to defend themselves from people who will make you into a victim, you want defense from those who don't care about your life or the life of those you love. same with asking "why drive defensively" b/c some people can care less about your life, while driving fast and almost swipping your car, what do they care? so, you have to think in terms of defensive driving for YOU and the cars around you, you have to play parent to some drivers who are not paying attention or who are out to hurt people. why defend yourself against anything? why defend your body against a virus or bateria, b/c you want to live and that entity doesn't care about your life. we have people who do not have love or care for others, we aren't in eutopia, not yet.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm aware of the comma contraversies, but if anything that only further serves to make this statement ambiguous.

Proclaiming only the second clause whenever the argument of whether gun retail and trade should be more tightly regulated is somewhat fallacious.

Also I've yet to receive any real input into my query from anyone. What exactly is the appeal of defending a "right to bear arms", and for that matter what exactly is the appeal of bearing arms?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Also I've yet to receive any real input into my query from anyone. What exactly is the appeal of defending a "right to bear arms", and for that matter what exactly is the appeal of bearing arms?

Although bear arms would be magnificent.

Originally posted by StyleTime
Although bear arms would be magnificent.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Honestly? I'm not into Constitutional law, in fact I hate it, so I would never, ever be a legal advocate for it. But as a "layman" the appeal of defending it is for that time when, how ever slim it is, you actually need that weapon to defend not only yourself, but your family. I'm all for gun control, no doubt about that. What I'm against is complete and utter (to whatever degree possible) abolishment of "arms".

Also bear-arms would indeed be magnificent.

About 2 pages of heart felt comments about the tragedy, and 15 pages of babling about the pros and cons of guns. My thoughts and prayers go out to the friends and family of the 32.

I noticed there isn't much talk (if any talk) about how poorly the school handled the situation. The administration completely ignored the 1st shootings and resumed classes, and didn't even notify students of the 1st shootings until two hours later, and the second shootings had begun. And the notification was through an email. Is it me, or am I the only one who finds this ****ed up?

Do you really think they care about your thoughts and prayers?

Originally posted by wuTa
About 2 pages of heart felt comments about the tragedy, and 15 pages of babbling about the pros and cons of guns. My thoughts and prayers go out to the friends and family of the 32.

I noticed there isn't much talk (if any talk) about how poorly the school handled the situation. The administration completely ignored the 1st shootings and resumed classes, and didn't even notify students of the 1st shootings until two hours later, and the second shootings had begun. And the notification was through an email. Is it me, or am I the only one who finds this ****ed up?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Could someone please explain to me the need to defend the "right to bear arms" as if it's an actual fundamental human right. Especially considering that the manner in which it's framed (i.e. "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."😉 doesn't unambiguously translate into an individual right to own a gun anyway.

And if I call it a silly "right", which I believe it to be, I somehow am affronting the American populace.

No your sounding rational, and it's nice to hear. The right to bear arms is a colonial relic.

You probably can't really evacuate 26,000 students plus faculty from not only the buildings but the premises entirely, within 2 hours anyway.

Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Wouldn't it? Like two giant polar bear arms?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Also bear-arms would indeed be magnificent.

It's the one true way to have your cake and eat it too.

Originally posted by wuTa
About 2 pages of heart felt comments about the tragedy, and 15 pages of babling about the pros and cons of guns.

xmarksthespot, what do you feel about the two "appeals" I mentioned? I am on the verge of understanding(if that's even possible. I guess I'd have to be on the verge of accepting?) the rationale behind the defense of oneself, but that doesn't justify such loose legislation regarding guns in my opinion.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You probably can't really evacuate 26,000 students plus faculty from not only the buildings but the premises entirely, within 2 hours anyway.

No but they could've probably locked down the other building.

And we don't need Gun control, all that does is prevent the people who have already committed a crime from getting one. It doesn't prevent the ones who buy one to commit thier first crime. We need Gun abolishment both here and in the US.

The "appeal" that one desires the firearm as a precaution against the possibility of assault with a firearm? It's a little bit circular. The accessibility to firearms is needed as a contingency due to danger posed by the accessibility to firearms. Although I can empathise somewhat.

The desire to build a collection of firearms I don't get.

The desire to have anything to do with Guns at all is something I don't get period.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Do you really think they care about your thoughts and prayers?

If there in them, yea, thats kinda the point, but hopefully by mentioning the word prayer, this doesn't turn 15 pages of religious babbling.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You probably can't really evacuate 26,000 students plus faculty from not only the buildings but the premises entirely, within 2 hours anyway.

No, but you can warn them a lunatic is on the loose, and have them take precautions against that lunatic while the authorities take over the situation.

QUOTE=8772805]Originally posted by StyleTime
Well, someone's pissed because he doesn't have bear arms.
[/QUOTE]

That doesn't make sense, my post had to do with the frustration of reading 15 pages of babling about gun control, not to do with anything about me bearing arms. I left my opionion about gun control out of the discussion to aviod further babbling, of course I was naive in thinking such a thing.

Yeah. nevermind the fact that if he didn't have access to guns this might never have occured.

The actions of one person should not dictate the laws the rest of the citizens of a country and bound to follow.

The same goes for one man speaking for a race of people - how sensible is it to think he is speaking for EVERY single person of that race?

This was a terrible tragedy. I hate to see how this played out. The ignorance of the staff is inexcusable and lead to even more lives being taken. I fear it was simply to keep the level of publicity down. Sad.

Extentialist always say shit like this is possible. I am just dissapointed to see it happen. Outside of reason and any respect of life.

We all need to give that next mother****er who we see all ****ed up about life a hug.

As people, we are capable of anything.

No, but an astronomical Gun death rate as well as the multiple shootings that have happened in the last 50 years should. As well as the earlier evidence of how coutries in eurpope what outlaw guns completely not only have fewer gun deaths but fewer deaths all around.

Originally posted by Eclipso
No, but an astronomical Gun death rate as well as the multiple shootings that have happened in the last 50 years should. As well as the earlier evidence of how coutries in eurpope what outlaw guns completely not only have fewer gun deaths but fewer deaths all around.

This trend of this last 50 years is not a good statistic since this is not some accident. For example, guns suddenly ending up in black neighborhoods in the 70s is no coincidence. But that's another subject altogether.