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...











There is no language in the Second that limits the RKBA to militias,"well-regulated" or not.
SCOTUS has ruled that the Civil right to keep and bear arms is an INDIVIDUAL right.
As you Libs would say,"it's settled law."
Ok, you can quote the 1st half of the 2nd Amendment. Now what's your point, if any?
Our guns are to protect us from an over-reaching and imperious Government. Without that, we could leave off possessing guns, but we are getting more and more of it, and so gun sales are rising, because people are not stupid. Where Progressives have gun laws, only the criminals have guns.
Once again, my favorite Liberal is a pretty young girl, in a march to get more stringent gun laws. She is proud that she is modern and free-thinking, because she smokes pot. But she lives in a State where pot smoking is illegal. Such is the reasoning capacity of a Liberal.
The press will keep a lid on that.