Pentagon on lockdown after shooting.

That was me having the nap...And I thought you didn't read my posts.

Of course "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (...) shall not be infringed."
I'm sure the free State of Arkansas will be fine.

Interesting to see that their first link is to "Guerilla warfare" by none other than Che Guevara. I don't hope they plan to follow his lessons.

Kees

we'd do away hopefully with such phrasing and say simply,

"The people's right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed since armed citizens are necessary to insure the security of a free State, and when needed to form a well regulated Militia"

How is it a "problem"?

That's what liberals think when reading about this. Of course all the killing in Baltimore and DC of those unarmed by those bad citizens who are armed is just a need for yet more "gun" control, instead of citizens meeting criminals on equal terms and retaining right of self defense, protection of property, ad_infinitum.

Life, Death & Injustice in Baltimore. A gun might have helped him. Chances are it wouldn't in this instance, but then maybe someone would have already shot Davon during some other crime and then this murder never would have happened. We call play "what if" but this is a good example of bad guys carrying guns and what happens when the good guys don't too.
======================

http://www.city-journal.org/html/5_4_sndgs01.html

Angeline, considering the number of states that now allow concealed carry permits, how do you know who is carrying one? Does your local McDonald's, or other burger restaurant that you prefer, have a sign saying no firearms? If not, did you ever ask the management if they forbid it?

....... for nearly 8 decades,.

Gun ownership did not used to be a political issue. it was an accepted fact that lots of people owned firearms. They were dispassionate about it. It was just a fact of life.

The rhetoric has reached a fever pitch. I am being sarcastic here, but it they seem more concerned about their guns being taken away than they are about their first-born being taken away.

I am a liar because I say I don't want to take your gun away. I should not feel safe unless there are armed civilians around me.

Frankly, I have never felt this uncomfortable about being in public places. One advantage of my age is that I can avoid those public paces easier than most. And I do and I will. Fortunately, my out of town visiting will be limited to Ar Force Bases. On those, personal firearms must be kept at an armory. The military police units are in charge of protection.

That is what suits me just fine.

Angeline

I think most who have the ability to live in your manner, just visit home and Air Base, wouldn't even bother to carry a gun on themselves at any point. Not everyone can avoid bad neighborhoods and bad situations. My father for one is 79 and sometimes does appraisals in areas that aren't necessarily safe. When he gets assigned a fee appraisal from FHA or VA, he can't turn back the ones where he'd rather not go. In those areas, he goes armed, usually openly. Not everyone has the same living or working situation, where some may be safer than others. It's not fair those who live in a relatively safe manner at all times should restrict those who don't from taking precautions to adequately or hopefully secure their own safety.

Personally I have no desire to carry a weapon like a gun around. Most times I wouldn't. It would depend on where I had to be or drive through, and even there a route can be designed to avoid the high crime areas.

Personally I'm glad police in this country are armed. I would feel safer if I knew there were a lot more out there willing to carry and hopefully for protecting not just themself, but others if the occassion should arise. To me it's inconceiveable that ex-military, retired military or police, and others trained in firearms suddenly shouldn't be carrying a personal firearm around just because they are no longer in that area of work. Did they suddenly become untrustworthy by leaving the police or military? No.

Sorry, Angeline, I can't put much weight on claims that some unknown person called you a liar or said "I should not feel safe unless there are armed civilians around me.". You feel how you feel, but you seem to make statements about how others feel, including unnamed ones.

you support the notion that anybody in certain mental conditions should lose his constitutional right to carry arms? That's certainly an interesting interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

If not that, what else did you mean to say?

Kees

I reported a news story, nothing more. No need to fabricate a hidden message. With all due respect, I think you may be beyond your depth.

Do we even know the guy purchased his guns legally? I doubt it.

of the Bill of Rights, it seems: you only may carry arms you bought legally. I don't read that in "the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Kees

I don't think you really have the understanding to comment on the Bill of Rights.

at least as poor as your knowledge of constitutional rights, I'll help you.

Yes, mentally ill people can be legally barred from possessing firearms(rules vary by state)

You're welcome.

And I think such rules make sense.

Kees