Journalists shot, killed in Virginia during live shot

That's a load of shit. Citing the Second Amendment is not bullshit rhetoric. It's a recognition of the realities of the situation. Wringing your hands -- and maybe playing the "Wrong Side of History" card -- ain't accomplishing a damn thing.

You wanna get rid of the guns? Have at it champ. Push to repeal the Second Amendment, then advocate for the legislation that would be necessary to then prohibit them. Until you're ready to have a go at that, talk's cheap.

 

Graphic: Weapons used in mass shootings in the U.S.

The graphic doesn't get specific, but nearly a quarter of the weapons are in the "illegally acquired" category.

The next example doesn't mention a killing that "went national," but it does serve a purpose:

Firearms used in homicides often purchased illegally

This kind of thing is the pro-gun zealots' wet dream because they can apply their two-pronged Dumb and Dumber strategy. First, they can claim that no gun law would prevent any of these gun acquisitions. Yet, at the same time, they can use the homicide numbers in the urban areas to then claim: "There are more murders in (fill in a city, preferably one with a high percentage of blacks) than all the people killed in all the last (fill in a number) mass shootings!"

 

Give me the purse strings of the NRA and I'll gladly do it.
There was also a time in this country where a large group of people cited their personal freedoms to own slaves and we, as a country, made that change in our constitution.
This is long overdue. It's a joke that we supposedly live in a free country but I have to fear getting shot in the fucking head going about my normal life because someone else had the freedom to buy a weapon of destruction with less difficulty than I had buying my first nudie mag after turning 18.

 

Nobody wants to get rid of guns. There are 300 million in this country and we couldn't do it even if we wanted to do it.
None of the legislation proposed after the Sandy Hook shooting would have taken one gun away from any law-abiding citizen. The UN Arms Trade Treaty would not have done that. New York's SAFE act does not do that.
How does expanding background checks and closing the gun show loophole take guns away from law-abiding citizens? If you're a law-abiding citizen, you'll pass the background check.

 

That's a question posed repeatedly to pro-gun zealots, and they rarely have an answer. Sometimes I hear something about the gun show restriction "infringing upon their rights," but that's as substantive as it gets. Then it's back to: "Enforce the laws on the books, etc."

 

But Obama's gonna do it. Just you wait. ...

I agree with everything you say. Apparently there are some here who do want to take guns, which is a bit much.

 

I guess it's possible that a guy could have a criminal record, paid his debt to society and wants to go straight and feels the need to have a gun to protect himself. To that I say "Tough shit. You should have thought about that before you did the crime."
One friend of mine complained about a court ruling that said someone convicted of a "non-violent domestic abuse" case could be denied a gun permit. To him, that's tyranny. First, "non-violent domestic abuse" is an oxymoron. There's no such thing. Domestic abuse is, by definition, violent. Second, tough shit, the guy should have thought about that before committing the crime.

 

Those law changes wont alter much.

 

Right, so what's the problem gun rights people have?

 

I've heard people say - well, the shooter is dead, what harm does it do to splash his "work" over the front page (I wonder if the NYP and NYDN gave him a photo credit?) - perhaps. But I imagine the next shooter is out there (and he most definitely is out there soaking this all in) and figuring out what he needs to do to join the club.

 

Yep. The Founding Fathers were full of bloodlust. Hey, why do we need guns? Protection? Fuck that, let's kill shit.