Could work out well. Kids have 1st amendment rights and they exercise them without the fabric of society crumbling. Since corporations are people, they should also be armed and allowed to use deadly force in defense. I'd imagine we would see way less hostile take overs happening when corporate officers know they will be met with force. Why do we infringe on their second amendment rights. If the framers meant to prevent children from having guns or corporations from having guns they would have said so in the text of the constitution or in the federalist papers. Also the fact that the right is enshrined in the bill of rights means that the right is equally as important as any of those other rights contained within. As an avid reader of dystopian sci-fi, I second your motion.
For the above over-simplified cartoon---multiple shooters is all fun and good, until you realize that nobody remembers who the original shooter is anymore, the people who plan crap like this actually will go out on a limb to wear tactical armour, and bullets don't care who they're aimed at.
Thank god we have pictures like this that capture the reality on the ground in movie theatres, and schools. It also is helpful in that it shows me how much safer we would all be if people were allowed to take their AR-15s around with them. Thank you for this insightful picture and god bless the corageous hero who made it.
Could government ever truly stop that from happening if some one were so intent? If so, at what cost?
From the Washington Post: Nor has he (Barack Obama) tried to use the mass shooting to call for any new gun-control laws. White House press secretary Jay Carney told reporters on Air Force One during the flight to Colorado, “The president’s view is that we can take steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them under existing law.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...e-in-court/2012/07/23/gJQAa3oN4W_story_1.html
Could a slew of private citizens with a mass array of guns stop madness? I'm inclined to believe they will just excaberate it.
They took the guns off citizens down here in Australia...unfortunately the criminals kept their guns. Lunacy. The quote in Mojomans post just above your post makes sense. Try to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.
I don't like the logic you use. Why have weapons because the government has more and they are much more advanced? Not a good reason to give up your right to arms.
Except this didn't lead to disaster and has been overplayed by gun rights advocates in the US and other countries. http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp And since I was in Australia not that long ago it wasn't like Perth was some crime ridden hell hole because private citizens didn't have easy access to guns.
Why indeed have weapons if you are not likely going to succeed being able to resist the government let alone overthrow it. Also as I noted earlier the 2nd Amendment isn't so much a right for personal self-defense against the government but about the states to provide for their own ability to provide for defense by calling out armed militia. Keep in mind that one of the first uses of the militia following the ratification of the Constitution was to put down a citizens rebellion. The Whiskey Rebellion.
Agreed. But keeping your arms to fight off the govt. is just silly, because it won't work. Citizens with small arms fire won't defeat a govt. that will shut off your water, power, use planes, bombs, tanks, etc. It's just not rational to want to hold on to guns in order to supposedly have a means of going after the govt. But that doesn't mean the freedom to own guns should be taken away.
Many Iraqi insurgents are dead, their country is occupied, and for all intents and purposes, the military has managed to run roughshed over most of the country. I don't think it's the best example for what a citizen militia of America would hope to acheive.
This would be great, if this ever actually happened. The problem is that it never has and basically never does, and certainly wouldn't have been effective in this case unless somebody was packing body armor and night vision goggles. The old lady with the purse and a pea shooter, as portrayed in your graphic didn't appear...and as Saletan wrote on Slate today, the only thing you would have done if you shot back is likely gotten yourself killed (awaiting caseyh to point out a technical detail of me inaccurately labeling something body armor...)
takes off tape Luby's shooting, VTech, Columbine, and this latest one, all had laws in place where it was illegal to carry. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/M1u0Byq5Qis" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> tape on
But Tuscon and this one didn't. edit: I get it, you're saying since the movie theater didn't allow people to run around with guns, this is why it's "illegal to carry" despite colorado's liberal concealed carry laws. I doubt that was dispositive here.
