school in Connecticut

[onoway]

Sorry, this may be far too simplistic but I have no idea why America have something close to 300,000,000 firearms registered (and how many countless more unregistered) if the majority of those are not for self defense. If you are using the gun for recreation, shooting at a firing range, there is no need to own one. Better trained in the risks invloved? I am sure you don't mean educating people that in the wrong hands, guns kill people but I don't know what you mean. With 300,000,000+ firearms in the country I'd say it's going to be a fairly simple exercise to get access to one...or several, no matter what sort of controls are in place.

 

A lot of people are rabid about the right to bear arms as much because they don't trust the government as for protection against bad guys. If you read the survival blogs that is very very clear and likely there are way more people who privately agree. You're never going to get guns away from fearful people.

[nigel_k]

Lots of crap being talked about this, as you would expect given the subject matter.

 

There is really no such thing as an 'assault weapon'. Terms like 'military style' or 'assault weapon' are just rhetorical devices used to provoke an emotional rather than reasoned response.

 

There are automatic weapons that fire multiple rounds when the trigger is held down, semi-automatic weapons that fire one round per trigger pull, and weapons that require a manual reload after every shot. Those are the relevant distinctions. The gun used in this case was semi-automatic. It is doubtful it would have even been covered under the 'assault weapons' ban that expired in 2004.

 

Whether for self-defence or hunting, a semi-automatic is what you want. In a self-defence situation, if the first shot doesn't do it, there won't be another chance. A bolt action is ok for deer hunting but not if charged by a pig.

 

So a ban on semi-automatics would heavily impact normal use of a gun and is certainly unconstitutional. A ban on certain types of semi-automatics (which is what is usually contained in a ban on 'assault weapons') leaves other equally deadly types available. The previous ban was based more on what the gun looked like than its function. I kid you not. A typical police-issue 15 round Glock 9mm would have been at least as deadly at close range against small children.

 

I definitely agree with smaller and non-detachable magazines. Lanza had extra guns with him that he didn't use at all, but if he had to discard each gun or refill the magazine after every six shots, I expect he would have killed fewer people (but still a lot). Though he might have just brought more guns. And the guns already out there won't disappear because Congress writes something on paper and votes for it.

 

To be honest, the only simple and practical step that would likely have made a difference in these school shootings would be a group of teachers having access to guns and knowing how to use them.

 

As far as 'root causes', of course mass murderers will have previous odd behaviour. I would hate for every kid who seems a bit wierd to be regarded as a potential murderer, but that will happen now because the public are not going to let a logical fallacy put them off. Nor do I blame video games. There have always been violent pastimes, going back to war comics or cowboys and indians. People who want to do something bad will often look for a pretext or role model and can generally find one. And there have been guns in homes for a long time as well. I think the most relevant changes in the last 20-30 years are probably to do with the amount of time parents spend with their kids, and the standards of behaviour that parents set and enforce.

[billw55]

It is a hard debate in a hard situation.

 

I think it is fair to conclude that much tougher gun ownership laws would reduce, but not eliminate, mass shootings. Any reduction means lives saved. In this actual case, the guy used weapons owned by his mother, probably legally. If she was a law abiding citizen, and if the law banned her owning these weapons, she may not have had them, and it is at least possible that the shooter would not have obtained them.

 

Then again, guns can be obtained illegally, and there are so many out there. And there are other methods. OK, knives maybe not as effective, but consider Oklahoma City for example.

 

Also we must consider the negative effects of a gun ban (or partial ban). I would love to get some objective, reliable data on the frequency of successful self-defense using a handgun. Does it happen a lot? Or not so much? Warding off a crime by displaying a gun won't make national news so it may be harder to track. We know Kenberg's childhood story, and I also personally know people who have used guns in self defense. Is this too anecdotal? There are so many unanswered questions.

 

Does there come a point when we consider having an armed police officer in every school? The guy in Connecticut apparently got spooked the moment responders showed up, and moved quickly to wrap things up. Perhaps he would fear to approach at all if an officer was present. Or maybe he would just escalate the attack?

 

Or perhaps if he fears law enforcement (and is cowardly enough to shoot children), then he would also fear to meet with an illegal weapon dealer - in which case we are back to bans being effective.

 

It's all too complicated for me. I guess I will just be sad.

[Zelandakh]

The "right to bear arms" is not the same as the "right to carry miltary weapons". There is a difference between a hunting rifle and a semi-automatic. As far as I can tell noone is calling for the right to carry shoulder-launched mini-nuke rockets, so even the NRA apparently understands that there is some line here. Personally, I cannot see any legitimate reason for civilians to be carrying semi-automatics so banning these seems the very least that should be attempted.

 

More than that, I understand that Americans seem to think their constitution is practically holy and all but honestly, the Founding Fathers lived in a completely different age. They believed that America should not have a standing army but that individuals should be the defence force. To that end, of course it was necessary for them to bear arms! This was an effective a safeguard against an attempt by the English to regain control, in addition to being part of their nation concept. So should America disband its military. Of course not. The constitution was out of date so things changed. The same should be possible for gun control.

 

Heck, I doubt very much the Founding Fathers would think very highly of lobby groups for that matter. Why not go with their implied wishes and disband the NRA? Unconstitutional? Impinging on civil liberties? I would say the man responsible for these shooting impinged on a few civil liberties too. That would not have been possible had he not been able to obtain miltary hardware, not in 3 minutes anyway.

[ArtK78]

Has anyone read the Constitution lately? You might be surprised to find what is in the Constitution. Of course, many of the outdated clauses in the Constitution have been changed, but it is hardly a holy document. For example, the Constitution requires that Congress shall meet "at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day." Of course, slavery was not abolished by the Constitution, as the Constitution clearly states:

 

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

 

And, of course, an oldy but a goodie, is the computation of the number of persons for the purpose of representation and taxation:

 

"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

 

By the way, the right to bear arms was not in the original constitution, but in the second amendment to the Constitution. So maybe the founding fathers were not as strongly in favor of arming the populace as many would like you to believe.

 

The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, and ratified on June 21, 1788 (upon ratification of 9 of the 13 states), effective March 4, 1789. The Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10) was adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789, officially proposed by a Joint Resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and ratified by 3/4 of the states on December 15, 1791. So there was a 3 1/2 year lag between the effective date of the Constitution and the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

 

I am not making an argument here that the Constitution should not be respected. Indeed, it is the basic law of the land. But it was not written on stone tablets and handed down from Mt. Sinai by God through Moses. It was created by human beings, and it can be changed as needed.

[onoway]

 

 

As far as 'root causes', of course mass murderers will have previous odd behaviour. I would hate for every kid who seems a bit wierd to be regarded as a potential murderer, but that will happen now because the public are not going to let a logical fallacy put them off. Nor do I blame video games. There have always been violent pastimes, going back to war comics or cowboys and indians. People who want to do something bad will often look for a pretext or role model and can generally find one. And there have been guns in homes for a long time as well. I think the most relevant changes in the last 20-30 years are probably to do with the amount of time parents spend with their kids, and the standards of behaviour that parents set and enforce.

 

There is a WORLD of difference between kids dressing up with cowboy hats and capguns and guns that look so real now that even the police are unsure if they are the real thing or not when confronted with them. One is clearly a fantasy game and the other not so much. There are two problems that spring to mind, one is that fantasy games and videos especially are trying to blur the distinction between fantasy and reality more and more. Children only grow into the understanding of which is "reality" and which not, some may develop this later than most and some may never develop the ability to be really sure.

 

Characters in soap operas get thousands of letters warning them of some twist in the plot which is going to cause their character trouble or that so and so is double crossing them or some such. Letters written by adults who have got so wrapped up in the fantasy they don't remember (or know?) it IS fantasy. This is just one simple example.

 

The other is that way back in the 70's there was a study done with random groups of kids playing a two rooms where everything - all the toys and so forth - was as absolutely identical as possible except for what was playing on the tv in the background (neither playing loudly so as to demand attention.) One had violent programs showing and the other did not. The room with the violent tv program on in the background spawned very different behaviour, much more aggressiveness, aguing and fights.

 

I think it's unfortunate to say the least when adults don't remember that children don't come equipped with the same understanding of the world that adults do and must grow into it. Too many regard kids as just small adults and they aren't. It's asking too much of them and an abandonment of adult responsibility imo. When a child has seen something like 18000 murders on tv and in video games by the time he or she is a teenager, is it really such a wonder that some kids end up thinking that violence and murder is a viable way to deal with problems? As far as that goes, whole governments suffer under the same delusion.

 

For sure people used to have guns but they used to know how to use them, because then they were a tool just as a tire iron is a tool. They did NOT have guns which would spit out a whole bunch of bullets with one press of the trigger, or hollow point bullets which blossom inside the target to make a bigger exit hole than entrance, so a shooter can be really sloppy and still be sure the target is going down. (Admittedly those are now illegal in some places, for whatever that's worth.) There is certainly no question kids understood the difference between their capguns and the rifle in the corner by the door ready to nail a coyote after the chickens. Except for some few, those days are gone.

 

Now guns for most people, including most hunters, guns are a toy, really, just as skiis or jazzed up 4x4 is. They justify guns for hunting but if everything is added up most hunter pay more for their moose meat than it would cost them to buy steak at the butcher shop, as dedicated hunters will often cheerfully admit.

 

To say that a hunter needs an automatic of any sort to hunt is a disgrace, imo. Bow hunters don't have the option of spraying bullets around like room freshener and they manage quite well to bring in the meat. But they have to be close enough and sure enough of what they are shooting and where, unlike hunters who wander the woods shooting cows and horses, occassionally each other or themselves, and sometimes even a vehicle, secure in the knowlege there is always another bullet if that one didn't work.

 

Hunters can use scopes so they can easilly see and shoot something 1000 yards or more away. Some scopes are equipped with infrared so hunters can see/hunt at night. If they STILL think they need more than one bullet then imo they ought not to be allowed to hunt at all because they don't care enough to develop the skill to make sure the first one is a killing shot.

[Phil]

 

A bolt action is ok for deer hunting but not if charged by a pig.

 

 

Jeez I don't know. If you want to call hunting a sport instead of simply killing defenseless animals, the ability to reload while getting charged by a 200 lb boar would certainly help.

[mikeh]

As an outsider, who grew up in a country and time when ordinary police officers didn't have a gun and weren't trained to use one, and criminals very rarely had firearms, the American gun obsession seems truly weird.

 

Having said that, I see zero prospect for any short-term legislative solution. I think what needs to happen is not so much a change in the law (altho some changes would seem to be required) but, rather, a change in societal attitudes.

 

50 years ago, smoking tobacco was so normal that movie and television actors did it routinely on screen. Drinking was so normal that people often had alcohol over lunch and went back to work. Driving drunk was illegal but carried few social consequences.

 

When I started practice as a lawyer, in the mid 1970's, I had an ashtray on my desk and it was normal for clients to light up, even tho I have never smoked in my life. Old-timers like me will remember the smell of tobacco smoke that impregnated our clothing after each session of duplicate.

 

The early complainers about smoking, and the anti-alcohol groups were regarded as fringe nutters.

 

But as time went by, and as the laws re smoking changed, and as government-mandated advertising rules and packaging rules expanded, smoking has become a behaviour that is tolerated rather than seen as appropriate or desirable. In a similar way, stiffer laws against driving while impaired, and a reduction of drinking in television or even movies has contributed to a societal shift.

 

In my firm, I'd guess that we have maybe one partner who will have a drink at lunch maybe 5 or 6 times a year and the rest of us, maybe once or twice, or not at all. 35 years ago, it was routine to have a couple of pints of beer at lunch on Fridays and not unknown to have a drink or two on other days...and all the lawyers would meet at 5:30 on Friday and drink scotch before driving home.

 

These changes didn't happen over night and not every member of society has bought into these changed values, but the great majority have, at least in this part of the world.

 

I go into this at some length because it seems to me that the current debate in the US needs to shift from a discussion about 'freedom' on the one hand, and 'immediate gun control' laws on the other. It seems to me that the gun-control side needs to shift focus.

 

Yes, bans or restrictions on some types guns designed to kill people, rather than hunting or other 'legitimate' uses can and maybe should be implemented, but such laws won't be effective until and unless there is a long, slow, but steady education campaign to make the purchase and ownership of people-killing weapons seen as socially unacceptable.

 

In addition, the gun control side has to recognize that regulating or rendering the ownership of some types of guns socially undesirable, won't eliminate the sort of tragedy that happened in Connecticut. Overreaching with this sort of argument opens the door to the obvious response of the gun-lovers to point to other countries where mass killings have happened despite tough gun control.

 

No gun control, and no forseeable social bias against guns, will eliminate all prospects of mass shootings. That may be the wish but cannnot form the justification for gun control, since it seems likely to be unattainable.

 

So my suggestion is that the gun control people positively endorse the use and ownership of certain types of firearms while lobbying to create a social atmosphere that draws a very clear distinction between those (shotguns, bolt-action hunting rifles, etc) and the ones typically used in mass killings (semi-automatics, handguns especially with speed reloaders or high-capacity magazines).

 

You can't change societal attitudes merely by passing laws: at least, not in the short term.

[mr1303]

I'm not really sure how a rise in atheism can be blamed for things like this. Do not murder tends to be against most atheists' moral code as well...

[kenberg]

I'm not really sure how a rise in atheism can be blamed for things like this. Do not murder tends to be against most atheists' moral code as well...

 

We have priests to help people on death row. I wouldn't imagine an atheist wanting one.

[dwar0123]

We have priests to help people on death row. I wouldn't imagine an atheist wanting one.

Ok? With regards to atheists having a personal moral code that is just as violated by these mass murders as it is for anyone from a religious background, I don't see your point. Can you elaborate?

[kenberg]

 

 

I go into this at some length because it seems to me that the current debate in the US needs to shift from a discussion about 'freedom' on the one hand, and 'immediate gun control' laws on the other. It seems to me that the gun-control side needs to shift focus.

 

Yes, bans or restrictions on some types guns designed to kill people, rather than hunting or other 'legitimate' uses can and maybe should be implemented, but such laws won't be effective until and unless there is a long, slow, but steady education campaign to make the purchase and ownership of people-killing weapons seen as socially unacceptable.

 

In addition, the gun control side has to recognize that regulating or rendering the ownership of some types of guns socially undesirable, won't eliminate the sort of tragedy that happened in Connecticut. Overreaching with this sort of argument opens the door to the obvious response of the gun-lovers to point to other countries where mass killings have happened despite tough gun control.

 

....

 

You can't change societal attitudes merely by passing laws: at least, not in the short term.

 

This very much matches my own views. Laws reflect our social values. Laws on gay marriage, for example, are changing because social views of homosexuality are changing. I don't so much want to tall someone he can't have a gun, it's more that I want him to think in what I believe to be a more productive way. Guns are designed to kill. The world being what it is, this may sometimes be necessary. But we should try very, very hard to minimize the times when it is necessary.

 

I hunted when I was young. I went to a somewhat (not awful, but somewhat) rough high school. It absolutely never crossed my mind that my shotgun would be a tool for solving problems at school. I believe there are a regrettable number of people out there who just are not thinking right.

[billw55]

Jeez I don't know. If you want to call hunting a sport instead of simply killing defenseless animals, the ability to reload while getting charged by a 200 lb boar would certainly help.

I'm not sure I would call a charging 200 lb boar defenseless. Although, nowadays the whole encounter is usually the hunter's option.

[mike777]

"...The early complainers about smoking, and the anti-alcohol groups were regarded as fringe nutters.

 

But as time went by, and as the laws re smoking changed, and as government-mandated advertising rules and packaging rules expanded, smoking has become a behaviour that is tolerated rather than seen as appropriate or desirable. In a similar way, stiffer laws against driving while impaired, and a reduction of drinking in television or even movies has contributed to a societal shift.

 

In my firm, I'd guess that we have maybe one partner who will have a drink at lunch maybe 5 or 6 times a year and the rest of us, maybe once or twice, or not at all. 35 years ago, it was routine to have a couple of pints of beer at lunch on Fridays and not unknown to have a drink or two on other days...and all the lawyers would meet at 5:30 on Friday and drink scotch before driving home.

 

These changes didn't happen over night and not every member of society has bought into these changed values, but the great majority have, at least in this part of the world......"

 

------

 

 

I not so sure our values have changed as much as the general public has come to understand the risks with smoking or drinking and driving better.

 

I mean as far as smoking one might say the risk from smoking is equal or greater than all of the benefits generated by medical science in the past 50 years. That is risky!

 

As far as semi-automatic weapons my guess is the risk is viewed by the public as equal too or less than the risk of drinking and driving in the year 1950 or so.

 

I say this with the headline/story in my local paper today...

cop in cop car hit drunk driver

second cop insecond cop car hit by second drunk driver, same night, same spot a bit later

third cop in yes third cop car hit by third drunk driver, same night, same spot still a bit later

 

 

Perhaps a good first step is more real science on the risks posed by semis and more education of those results to the public.

[mikeh]

Not sure if you meant this with more crazies, but just increasing the population will get more cases of almost anything, overpopulation gets also another effect.

 

Oh, and increasing atheism is not helping also IMO. Religion is a good last resort against things like this.

The irony is incredible.

 

I know you are young and I assume that you were indoctrinated in religious ideas at an age when you possessed no ability to think for yourself, and have chosen not to try as you grew up, but this is the most appallingly stupid post I have read in a long time.

 

If you add up the number of people killed each year on account of religious differences, the number will almost certainly exceed just about every other single source of violent death, with the possible exception of the automobile.

 

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is inherently religious.

 

The civil war in Syria is inherently religious (the ruling party comes from a small splinter islamic sect). The internal disputes in Iraq, and arguably the earlier internal atrocities by the old regime, are at their root about a schism in islam.

 

The conflict in Afghanistan is about religion. The conflict in Northern ireland, now apparently in remission, has its roots in religion.

 

The wars that swept Europe after the reformation were largely religious, as were the Crusades.

 

The million+ deaths in India and Pakistan in 1949-50 were based on religion.

 

The ethnic cleansing in the Balkans in the 1990s were based on religion.

 

Even in situations in which those in power may have been motivated by more secular motives, such as power or wealth, those who try to motivate the foot-soldiers almost invariably use religion as their primary tool.

 

I could go on.

 

But even moving to the specifics of the mass shootings, we frequently find that the shooter either was a church-goer or came from a religious background. I think it too early to know if this was the case in Connecticut, tho there is some suggestion in the media that his mother was a 'doomsday prepper' and most of those appear to base their belief in impending societal collapse on the fundie Xian bullshit about the end of days. That doesn't mean that I blame religion for this event. We don't know enough about the motivations of people like this, but some degree of mental illness is certainly common.

 

I am an atheist. It seems clear to me that humanity creates all of its innumerable gods in our own image. We are a species capable of great cruelty and inhumanity, as well as of great compassion and altruism, and so our gods reflect both aspects of ourselves. Claiming that there really is a god, and that you happen to have chosen the only real one, no doubt gives you, and all such believers, a nice feeling of moral superiority, while allowing you not to have to think about what is really going on. Clearly, in your view, these horrible events are a consequence of not believing, as you do, in a particular variant of an imaginary being.

 

You can take your insufferable and arrogant religious certainty and put it where the sun don't shine. You have zero business blaming this sort of outrage on atheism.

[kenberg]

 

I think it's unfortunate to say the least when adults don't remember that children don't come equipped with the same understanding of the world that adults do and must grow into it. Too many regard kids as just small adults and they aren't. It's asking too much of them and an abandonment of adult responsibility imo. When a child has seen something like 18000 murders on tv and in video games by the time he or she is a teenager, is it really such a wonder that some kids end up thinking that violence and murder is a viable way to deal with problems?

 

 

This saturation effect also seems clear to me. When I was a kid we lined up on Saturdays to see a movie, cartoons, and usually some serial. Don Winslow of the Navy comes to mind. The rest of the time we played with our friends. We now have a three year old grandson who knows how to operate the &*%^*& wii. His older brothers are regularly wiping out monsters and other villains. Yes in the 40s we all once listened to the Lone Ranger. And the Green Hornet and his faithful servant Kato. But mostly we played. With other humans. A better way to grow up, I think.

[mikeh]

We have priests to help people on death row. I wouldn't imagine an atheist wanting one.

I've sometimes wondered about the thinking process of religious believers in that sort of situation.

 

I appreciate that each sect has its own unique interpretation of doctrine, even within an umbrella such as Islam or Christianity and I don't pretend to know about the particulars of many of them.

 

However, I was raised Catholic, and exposed to Anglican, and have done some reading. I gather that at least some Xian sects are of the view that their god will forgive just about every imaginable sin provided that the sinner truly repents and seeks forgiveness.

 

The same sects often assert that their beliefs give rise to morality, and that atheists, a common foe to all believers, lack a moral sense. And it is that moral sense that prevents murder and other horrible acts.

 

It prevents it because the murderer will be punished in the afterlife. But.....hold the phone....that's not true after all! All the murderer has to do is to later feel sorry for killing someone.

 

And the priests on death row have to be selling this redemption. I can't see them being popular if all they do is to tell the condemned person that he or she will face an eternity of damnation...no.... they are there selling pious bullshit to people in such distress that they will believe almost anything. Such priests may consider themselves to be doing god's work, but I see them as ghouls and, no, I wouldn't want such a sorry excuse for a human being anywhere near me if I were on death row or death's doorstep.

[mike777]

Disbelieving something is really hard, cognitively speaking. We humans are naturally gullible and it takes a tremendous expenditure of energy to go about disbelieving stuff. It is a limited resource in a sense.

 

If the general public believes the second amendment is a good thing, then people weigh

how much it affects their own life and just how much energy they should expend on that issue compared to other important issues in their life.

 

Likewise if you believe guns or semiautomatics should be banned it is going to take alot of energy on your part to disbelieve or even try too.

[dwar0123]

Disbelieving something is really hard, cognitively speaking. We humans are naturally gullible and it takes a tremendous expenditure of energy to go about disbelieving stuff. It is a limited resource in a sense.

I find it pretty easy to disbelieve most everything you say.

 

Including this.

 

:D

[Cyberyeti]

We have priests to help people on death row. I wouldn't imagine an atheist wanting one.

Why not ?

 

The fact that the priest and atheist don't believe in the same thing wouldn't mean that an atheist wouldn't want somebody to talk through what was about to happen with somebody used to acting as confidant and counsellor.

 

Priests have the same profile as the rest of us, there are good ones and bad ones at all levels. In the UK (and I believe even more so in Ireland) we are going through a spate of legal cases where priests are implicated in child abuse at religious children's homes, and the church hierarchy are in the dock for when they're told about it, simply moving the offending priest on somewhere else to abuse more kids.

 

Religion is good, atheism (or religion that is not my religion) is bad is an outdated attitude. Organised religion has been a source of evil as well as good for a long time, look back at the crusade against the Cathars, the pope of the time declared that anything taken from them was the property of the crusaders, causing a load of people to do his dirty work for him.

 

IMO a personal code of ethics (whether founded in religion or not) is in general a good thing, organised religion can be either good or bad.

[mike777]

I find it pretty easy to disbelieve most everything you say.

 

Including this.

 

:D

 

 

:)

 

Case in point, you have your beliefs.

[blackshoe]

Of course, slavery was not abolished by the Constitution, as the Constitution clearly states:

 

"No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due."

If you're going to read the Constitution, read all of it. The Constitution includes the twenty seven amendments that have been made to it since 1787. One of those amendments, the thirteenth, abolished slavery:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

So while it is true that the original Constitution did not abolish slavery, the current state of the document is that slavery was abolished in 1865, when the Thirteenth Amendment went into effect.

[dwar0123]

The 2nd amendment.

 

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

 

Nowhere does it specifically grant individuals the right to bear arms, That was an interpretation by the Supreme court.

 

If societal needs changes, the Supreme court is free to reinterpret. This won't be easy, as precedent weighs heavily upon the judicial system, but far easier then repealing the 2nd amendment.

[billw55]

Wow, I've heard people rant against religion before, but mikeh you sound kinda angry.

[dwar0123]

Wow, I've heard people rant against religion before, but mikeh you sound kinda angry.

Saying atheists are more apt to commit mass murder due to their lack of a moral code tends to piss atheists off.

 

Would piss off any group so singled out.