Still filled with rage, he sees the gay couple across the street holding hands and laughing on their way home. He grabs a 2-by-4 from a nearby dumpster and crosses the street and confronts the couiple, swinging the piece of wood and yelling hateful slurs.
 
There is going to be violence.
 
Who would you prefer to see on the receiving end?
 
Bruce MacMahon on December 30, 2012 at 9:12 PM

 
Vigorous tackling is clearly the answer, you
racist
homophobe
misogynist
gun nut.

Hammie on December 30, 2012 at 10:42 PM

That was one of the “facts” that the MSM screwed up in their hurry to get out a story. He did all the shooting with the Bushmaster, evidently, except for the bullet with which he took his own life. There was a shotgun left in the car.

… Coroner’s finding that all the victims in the school were killed by high-powered rifle…
Hammie on December 30, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Medical Examiner, H. Wayne Carver II.

Baerwulf on December 30, 2012 at 10:38 PM

I agree. If there does in fact need to be more constructive gun controls (not knee-jerk reactions), then all must cometo the table and discuss openly about why and why not. Stop the name-calling; stop the blame game. Get it all out in the open.

First thing that needs to be conveyed to those wanting all guns off the street except for the police need to understand that will not work. If that became law, maybe 50% of the known guns would go away in a very short time, but these are not the guns were/are in the hands of those committing all the gun crimes in America. The criminals have them now and they will not give them up.

Second, they need to have the supreme court justices explain to them one more time (because they obviously cannot read well enough to read a SCOTUS decision) about how the police DO NOT have any obligation to protect citizens from crime. Their duty is to investigate those crimes after they occur (and the “gun control law-”abiding” citizen is dead).

As I understand it, the Bushmaster rifle was never used in the Newtown shooting. It was in the shooter’s vehicle, but not used in the school.

That doesn’t explain the Coroner’s finding that all the victims in the school were killed by high-powered rifle rounds to the head.

I heard the same thing. The police reported the rifle was not used in the shootings in the school because it was still in the car. And, then, the coroner came out with his report. Who’s lying? And is it due to political expediency? Hmmmmm?

We all know that the godfather (who owns at least 500 deaths in Chicago – this year) instilled in the ‘ONE’ that he should never let a crisis go to waste.

Suppose that X legally purchased and registered an AR-15 and keeps it properly secured. Suppose that Y legally purchased and registered an AR-15, but doesn’t keep it properly secured. Suppose that Z steals Y’s AR-15 and goes on a killing spree.

Please explain why X should lose his or her right to own an AR-15 due to Y’s carelessness and Z’s psychotic and criminal behavior. What is the moral principle by which one person loses a right because another person abuses that right or ignores it altogether?

Put a bit more technically, all policy arguments, being normative, require that a moral principle be conjoined to the facts in order to be logically valid. What is that principle in regards to gun control? What is a logically valid argument for gun control? I don’t doubt that such arguments exist, but gun control advocates never make them. If we want to have a rational conversation about guns, we have to go beyond appeals to emotion.

As I understand it, the Bushmaster rifle was never used in the Newtown shooting. It was in the shooter’s vehicle, but not used in the school.

The point here is anti-gun advocates are waving around the Newtown shooting as an example of why guns need to be banned while ignoring the facts. Instead, the media is content with making up their own to fit the same tired and old narrative that the left has been pushing.

The liberals in this country want nothing more than for the American majority to admit the 2nd Amendment is antiquated. Why? Because if you can outlaw one part of the Constitution for being antiquated, then you can do it to every part.

Does anyone think your Freedom of Speech can be protected under such logic? The Founding Fathers could never anticipate the invention of the internet and the power of a single person being able to communicate to the entire world. Clearly, your ability to speak freely on the internet is too powerful and must be suppressed.

See how easy it is? Doesn’t take much to make an argument that a Harvard Law student would be nodding their head to.

I’ve had liberals tell me that the efforts of Democrats are to make America live up to its ideals and to make it “more American.” With people like this, how can any reasoning take place?

Donald Draper on December 30, 2012 at 8:47 PM

I agree with those Democrats if, by “more American”, you mean “more like a communist dictatorship”.