You'll never control who can get access to any gun, only where guns can be taken. Locked doors will only slow someone down as was evident during this shooting. Nothing is 100% preventable.
The Nashville Shooter is just an example of the success of the Second Amendment. We have unfettered access to military grade firearms in the US because the Second Amendment has been interpreted to vest the right to bear arms not just for personal defense in the hearth and home, but as a right to bear arms to resist tyranny. While we do not have the manifesto yet, it seems clear that the shooter saw the attack on trans rights in the US and Tennessee as an example of tyranny. And it is probably not far fetched to imagine that the school did not approach the shooter's trans identity with acceptance and dignity. So, the shooter exercised the well settled Second Amendment right to resist tyranny by bearing arms.
Oh but you say that there was no tyranny? Well, who gets to decide whether there is tyranny or not? Under the Second Amendment, whether tyranny is the acceptance of interracial marriage, affirmative action, anti-trans legislation is just in the eye of the person who has taken up arms. The ultimate determination of whether they were right or wrong is left to the battlefield. If those who bear arms are well organized and effective in how they use their weapons, they will defeat whoever is on the side of tyranny. If they are not effective, then there must not have been any tyranny. That is the beauty of the Second Amendment, It preserves the right of every American to go shoot it out over what they think is tyranny and anyone caught in the crossfire just has to take one for the team.
Please give an example of a weapon that is not “military grade.”
you anti gun nuts love to just throw around scary words
Go shoot a .30-.30 and an AR-15 at two hundred yards and get back to me with your results.
Also--and this is no small thing--your writing skills are horrible. I'm not engaging in tone-policing here; the problem is that you can't articulate anything more sophisticated than what your limited vocabulary and syntax support. There's no real thinking happening in your head, because you literally don't have the language to develop and sustain thought. You have impulses and you have words, but that doesn't mean you're thinking. Indeed, to paraphrase someone we both know, "Anyone who writes like you is a simpleton and shouldn't be taken serious"
LOL "rocky you write so badly that I borrowed one of your written quotes"
The rest of your post is relativity bullsht. I'll tell you what to think, Slimey. People like me have to think for you because you;r'e a dishonest twit.
Way to dodge the issue, RockyG. Now, do you want to actually try to respond to my question about who gets to decide what tyranny is? I challenge you to give it a shot.
Just answer the question: Who gets to decide what tyranny is? And then answer the follow-up: why should that group, and not another, be the arbiters of what constitutes tyranny?
Also, the name is TKTKTK, not "Slimey." Thanks for using it.
Way to dodge the issue, RockyG. Now, do you want to actually try to respond to my question about who gets to decide what tyranny is? I challenge you to give it a shot.
Just answer the question: Who gets to decide what tyranny is? And then answer the follow-up: why should that group, and not another, be the arbiters of what constitutes tyranny?
Also, the name is TKTKTK, not "Slimey." Thanks for using it.
Way to dodge the issue, RockyG. Now, do you want to actually try to respond to my question about who gets to decide what tyranny is? I challenge you to give it a shot.
Just answer the question: Who gets to decide what tyranny is? And then answer the follow-up: why should that group, and not another, be the arbiters of what constitutes tyranny?
Also, the name is TKTKTK, not "Slimey." Thanks for using it.
Its like you're a mentally immature imbecile. Who gets to decide? That sounds like an implication that no one does or nobody should decide.
Whoever is in power decides. The question is, are we as a society going to continue to allow degenerate destructive elites currently in power to continue to decide the warped direction our communities and states have been headed down??? You don't seem to bothered by the current state of things. You're in the minority. This is either going to get straightened out or societies will fall. And if it has to be the latter, so be it.
This post was edited 38 seconds after it was posted.
I’m not defending the LGBTQIA movement. They can defend themselves. I’m just saying AR-15s do a great job at killing people. But continue on with pinning it on mental illness like mental illness is some new thing.
Way to dodge the issue, RockyG. Now, do you want to actually try to respond to my question about who gets to decide what tyranny is? I challenge you to give it a shot.
Just answer the question: Who gets to decide what tyranny is? And then answer the follow-up: why should that group, and not another, be the arbiters of what constitutes tyranny?
Also, the name is TKTKTK, not "Slimey." Thanks for using it.
Its like you're a mentally immature imbecile. Who gets to decide? That sounds like an implication that no one does or nobody should decide.
Whoever is in power decides. The question is, are we as a society going to continue to allow degenerate destructive elites currently in power to continue to decide the warped direction our communities and states have been headed down??? You don't seem to bothered by the current state of things. You're in the minority. This is either going to get straightened out or societies will fall. And if it has to be the latter, so be it.
FYI, there have always been transgendered people, even when America was Great Again. You sound personally effected by transgenderism, even when it should have little impact on your life (unless something else is going on). You don’t want the government getting involved with people’s personal life do you?
Guns should have a safety feature that scans the face of the user to see if it’s ugly before dafetubwill be unlocked unless said user is with a party or at an approved location, and also geolocation/Bluetooth/wifi detection to add a loading time or remote approval via the local NRA, unless multiple guns owned by multiple individuals are present in the same area, and they must have gyrometers and geotracking must indicate that said guns are not being toted by the same individual.
or we could just have AI approval for the use of guns per area, or hell, we could have AI increase the trigger pull force massively in no-gun zones.
Scrawny inqels won’t be able to pull of the trigger pull is high enough.
this is a semi-auto barrage of ridiculous ideas, but if we could seriously have some systems implemented to stall guns from operating in certain zones, it would be fantastic.
What about resonance frequency detectors at the entrances of buildings?
Would that be able to detect a rifle? Does lead emit sufficient radioactive isotopes?
Can trace quantities of bullet propellant be sniffed by equipment?
Way to dodge the issue, RockyG. Now, do you want to actually try to respond to my question about who gets to decide what tyranny is? I challenge you to give it a shot.
Just answer the question: Who gets to decide what tyranny is? And then answer the follow-up: why should that group, and not another, be the arbiters of what constitutes tyranny?
Also, the name is TKTKTK, not "Slimey." Thanks for using it.
The good, moral Christians whom this country was designed and made for... this would be a good starting point for a lot of controversial issues...