Clear statements of non-facts and bias opinions of issues you have stated don't concern you in the least because you choose them not to, but you choose to restrict that right from others who do wish it.

Seems a little self centered and arrogant as well as unmindful of the constitutional rights of others you wish to destroy that they do hold valuable.

Not everyone chooses to be a victim should the possibility ever arise.

opinions,, by nature, have a bias

I have yet to see anything in this thread resembling anything but opinions, and cut and paste of others opinions who agree

don't assume what concerns me,, just because I don't react to every little thing the same way someone else does

don't assume Im restricting anyones rights, I have no power to, nor have I ever said people should be kept from owning guns

I support regulation of weapons, period, this is different than banning weapons,, no matter how often others try to insist it isn't

Im far from self centered , although I do turn on the arrogance when others try to berate me,, its a defensive mechanism

and even the constitution has the word 'regulated', in regards to weapons,,,,

It also contains the words "shall not be infringed".... the part you choose to ignore

As for "regulated" you might want to look up the early definitions of the term

imagine that, ,regulation that should not be infringed upon

sounds to me they meant for weapons to be regulated, but still permitted

kind of my point

I see the problem. Your simply choosing your own definition to the wording in 20th century terms rather than the language in which they were written at the time.

Or is education, research and understanding not part of your defining opinion or bias?

oh superior one

please get in the time machine and explain to me the real 'definition'

of the words in the constitution......


and keep in mind, even constitutional EXPERTS have come up with differing views of what those words mean

but lets take the opinion of those anonymous posters in this forum as the gospel...


,,,,

The reason the U.S of A is the way it is is because of the PC crowd, it has become politically incorrect to treat criminals like criminals. It has become politically incorrect to love the god of your choice if its not a PC crowd approved god. We no longer have the right to like or dislike anyone we want for any reason because the PC crowd will you call you any number of "phobe".

As I see it all problems with my country lies within the liberal left, we get rid of liberals and liberal ideology this country will bounce back by the weekend.

Go Merica!

violent crime is on the decrease, has been for a few decades if Im not mistaken

we do place more of a premium on things and money than we do on people or community,, which certainly makes it easier to justify why some deserve life less than others do

the first step is to dehumananize people, diminish them in their human significance,, and then its easy to snuff out their lives

I think we have media , education, and politics to thank for the culture that qualifies the significance of peoples lives,,,on their work status, or their financial class, or their race, or their gender, or their choice of behaviors or words,,,

and people get far too much of their information from unchecked media instead of from living and experiencing for themselves.. people think if they see and hear about it more its happening more, and if they don't hear about it at all it must not be happening

the media has become our source, instead of life and community and family, and the human connection

I think its the opposite of pc that is our problem and more about the basic western value system we have that usually is in direct conflict with being pc, and more concerned with taking care of 'self' and climbing up on a pedestal where we can earn the right to look down upon the worth of others,,,

Violent crime is on the decrease because more people are able to defend themselves..... except in places with gun free zones or control laws where criminals have free reign, and such places are more often their choice for their chosen events.

I have already posted why its a false conclusion that criminals choose places based upon whether or not they are 'gun free'

Ok, simply list one scene of mass killings or injury that wasn't a gun free zone since this issue started.....

not a very convincing argument you made,though!
The Criminal chooses places where he can get the most with the least hassle,regardless what progressive Mother Jones might babble about!
And the 'Most' isn't necessary monetary value!

so much for Tangents of which you accuse others of!

http://www.2ampd.net/Articles/Meaningofthephrasewell-regulated.htm

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

most mass killers are set off by something PERSONAL and have a PERSONAL connection to the location, they don't CHOOSE It based upon its gun free status

Maurice clemmons walked into a place to TARGET cops,, obviously armed

Virginia tech, a student
columbine, students

these things start off with no rhyme or reason for some PERSONAL econection,, there is no evidence of any cognizant awareness or thought of whether the locations are 'gun free' or not

who is brian t halonen, and why is his explanation any more accurate than the scholars debating the issue in this article?

http://www.voanews.com/content/scholars_debate_second_amendment_to_us_constitution/1443917.html

Your liberal logic is in full operational mode!

Killers are looking for victims, grandiose recognition, their 15 minutes of fame, or to make a statement.

They target based on affect. Gun free zones give them their perfect scenario to accomplish that. Your thinking doesn't prevent victims to these crimes. it creates them!

When one of your shooters targets a meeting of the NRA, a cop bar, the black panther HQ, the white house, the pentagon or any other secure or known place with armed resistance, other than schools, churches, movie theaters and other gun free zones that have already been allowed for them, your argument may have just a beginning of any reality to it.

you can take a horse to water,,,,

believe what you want

there is no disputing the majority of the mass killing start with someone or someplace that has a PERSONAL connection to the shooter

there is also no disputing that a great deal of the killers are PLANNING to die anyway so whether someone is shooting back would not really matter

and the navy base had guns and people shooting back, which may be why the shooter chose such a high point to shoot from

,,but,, whatever keeps the paranoid 'must own a gun to be safe' crowd going,,,

What you call paranoia, most sane people would call preparedness, and even if I had the slightest inclination to want to believe your BS, my respect for the Constitution which protects the rights of the people in the 2nd amendment would never allow me to agree

that's your prerogative for sure

and my respect for human life would never allow me to believe the constitution was written as a way to ensure every person have any and every weapon of their choice

regardless of their mental stability or training,,,

you definitely could put your Intelligence to better use!
Never said you were un-intelligent!
(is that a word in the English Language?)