Comments (45) (Please sign in to comment)

1. 

   MortyForTyrant said, 10 months ago

   The tragedy is not the tragedy but the inability to end the tragedies…
2. 

   SwimsWithSharks said, 10 months ago

   “Assault” on the 2nd amendment.

   Yeah, that’s were doing when we slow the flow of guns to psychos or restrict the sale of high-capacity magazines. We’re assaulting part of the Bill of Rights.
3. 

   onguard said, 10 months ago

   Get Obama and Dem Libs to Run up front on Gun Control and see where that leads.
4. 

   DrCanuck said, 10 months ago

   In Canada, people with mental illnesses are given treatment. In America, they are given guns.

   
   Y’all have a strange way of doing things.
5. 

   glenbeck said, 10 months ago

   @SwimsWithSharks

   yeah, lets re-write the 15th amendment to keep unwanted, illegal and ignorant people from voting .BUT, why should we change the 2nd amendment to keep the same people from buying assault firearms and explosives?
6. 

   iamthelorax said, 10 months ago

   Yeah sure, let’s talk about gun control instead of mental illness. It is election season after all LOL! Just like we preferred to talk about “cyber bullying” when a gay college student commits suicide instead of suicidal depression. We’ll even put an innocent kid in jail before we’re ready to talk about this. This guy is nuts to the point he decided he’s the joker. He’s broken and there’s something wrong with our society that we don’t pay attention to these issues that lead to this massacre. The signs are there and we need to start paying attention to things we’d rather not talk about.
7. 

   piobaire said, 10 months ago

   @Sharuniboy

   I agree that we should follow the law, based on the Constitution. So, where is the observance of the part of the second amendment that speaks of a well-regulated militia? If you are going to support one part of the second amendment, shouldn’t all of it be supported? I own long guns, and reasonable regulation is necessary. Nobody needs the kind of high-capacity magazines used in the movie massacre except for criminal behavior.
8. 

   SwimsWithSharks said, 10 months ago

   @glenbeck

   Exactly. It’s an assault on our rights any time a gun merchant is subject to government restrictions, but taking thousands of qualified voters off the voter lists is considered defending democracy.
9. 

   dtroutma said, 10 months ago

   SCOTUS in the D.C. case affirmed a “personal right” to possess firearms, AND REAFFIRMED that the STATE has the RIGHT TO REGULATE such possession, but not outright “ban” ownership without cause.
10. 

    piobaire said, 10 months ago

    @Sharuniboy

    Very good response, nicely written. However, you forgot to speak about the well-regulated part again. Please comment on what you feel reasonable regulation to be. I am a long gun owner and support the right of citizens to own firearms.
11. 

    piobaire said, 10 months ago

    @Sharuniboy

    By the way, I agree that the Founding Fathers were wise and far-seeing men. I think that we should support all parts of the constitution as amended, not just those parts that suit you or me.
12. 

    lonecat said, 10 months ago

    Just as a footnote (but obviously not a footnote to Caleb and his family), this is from a story about the aftermath of the shooting: “Caleb Medley, a 23-year-old aspiring comedian, was listed in critical condition on Tuesday at University of Colorado Denver Hospital. A website set up to raise money for his care because the Medleys have no health insurance, www.calebmedley.com/help, said he had lost his right eye, suffered brain damage and was in a medically induced coma.” No health insurance. The story went on to say that the bill could be more than $2 million. Of course people will donate, but isn’t there a better system?
13. 

    Wabbit said, 10 months ago

    As the GOP keeps re-doing the argument against ACA is NOT WORKING. It isn’t working and THEY are NOT doing WORK!
14. 

    Northern Redman said, 10 months ago

    @DrCanuck

    Unfortunately, about 30 years ago our courts ruled that you cannot confine a mentally ill person against their will if they have not committed a crime. So, no matter how crazy they act, we wait until they kill a dozen people before they’re allowed to be detained.
15. 

    lonecat said, 10 months ago

    In Ontario, those judged by a psychiatrist to be a danger to themselves or others can be confined against their will for a specified time. Such a person has a right to a hearing, so no one can simply be put away without recourse. There’s more, but I don’t know the details.
16. Load the rest of the comments (30).