Originally Posted by Vis
What you have to realize is that people who are pro-gun (in this context) is that they are not are not pro-gun for the protection the gun provides or for any thought of a cost/benefit analysis. They are simply pro-gun for the wood the gun provides them. So they shrug off the deaths. It's the badass nature of the weapon that makes the woody so good.
Such is public discourse on the subject. Public school has done itself well.
Originally Posted by MACH1
Banning ar14's should be easy since there is no such thing.
Lost in everything I've read, seen and heard since, well, headcases have been shooting people and things up, and lib sphincters have been exploding over same, is an unvarnished perspective of the 2nd Amendment, which BTW is the essence of similar language in state constitutions.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Those fluent in the King's English can parse these words to readily dispel any perceived relationship to duck hunting, skeet, male enhancement, or movie theater carnage. The words are unambiguous. Their meaning is clear.
Militias, AKA non-professionals, irregulars, armed peeps are necessary if the state is to remain free. That point, ignored in every discussion of the issue, is the mandate to citizens to be armed. Why? Because gubmints aren't to be trusted, and if the peeps want to remain free they need to be armed. Implicit in that statement is that the peeps be armed in a manner equal to the gubmint, or else the amendment is moot. Libs like to invoke "international" law to make their cases in domestic suits. Following that logic it's reasonable to follow the Swiss model of an armed citizenry as their guarantee of freedom. They carry their "assault weapons" wherever they go.
The militia piece mandates the second element of the amendment that the right to bears shall not be infringed. Again, falling back in our defacto language, "infringe" means to violate or transgress
. The Framers argued language exhaustively and agreed to these words because they, well, framed the amendment in such a way that future tyrants wouldn't be able to work around it. No "gun laws". No "regulations". No licenses. No clip sizes. No infringement whatsoever. AR-14s, M-17s, AKs, RPGs, F-16's, nukes, whatever. We're not after ducks here. We're keeping would-be tyrants in check.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the superfluous bull@#$% swirling around the latest tragedy. People experience tragedies regardless of gubmints, laws, armed or disarmed citizens, and no amount of human discourse will ever change that. The ultimate tragedy would be to allow the Republic to fail at the hands of a would-be tyrant, his shills, and a numbingly stupid population that lacks the intellect to see what the 2nd Amendments states is their responsibility - be armed.
Guns are icky. Get over it.