DZJ

I'm dubious about the sentence, but my first thought after reading the article was 'whatever happened to breast feeding?'

I can only assume the person who sent the email in the original post owns shares in a pee testing company.

The common theme of gun discussion around here seems to be arguments for/against new laws, generally tightening controls on firearms. I was wondering, to approach the question from the other end, what laws both sides would agree are right and necessary. A sort of 'lowest common denominator', if you will.

Another Strawman argument. Did you two fail the same logic class? So when the Pope sanctions a crusade, it has nothing to with Christianity, yes?

Name one Christian who fought a bloody crusade against the infidels...oh yeah, nevermind.

Heh, drive 24 hours from Britain and you can be in Spain, or Austria, or any of a dozen different countries.

America was under attack in Vietnam?

The Royal Family already has a long history of military service, not least Prince Andrew in the Falklands, and many others. Harry is hardly hiding (ooh, alliteration), by all reports he wants to go.

For what it's worth, I've a sneaking feeling we're going to miss Blair once Gordon Brown gets crowned.

How do state constitutions relate to the national Constitution? What happens if they were to conflict?

Garlic? Outrageous! Black pepper and mustard, my friend. Anyhow, my thanks for all the replies, and the suggested reading. I'm sure I'll pipe up again if anything remains unclear.

First off, this is an honest question and not a prelude to an anti-gun rant. I'm sure some posters might assume that I'm some limp-wristed gun-fearing Brit, but that's emphatically not the case. So here's the question. What does the reference to 'a well-regulated militia' in the Second actually mean? That everyone is allowed guns so that they can form such a militia if they need to/want to? Or did it assume that within the context of a regulated militia, the people had (have) a right to guns? Or some other meaning? Also (a question about context) given that militia weaponry and military weaponry weren't much different at the time the Constitution was written, does that make laws restricting military-type weapons (such as fully-automatic small arms) to some degree unconstitutional? (Or to turn that around and apply reductio ad absurdum if you could convince people that peashooters and catapults were militia weapons, could you ban everything else without violating the Constitution?) Like I said, an honest question humbly asked, hoping for illuminating answers.

I'm finding the equation of enjoying a drink in a student bar and the right to save yourself from a rampaging murderer a little odd, but if that's the way you see it, then fair enough.

No offence, but I really don't think that the skydiving analogy holds. Skydiving is a recreation that assumes a degree of risk, and the potential for very serious injury or death. Planning for that contingency therefore goes without saying. Planning what to do a mass murdering nutcase comes to shoot you at college is more akin to planning what to do if you get hit by a meteorite falling from space. In other words, its beyond the bounds of what should be reasonable. Planning for every conceivable circumstance, no matter how terrible is impossible, and trying would probably result in severe paranoia. That said, if as a result of this tragedy people recognise what is happening next time (God forbid) and take action, then at least some good will have come of it.

Isn't that what we just saw last week? 32 unanswered murders. 1 person with a weapon of their own could have ended it. Additionally... we aren't talking about kids...we're talking about men and women, over 21 years of age, that have gone through the background checks and training to carry a concealed pistol. If the age limit is 21, the vast majority of undergrads aren't going to be able to carry concealed, even if they wanted to and if their college permitted them. To me this sets up the uncomfortable situation where the right to armed self-defense would seem to vary with whether or not an individual is a young undergrad, a mature undergrad, a post-grad or a member of staff.

While it would obviously have been much better if this kid killed himself without taking any one with him, I am appalled that you would give it out that advice. Even though I consider you to be one of the most visious, hateful people on these forums, that comment still makes me shake my head. Suicide NEVER keeps the rest of us out of it. It will forever haunt people wondering what they could have done different. Some would consider it a very selfish act for the pain it leaves behind. Not as selfish as taking others with you no doubt, but a deeply disturbing scaring event none the less. Goodbye Heard an interesting article on the radio recently about this sort of thing, and how one's perspective shifts if you try and think of these sorts of incidents as acts of suicide first, rather than as acts of murder first. Was interesting because while we tend to think of these awfuls events as mass murders, they are perhaps really just terribly perverted suicides (if suicide wasn't terrible enough). I find it something of a difficult question really, because while school-shooting-as-suicide seems to make sense from a psychological point of view, it seems to muddy the waters as to who the victims are and so gives difficulty on an emotional level.

I find it incredible that you seem to think that the value of their opinion is altered by whether or not their daughter was killed or wounded. I wasn't killed or wounded by the 7/7 London bombings, but I like to think I'm entitled to an opinion on them.

I think the irony here is delicious. If Pelosi makes people turn Republican, then Coulter easily resets the balance if not more so.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Hence the rather important word 'workable' in my original post.

The Bush Family--how fucking stupid--They're a bunch of rich assholes who do nothing to warrant their lot in life.

Predictably, this incident has been used by both sides of the argument as a club with which to beat the other side with. Rather than continue an unseemly tit-for-tat, does anyone have any workable ideas about how this sort of thing might be prevented in future? [Oh, and Andy, in that case I can only assume your dog has a remarkably elegant and regal behind]

My thoughts are with the families.

Did you even read the article? You should be blaming the CIA, if you have to blame someone.

I'm waiting for someone to say 'Well, I'm sure Clinton didn't mean to get a blowjob....'