How, they tend not to make the news.
Why do you ignore the fact he also had explosives? Had he not had access to the guns he would have still had and used instead the explosives. Had he used them instead the casualty count likely would have increased by multiples.
That’s such a lame comparison and you know it. We are not talking a 15 year old boy riding and accidentally killing some one. We are talking about a 15 year old stealing his parents gun and intentionally killing someone. Big ■■■■■■■ difference right?
Right…i know…but then it has to be done better. More consistently.
No…it would not have prevented the shooting…because he got his weapons from his dad.
Answered…sorry I was at dinner with my wife and kids. Didn’t pull my phone out to read if I was asked a question. Wife frowns on that. Lol
Yeah, wives can be like that. 
Is my answer acceptable. That argument follows a false premise. If the 15vyear old goes with the intention to kill someone with a car…i suppose the parents could be held responsible. But it’s a stretch compared to a kid stealing the parents gun and going to school with intent to hurt or kill others. INTENT IS WHAT IS MISSING FROM THE CAR ARGUMENT. Any pre law student could argue that as a false argument.
There has been no “divorce” from the militia, you simply have no idea what the meaning and intent of the militia clause is.
There was never a requirement nor an intent that we must be members of any organized militia to keep and bear.
We are all the militia, every one of us, every day.
They had a right to defend themselves.
Our constitution does not, and cannot guarantee everyone will be free from harm. It exists mostly to prevent our rights from being deprived by the gov’t.
Life without risk is unattainable period.
In my opinion that was the intent. To protect ourselves against foreign and domestic tyrrany or against a government that would not do it for us.
You’re dead either way. A 400lbs car is every bit the deadly weapon a firearm arm is. Both are simply dependent on the intent and skill of the operator.
Then start raising hell with your local and state gov’t to get them to do their part.
…and if they steal the parents car or their neighbors car and run through the farmer’s market mowing down Aunt Tilly while she’s buying her okra and little Johnny as his mom is buying him some strawberries for his lunch because last week one of the vendors at the market called him cheap for complaining about the price of asparagus?
You can argue all you want, but your still blaming and punishing the wrong people.
Again, you’re dead either way.
Most shootings that occur with kids gaining unauthorized access to firearms are accidental.
Then you are completely ignoring the history.
The purpose is that we can defend ourselves, families, homes, communities, states and the nation when the need arises.
The gov’t cannot protect you and this shooting is a great example. Even with two armed cops close by when the shooting started we had 20 casualties before they could engage and stop the shooter.
Christ even when I agree with you you argue with me about it!
I’m out.
I’m not the least bit angry, I’m just pointing out that you ignore the history of the founding era.
It’s not just about protecting us from the gov’t or foreign invasion.
Not really. Dead innocents are dead innocents.
I was thinking purely of the divorcing comment made by someone. Divorcing the right to bear arms from keeping a militia. Or what ever the comment was. I was agreeing with you as to the why the 2nd is necessary…i just wasn’t talking about self defense.
