4 firefighters shot, 2 dead, after responding to blaze

[Ban Hammer 12,903]

Well, if that someone was prohibited by law from having firearms, then I would think that a lawful owner of firearms that the person shares a residence with should make damn sure that no access to these firearms is possible. The "responsible gun owner" failed miserably on that end and 20 children didn't make it past their 6th and 7th birthdays and 6 educators were snuffed out because of that lawful gun owner who fell short in her responsibility. The legal term I would apply is accessory to a mass homicide.

failed miserably how? so far, i don't know exactly what measures were taken by the owner nor how they were circumvented. the legal term that comes to mind here is kangaroo court when not all the facts are known.

[Dakine10 5,452]

If an ex felon wants their gun rights back they can go to court. As far as teenagers having access to guns...; a lot of us had several guns before we turned age 13. Age 18 to join the military.

So what? That was not the intent of the second amendment. The founding fathers weren't stupid.

[Ban Hammer 12,903]

That means these firearms were less secure than they needed to be, doesn't it? As for the 11 year old kid in Utah - what part of parents bearing responsibility for the actions of their children is so hard to understand? What is it with right wingers talking a good game on personal responsibility but always declining to ever take any? Walk the talk.

define secure. perhaps the kid had a plasma torch. are we gonna outlaw those and mandate gun safes?

Unfortunately that part seems to be conveniently forgotten in the discussion. There was never an intent for ex-felons, teenagers, and people with mental health issues to have access to firearms. There was never an intent for people to own guns without knowing how to use them, or leave them lying around carelessly for anyone to pick up and use.

don't bet on that in bold. it wasn't unusual for teenagers to take part in battles back then.

[Dakine10 5,452]

define secure. perhaps the kid had a plasma torch. are we gonna outlaw those and mandate gun safes?

don't bet on that in bold. it wasn't unusual for teenagers to take part in battles back then.

The age limit to join the militia was 16, which was considered the age of majority at the time. I probably should have used the term adolescent instead of teenager. In other words the right was specifically intended to apply to adults.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

define secure. perhaps the kid had a plasma torch.

Well, maybe aliens came down and helped him. It's about as likely.

failed miserably how?

The sicko got his hands on those guns and killed a lot of people including 20 little kids, didn't he? That's how.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Well, maybe aliens came down and helped him. It's about as likely.

The sicko got his hands on those guns and killed a lot of people including 20 little kids, didn't he? That's how.

OMG

[spookyturtle 9,465]

What can be realistically done to help keep guns out of psychos hands without infringing upon Second Amendment rights? As I have stated previously, something has changed in the last 20 years or so to account for the number of mass shootings. Guns are harder to get today than they were in the past, yet the mass shootings have increased. There surely is another part of this equation.

The Second Amendment isn't going away. We need to work within it to come up with some better answers from here on in.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

OMG

What's that? The next step on your evolutionary ladder? After "Ugh" came "This" and now it's "OMG"?

[james&olya 1,121]

It's none of anyone's damn business if I am or am not stockpiling ammo.

Again, for the constitutionally challenged, the intent of the second amendment is to protect the people from government. Under that idea, the government has zero reason to know who's packing what and who isn't.

You have it wrong. The intent was to protect the states, not individuals, from the federal government. The amendment itself contains the words "well regulated militia" in its reference to the reason for guns. These exist now in the form of our state National Guard forces. There is ample basis for the state governments to be able to pass constitutionally sound laws requiring an accounting for every weapon and round of ammunition held by each of its residents! That is what our federal standing army does, the one our state militias will theoretically be battling when that conflict materializes that the 2nd amendment drafters were thinking of!

[james&olya 1,121]

you know that whole 'right to bear arms' part.

If you want to be technical, go to an armory. Anything and everything in that armory is protected under the constitution for individuals to have and to carry. Including RPGs, Hand Grenades, Smoke, Flashbangs, etc...

And under the constitution the individuals doing that having and carrying are to be WELL REGULATED!!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

You have it wrong. The intent was to protect the states, not individuals, from the federal government. The amendment itself contains the words "well regulated militia" in its reference to the reason for guns. These exist now in the form of our state National Guard forces. There is ample basis for the state governments to be able to pass constitutionally sound laws requiring an accounting for every weapon and round of ammunition held by each of its residents! That is what our federal standing army does, the one our state militias will theoretically be battling when that conflict materializes that the 2nd amendment drafters were thinking of!

The national guard was created by congress, is equipped with federal gear, often uses federal property etc. By definition it can not meet the definition of a militia. This is of course all irrelevant anyway given SCOTUS rulings.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

The national guard was created by congress, is equipped with federal gear, often uses federal property etc. By definition it can not meet the definition of a militia. This is of course all irrelevant anyway given SCOTUS rulings.

[james&olya 1,121]

The national guard was created by congress, is equipped with federal gear, often uses federal property etc. By definition it can not meet the definition of a militia. This is of course all irrelevant anyway given SCOTUS rulings.

Whose definition of 'militia' is controlling? It is the closest we have to what was apparently the founders intent. The federal government has far more influence on virtually everything than was originally envisioned. There is, though, at least an element of state-control and the part-time 'citizen-soldier' aspect of service in the guard. That was a big part of the reality of state militias at that time.

So if you really want to stick with the founders intent, you should have to connect somehow the possession of private weapons with service in and regulation by state-authorized militia units. Of course, you might want to think that the 2nd amendment, like the rest of the constitution, needs to grow and adapt to changing times and circumstances! But that starts to sound a bit too liberal for most folks on here!

[DaveE 178]

There was a fairly prominent Democrat who had a somewhat differing opinion>

"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia', the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms', our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

-Senator John F. Kennedy, April 1960

"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

-John F. Kennedy

[Teddy B 17,251]

What's that? The next step on your evolutionary ladder? After "Ugh" came "This" and now it's "OMG"?

Let's not forget the strategical use of the shiny ball to bring his adversaries to their knees.