28 dead and 113 wounded. Another mass killing .... with a twist. The attackers had NO firearms.


Mass killing

And this in what is essentially a police state with strict controls.


For the Gun Control supporters ..... IT'S NOT ABOUT THE GUNS. IT'S ABOUT PEOPLE!!!!!

If a few had been packing, fewer would have died.

Stupid, fckin liberals and their attempts to SNATCH our guns.

true , and American people are trigger happy

and though no law is going to 'stop' killing

I will take chinas rate of intentional homicide 1 per 100,000

over usas rate 5 per 100,000


I still imagine, its harder for any ONE person (the above attack was committed by an organized group) to take out dozens with a knife than with a gun, let alone how much more opportunity a victim has to get away from a knife compared to a bullet,,,,

not to mention it can be done without much effort or personal contact near the victims

we will never stop killers, but we can make it a little harder for them to kill

China's lower homicide rate has more to do with government policing, harsh punishment, and lack of proper reporting than it does with gun control ....

ok

than it is a bad comparison for arguing about Americas gun control,,

No stupid liberal should be allowed to own a firearm or any sharp object.

I see some still don't get "Unalienable right" and "shall not be infringed"

I'm only concerned they might harm themselves.

Liberals getting a job is sexy. But, doubt that'll ever happen.

no stupid, paranoid, or animal like personality should have a firearm

whatever political affiliation they have,,,,

'unalienable rights' are bestowed by the CREATOR

the creator didn't make guns, so I don't think they qualify

life, is a God given right
conception is a God given right
death is even a God given right

but owning a gun,,, nothing to do with what God bestowed on anyone

And who's going to be the judge of who is "stupid, paranoid, or animal like personality"?

I guess that's up to society to judge,, the same way they set standards for 'criminal' behavior

I think paranoid can be psychologically assessed
and animal like can be an equivalent of 'criminal' where it applies to VIOLENT and AGGRESSIVE historical behaviors,,

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

A natural right is a right that is not granted by society but is an inherent human right.

The text of the 2nd amendment actually says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be "abridged".

"Abridged" means "changed", "altered", "limited", or "controlled".

Any measure that limits or controls the right to keep arms is therefore a violation of the second amendment. And more importantly it is a violation of the natural law that predates civilization, the right to defend oneself against oppression.

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence".

In other words the right to bear arms for the purpose of resisting oppression existed as a human right before the constitution was written and even the constitution has no authority to limit it.
---------
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of
himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it
from the State government. It is one of the "high powers"
delegated directly to the citizen, and 'is excepted out of
the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to
infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and
independent of the lawmaking power.

Texas Court Decision
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)


you are way off beam young Lady!

Birth control and health care aren't a constitutional or God given right or bestowed on anyone by God, so according YOUR logic they aren't really a RIGHT. But according to liberals because it's the "it's the law of the land" it should be accepted willingly by EVERYONE which only works as a viable argument when it supports a liberal position.

Owning is a CONSTUITUTIONAL RIGHT and is the law of land.

Here's a prime example of a paranoid idiot?




But, can afford to sit at a computer all day and night fight to SNATCH guns.

Total BS and if offered as an opinion, it should be colored "brown" like the dribble it is.

I would disagree with that assessment. It has more to do with the Chinese people being slaves to a very harsh government has made them a lot politer and to think of physical retribution would be unthinkable.

However, now with the "West" involved, things are starting to change and not necessarily in the right direction.

What gun control? American's are for entitlement control and need their guns.

Some don't conceive anything except why they should be allowed to rob using anothers' guns.