What do you think of the ban on certain types of guns being lifted?

[Tequila Zaire]

man, you guys are assholes. apparently since I believe in using peace, and have never had to shoot at anyone, I am so narrow minded and have such a limited understanding, this is like the third time that I have been told what your talking about is too complex for my understanding. Ok. OK. everyone should own a gun, and they should shoot whoever tries to fuck with them fulla lead while spitting tobbaco into a spitoon and walkin with a cocky swagger. better? Isn't that what You want to hear?

You just don't get it...it's not about being a cowboy...it's not about "getting revenge" or going all vigalante...it's about protection of freedoms, true self defense, and a strong population that keeps part of the checks and blances even...you don't HAVE to own a gun...that's what 911 is for...but the freedom to have one was laid down for good reasons and as much as we'd like to think "We've advanced so much" we're not at the level where disarming even remotely a good idea. Until we can magicly see in the future...we have no idea what is coming down the pipe...plus anit-gun adovacates make it sound like it's a hollywood western and we're all shooting at each other night and day.

You know who gets shot the most? Criminals...and usually by other criminals. It's not only innocent kids being shot in those statistics of gun violence...but that doesn't pull at the hearstrings huh?

"Yeah this is Lil D...he was dealing crystal Meth when a rival dealer shot him in the legs...STOP GUN VIOLENCE NOW! Think of the dealers who sell to your children...think of the children!"

Silly...yeah...true...yup...now think of which is scarier.

[ForrestBlack]

man, you guys are assholes. apparently since I believe in using peace, and have never had to shoot at anyone, I am so narrow minded and have such a limited understanding, this is like the third time that I have been told what your talking about is too complex for my understanding. Ok. OK. everyone should own a gun, and they should shoot whoever tries to fuck with them fulla lead while spitting tobbaco into a spitoon and walkin with a cocky swagger. better? Isn't that what You want to hear?

Nobody called you wrong for choosing to use peace and your feelings about the morality of martyrdom are all yours to enjoy. You have not responded logically to many of the points made, so the impression you are giving is that they are beyond your understanding. You are free to demonstrate that they are not.

[Tequila Zaire]

ok. that's cool. and I'm just saying that maybe in addiction to owning a sidearm, people could try to take the initiatve to work out solutions without violence if possible, so that maybe someday we wouldn't have to have guns and live in fear of people trying to murder us. that might not be realisitic, but it sure is a lot better than the way things are going now.

People do...unless you live in a part of the country where they still have duels at high noon.

It may comfort you to know most NRA members have never killed anything (not all NRA members hunt for example) and alarge majority are people who share the same ideals, sport shooters, collectors, and general gun enthusiasts. Even militia members by and large are pretty non violent fellas...hell the California militia had a pacifist member (yeah try and figure THAT one out.)

[GasmaskGirl]

ok. that's cool. and I'm just saying that maybe in addiction to owning a sidearm, people could try to take the initiatve to work out solutions without violence if possible, so that maybe someday we wouldn't have to have guns and live in fear of people trying to murder us. that might not be realisitic, but it sure is a lot better than the way things are going now.

and I completely agree. I have never once (thankfully) had to actually use any of my weapons to defend myself. I've either been cautious and avoided the situation entirely - or if the situation was unavoidable, found another way to resolve it, usually in a non-violent manner although I have been in several bare-fisted fights. That's not what I want to happen though.

Guns are my absolute, 100%, end-of-the-world last resort. I'm not a maniac, I don't wave guns in people's faces and make threats. But I like to know that they are there, sitting nearby. I don't live in a very nice neighbourhood of my city, and it's reassuring to know that I have a gun nearby. I am a small girl and I am alone a LOT of the time. If someone were to break into my apartment while I was here - and It has happened in my apartment building before to other people (our landlord even gave us a written notice not to open the doors to anyone we don't know because people were forcing themselves into apartments and robbing them) - if this were to happen to me I would be prepared. I would have a chance, and maybe I would live.

[Amelia G]

ok. that's cool. and I'm just saying that maybe in addiction to owning a sidearm, people could try to take the initiatve to work out solutions without violence if possible, so that maybe someday we wouldn't have to have guns and live in fear of people trying to murder us. that might not be realisitic, but it sure is a lot better than the way things are going now.

Of course, it is better to work out solutions without violence. I don't think anyone here is suggesting you should shoot someone if they bought the kitten you wanted at the pet store. Violent self-defense is only for extreme situations.

I do, however, believe in an eye for an eye and I do believe that intentions count. If someone intended to do me or my loved ones violence, I think the most appropriate response would be an armed one.

Oh, but spittoons are totally grody.

[Morning Glory]

wait just a minute now. there's only so much I can take. You buy my kitty, and your a fucking dead man!

[GasmaskGirl]

Of course, it is better to work out solutions without violence. I don't think anyone here is suggesting you should shoot someone if they bought the kitten you wanted at the pet store. Violent self-defense is only for extreme situations.

I do, however, believe in an eye for an eye and I do believe that intentions count. If someone intended to do me or my loved ones violence, I think the most appropriate response would be an armed one.

exactly. and i agree that if anyone were to break into my apartment i would not hesitate to blow them away. What else are you going to do in that situation? Talk them out of it? Ask them to hold on a second while you call the police?

[Tequila Zaire]

exactly. and i agree that if anyone were to break into my apartment i would not hesitate to blow them away. What else are you going to do in that situation? Talk them out of it? Ask them to hold on a second while you call the police?

Just make sure they actually step INSIDE the apartment...or else you'll be the one in the hot seat.

[BrightStar]

Just make sure they actually step INSIDE the apartment...or else you'll be the one in the hot seat.

I am not sure, but I think I read somewhere that if somebody enters into a home without being invited, that whatever the owner does in defense,etc is legal.

Is this true? And if so, where is it valid?

[Morning Glory]

I think that's kind of fucked up, I mean is it justifable to murder someone because they were going to steal your VCR?

[GasmaskGirl]

I am not sure, but I think I read somewhere that if somebody enters into a home without being invited, that whatever the owner does in defense,etc is legal.

Is this true? And if so, where is it valid?

It differs from state to state/country to country, although i believe that any person has the right to defend themselves by any means necessary from a home invasion on reasonably grounds. In other words, if you can prove the person was coming into your home to attack you, you have the right to blow that person away. If it was obviously just some sales person knocking on your door, or a friend visiting your house that you happened to get into an argument with, you'd spend a long, long time in court trying to prove yourself. It has to be obvious that you were a victim.

[Tequila Zaire]

I am not sure, but I think I read somewhere that if somebody enters into a home without being invited, that whatever the owner does in defense,etc is legal.

Is this true? And if so, where is it valid?

That's essentially the thing dude, a criminal has to be IN your dwelling for a criminal act to occur like robbery...so you can't shoot em if they are outside on their way TOWARD your apartment or house...it'd be a bitch to prove that the person was gonan rob you without them being caught in the act...

Sadly it's NOT in ones favor to shoot a person trying to rob them...however...

You can shoot em below the waist and that will change everything (Dave Chapelle even made a joke about it an in an excellent skit about the World Series of Dice..) since a shot below the waist is not seen as lethal intent...

Insane huh? ones better off just tazering the fuck and calling the cops.

[GasmaskGirl]

I think that's kind of fucked up, I mean is it justifable to murder someone because they were going to steal your VCR?

yes.

if someone broke down my door or jimmied open my window, climbed into my apartment, waltzed into my livingroom and starting stealing my belongings, you are god damned right they are going to get an ass full of lead. You'd be a total fucking retarded idiot to think otherwise. Morning Glory do you actually believe it is wrong for me to protect and defend my home? What would you do in a case like that? Why am I the bad guy for defending myself?

[Tequila Zaire]

I think that's kind of fucked up, I mean is it justifable to murder someone because they were going to steal your VCR?

That's the thing...YOU don't know that's all they wanted at the time. You see someone in your home while YOU are their with your loved ones...the last thing you are thinking of is THEIR safety...

This is also why most professional thieves NEVER rob homes when people are there...safer for them both physically and legally.

[Morning Glory]

hahaha. I can just picture it: "excuse me, i'd like to tell you about the church of jesus christ of latter day saints..."

*KABOOM*

[Amelia G]

I think that's kind of fucked up, I mean is it justifable to murder someone because they were going to steal your VCR?

If a stranger is breaking into your home while you are there, it is reasonable to assume they have ill intent and respond accordingly. If they are running away with your VCR, it would be inappropriate and inadvisable to shoot them to protect an object.

TiVo is way better anyway.

[Tequila Zaire]

If a stranger is breaking into your home while you are there, it is reasonable to assume they have ill intent and respond accordingly. If they are running away with your VCR, it would be inappropriate and inadvisable to shoot them to protect an object.

TiVo is way better anyway.

Plus if you shoot the person in the back...you are fucked.

[GasmaskGirl]

If a stranger is breaking into your home while you are there, it is reasonable to assume they have ill intent and respond accordingly. If they are running away with your VCR, it would be inappropriate and inadvisable to shoot them to protect an object.

TiVo is way better anyway.

I agree. if you came across a situation where a person had already robbed you and is in the process of making off with your stuff, it would not be a good idea to try and chase after them or shoot at them or anything like that. What's done is done, they're already leaving, and it's not worth shooting someone over a VCR. But if you were there when they broke into your place and you were actually faced with them, that would be a different story because you have no idea what is going to happen. You don't know that they are "only there to steal your VCR", and when has that ever happened? When has a criminal ever broke in and told the people "relax man, i'm only here to take your tv. i'll be done in a jiff." .. never. they shoot you or tie you up or **** you or kill you.

[Morning Glory]

umm. yeah I think it's wrong to kill someone because they are stealing from you. if you think any amount of stuff in your house is equal to the cost of human life, and you wouldn't feel any remorse at murdering someone than you are way moe fucked up than somone that's just trying to make some money (however dishonest the means is.) now If somone is attacking you that's a totally different story.

[Tequila Zaire]

umm. yeah I think it's wrong to kill someone because they are stealing from you. if you think any amount of stuff in your house is equal to the cost of human life, and you wouldn't feel any remorse at murdering someone than you are way moe fucked up than somone that's just trying to make some money (however dishonest the means is.) now If somone is attacking you that's a totally different story.

Dunno about that way of thinking...if you're stealing from me then you're not all that valued in my eyes. My stuff is MY stuff...you want stuff like mine? Get a fucking job...it's cowardly to steal...and in such a case if I see a person tryiing to take what I worked hard for...they will not leave in the same shape as they came in.

In many countries thieves are still executed or disfigured...and rightly so.

[GasmaskGirl]

umm. yeah I think it's wrong to kill someone because they are stealing from you. if you think any amount of stuff in your house is equal to the cost of human life, and you wouldn't feel any remorse at murdering someone than you are way moe fucked up than somone that's just trying to make some money (however dishonest the means is.) now If somone is attacking you that's a totally different story.

*taps microphone* is this thing on?

*sigh*

i specifically said that if someone is breaking into your house you have every right and reason to defend yourself by any means necessary. If the person has already stolen from you - then so be it. It is not necessary to start firing at them because your television set is not worth a person's life. Morning Glory are you purposefully not understanding our posts just to fuck with us, or what? Because honestly I am starting to wonder if you are severely learning disabled.

[Nudemuse]

umm. yeah I think it's wrong to kill someone because they are stealing from you. if you think any amount of stuff in your house is equal to the cost of human life, and you wouldn't feel any remorse at murdering someone than you are way moe fucked up than somone that's just trying to make some money (however dishonest the means is.) now If somone is attacking you that's a totally different story.

I am not a huge gun fan but I think the point you're missing is this. Your choice to use peace loving tactics against (insert evil doer here)is your choice. What makes people angry is the government telling them how and what they can use to defend themselves.

Personally if it ever came down to me or some jackass breaking into my house it wouldn't be me. Whether or not they just came to steal my vcr.

I used to be an advocate for gun control until I met quite a few people for whom control laws mattered very little. If people have the money and opportunity they are going to buy what they want when they want. I would much rather see legal gun owners having weapons rather than some random whomever who had the cash and found the right contact.

I fully believe that most of the problems with gun control are caused by the few people who decide to be zealots about it on both sides. That as we can all see, hasn't worked.

The government can 'ban' whatever they like but as history keeps on telling us in this country banning something just helps it to grow into a problem twice as big.

If you don't want a gun don't buy one. It's real simple. You have your choice, I have mine, and everybody else has theirs.

The government needs to stay out of making the choices for us. That's why people came here in the first place.

Not mine but that's a whole other thread....(just a wee joke)

[HempKnight]

Jeebus Crisp on a cracker... I get sick and almost die, can't read the boards and come back to this..... and I've really held off on posting on this subject... buuuuuuuuuut....

strap yourselves in, this might be a long and ranty ride.
(forgive me if I don't make much sense, misspell or go off on a tangent, the meds have me fuuuuuucked up)

Ok... to start with I've grown up with guns of all types, for hunting and personal protection, I have a very health respect for firearms as well as the people who have to use them in daily life, be it law enforcement, military, bodyguards or whomever. With those jobs comes the responsibility and burden to protect life be it some elses or you own, also the real possibility that at sometime during your duty that you will have to take the life of another human. I know this fact all to well as I have served in the field of personal protection - bodyguard, bail bonds and bounty hunter and during that time I had been involved in two shootings - one fatal, I have been shot twice and stabbed twice as well.

In all that time I had only pulled my weapon a total of 5 times, in only the dire of needs, because as being a 'big man' and trained in other just as deadly ways to handle situations, there wasn't always a need to show force with a handgun. I can just as easily kill someone just as dead with bar of soap in a sock as I can by stabbing them (as far as close combat goes) but when faced with force, force is given back - but in equal amount. Pull a knife on me and I will do the same, pull a gun on me and you will find yourself staring down the business end of a large bore handgun (from personal experience, the psychological effect of the sight of such a big gun is enough to change the mind of a would be assailant... go pick up a Desert Eagle .50 at your local gun store and see what I'm talking about) But at the same time if you want to go hand to hand... bring it on... lets throw some punches, believe me, I would much rather do that... because I am at the age where I no longer think I am bulletproof and I don't heal as quickly anymore.

What is an assault gun? I have a gun that will fire 162 - 22 caliber bullets at 1500+ feet per second in less than six seconds. Does that meet your defination of an assault gun? With a five minute modification it will fire 243 - 22 caliber bullets in less than 10 seconds. Is it an assault gun now? Please realize that every gun was at one time an assault gun. A Walker Colt 45 cal cap and ball revolver was designed specifically as an assault pistol.

The problem is not the gun it is the improper use of the gun by people. How many times in Utah since the concealed carry laws were changed has there been any violation of the law by people with a permit. Very few times. Yet all the folks who scream to ban this or that gun when a couple of high school kids go on a killing spree dont seem to realize that those kids broke multiple laws before they fired the first shot.

The Clinton administration had a absolutely dismal record of prosecuting gun law violations yet they wanted more laws - why?Enforce a fraction of the laws we now have and you may get on top of the problem of illegal use of firearms. The Gun Control folks are so pleased with the Brady Bill. They say it has stopped XXXX number of convicted felons from buying a gun. How many of them were prosecuted for trying to do something that they already knew was illegal???

How about we go with the NAZI ideals.

The Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 among other things:
1. Classified guns for “sporting purposes”;
2. Required that all citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with Nazi officials and have a background check performed;
3. Exempted Nazis from gun control;
4. Gave them unrestricted power to decide what kind of firearms private citizens could or could not possess;
5. Gave the Nazis the power to decide what kinds of ammunition would be subject to bureaucratic control;
6. And set a minimum age for firearms purchase.

Should we just follow along with history? Hitler was an elected official. (which is a WHOLE other thread and something to not get me started on)

Being from the Detroit area I can say most of the murders are NOT by gangs. Some are by gangs, some are by drug dealers and believe it or not some are by family members. Show me an example of a gang member that has a gun legally. It's not the gun, it's the people! I have yet to see a gun on it's own see someone it didn't like and load itself, point-aim-shoot.

Suppose we didn't have any guns in this country. Tell me who then automatically has the advantage? The criminally minded for they are usually young and stronger. The reason why there are relatively few break-ins while the people are present is because they are afraid of being shot.

I've lived in LA, and there are times the killing is horrendous, but it's member against member and I say as long as they are each others target, give them the ammo. They are doing the police a favor.
A spokesman for Handgun Control said the solution is to keep all guns out of the hands of school kids and for sure not to have legally carried guns in schools. In California some town even tried to say the cops can't carry guns in schools.

In Israel many teachers carry UZI machine pistols. They have no people shooting up their schools - especially school kids.

Its really funny, the criminals all say they want everybody to turn in all the guns. They also say they fear guns in the hands of citizens. "That Granny with a gun will shoot you in a minute but a cop won't".


Ok.. enough... my brain is overloaded with painkillers now and I'm not sure how much sense I made... or even if I was going for what I had started out to do. (I would go back and re-read it.. but everything has wavy lines to it now)

weeeeeeeeeee... gotta love being torked up on legal opiates

[Lady Euthanasia]

"Guns don't kill people. People kill people... And monkeys, if they've got guns." (Eddie Izzard)

The problem is, no one remembers why we secured the right to bear arms in the first place -- which was to fight our government, if necessary. Nowadays, you can't actually use a gun to defend yourself in any situation, much less start a revolution. Not against the government, not even against intruders. (I have a friend who had an incident with the latter last year, and HE was the one who got in legal trouble for "brandishing a firearm" even though he was defending body and property.) When there's a natural disaster that precipitates anarchy or zombies take over the world, guns are fine. I'm not against people owning a handgun, although as I mentioned it's virtually useless. (I'd love to hear if someone was ever actually to use one to defend oneself successfully and without serious legal repercussions.)

The rights we lost over night in the Patriot Act sorta make the right to own these ridiculously dangerous weapons moot when the government can raid your house and take everything you own without warning, doncha think? And you can't shoot 'em like a real 1776 patriot, either. Back to square one.

M-

[Nautilus]

Since we’re obsessed with the right to bear arms, why don’t we get rid of the Nat. Guard and bring back the state militia? That’s what the right to bear arms is there for anyway, heh heh. So we can fight the government.

We’ve got huge government these days. Whether you vote for Bush or Kerry you’re voting for big government, they just have different ideas on what should be subsidized, what should be regulated, etc., according to whatever will make them and their buddies richer. This isn’t the America it was, if we want to keep our guns we should at least try to keep our other rights aswell!!

[Kidthorazine]

going back to the issue of the thread total disarment is bad but then again is it really a good I idea to let the public have access to miltary grade asualt weapons sure criminals can get them even if they are illegal but they are harder to get and more expensive and less criminals would have them thats why cops are for the ban in the first place because while not eliminating the problem it does reduce but it in turn creates a bugger black market for guns which can be a whole other problem so i still say everyone should have their very own 100 megaton hydrogen bomb in their basement

[Tequila Zaire]

Since we’re obsessed with the right to bear arms, why don’t we get rid of the Nat. Guard and bring back the state militia? That’s what the right to bear arms is there for anyway, heh heh. So we can fight the government.

We do have state militia's...

[Tequila Zaire]

going back to the issue of the thread total disarment is bad but then again is it really a good I idea to let the public have access to miltary grade asualt weapons sure criminals can get them even if they are illegal but they are harder to get and more expensive and less criminals would have them thats why cops are for the ban in the first place because while not eliminating the problem it does reduce but it in turn creates a bugger black market for guns which can be a whole other problem so i still say everyone should have their very own 100 megaton hydrogen bomb in their basement

Their is a thing called commen sense...few states or even NRA members agree the public should have Military Grade Weapons...what most argue against is the catogization of what qualifies as a military weapon or in this case an Assault Rifle...it's convoluted and silly. Cops of course don't want such a well armed public or criminal...but at the same time if you live in L.A. for example...the LAPD and the various other departments are not exactly symbols of what a true Law Enforcement force should be. Corruption, rascism, and numerous other problems really don't add to an aire of confidence that they will protect you.

Do I want AR-15's back on the open market? Yes.

Do I want to see M60's on the Market? Not really...

Gun control laws should be passed by people who actually OWN firearms and diffrent for each state so as to reflect the people of that region...

I've said my peace on the subject...all those against owning guns have some seriously warped views on the subject...It's like reading the shit the L.A. Times publishes...

[Kidthorazine]

I aleready said this but the problem with putting things like AR-15s on the market is that they can easily be converted into a fully automatic weapon via kits you can buy on the net or in the back of guns and ammo its the same with most assault weapons so esentially you are putting havy millitary grade weapons into the hands of the public

[Kidthorazine]

oh and to clarify I have no problems with people owning firearms for self defense or hunting or whatever as long as they serve a practical pourpose but where is the practicality of owning an AK-47

[Tequila Zaire]

I aleready said this but the problem with putting things like AR-15s on the market is that they can easily be converted into a fully automatic weapon via kits you can buy on the net or in the back of guns and ammo its the same with most assault weapons so esentially you are putting havy millitary grade weapons into the hands of the public

Yes...and that is illegal...driving drunk is illegal but I don't see people taking cars away from heavy drinkers.

My cousin owns an AR-15...and he has not modified it..why? Cause he follows the law. If you break that LAW then you will be penalized for it. If we start enforcing punishments for what people MAY do then 1984 is not far away my friend.

[Tequila Zaire]

oh and to clarify I have no problems with people owning firearms for self defense or hunting or whatever as long as they serve a practical pourpose but where is the practicality of owning an AK-47

You can't own an AK-47 legally...you can own the civilian model of it..and the practicality is the same as owning a fast sports car or modifing an import car to go well beyond "Street Legal". Some get off on driving fast...others get off on shooting weapons like say a .50 cal sniper rifle (which IS legal to own in some states).

Just cause you don't see the practicality in something does not mean it has no practicality. I mean if you want to go down this train of thought then unsafe sex would be far more dangerous to the general public as does heavy drug use...look at the statistics in another post..you will see gun related violence has gone WAY down since the early 90's.....

[pedar]

hear hear.

i hate to be trite, but there's more than a nugget of truth in "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

~n
who lurks

How will they get them if they aren't manufactured- and if ammunition ceases as well..maybe if they have good oil they will stop them from rusting...but I haven't heard of any robberies with muskets anymore...

[pedar]

Hate to break this too you but more often than not other household items are used as weapon in such cases...in Japan not long back some nutjob went on a killing spree with a table knife.

Killing is Killing...the method is not the only factor for it and it's not the only cause.

How many people would Kebold at Columbine have killed with a stead knife..maybe one before he was tackled? LOL!!
P.

[pedar]

some facts for those who care for data
www.bradycampaign.org/index.php

P.-

[pedar]

and if you scroll down the article here and click on 'gun control'- very intelligent examination of the issue-

www.wordiq.com/definition/communitarianism

P.

[Amelia G]

How many people would Kebold at Columbine have killed with a stead knife..maybe one before he was tackled? LOL!!
P.

Different people will do the wrong thing in different circumstances. Some people who would like to brutalize those around them restrain themselves out of fear of what someone defending themselves might do in response.

There are plenty of situations in which two people together could kill a baker's dozen of other people, with or without a gun. Maybe it would take a different pair of people, but different situations create different villains.

It is reasonable to be horrified at what Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris did, but an entire nation should not change its basic structure based on the actions of two poor miserable lunatic children whose teachers, parents, and doctor failed them.

These children were routinely tormented by their classmates and teachers were well aware of this and failed to stop it. They turned in writing assignments in school which were textbook cries for help.

When people have children, they should pay a little attention to what is going on with them. My parents were not perfect, but I'm damn sure a pal and I could not have constructed a plan to shoot up my school without my parents putting a stop to it. And I had diplomatic immunity, so I would not have even have had jail as a deterrent.

When Eric Harris, an obviously disturbed child went for psychiatric treatment, he was prescribed medication not approved for people with his sort of problem and not really accepted for use on children at all. Many child psychiatrists are opposed to any SSRI antidepressants being used on children as children are much more likely than adults to respond with manic psychosis and aggression and, to a less problematic extent, alienation, agitation, irritability, and loss of empathy or creation of inappropriate affect.

There was already a law against kids buying guns. The horror show in Columbine was not because of lax gun laws. It was because the grotesque neglect of all of the adults surrounding the disaster.

Littleton needs better teachers, parents, and doctors in order to have better kids who do not torture and even murder each other. Stricter gun laws will not decrease man's inhumanity to man there.

[Tequila Zaire]

some facts for those who care for data
www.bradycampaign.org/index.php

P.-

Oh please look at the source...facts my ass.

[Tequila Zaire]

How many people would Kebold at Columbine have killed with a stead knife..maybe one before he was tackled? LOL!!
P.

Oklahoma City...one man...one truck full of homemade explosives.

Guns were the tools they chose...had they not had access I am sure they would have chosen a similar thing...or are you forgetting the pip bombs they made as well?

You don't change an entire constitutional freedom based on the actions by so few. MILLIONS...of teens do not do what those two pricks did in columbine.

[pedar]

Oh please look at the source...facts my ass.

Judging from your comments here and your remarks on the Islam thread..you're not somebody I for one can discuss things with..good luck with your blood pressure..
P.