That infringes upon her right to buy a gun. Just because he had such a condition doesn't mean she ought to not have been able to buy a gun. You might as well say, anyone who has a child can not buy power tools, vehicles, alcohol, or medicine, and electronics, all of which endanger children just like a gun would. Either be consistent or don't have the rule at all.
Additionally, since he was hell bent on death and destruction, I would think he would have found another device to carry out such a scheme.
Well, at the very least she should have been a better parent, making sure the guns were locked up and her younger son couldn't access it at all. I don't see how it infringes on her right when such weapons shouldn't be in the same house as someone who isn't mentally capable.
The comparison makes no sense because power tools, vehicles, alcohol, medicine, and electronics are not used to kill living things, they actually have other uses. Guns have one use only - to shoot people. If kids play with it, people tend to get hurt or die, if we are to trust the news.
There was civic unrest, one would only want racial wars when other races are taking opportunities that belong to your own race. If other races were not stealing opportunities what other research would there be to dislike the race? Kids dont dislike each other based on looks, but rather which kid has the better opportunity provided to them.
Again school shootings would also be civic unrest, the students are being put in an abject situation because they have privileged opportunities that the others don't have. A person doesnt get bullied based on looks, but rather the opportunities provided to them, either monetary compensation, compensations through services that could be rendered (consultation work with school work), or social status.
What opportunities were black people taking that belonged to the white people? Even back during the colonial times, racism existed even when blacks were slaves, just because of the color of their skin. Are you then justifying black people attacking white people, or any minorities attacking white people, for that matter? Because white people have enslaved black people and even now refuse to give them complete rights. Black people and Hispanics are also less likely to get jobs and less likely to get paid well when compared to white people, so are they justified in shooting white people?
First two sentences are quite ignorant and idiotic, though at least it's not as bad as the things the GOP candidates have been saying.
Or, because students bully others because of how they look or come across as in order to make themselves feel better. Lot of people have been bullied based on their looks more than anything else... or even based on their sexual orientation. I am confused as to how you can state otherwise.
I don't see any states in the southern US having more gun violence than NYC or Chicago. I cant recall this ever being an issue in the southern states, meanwhile in a place as big and large and liberal as NYC or Los Angelas or Chicago we have these issues. Republican leaders and republican peoples seem better suited and better acquainted with handling gun rights and handling measures to not have rampant gun issues that call for drastic measures.
Chicago and NYC are two of the biggest cities in the US. How many areas in the South are as worse off or divided as NYC or Chicago, anyway?
Also, according to
this, you are wrong. More gun-related deaths in states with the least gun laws. Googling the states with most gun violence has shown me articles that state lots of southern states see plenty of gun violence. Which is weird given NY and IL housing NYC and Chicago.
NYPD being "unconstitutional" when it came to searching people for illegal guns also apparently helped lower gun violence, which went back up when stop-and-frisk was outlawed.
Who would win in a weakened America. Lower defense spending opens the country up to more situations like this.
More people fleeing America to seek opportunity in other countries for better economic opportunies because there are none here. Then they leave and get trained by the enemies in terrorist strongholds to become new enemies of America. Im continually afraid of the world that people want to live in with decreased funding. Do they not see the issues in other countries, the Iran incidednt with out sailors for example, and the powerful Hydrogen Bomb in North Korea. Military funding is needed more than ever to keep us safe. Are you in America, if not then perhaps I can see why one would want America to have decreased funding. Non americans always want America to fail.
Isn't that in America, and weren't they caught due to people in the city rather than military stuff? But that's just a silly thing republicans like to say to incite fear to get votes. How many terrorist attacks from ISIS or Al-Quaeda have happened on our soil? I don't see how increasing defense budget will help, except put us in more unnecessary debt.
Is there evidence that many people are fleeing America to seek opportunity in other countries? I mean, you can't blame them when Bush fucked up the economy, and spending so much on defense and warfare is just making things worse.
The country spends at least $500 billion in defense and warfare. If that much money hasn't prevented the Iran incident or us building just-as-powerful hydrogen bomb or stopping Korea from building the hydrogen bomb, increasing the amount isn't going to help anything, except enemies because it'll just increase our debt and hurt the economy and its people even more. Military funding won't keep us safe, not when they couldn't stop or prevent or do something with the amount that they already get.
Not all non-Americans want America to fail. But yes, I am in America and I love the country, which is why I will vote and make sure no republicans can destroy this country and take away freedom.
The main argument I see from republican candidates is fear mongering. They openly lie or exaggerate or misinform their voters in order to instill fear to get votes and support, and they constantly use "omg Obama was shit, he made the country worse!" argument and even blaming him for the racial divide.
Also, have you called out Trump and Cruz for arguing with each other, or apparently Bush and Rubio? Or do they get a free pass because they're republicans?
It's clear majority of the people don't understand what creates terrorists or where the terrorists in the US come from. Trump's plan would just create more terrorists, and if Obama planned or plans on deporting people from Middle East back to Middle East, he will also be creating more terrorists and enemies. There have also been plenty of would-be homegrown terrorists, if the news are right, probably far more than would-be terrorists from foreign countries. Giving more money to warfare and defense to squander isn't going to help anything, at all. Hell, if anything it'll probably make things worse.
I also wouldn't be shocked if it ever got out that they sold to the enemies as well, willingly or unwillingly.
This just reeks of pseudo-mccarthyism dude. Increased military funding isn't going to keep us safer and prevent terrorist attacks. Putting boots on the ground and taking back the territories claimed by ISIS isn't going to eradicate the threat of terrorism either. A war on terrorism cannot be won, especially not by physical means.
That's a bit too far IMO. Sandy Hook happened due to shit parenting. The issue with it is the kind of weapons his mom had, not the fact that she owned a gun. AR-15s are engineered to kill as many people as possible, there's no reason why a civilians needs one of those. If Lanza didn't have one of those, many people would have survived.
war on terrorism could be won, but I see it being difficult due to mixture of problems. Social, economical, and propaganda.
True, but wouldn't Lanza have still committed the murders with guns? If the mom locked the guns up or didn't train her kids, this could have been prevented or not have been as bad as it was.
Though yeah, I have no fucking idea why a civilian has an assault rifle or why it's even sold to civilians in the first place. I'd rather competent police officers who are fighting gangs have it, as I assume gangs own small machine guns and assault rifles. Could be completely wrong though.
