Background checks don't infringe on 2nd amdt.

Are you saying ten guys with guns would not have killed anymore then with knives ?


As far as the school is concerned, arming the teachers would not have helped either. More guns would not have helped prevent a bomb attack. So, of the people at the school were armed, how would it have helped ? This is a 1927 occurance and yes, laws do prevent things like this from happening. You can't buy explosives without being regulated now. This same guy would have a tough time getting the explosives under a school...they have foundations. Where does it say the school was gun free in 1927 ? Maybe, they did have guns there...and it didn't help?

 

Bull cookies, a criminal that wants explosives can buy any amount of explosives as that criminals funds permit, with Zero regulations.

 

Did your explosives laws help in France, or the gun laws in California help San Bernadino?

People who ignore murder laws have nothing but contempt for your gun laws.

- - - Updated - - -

Moar dead violent felons is a good start.

 

if the 1994 AWB was still in place, it may have saved lives.

if we had NATIONAL gun laws that required a permit to possess a handgun, many more lives would be saved

 

There is no Parole, Probation, or Early release for good behavior, from the Coffin and the Cemetary

 

He wasn't a criminal......he was a law abiding citizen...disgruntled. There were no gun free zones in 1927. The act was passed in 1990. Schools have foundations. it was a wooden school house. Trying to bury 500 lbs of explosives under a wooden school in 1927 is not the same as burying it under a concrete slab today. This was when everyone did have authority to carry guns, in schools or otherwise.THAT didn't help did it ? This as a rural area. You are foolish to think anyone today, criminal or otherwise can get 500 lbs of dynamite easily in a rural area like Bath and bury it under a school. This is a dillusional, scare tactic article.

Why don't you bring up all the people who were killed in gun free zones in 800 BC. Ooops, the world was gun free then.....
Ha ha .

 

Hog wash !

There was never a problem with so called "Assault Weapons" to begin with, as per the FBI.....

The National permit to purchase and possess handguns is already in place, a Federal permit to purchase each time, NICS Instant Check.

 

Pro background checks=false sense of security, hint criminals are still getting them and still killing. Thou government is thou savior, lay down thou arms and walk unafraid in the land of the criminal...thou government will protect you!

 

i support stronger gun laws, and I am a gun owner.

did pretty well with an AR-15 a few months ago.

 

People can easily get C-4 and make homemade Semtex and Binary explosives, you are indeed the Foolish one.

 

There is one in place in France. Did it help with either the FULLY automatic weapons used, or the explosives?

- - - Updated - - -

Right.

Don't pat yourself on the back too hard, my 9 year old can get better groups.

Doing it when your target is moving and shooting back is a different thing entirely.

 

EU has open borders.

 

Ronstar is as much a Gun owner as is Diane Feinstein.

Just like possessing a Guitar does not make you a Musician.

- - - Updated - - -

Good, stay there.

 

Thou art a truster of the government, your savior. Lay down your arms, no need for thou to be a gun owner.

 

Agree. I feel Federal laws requiring permits makes it a whole new ball game. Criminals or anyone carrying a gun without a federal enforced permit who violates a federal law has much more to worry about then local or even state ordinances. The resolution is much more far reaching and he becomes a criminal throughout the US. The rewards systems they use are pretty large and much more enticing for anyone to turn you in. You have state authorities that can arrest for federal crimes. You have no where to go.

 

Anyone who kills children is mentally ill.

Too bad 800BC didn't have sword-free zones, it would have been a great tool against the Mongols a little later on.

 

Since State laws Govern the carry of firearms, you cannot have a Federal permit to carry or Federal penalties imposed on illegal carry or possession of firearms.

 

And we don't? What's your point.

- - - Updated - - -

Murder laws > gun laws.

If they ignore the first, they will definitely ignore the 2nd.

 

with open borders, state laws can only do so much.

all gun laws should be NATIONAL and UNIVERSAL within a country.

 

Yes because smuggling guns in to the US is so hard.

Senator Leland Yee (Brady Award Winning California Senator, by the way) was smuggling them pretty easily.

If someone wants to get an automatic weapon into Australia, or France, or NYC, or anywhere else to commit mass murder, they can easily do so.

To think they are worried about getting caught with a gun when their intent is mass murder is foolish.

 

You are indeed the foolish one trying hard to make this scenario relavant. Keep posting little irrelevant tidbits to this article and it's you who look more foolish. The entire article is BS in the context it was written. A sad occurance that has no relevancy today. Try making 500 lbs of explosives in a small town and burying it under a school Ina concrete slab. The whole idea is obsurd. Well....maybe one of you guys would try......tell me too how you plan on breaking up the concrete....You have so any holes in your little story...you are indeed foolish to back this article.

Oh, hth does this back the idea that fewer gun laws could ever help. Maybe, if this guy had a drone in 1927 that you could shoot down. It's hard to figure the article has any relavancey at all.

 

You should put down the Crack pipe, it makes you quite incoherent and unintelligible.

 

One fact to distinguish this 1927 reference to a school bombing that should be feared as much as school shootings, if that is the rediculous intent. There have been 137 school shootings killing more then twice as many people just since 1980. Now, you tell me which people should be more afraid of ? The NRA or the IRA ( who were noted for bombings) ?

 

You mean kinda like the Oklahoma City bombing?

I mean how would anyone be able to drive a truck full of explosives right next to a federal building amiright?

 

Two things stand out in this to me:

1) The apparent belief that violence, and in particular violence that involves a weapon, is an acceptable or understandable response to hardship. Violence is NEVER the solution.
and
2) The refusal to accept that, in our society, the only way to prevent anyone from acquiring a firearm is to incarcerate them.

Once you accept that violence is not acceptable, no matter what the circumstance, and that it should not be tolerated by a peaceable society, then we can work to meaningful measures to mitigate violent crime in our society.