So answer me this. Why would someone bring a gun to a high-school graduation? And before you answer, do not say poverty and no opportunity.
Luv yourself a good killin' huh? Specially if you can attribute it to the other guy. BTW - I didn't broaden any definition, only shared what I read from the linked source. As for sides, I'm on the "side" of reducing gun deaths in the U.S. Apparently you're not.
Might be procedural. In Florida for instance a State Attorney can not charge a person with murder in the 1st degree I believe that is the only charge that they can't impose. So you will see an early 2nd upgraded to a 1st because a 1st requires a grand jury. Just went though that sadly with my cousin.
That's a BS answer and you know it. Normal people don't take a gun to a graduation, but I guess in your mind it's ok.
Clearly, like the vast majority of shootings, this was gang related. It wasn’t long ago n this very board certain posters wanted to explain why gang violence is different and doesn’t count when talking about mass shootings. This was back when the narrative of a line white man being the mass shooter in all cases. In fact, what happens when you remove gang violence shooting from the equation? This wasn’t a gun issue. This was a gang violence issue.
Let's see, today on CNN I was told that the shooter ran from the scene of the crime and was caught, not by police, but by security officers from VCU. Tonight on NBC News I was told that the shooter calmly surrendered to police at the scene of the crime. Do you notice something wrong with this?
That is kind of a good question, I'm a bit surprised they didn't have metal detectors.....at my granddaughters graduation last week we had to walk through metal detectors to get in. I thought it was kind of silly that granddaughters 3 year old baby sister walked around the metal detector and security made her go back and walk through.
I’m also sure they will agree that the gang violence in our country is ridiculous. Birthday parties, funerals, concerts, graduations, school, church… none of it is safe when their are gangs in the area.
The reason I keep ignoring you on this is because I'm attempting to be polite. It's a rather foolish technicality to harp on that actually underscores my point even further. The US Constitution was ratified in 1788. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. The Bill of Rights were the original framers saying "oh shit, we left this out, we better put it in there so it's clear." The 2nd Amendment wasn't a reversal. It was very intentionally added to the Constitution, to clarify the original framers' intent. In fact, it's telling of its importance that it came in 2nd only to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press on the list of "oh shit, we left this out." I'm really trying to be polite, but you're living in a dream world if you think the 2nd Amendment will ever be modified. It's as American as American gets.
If only people with shitty upbringings would stop doing shitty things as soon as they turned 21 or 22. Sadly, life doesn't work that way and kids who had shitty upbringings age and continue to do shitty things for years, decades later. I'm surprised the average age isn't higher, tbh.
Puzzling way to frame your response. Considering the tone of some of your previous posts, I don’t really understand your sudden desire for showing complete decorum. Also, your reply did not cause me any embarrassment. Why would it? Regardless, the argument does not make sense. An amendment is a change. It is not necessarily a reversal. The 2nd Amendment is a change, and not an original part of The Constitution. The date is not relevant, but what it represents is relevant. It set a precedent, by the framers, that The Constitution can be modified. That precedent has been used to modify the document many times over our history. Therefore, you cannot use the argument that the 2A is enshrined. Nothing is enshrined.
