In response to:

10 Facts for Liberals: Why Gun Control Can't Stop Another Newtown Massacre

coveyrise Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 11:07 AM
So are you proposing single shot firearms only?
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 2:02 PM
the Second Amendment of the Constitution is NOT ABOUT hunting or sporting.
it's about the people retaining the ability to "alter or to abolish" a government gone bad,as written in the Declaration of Independence.
the Founders had just overthrown their own incumbent government (Britain) by FORCE OF ARMS,and recognized that it might have to be done again in the future,thus the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment protecting the People's right to keep and bear arms.
The American Revolution BEGAN when the Brits moved to confiscate arms at Concord.
the people (in militia) responded with privately owned arms.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 2:01 PM
semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.
Jay Wye Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 2:01 PM
semi-auto,magazine-fed rifles such as the AR-15 and AK-47 are today's modern MILITIA weapons,and thus should be the most protected of firearms under the Second Amendment.

Militiamen were expected to appear for muster bearing arms and ammo similar to and compatible with what the Regular military had in use AT THAT TIME.
Since we "compromised" and restricted ownership of full-auto,true assault rifles,that leaves the semi-auto versions for civilian militia use.
gertyjm Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 12:38 PM
Well, single shot firearms prevailed at the time the Bill of Rights were adopted. A strict constitutionalist may actually accept that argument.
coveyrise Wrote: Dec 22, 2012 11:12 AM
Actually the MASS MURDER of 168 people in Oklahoma City in 1995 didn't involve the use of a firearm at all. It was fertilizer.

There are now calls from the Left for gun control legislation in response to Adam Lanza's unconscionable mass killing of innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary. However, very few people seem to be asking the most basic question of all before getting started: What gun control legislation could have stopped Adam Lanza?

The answer is "none."

Let's consider a few alternatives:

1) The school was already a "gun free zone;" so obviously that wasn't effective. Of course, the sort of people who would respect a "gun free zone" in the first place are the very ones you wouldn't have to worry...