14 students killed, 1 teacher dead in elementary school shooting

Frankly, I have no idea what your point or question is. I'll be happy to answer if you'll make that clear.

 

I'm able to say that single parent households are less desirable for children and their upbringing.

It's quite a long stretch to then assume I support abuse, drug use.. blah blah blah.

Do better if you want an honest discussion.

 

Says one of the folks that thinks the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means people can own nukes.

You can't defend yourself with dynamite. You throw a stick of dynamite at a home intruder and you're going to destroy your house. If you throw a stick of dynamite at a car jacket, you'll blow yourself up. See the difference?

 

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It's all about self-defense.

 

Name one person in this thread that supports this.

 

Well, if any of you are lawmakers, you are certainly included…

 

Just to be clear on what you're saying.
They didn't go into the "meat grinder" for fear of what could happen yet what was ACTUALLY happening is that the school kids WERE IN the meat grinder and they stood and waited......and you're defending that. The police officer assigned to the school did nothing.
You haven't made any point about any laws.
Bottom line.....you are defending the indefensible and looking foolish doing it.

 

Support, and incentivizing single parent households through programs and compassion is a Democrat thing.

Colombia as an example is experiencing a massive influx of unwed children births and single mothers. This is culturally detrimental, and they know it. 84% of children are born to single mothers, moms who celebrate this as "freeing" for women.

This is the same type of "progress" the left supports.

 

But wait, all the English and Europeans, and their supporters here have never mentioned that. Why would that be?

 

Apparently a teacher opened a door for the gunman.

 

Agenda.

 

Do you support partial birth abortions?

 

Meaningless.

 

No, I didn't but I'll happily ban knives if they becomes the weapon of choice for mass killings at schools etc etc.

 

It proves that where there are fewer guns there are fewer deaths by gun. You can read, yes, even if you have only one eye and it suffers from tunnel vision?

 

You’re struggling aren’t you…?

This isn’t about me and my preferences. It’s about the people who frame laws that either help or harm people… The people who wail and moan and pass restrictive laws to deny women their reproductive choices are the same people who ensure that mass murderers of children are the best equipped, most heavily armed terrorists in the world…

 

I have the 'right' to drive a car. But that right comes with responsibilities. I must prove my proficiency in driving,
and I must obey the rules. The state can take away my 'right' to drive, but only in certain circumstances and
only for certain times.
The same must apply to guns, only more so. In Australia I have the 'right' to a firearm, but I must do a course
and sit for exams (two lots as I live on a border) I must keep ammunition separate. I must store in a steel box.
I have to follow onerous regulations concerning travelling with guns.

No way would we allow a kid to buy an AR15 and body armor. Hell, what are you people thinking?

There are people on these forums who justify the process people went through to kill children.

 

Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

 

The right to drive a car?

 

Absolutely, like any other basic right.

 

Is that an enumerated right? Or nah?

 

No

And that's who gun banners want in charge of safety. Incompetent police. Do you see a problem with that?

Here it comes... Are you ready, you should have figured it out by now.

If all you have is incompetent police that do nothing when they are needed laws are worthless.

No I'm making a point that clearly went over your head

 

Sorry, you are, and you know it otherwise you would have had a counter argument

Right, you put down the incompetent police ( they are in this case) and want to replace them with people that couldn't make it onto the police force (private security). I see a bigger problem with that.

Well then, go back to the basics. What's the common denominator here? Oh yeah......guns.

No, you aren't making any point so nothing went over my head.

 

In my country we don't have 'enumerated rights' and for one particular reason - Judicial Activism.
(think Roe vs Wade - finding something in the constitution that wasn't there)
We Australians have a parliament to decide our rights, we amend things at our leasure and we
don't have unelected judges deciding everything from guns to sex changes for children.

 

That is exactly what 'shall not be infringed' means.
But we all know, there are no absolute rights. Just lines drawn in the sand.

If one understands what' shall NOT be infringed' actually means.

So what if a stick of dynamite destroys your house. It is the owners right based on 'shall not be infringed' allows.

Are you claiming the 2A is allowed certain infringements. It certainly seems you are for some infringements you want.