Pittsburgh Cop Killer Feared Obama Gun Ban

[Believer1997]

Oh dandy..... let's all form militias.... good idea.

[Axxman]

I think he's a white supremacist too; trouble is, he killed three officers; only one was black. I don't think a hate crimes charge would stick for anyone but the black officer. Hopefully, Pa. is a death penalty state. I really don't know.....but I do know it seems like this is happening every few days now. Or am I imagining things? IMHO, this has nothing to do with fear of losing the right to buy guns; it's a general helplessness about the state of the country and the economy and it pushes the unstable over the edge.

White Supremacists hate law enforcement. In many cases they are seen as equal to minorities. Killing a cop will get an aryan gang member special status in prison. As far as officer deaths are concerned we are on pace to hit our average of 130-140 deaths this year.

[Axxman]

Well do people pay thier car registrations. Yes they do. If they dont then they get can get tickets, and eventually a license suspended. If a person want the liberty to own a weapon this is not asking much. If the person doesn't want to comply, they dont have to go to jail. They just get ticketed, and the law can then go and remove that weapon untill all fines are paid.

Why shouldnt the government know who has guns. That is the problem with this type of thinking. You acutally believe that you have rights. NO you don't. If marital law can be declared, at the discrection of the government, then your rights go as far as the government.

Butero, your idea of america is a false one brother. I am sorry but the America you think exist is not real...it has never been.

Ruck...in a way you are comparing apples to oranges. People don't have a constitutional right to drive cars...therefore the state can put special restrictions on cars without infringing on your rights. When the gov't puts restrictions on something that is considered to be a Constitutional, God-given right...thats way different. Furthermore, I still don't see how the restrictions you are talking about will affect criminals one iota. It will affect law abiding citizens who already jump through gov't hoops to get a gun.

Do you think this guy in Pennsylvania would not have used his gun for violence if he had it registered? He didn't care, he was ready to die. Those restrictions you are willing to impose wouldn't phase him. DO you think this would have turned out differently if the gov't had this guy's gun on file somewhere? No way.

[Axxman]

and there you have it folks.

a guy that just got out of jail for murder should be able to go out and buy a atomic bomb, and anything less is a violation of the Constitution.

You heard it here first.

A guy who just got out of jail for murder could go buy a bomb easier than most law abiding citizens can go buy a gun. And quicker too. So again, the problem is that all these rules and regs about buying guns don't affect criminals...they only affect law abiding citizens.

[forrestkc]

I wasn't aware that atomic weapons were available to the general public.

Non sequitur.

At the time of our nation's founding, any individual assuming he had the financial means, could purchase any weapon he or she wanted weather it was a musket, a cannon, or a warship.

The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not so that militias could defend the populace against a totalitarian governments armies, but rather it was so that the government would primarily rely on being able to call up militias in defense of the nation rather than to have a large standing army.

While the founders could not have conceived of a weapon with the destructive power of an atomic weapon, they certainly would have been against anything remotely like the huge amount of defense spending we have today, and would have preferred local militias armed with the best weapons those militias could afford as the primary method of defending the country.

Otherwise, in many ways the concept of what the founders were trying to achieve with the second amendment is no longer practical in our modern era. Its why Thomas Jefferson had this to say about you "strict constructionists":

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment... laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind... as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times.... We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

That all said, you have a right to purchase a firearm. It should not be infringed upon in any unreasonable manner at all.

[Believer1997]

not all "mentally ill" people are crazed killers. there are people who have had the same diagnosis as the VT killer who have never killed a soul in their life--nor ever would. more homocides are committed in this country by people who have never been on meds and have never been diagnosed with a mental illness than there are those who have. if you want the government to step in and predict who will become a killer and who won't, and either grant or deny the right to arm themselves because of that prediction, i think you're asking for the disarmament of this country. given an inch, the government takes a mile.

you have more to fear from those who don't seek medical treatment (and so in your opinion may have easy access to guns) than you do the ones who do (whom you imply are not fit to protect themselves with firearms). there can be no weeding out, because there can be no predictions. if you want to take all the guns away from the "mentally ill" just in case... well, that's kind of a WWII Germany thing, ain't it?

Ya know... Charitow...when you're right you're right. Yep - Give Everybody a Gun. I don't care who they are or how competent or not.. Give 'em all a gun. Doesn't matter any more. By the way, I just sit and listen to a close friend who lost her only son at the VT massacre. Now, she has a little different outlook on who should have them or not - but, I think you're right. ANYBODY who wants one - should get it. It's our right!! Blessings to ya!! and Keep your powder dry!!!

ya know believer, this sarcasm is not very becoming. if you want to argue the point, you're quite free to do so. but this is passive agressive stuff and makes no point whatsoever.

This is such a ridiculous stance it deserved sarcasm. One has be very careful when arguing with the foolish... sometimes it's hard to tell who is who.

[Believer1997]

Do I really need to, Butero?

[Matthitjah]

From the TOS;

Debate the subject, not the person. It is possible to disagree about a doctrine or subject under discussion without insulting the person with whom you are debating. Also remember that the fact that a person disagrees with you does not mean they are attacking you as a person. Respect each other in the love of God! This is the main reason that threads get stopped, shut down, and even deleted! Users that cannot respect others will be banned. (Lev. 19:18)