Gunman dead, 1 teacher wounded in elementary school shooting in Conn.

Dec 14, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Washington Post

A shooting at a Connecticut elementary school Friday left the gunman dead and at least one teacher wounded and sent frightened pupils into the parking lot.

Comments
161 - 180 of 1,567 Comments Last updated Jul 29, 2013
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#171
Dec 14, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because of the proven effectiveness of gun free zones, the left says we should pass more laws.
"As the Left breaks down the self-discipline of Judeo-Christian religions, more and more laws are needed simply to keep people from devouring each other."
Dennis Prager
Yeah, that's why all those left leaning European countries have so much higher violence rates than the US does. Also explains why so many of those NON-Judeo-Christian countries like Japan, South Korea, China, Bhutan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. have so much blood pouring through their streets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie...
Where was CT police

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#172
Dec 14, 2012
 
Go Blue Forever wrote:
<quoted text>These mass killings, have nothing to do with them not knowing how to handle their weapons, and anything the other concept direstion would actually involve more people, having to be armed....
More citizens including 5 yeah old children should be able to carry guns
Where was CT police

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#174
Dec 14, 2012
 
yup wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes – EVERYONE – young and old should be packing serious heat – AT ALL TIMES – IN ALL PLACES – supermarkets, schools, churches, restaurants, shopping malls, large scale sports events and concerts etc..– that way we can ALL live on edge – and be ready to start MASS, CHAOTIC shootings in ALL directions – who cares that we won’t be able to tell the perps from the victims trying to defend themselves – because EVERYONE will look like a threat while waving a fcking gun around – and they’ll be ready to fire whenever any loud, sharp noise is heard – a balloon pops – a firecracker goes off – a car backfires. YES – FCKNG BRILLIANT – let’s ALL CARRY !!!!
There are bullet proof vests ,you know .

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#176
Dec 14, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
We already have background checks in the vast majority of gun purchases and since the shooter apparently didn't own the weapons he used, a background check would not have prevented the tragedy any more than the designated gun free school zone prevented the tragedy.
Background checks would by no means screen out every disturbed person, but it would go a long way toward reducing availability to just anyone.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#177
Dec 14, 2012
 
MIDutch wrote:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/ news/world/2012/12/14/china-sc hool-stabbings/1770395/
"Man with knife injures 22 kids at school in China"
Anyone see a difference?


Not really.

China

Mar 23,2010

A former doctor armed with a large knife hacked 8 children to death and injured 5 others at an elementary school in eastern China today.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#178
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
What is this distortion you are referring to?
I've had to answer this question so many times, but briefly....

The second amendment gives the right to bear arms, but only under certain conditions:
1-The right is given to a "well regulated militia". There was time in our history when citizens had reason to be wary of federal troops. This amendment was intended to defend against that. It is unrealistic to fear such an attack today.
a-A militia is an organized group. The amendment says that such a group be well regulated. It does not refer to gun ownership by indviduals, but by a "well regulated militia".

2-The People (as in "right of the people") refers to the people collectively; it does not refer to individual persons.
Elsewhere in the Constitution, the use of the term, "the people" is clearly a reference to citizens as a whole.

I know that others find different meanings in the second amendment, but I see no other reasonable interpretation.
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#179
Dec 14, 2012
 
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, that's why all those left leaning European countries have so much higher violence rates than the US does. Also explains why so many of those NON-Judeo-Christian countries like Japan, South Korea, China, Bhutan, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. have so much blood pouring through their streets.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countrie...
Actually many European countries do have a higher violent crime rate than the US( UK, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France) and many of your examples are police states or border on such. South Korea has a violent crime rateslightlyt higher than in the US. Interesting to note that Japan with its very strict gun control laws has a violent death rate on par with the Us due to its very high suicide rate.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#180
Dec 14, 2012
 
-Persephone- wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not going to argue with you. What happened there was incomprehensible. Be well.
You too.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#181
Dec 14, 2012
 
Where was CT police wrote:
<quoted text>I"m from North East and happen to know the Nutmeg State intimately but that's not important here .
If one of the third graders had a weapon this terrible tragedy would be prevented all together .
CT Police is also to blame .They responded very sluggishly . Whatever happened to "Protect and Serve ??
listen to what you just said....If one of those third graders had a weapon.....
There is a good reason why we don't let eight year olds carry guns or...
drive cars or....
drink or....

If that armed third grader saved one tragedy ...ten thousand others would open up that UZI acting out a scene from something they saw on TV the night before

Please tell me you have been telling jokes here
Remeron

Saint Petersburg, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#182
Dec 14, 2012
 
10 recent massacres were committed by those under the influence of psychiatric drugs resulting in 54 dead and 105 wounded
Every single time there is a school shooting, or some senseless massacre, the press are quick to start touting the need for more mental health treatment to “prevent” these tragedies—well before the facts of the case have been investigated. In fact, most of the press don’t appear as interested in bringing the facts to light as they are in making “recommendations” based on assumptions and calling for more mental health services/treatments. How one can make recommendations before finding out what actually occurred seems illogical to us, and we’re hoping we’re not the only ones. What also seems illogical is the lack of direct questioning and demand for answers given the facts already known about prior massacres/shootings, such as: The majority of those who committed such acts had already undergone mental health “treatment,” and were already on psychiatric drugs. Drugs documented by international drug regulatory agencies to cause violence, mania, psychosis, hallucinations, suicide and even homicidal ideation.

In the case of prior massacres/shootings, what has repeatedly occurred is that when the facts finally came out, due solely to the efforts of those few determined investigative reporters (such as Fox National News reporter Douglas Kennedy), and it was revealed that the shooter had been under the influence of psychiatric drugs, or in withdrawal from them, most of the press were quick to counter the drug/violence connection by featuring some Pharma mouthpiece touting the “there is no evidence that these drugs cause violent or homicidal behavior” line.

Really? No evidence? There have been 22 International Drug Regulatory Agency Warnings on psychiatric drugs causing violence, mania, psychosis and even homicidal ideation. These warnings have been issued by drug regulatory agencies in the United States, the European Union, Japan, The United Kingdom, Australia and Canada.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#183
Dec 14, 2012
 
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I've had to answer this question so many times, but briefly....
The second amendment gives the right to bear arms, but only under certain conditions:
1-The right is given to a "well regulated militia". There was time in our history when citizens had reason to be wary of federal troops. This amendment was intended to defend against that. It is unrealistic to fear such an attack today.
a-A militia is an organized group. The amendment says that such a group be well regulated. It does not refer to gun ownership by indviduals, but by a "well regulated militia".
2-The People (as in "right of the people") refers to the people collectively; it does not refer to individual persons.
Elsewhere in the Constitution, the use of the term, "the people" is clearly a reference to citizens as a whole.
I know that others find different meanings in the second amendment, but I see no other reasonable interpretation.


I disagree. SCOTUS has never dismissed a plaintiff for lack of standing in a 2nd Amendment case because they weren't a member of a well regulated militia.

The following wording-

'A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for the common defense, shall not be infringed.'

was voted down by the Senate and " for the common defense" was removed from the final wording of the 2nd Amendment.

"Annals of the First Senate."(1820)
Library of Congress
Research -David T.Hardy


and then we have this gem

They [the proposed amendments] relate first to private rights .."
James Madison

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#184
Dec 14, 2012
 
Where was CT police wrote:
<quoted text>
There are bullet proof vests ,you know .
my kids getting a flame thrower for christmas, that trumps your kids bullet proof vest....

so there
downhill246

Boca Raton, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#185
Dec 14, 2012
 
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>I've had to answer this question so many times, but briefly....
The second amendment gives the right to bear arms, but only under certain conditions:
1-The right is given to a "well regulated militia". There was time in our history when citizens had reason to be wary of federal troops. This amendment was intended to defend against that. It is unrealistic to fear such an attack today.
a-A militia is an organized group. The amendment says that such a group be well regulated. It does not refer to gun ownership by indviduals, but by a "well regulated militia".
2-The People (as in "right of the people") refers to the people collectively; it does not refer to individual persons.
Elsewhere in the Constitution, the use of the term, "the people" is clearly a reference to citizens as a whole.
I know that others find different meanings in the second amendment, but I see no other reasonable interpretation.
"Perhaps the most accurate conclusion one can reach with any confidence is that the core meaning of the Second Amendment is a populist / republican / federalism one: Its central object is to arm 'We the People' so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertible by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes -- not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons -- a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action."

Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law 902 n. 221 (2000)
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#186
Dec 14, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually many European countries do have a higher violent crime rate than the US( UK, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France) and many of your examples are police states or border on such. South Korea has a violent crime rateslightlyt higher than in the US. Interesting to note that Japan with its very strict gun control laws has a violent death rate on par with the Us due to its very high suicide rate.
Why do you lie like that?
Where was CT police

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#187
Dec 14, 2012
 
yup wrote:
<quoted text>
Were you born this retarded - or did you huff cleaning chemicals to get this fcking stupid?
you seem to know all abut huffing cleaning supplies and whatnot
Where was CT police

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#188
Dec 14, 2012
 
Buffalo Bull wrote:
There is a good reason why we don't let eight year olds carry guns or...
drive cars or....
drink or....
there is no statistical date to prove it
Where was CT police

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#189
Dec 14, 2012
 
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
my kids getting a flame thrower for christmas, that trumps your kids bullet proof vest....
so there
why would your kids wanted to burn mine ?

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#190
Dec 14, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. SCOTUS has never dismissed a plaintiff for lack of standing in a 2nd Amendment case because they weren't a member of a well regulated militia.
The following wording-
'A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for the common defense, shall not be infringed.'
was voted down by the Senate and " for the common defense" was removed from the final wording of the 2nd Amendment.
"Annals of the First Senate."(1820)
Library of Congress
Research -David T.Hardy
and then we have this gem
They [the proposed amendments] relate first to private rights .."
James Madison
the second and the founding fathers clearly intended that firearms would be available to private citizens

however the second's text undeniably legitimizes regulation as well

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#191
Dec 14, 2012
 
downhill246 wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. SCOTUS has never dismissed a plaintiff for lack of standing in a 2nd Amendment case because they weren't a member of a well regulated militia.
The following wording-
'A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms for the common defense, shall not be infringed.'
was voted down by the Senate and " for the common defense" was removed from the final wording of the 2nd Amendment.
"Annals of the First Senate."(1820)
Library of Congress
Research -David T.Hardy
and then we have this gem
They [the proposed amendments] relate first to private rights .."
James Madison
I am aware of these decisions. As ann an American citizen, and as a free human being, I have always disagreed with these decisions, and I continue to do so.
The Supreme Court, consisting of nine human beings like myself, can be as fallible as I.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#192
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

Where was CT police wrote:
<quoted text>there is no statistical date to prove it
why isn't there any statistical data to prove that 8 year olds shouldn't be allowed to drive or drink or carry guns to school......

because the rest of us aren't dumb enough to allow it

duh

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••