One may want the liberty to have all sorts of things, including a stash of bombs in the basement.
We are dicussing which wants one may reasonably expect to have fulfilled.

I do see the larger issue as laxity of gun laws- I don’t understand why anyone needs a semiautomatic that can shoot multiple rounds without reloading or why a background check isn’t required to prove mental fitness

Who said it was about what a person NEEDS ? I don’t need a tv but I have several . I don’t need multiple houses but I want them . This is a free country . What people need is not and should not be the issue regardless of the subject .

You seem to argue from the position of your knowing the true meanting, and it’s up to those who oppose you to change the law.
The the other camp throws it right back at you in reverse.

The only clarity is in the conviction by individuals that they have it right.
We’re back to having two different clarities. Your side doesn’t get primacy by simple declaration, nor does the other side.

This is just going around in circles. Meanwhile, the carnage continues.

As for MVG bizarre statements above, what can you say? Obviously someone who has little understanding the constitution is a living document that is altered and rethought constantly. New ‘rights’ will be created and undersatood as time goes on. There is constant need to adjust how you view the writings in a 200 year old document, or it becomes ‘the word of god’.

No, you change what the Law actually says, not by interpreting it in a way that suits your own wishes instead of what was actually written and meant with it back in the day.

The Constitution will never become a ‘Bible’, because it can still, always be altered, changed. The Bible – want to change teaching? Change interpretation, the Bible is, as a document, ‘finished’, never changing. The Constitution, however, can be changed.

In other words, your comparison is not valid.

This is the problem with people who cannot distinguish different issues / subjects.

As for MVG bizarre statements above, what can you say? Obviously someone who has little understanding the constitution is a living document that is altered and rethought constantly. New ‘rights’ will be created and undersatood as time goes on. There is constant need to adjust how you view the writings in a 200 year old document, or it becomes ‘the word of god’. And we all know how well that works.

Not a good day legally or for therights of individuals who do not believe in the jesus myths but instead want a logical and sensible government that is geared toward serving its people and not creating sanctity police. Illegal medical procedures, not believing in the foundation of evolutionary biology…I wonder is that very vocal portion of the United States wouldn’t be better served in the Dark Ages?

Why were the English professor’s efforts to get police, mental health dept, faculty and staff involved so fruitless.

Because the state needs probable cause to act. It’s not enough that someone might be a danger to him- or herself or others, they must act or be definitely in the process of acting. Nothing the English professor came up with suggested either of those things.

1. Why were the English professor’s efforts to get police, mental health dept, faculty and staff involved so fruitless. I cant tell you how many articles I have now read where campus police chiefs say the best security is to keep a watch out and report suspicious people. Here was someone pegged by his prof as a potential killer, and her repeated efforts to get someone to act were all fruitless. We need better response systems.

2. Why was a man accused of stalking and in mental health care in 2005 for violence/suicide allowed to buy a gun? we need better systems to weed out people like this from the instantaneous purchase of guns. Dont get me wrong, I own guns and strongly support the right to bear arm, but a stalker under mental health care should not be able to get a gun. Period. Anyone arguing for his right to buy a gun is truly misplaced in their thinking.

3. Why was the campus not evacuated with two people dead and the shooter on the loose? I have sympathy for police dealing with a chaotic situation but we surely can do better than was done on this fateful day.

Like Gov. Kane, I loathe those who are trying to score political points on any side of the gun divide on this case. However, we need a cold hard look at the foregoing issues and hopefully Kane’s commission will look at all of them.

I do see the larger issue as laxity of gun laws- I don’t understand why anyone needs a semiautomatic that can shoot multiple rounds without reloading or why a background check isn’t required to prove mental fitness.

someone wanna explain how someone with a record of mental illness purchases a gun legally?

how campus officials did very little to help a student who showed signs of severe mentall illness for at least a year before the shooting?

this case has less to do with gun laws and more to do with how we deal with mental illness in this country