They said "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". All I am saying is that it is hypocrisy to use the 18th century meaning of one word (regulated) but not the other (arms). The reality of the situation is that this fascination with a legal document which is well out of date is the biggest cause of this issue, the US has a homicide rate (of all kinds, together, regardless of tool) that is an order of magnitude higher than most first world western countries - and to think that easy access to tools that make it easy commit such crimes is not a big part of it - is absurd.
There is no AC in my school. We don't prop doors open. Though we're not in Texas. The Humidity there is terrible. Still, it sounds like even after gunfire started outside, the door remained propped open. Wondering why it wasn't closed. Should have closed before she went and got her phone. Should've, would've, could'ves though.
True. Yeah, I'm wondering if they are lying about that to cover it up. If he wasn't there, for sure, why not? What was he doing? Did he patrol between different schools? Out eating?
If you rearrange the letters in A well regulated Militia you get Willamette aerial guild. Clearly this means the founding fathers wanted everyone in Portland to have their own aircraft carrier.
I went to HS in California. There are no hallways with doors on the entire campus of MOST school in CA. You walk room to room outside. Then open a door and that’s it. Every door is accessed from the wide open. There is not a single entrance. The entire school is THE entrance. Guess those kids just need to figure it out.
Muskets were the AR15s of that era. The muskets individuals were given the right to own at that time were the same technology foreign armies were using in war. If you wanted to be technical, an AR15 is inferior to the rifles most armies use today.
It's not. If they wanted to limit it to knives they would have said knives. If they wanted to limit it to muskets instead of canons they would have said that. They didn't. They specifically said it was to make the militia effective. You can't have an regulated militia using arms from 200 years prior. If they wanted the people to be less capable than the typical soldier they would have said the right of the people to keep and bare bows and arrows shall not be infringed. They didn't, because obviously, they wanted the militia to be effective against an attacking force.
You could build a hell of a hallway for a million bucks... or a real nice fence around the school with only 1 entrance, which is monitored. This is a far easier solution to attain than restricting access to guns enough to make a difference. Nobody is opposed to fences or hallways.
They didn’t know that 200 years later there would be weapons like we have today. And if they did they probably thought we would be fucking smart enough to maybe make some adjustments to the language. “But Mr President what if someday any 18 kid could go get this weapon that fires off hundreds of deadly bullets that explode inside of bodies and they go into schools and concerts and just kill people” “Oh Charles, don’t be silly, you need to relax. They’ll never let that happen, they will surely make an amendment to prevent that”
The reality of the situation is that a large percentage of the population appreciates that document and will not support changing it. And even if, after a long battle, and hundreds of billions of dollars spent, we did decide to change it, it would still take us hundreds of years to restrict guns to the point of making a difference. Pandora's box has already been opened here in the US. You can't just close it. It doesn't work that way.
Again, before the shooter went inside the school he walked outside of the school and shot into the windows of classrooms. Only having one way out of the school grounds would have only made that situation worse.
This is a solid point. Not that I agree, but that's fine... That's not the situation we are in. It wasn't updated in time. We now have very strong gun culture. tens of millions of people who have loved guns for generations. That will INCREDIBLY hard to overcome. And again, even if we were able to do that, there is no feasible way to remove enough guns to matter in our lifetimes, or probably our grandchildren's.
The shooter crashed a truck before making entry. He could have made his own way in with the truck if needed.
Huh? You are keeping people out, not in. This is technology we've had for well over a hundred years... My kids school only has one way in. You have to ring the bell to get in, and the office has to hit a button to let them in. They can get out 30 different ways at any time.
Just because it exists and a portion of the population supports it does not mean it should not be discussed, especially when we know that the vast majority of the USA population (close to 90% in a Harvard study) support expanded background checks. Progress needs to happen on multiple fronts - and avoiding the real culprit (easy access to tools that make these crimes so easy) is nothing more than kicking the can down the road. I do not expect it to happen over-night, but if we do not continue to harp on it and discuss it, it never will.
