Not true. Especially in this case. Could you imagine the damage he could have done close up with a pump 12 gauge. He walked out with plenty of ammo still on him. So the type gun had no real determination on how many dead. People set on the murder of many won’t use a bolt action rifle. Guess what? They also won’t care what type weapon you ban. If a security guard would have had a scary AR15 we might just have one dead. The shooter. Fact is you guys get your panties in a bunch over a scary looking rifle when the vast number of murders are committed by handguns. He also had been looking on line at how to make bombs. If he couldn’t have gotten a gun who knows what he’d have done. Your Ilk are the ones getting kids k**led. You just keep naming solutions that won’t work so you feel good about your self. For your info my AR IS IN MY 600!lb. gun safe.

Another school shooting as everybody has heard. As usual, the k**ler used an AR15 knock off. It a copy of the militaries semi automatic assault rifle. The rifle can hold a magazine of thirty rounds. Each bullet is deadly. It has a high velocity, and when it hits a target, the rounds tumble to make a huge hole in the body. I say it's high time we get outlaw it's sale to civilians. It's not a hunting weapon and isn't necessary for defense of a home. It was developed to k**l as many people as possible.
I am a gun owner and have a concealed weapons permit. I am am a believer in the second amendment, but this instrument of murder has caused far to many deaths of innocents, many in schools. How many more children must die before we take this terrible weapon off the market?

Another school shooting as everybody has heard. As usual, the k**ler used an AR15 knock off. It a copy of the militaries semi automatic assault rifle. The rifle can hold a magazine of thirty rounds. Each bullet is deadly. It has a high velocity, and when it hits a target, the rounds tumble to make a huge hole in the body. I say it's high time we get outlaw it's sale to civilians. It's not a hunting weapon and isn't necessary for defense of a home. It was developed to k**l as many people as possible.
I am a gun owner and have a concealed weapons permit. I am am a believer in the second amendment, but this instrument of murder has caused far to many deaths of innocents, many in schools. How many more children must die before we take this terrible weapon off the market?

Another school shooting as everybody has heard. As usual, the k**ler used an AR15 knock off. It a copy of the militaries semi automatic assault rifle. The rifle can hold a magazine of thirty rounds. Each bullet is deadly. It has a high velocity, and when it hits a target, the rounds tumble to make a huge hole in the body. I say it's high time we get outlaw it's sale to civilians. It's not a hunting weapon and isn't necessary for defense of a home. It was developed to k**l as many people as possible.
I am a gun owner and have a concealed weapons permit. I am am a believer in the second amendment, but this instrument of murder has caused far to many deaths of innocents, many in schools. How many more children must die before we take this terrible weapon off the market?

As a believer in the 2nd amendment you must understand that the purpose of possessing weaponry is not for hunting, target shooting or any sport issue. Its purpose is to oppose and o*******w the government, when it becomes necessary, to preserve our God given rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The second amendment states: "A well regulated M*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". The m*****a was defined in two subsequent laws as all able bodied men between the ages of eighteen and fifty-five and required them to obtain and maintain the latest and best existing weaponry so as to be able to defend their states, counties and homes. It was initially designed as defense against foreign invaders but in recent history, the invasion is more likely to be from the Federal government infringing on our rights.

Since this is the purpose of this Amendment of the Constitution it then follows that the citizenry must have weapons of similar capability to those used by the government. You cannot oppose semi or full automatic weapons with muzzle loaders and blunderbusses. Any arguments about suitability of various weapons fails before the intended purpose of the Second Amendment.

Once again the argument is against the tool used and there is no inquiry as to why this individual went berserk and committed such a heinous act. He could just as easily have constructed a bomb with readily available household items and information from the internet. Would you then call for a ban on Drano, Phosph**e fertilizers and blasting caps? I have seen no inquiry as to who owned the gun used and why it was available for a mentally unstable, anti-social, individual to use.

From the information coming out, this individual was identified by his classmates as being likely to commit such an act. He had a history of mental instability and anti-social behavior and the only action taken was throwing him out of school. Expulsion solved the school's problem temporarily, but it left a young man with mental problems, suffering from loss of his mother to fester and plot revenge. There is also a suggestion that psychotropic drugs may have been involved and the allegation has been made that they are a factor in every one of the other mass murders.

In chronic cases of malbehavior such as this individual's, something more than school discipline is needed. On the face of it this was an individual who exhibited mental instability over a long time frame and little to nothing was done to protect his classmates, the public, or the shooter himself. At the very least his access to weapons of all sorts should have been investigated.

The United States government could be defeated by a group of kindergarten kids with slingshots, and that before breakfast. The United States government is little more than a group of political hacks pontificating and preening themselves for the adulation of the masses. The United States military, however, is another proposition altogether. But who makes up the military? The very same people who just might take exception to government overreach in the first place. Governments, developed nations or not, are only as strong as the people who support them. If their popular support is undermined, so is their inherent strength. Just as an aside, and an interesting hypothetical, imagine an army officer being told to order his troops to open fire on a group of Americans. What would be the reaction? Would it be a constitutionally legal order to follow? He would likely refuse such an order, and even if he actually gave the order, what would his troops on the line do? Would they blindly follow such an order? Would they take aim and fire on their own countrymen? I expect ( and hope) they would also refuse such an order, on the grounds of its questionable legality.

You assign way too much ability to a group of people who would run a mile at the very mention of the word 'combat'. If a group of patriotically-minded armed citizens were to o*******w the corrupt, overreaching cabal we currently tolerate on Capitol Hill, I don't imagine we would see too much trouble from the US military. At worst, they might sit back and twiddle their thumbs, at best, well, they might even join in and help with the proceedings.

Everything* I could to prevent or suppress an an armed i**********n, no matter how sympathetic I was to the complaints of those in r*******n. Injustice is rampant in the US and around the world, but none here, at least, that could be remedied by resorting to violence.

*OK--not everything. I wouldn't endorse or participate in mass arrests, torture, indiscriminate k*****g, the use of biological agents--and the list goes on--to put down an armed uprising. However, I am as certain as I am of anything that the dire consequences of such an action would far, far outweigh any possible good that could come of it.