Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2012/12/26/liberals-panic-as-they-lose-the-gun-narrative-n1473885

It will kill anything that currently walks this earth and probably some of what is now extinct.

Hmmmmmm. I think that we've been hearing a lot of that from dickless gun nuts like you.

Da consteetwoshun says we can have any firearm we want and it'll be a cold day in hell [the place I want to and deserve to live for all enternity] afore they take ma guns from me.

Someone intent on destruction of property or life will utilise whatever weaponry they have at their disposal.... An articulated lorry driven into a crowd, A tree trunk/boulder on a railtrack, guns, poisons, radioactive material, etc.

It is not the gun that is dangerous, but the mind that utilises it.
There is NO way to prevent these events from occuring. And banning guns is pointless, because the next disturbed perp will apply such with another medium of delivery.

for all enternity?

Didn't that Kennedy use a golf club when he beat that girl to death? No, not the one that used his car.

No idea H20, I am, like 6.7 billion others, completely disinterested in US politics, and/or scandals therein/of.

My point is: Don't blame the vehicle - Blame the driver.
My second point is - You cannot predict these events, so there is fuckall you can do to prevent them.

The alleged "rights" you are trying to read into the 2nd Amendment--unlimited "freedom" for anyone to market, distribute, and possess, any type of weapon--were never there in the first place, and, according to Justice Scalia, such unlimited rights are not there now.

On the other hand, the government's obligation to "insure the general welfare" was an inherent reason for the establishment of the Constitution. And addressing issues of public health and safety, such as those that arise as a result of gun violence, most certainly do fall within the obligation of government to "promote the general welfare". Individual rights most certainly have been limited when they jeopardize or conflict with the general welfare.

See BillRM, you're still failing to acknowledge the problem of gun violence and it's effects on public health safety, and, if you can't see the problem, and it's connection to the proliferation of weapons, and certain types of weapons in particular, especially when coupled with relatively lax controls and regulations, you're hardly in a position to participate in discussions about how to seek solutions.

We keep infectious diseases under control, and protect the general welfare, by mandating vaccinations for children entering school, and all 50 states require certain vaccinations for children entering public schools. Is this an infringement on individual "freedom"? Yes, it is, but it's also a necessary measure to protect both the children and the general population, and most sane people would not regard such governmental regulation and control as the "tyranny of the majority".

You generally show no interest in protecting the general welfare, the public health and safety--you've argued against rape laws, child pornography laws, and drunk driving laws, among others. As a solution to the drunk driving problem, for instance, you've advocated for raising the legal blood alcohol level above .08 because you don't think people are impaired enough at .08 to justify restricting driving at that level--despite all evidence to the contrary. So, your illogical advocacy of more guns, and a direction of less restriction and control, as a solution to our already deplorable problem with gun violence, and its already high toll on public safety and public health, doesn't surprise me one bit. You are consistent in both your disregard of the public welfare, as well as the lack of logic and common sense in your solutions.

With age comes experience, some wisdom and a sense of civic responsibility.

None of these children killed by those you support were more than ten years old.

Good points.

And the gung-ho gun supporters in this thread have devoted considerably more time to discussing guns, various guns, in loving detail, then to any discussion of those children, or what a tragic loss those deaths represent.

If our preoccupation with guns isn't part of the problem we have with gun violence in this country, how come these people can't stop talking about guns?

A so call assault rifles are no more deadly then any other similar rifles and less deadly in fact then large game hunting rifles there is no benefit for banning them as far as public safety in concern.

As far a rape is concern I am for full punishment for real rape not however rape due to regret with claims of invalid consent after the sex.

No rape if a woman jumped into a sleeping man bed and then begin sex with him and no rape when a paralegal adult woman take a newscaster to her office after hours and have sex on her boss desk and then need to explained to her infertile boyfriend how she was in the family way and so on.

Women need to be hold responsible for their own actions and men do not have a duty to act as their guardians in sexual matters.

As you and your likes suggested solution is the banning of one type of rifle of course the discussion on this thread will deal with firearms and in some details why this ban would not be helpful.

You been ask time after time after time to explained how a pistol grip and a suppressor turn one rifle into a more deadly rifle then similar firearms.

Emotions seems to your only fall back position.

You miss the point that we need better regulation and control over all guns in order to address and decrease the gun violence that already affects the public health and safety.

You're still blabbering about guns and not addressing the general issue of public health and safety which is reflected in the gun deaths and injuries that occur every day in this country.

Never ever forget the helpless unarmed victims of this attack and
never forget the armed & evil human being they faced that morning.

The discussion is all about guns because Obama and democrats say
never let a tragedy go to waste. Politics & policy trump unarmed victims.

How can you apply the word 'deadly' to a weapon, if it is not used to kill?
If someone throws you off a cliff - is the cliff 'deadly'?
If someone drowns you in a lake - "Deadly" lake?
If someone suffocates you with an armadillo - deadly armadillo?

No, it is the DRIVER, NOT the vehicle.
IT is illegal to own firearms in the Uk, barring farmers, armed-police and military, but we still have the occasional rampaging nutcase go on a shooting spree.

Then let's try to make sure that another "evil human being" can't get his hands on a gun, particularly one capable of mass slaughter, either in the home, or at a gun show, or from a store--let's have better controls and regulations to try to insure that, and let's better enforce already existing gun laws.

We've had 7 mass shootings in this country this year. That's not "occasional rampaging". The weapons used were indeed deadly.

Guns, and ammunition, are designed to be deadly--that's the main function of a gun.

You Firefly tend to move from one position to another when press and as far as more strict gun laws being of benefit as I had already pointed out there is over 300 millions firearms in the US and between five and ten millions so call assault rifles so no possible laws are going to even slow down criminals from being armed even as such laws can be a pain in the ass for legal gun owners.

When after spending tens of billions every year on the so call war on drugs and fulling the prisons will millions of people involved with the trade I question if most of us in the US could not get into our cars and drive to known areas of towns where we could picked up any common street drug in as fast a manner as going shopping at Walmart.

So most such weapon regulations and laws must beyond what we have now is only going to interfere with law abiding citizens being arm.

And don't the people of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Nicaragua, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Angola, Guatemala, Panama, Grenada, ... know it, FF.

What about napalm, nuclear weapons, carpet bombing, depleted uranium, sarin, ... ?