re: Would a deranged student be more deadly with a truck than gun?

A gun........how many people can get run over in a classroom. Analogy fail.

quote:

---

A gun........how many people can get run over in a classroom. Analogy fail.

---

Yes,the school part of it ruins it. However,are kids with cars,more dangerous than kids with guns?
I would say that statistics prove that they are,without question.
and the number of guns in this country,is very similar to the number of cars.

quote:

---

Irrelevant.

---

No,it's not irrelevant,but your attempt at an argument is.
If the goal is to save the lives of teenagers,why shouldn't we take away the device that is more deadly to them?

Oh yeah! Because the teenagers don't like that idea.

quote:

---

Suppose they made vehicles designed to kill people. Like a pistol or an assault weapon, but with four wheels.

---

A car is inherently a killer device in the wrong hands,it's fricking dangerous to other people,even by accident.

Compare vehicle deaths to gun deaths each year,even though they exist in our country in about the same numbers,then get back to me about which is more dangerous.

quote:

---

Explain Vietnam. And Iraq. And Afghanistan.

---

Public opinion back home, rules of war, playing nice with allies in these regions, and trying to avoid the start of WWIII.

quote:

---

A gun........how many people can get run over in a classroom. Analogy fail.

---

ok - (as said) make it a bomb or simply a fire? A gun ban is simply reacting to the symptom and not addressing the cause.

If we really were concerned we might look for the root cause. For instance is there any correlation between school size (density) and abhorrent behavior? Is putting children in a situation where they have no outlets for their angst, creativity, or social frustrations due to overcrowding a factor? Have we developed merely developed CAFO's were only the brightest, the most athletic, or socially adept get noticed? (with these mega schools) IE: is there any correlation with school size?

Or

Maybe on another front, has our lessening of funding for public mental health care created even more exasperated angry-children, as it has for the mentally challenged criminal?

Or

(once again) To what extent does the non-stop playing of killing games effect the mentally fragile? When you die every 30-40 minutes, to simply do it again 15 times a day, is there any correlation carried over to the value of a human life? (on a developing mind)

IMO it's most likely another instance where more than one single factor is at play, and the quick fix is not to knee jerk ban the overt symptom, because the root problem will not be solved.

etc: there =/= their

quote:

---

how many people can get run over in a classroom

---

Not all you can use a truck for...

quote:

---

A well regulated militia

---

quote:

---

The Supreme Court held:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

---

You lose kid.

quote:

---

How does tens of thousands of Federal, State, and local firearms laws mean the 2nd Amendment is currently immune? Why are you such a moron on this topic, among many others?

---

I was responding to a post that said simply "shall not be infringed", as if that was absolute.

truck