Uwe Von Schamann's Bastard Son
You're going to suffer, no matter what i say or do. You would consider it ok to be infectious among friends, or treat your disease and keep your friends from suffering as you do?
Are you saying I should suffer through my cold more obviously so people will know better than to be near me? Is that what you do?
Relieving some of the symptoms of a cold is in itself a worthwhile goal. Especially since there is no cure for the common cold. You do what you can do, is all. You don't throw your hands up and do nothing just because you can't do everything.
You dont just treat the symptoms and ignore the disease...thats how diseases spread. Or worse yet, morph into something worse. Or havent you noticed the pennicillin resistant strains of disease that developed from the over use of pennicillin products?
So, how did Adam Lanza get his gun? Was he able to purchase one at a shop or show? MOST (certainly not all) criminals are happy to buy from street suppliers. But you already have plenty of laws in place, laws that demonstrably worked. So why do people insist on ignoring the REAL problem? Lanza....Cho.....the perpetrators. Are there any behaviors or habits that these murderers have in common? What are we doing to cure the criminal mind instead of impedeing or disarming law abiding citizens?
Sure they are, at least some, if not directly then by proxy. Out West in particular, gun shows are an absolute free for all and gun control is a concept rather than a reality.
As I said before, the gun lobby does their best to strip gun control laws of any real effect and then comes along afterwards and point to those toothless laws as not having an effect as the reason not to pass a further law. Until an actual gun control law comes along and gets passed and we can see what it does to gun violence, I'll continue to be unmoved by arguments such as this one you're making.
Anyway, gun crime by criminals isn't the only kind worth possibly doing something about. The less likely the average person is to having a gun, and/or the less damaging that gun, the fewer domestic murder cases we'll have as well as "dude just snapped" kinds of spree killers.
So, they meant for the Federal Government to be large and unwieldly? Sorry, never have bought into that line of thought.
I don't think there's ever been a successful legal argument made that the 2nd amendment says that the regulation of arms to be a wholly state concern. It's always been the interpretation that the federal government can do things and the state can do things, and where they're in conflict the federal government takes precedence (the "necessary and proper" clause overrules the 10th amendment where they come in conflict, at least usually).
Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life