He has a point in that his perspective is just that, his perspective. Whether or not he is actually right is irrelevant to the fact that he can get his point across with some tact, instead of purposely antagonizing people who are still in shock that their children died.

More honey than vinegar is lost on some people.

That position is typical of the potbellied hicks who think the US Bill of Rights is a historical novelty. But no.

Wat?

Did anyone find Kato Kaelin to get his opinion?

Thirty to sixty day waiting limit with the same extensive background check required for a concealed carry permit. (which I also have). The halt of all sales of military ordinance, which I'm afraid ends up in foreign hands. The close regulation of silencers and fully auto weapons, even when the purchasers are fully licensed.

A national database of mentally ill patients (I personally hate this, but we can not keep selling arms to crazy people.), precluding them from buying.

This does not even address the private market which actually is a far greater problem. 80% of my guns are not registered, because I've owned them for more than thirty years.

BTW, this is not my field, so some of these ideas may not be feasible. (or legal) But, I think it's clear something needs to be done.

Isn't autism classified as a mental disorder? So if you're autistic, you shouldn't be able to purchase guns?

This isn't a gun issue. Half of the people he killed was with a knife. He hit people with his car. Access to guns has nothing to do with this crazy bastard killing people.

They've actually done at least one study on this, and these kind of things do happen in clusters. Generally the attention from one of these events leads to someone else getting the terrible idea to perpetuate a similar crime.

rubbrband, why the **** should anyone care that people died 200 years ago fighting the brits then wrote that they should be able to have guns in case the brits come back as justification for the USA being the only civilized country in the world with frequent mass shootings? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is patently false in 2014.

I'm not American and it's just sad that the only country where this routinely happens largely doesn't care that it does. Valuing owning a gun over saving thousands of lives a year is literally the thoughts of an insane and/or stupid person. See: Plumber, Joe.

I frequently can't figure out wtf Poker Reference is talking about.

Gun Issue is always at the forefront of these killings, and it should be, as well as all the previous background history reports of the individual.

If he was never filed by his psychologist for anything, then yes he had access. since he saw a psychiatrist, and wasn't flagged. I think a lot of blame goes in that area as well.

True or False: The right to arms did not exist prior to the American Revolution.

I imagine that poor Elliot's head would have exploded upon hearing the wild rumours of Adriana Lima's hookup with Justin Bieber.

Life is not fun with Asperger's. Maybe he felt life wasn't worth living and decided f#ck it.

There's a nontrivial number of people in this country who think that what the founders thought/said has some great relevance today. Thats why they will quote a founder as if that settles the argument. Personally I say **** the founders. They're dead. Thia country exists for the living. Btw, it irks me just as much when Obama talks about fulfilling our founders' dream or goals as it does when gunnits quote Jefferson about watering trees with blood.

Is this attitude prevalent in other countries? Do brits talk about what Disraeli would have wanted? Do Australians think their founding convicts wishes should be binding on present day Australia?

It has relevance because it's the law of the land. If you don't like it, change it. Or overthrow the gov't.

What a worthless post. Of course he didn't think life was worth living, he committed suicide! So what has that got to do with him going on a rampage? Thousands of people commit suicide daily worldwide.

People were free to have guns before the revolution. Are you trying to infer that I was saying guns were banned before the revolution? If that was the case the revolution probably wouldn't have happened. They made the amendment to protect the people from tyranny incase there needed to be another revolution. This isn't conjecture. It's well documented.

I'm not going to respond to you about history. This thread shouldn't even be about gun rights.

Its actually not. Originalism/original intent is only one of several methods of constitutional interpretation. Besides, quoting the founders as an argument comes up far afield from matters of constitutional interpretation.

He didn't even know what the lottery was until 18, I doubt he was cognizant of media attention.

It's all good -- I just thought from your words that you thought the right to self-defence wasn't a centuries-old tradition at the time, that it was "fought for" at some point rather than being a natural right. A weapon is a common sense item to prevent others from making you do things you don't want to do, like give up your money or your land or your god or your slaves. My only point was that gunhumpers tend to frame the right as something Americans invented or "died for" at some point, rather than the historical default -- I think it's a dishonest argument to make by artificially characterizing the right as hard-won and a bit sacred and above criticism.

In the rest of the world it is generally regarded as a natural right and subject to natural limits. In the US it is more fetishized and the right to arms in particular is considered absolute and leads you to tolerate tens of thousands of murders annually lest the founding fathers die in vain.

Just read it. No need for interpretation. It's in English.

Lol

Do you tell all the christian denominations the same thing about the bible?

You are right that it is the law of the land, but that has very little to do with what is written word for word in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that the right to own guns is the law of the land in a series of recent decisions, but those were all 5-4 rulings. Switch out any one of the Republican appointees for a Democratic one and the law of the land will change very quickly. No need for a revolution or an amendment to the constitution.

He killed 3 people by stabbing them, I don't think gun laws are the big problem here.

Knife laws tho. Don't get me started