Yet despite too many incidents like this, our legislators haven't enough
courage to try to stand up to the insanity of the NRA and other gun nuts to try
to find a good way to stop this kind of insanity.The Second
Amendment does not need to be scrapped. Just find ways to effectively screen
potential gun buyers and to eliminate the "need" for assault weapons and
high capacity magazines.
@one old man"The Second Amendment does not need to be scrapped.
Just find ways to effectively screen potential gun buyers..."Did
you even read the article? It says the shooter STOLE the gun. He didn't
buy it. He STOLE it.
Yes, I read it. But are assault weapons needed by anyone other than the
military? Screening is just one of many things we need to do when it comes to
possession of weapons capable of mass destruction.
Typical liberal reaction. Unless the AR is illegally modified, it is nothing
more than a military looking semi automatic rifle. Do you anti-gun guys want my
Marlin .22 cal also? It's semi automatic. Does it need to be classified
as an "assault weapon"? Bad people do bad things.
Re: ". . . are assault weapons needed by anyone other than the
military?"You wouldn't ask that if you'd ever had
someone shooting at you with an assault rifle with a high capacity magazine.The whole idea behind the Second Amendment is that we should be able to
arm ourselves, at least to the same degree as the bad guys, so we are not left
to the tender mercies of people like this shooter. And, make no mistake --
whatever any deranged, demonic gun-control law may or may not permit, people
like this shooter WILL have serious firepower.There's an
appropriate old saying -- "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight."Or a small handgun, shotgun, or bolt-action rifle -- with a 5-or-so
round capacity fixed magazine -- to protect yourself from a madman assaulting
your home with an AR-15 with a 30-round banana clip.
I agree totally with the notion that we need to be able to defend ourselves.
Why legislate laws so only criminals have the guns. We must be able to defend
ourselves. If someone comes into my home I need to be able to defend myself.
Do I need to repeat myself anymore?
There is a big, big difference between being able to "defend" oneself
and being on the offensive.Paranoia is a powerful form of irrational
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but there is no law against carrying a weapon
as long as it is not concealed; and if one has a concealed weapon permit, then
they have the right to carry a concealed weapon. Am I correct so far?Then why was there no one there at the mall with equal fire power to stop this
guy except the police? And if he person's gun hadn't jammed, how many
more would have been killed. Unless we go back to the wild west days where
everyone is packing, then the argument that we need to be able to arm ourselves
with semi and automatic weapons is ridiculous.
We have by far more guns per-capita than any other nation in the world. It
hasn't made us safer or kept government officials from doing pretty much
anything they want. lesson: 1. Guns don't prevent crime -
people do. 2. Guns don't prevent anarchy - people do.If you are
a gun nut, I guess you can be, but you are just admitting that violence is still
the first way you think of in handling life's problems. It takes a lot more
courage to be like Gandhi or like most of the rest of the people in the country.
You are not a majority.You can buy more guns, my guess is you will
never feel safe. Get some counseling.
Re: ". . . why was there no one there at the mall with equal fire power to
stop this guy except the police?"Because in the People's
Republic of Oregon, as well as various of its municipalities and many private
properties -- probably including this mall, though we're unlikely to hear
it in the state-controlled media -- access to the means necessary to defend
oneself is either tightly controlled or prohibited.Liberals always
invoke the "Wild" West to instill fear of guns. Most of that
"Wild" West of yesteryear was, however, safer than it is today -- at
least in part because people were more likely then to be carrying self-defense
arms.The the credible threat of confrontation with an armed citizen,
willing and able to defend himself, operated then -- as it would today -- as a
deterrent to criminals and crazies.Alas, that threat is no longer
credible, however, and we're seeing the results.
old manwe ought to make a law against stealing weapons from someone. I
think that wll eliminate this problem. Libs love to react to everything with
restrictions, taking away rights and more laws. How about enforcing the ones on
DN-- the title would be more accurate if it read: "Oregon mall shooter used
rifle stolen from someone he knew" rather than as you currently have it,
stolen rifle from someone he knew... I had to read the article to find out if
he (the shooter) stole it, or if he used a rifle from someone he knew who had
stolen it. To the rest of you readers -- the thing that convinced
me that we SHOULD have guns is an article posted in the security office of my
campus that I read a few years back. I can't quote it now, but it was a
VERY good article about how society is actually SAFER when people have guns.
I for one would prefer to have had other people have guns with/on
them if some deranged criminal starts shooting in the mall or movie theater or
park that I'm in. The whole point behind the 2nd amendment is
so that CITIZENS can defend themselves against a rogue government or invasion of
some sort. If the early colonists didn't have their own guns, do you think
we'd have an America today?
I don't understand why patriotic types like proc don't simply suggest
keeping your "serious firepower" locked up until such time as it's
needed to fight off the big, bad government.In the meantime, we
could also combine the Second Amendment with the Nanny state by adopting a
policy of giving "beginner" weapons to 12 year olds. This will keep
employment in the firearms industry high even if peace breaks out. And if local
crime fails to go down, we can restore the "Peaceful West" implied by
proc by giving the adolescents TWO guns apiece. That should solve all our
Re: "And if local crime fails to go down, we can restore the "Peaceful
West" implied by proc by giving the adolescents TWO guns apiece."Might work. Kinda like Switzerland.It's worth a try.
One thing we know does NOT work is gun control.
We'll never know whether "gun control" works here, because we
won't try it. The countries which HAVE, however, have gun crime at a
fraction of ours. All I said was that they should be locked up, and I'm
amazed that anyone could oppose THAT.