California gunman 'was filmmaker Peter Rodger's son'

[folium]

The bottom line is that even if public opinion was strongly in favour of imposing more restrictions on firearms, politicians would always vote against it because they wouldn't want to lose all that lovely campaign money they get from the NRA.

So Americans who are against the proliferation of firearms really don't have much of a voice.

They could have, if they got organised and starting voting in some people who actually represent them, but the corporates have all the money so they candidates they get to choose from are invariably already bought and paid for.

What a bunch of hooey.

The NRA is nothing more than its voluntary, dues paying, private sector members.

The reason that the politicians won't go against the NRA is at least two fold. There are 5 million member voters backing them up, and even without the NRA there are many citizens and members of congress who agree with the NRA. Maybe 100 million citizens who own guns.

It's not the NRA. It's the people. Without the people there wouldn't be an NRA.

America has a gun culture. Get over it. Many members of congress would vote pro-gun based on their own beliefs even in the absence of an NRA.

If congress wants to get re-elected they'd better not vote anti gun, and that's the voters speaking.

And that's why this particular well of sympathy/concern has run dry when it comes to gun crime in the USA. If that's the way you want it, this is what will happen over and over again until enough people find it intolerable. Until that day you are exercising your rights and freedoms at a cost you feel small enough to bear.

Children used to be put up chimneys to clean them, women/black people were denied votes, gay people denied the right to marry etc etc At some stage a society decides to change what have been long accepted norms, until that day comes there will be countless victims. Live in the US... accept the fact that guns are a part of life, live in LOS and accept the fact that the rule of law is a fantasy...every paradise has its mosquito!

[neverdie]

Here in the UK I could go to my kitchen, select a knife and then stab someone.

I could then get into my car and run someone over.

What I could not do, unless I knew how to get a gun illegally, is then drive around shooting people at random.

In the US, I could do so easily as I could legally buy a gun from a private seller without any restrictions, including showing I.D.! (Source)

It is possible anywhere for anyone who knows how to illegally obtain a firearm; but it is a fact that the stricter a developed county's gun control, the fewer gun related deaths there are.

U.S. Has More Guns And Gun Deaths Than Any Other Country, Study Finds

When will the American gun lobby realise that the second amendment was a symptom of the times in which it was written.

The Revolutionary War is over. The Native Americans have all been killed or pacified and placed on reservations.

You don't need an armed citizen's militia anymore.

Well said.

People have needs and wants.

They need food and access to good healthcare.

They want 'firearms' ..... that illness needs to be denied for the safety of the greater community.

It's long overdue that the rest of the world places sanctions on the USA. An Australian was killed whilst jogging by one of these little a.holes. There's been thousands of incidents like that. Can you imagine any intelligent being, keep touching the fire, getting burnt and then immediately retouching the fire. Daft business. The Australian govt should of heavily denounced the Amercians but didn't of course, Australia's feet are the only thing visible hanging from the rectum of the states.

The USA is quick to jump at other nations but it's back yard is very untidy. It's a pity because I've always found Americans on a personal level to be wonderful people. Their homeland is a war zone, blood and guts everywhere. The blood is on the hands or the NRA and all these people so strongly defending an old constitutional so called right. Shame on them !

[Robert2006]

He also stabbed some people to death and purposely ran some over with his car. This can't all be blamed on guns.

Oh there you go. It's not guns that are the problem it's knives and cars. I'll lay odds the gun was used first. When will Americans wake up to the simple fact that a single shot rifle is for hunting, shotguns are for bird hunting an skeet, an automatic rifle is for mowing down people, and a handgun is for close quarter killing, Why, why, why does any body need or have the right to buy a handgun or an automatic rifle? Maybe it's because the USA is a sick society.

Obviously you don’t understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment is not there for hunting or skeet shooting; it’s there to give our citizens the ability to protect themselves against an out of control government coming to power. Hitler tried to eradicate the Jews; I’ll bet if the Jewish citizens had the rights we have to own firearms a lot less of those families would have been slaughtered and devastated. I’m perfectly happy to accept the risk that comes from a well-armed society to me it’s preferable, and to you, if you don’t like our laws its simple just don’t come here.

'Out of control government' .....So how come u didnt rise up and get rid of George W Bush?

Seriously, any US government coming to power has been voted in by the people and you can vote them out again after 4 years. You dont need guns to do it. That's what democracy is. Shit! Where the hell do you think you are, Thailand?

I thought the 2nd Amendment was written so that after you kicked us Brits out everyone would be armed and ready to fight if we came back. But dont worry. We aint coming back.

Thinking is obviously not your strong suit.

[Ulysses G.]

I think that the point is that they would have not gone marching off to the gas chambers, if they had been armed. They did arm themselves and fight back, later in the war, but it was too late for most of them.

A far less lightly armed urban civilian population would have had absolutely no impact upon history.

Look up "Guerrilla warfare". It has proven to be very effective against great odds.

[Diablo Bob]

I dont hate the US, only the gun control..............or rather lack of it.

Have you ever tried to buy a gun in the US?

Obviously not.

Which one of the 20,000 gun control laws would have prevented these murders by STABBING and Gun fire deaths?

3 stabbed to death, 4 shot to death, including the instigator.

Yet the anti-gun yahoos are already dancing in the blood of the dead in an attempt to push their misguided anti-gun laws on the books.

Why no calls for stricter knife laws?

There's a movie I saw once about a Country where only the military and police were allowed to have guns. It was really educational. It was called "Schindler's List". I think you could still get it on Netflix.

Im blessed to have been born and raised in the UK where Im fortunate enough to have lived the 61 years of my life without the thought of owning a gun ever entering my head! Still In Britain today, only the military are allowed to have guns plus a small (mostly) strictly controlled number of police officers. And its real life in Britain! Not a semi-delusional fictional Hollywood-movie created gun-fest world where most US citizens sadly seem to dwell. Aldous Huxley once said that everyone is trying to be their favourite character in fiction. Nothing personal, but in the US this seems to mean that men are culturally pressurised to cultivate a movie hero's arrogance and ego, and must own a gun or 2 or 3 or 4. When will y'all wake up and see that Hollywood has been just as effective on 'you guys' as the nazi propaganda was on the Germans.

Sorry to burst your bubble of bliss concerning the safety of the UK with their stringent gun control.....

The following is from a paper presented in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (Attached) properly foot noted and this is an analysis of most data available through 2008::

To gun control advocates, England, the cradle

of our liberties, was a nation made so peaceful by strict gun

control that its police did not even need to carry guns. The

United States, it was argued, could attain such a desirable

situation by radically reducing gun ownership, preferably by

banning and confiscating handguns.

The results discussed earlier contradict those expectations. On

the one hand, despite constant and substantially increasing gun

ownership, the United States saw progressive and dramatic reductions

in criminal violence in the 1990s. On the other hand, the

same time period in the United Kingdom saw a constant and

dramatic increase in violent crime to which England’s response

was ever‐more drastic gun control including, eventually, banning

and confiscating all handguns and many types of long guns.22

Nevertheless, criminal violence rampantly increased so that by

2000 England surpassed the United States to become one of the

developed world’s most violence‐ridden nations.

Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[Johpa]

Look up "Guerrilla warfare". It has proven to be very effective against great odds.

If I recall my reading of Che Guevara long ago, apart from audacity and a bottle of Tabasco (hot) sauce, you also needed the support of the local population. That was not the situation in 1930s Europe for the minority populations. There was a brief armed uprising within the Warsaw ghetto, but that did not last that long and the outcome was not positive. The only analogous situation might be the Algerian urban uprising against French occupation (I highly recommend the film "The Battle of Algiers"). But for the Jews of Central Europe, armed resistance would have been useless as they had no local support.

[Ulysses G.]

The topic is gun control in America and presumably there would be lots of local support.

As far as the Jews in Europe go, I'm pretty sure that would have rather gone down fighting - at least they would have killed a lot of Nazis - but no one ever expected them to beat the large Arab armies that attacked them in 1948 and they prevailed. They also won several wars after that with little help from the US government. It is amazing what can be accomplished when you are fighting for your very existence.

[morrobay]

Ya all carrying on about guns are way off here. Actually if one of the good denizens in Illa Vista was armed he could have been stopped earlier.

The point that is important here is that the family called the police two weeks ago in response to one of his videos .

The Santa Barbara police went out and interviewed him and left. If they would have gone to the trouble to get a search warrant

they would have found the guns and manifesto. Its called proactive law enforcement. In my opinion the police might be liable here. Hopefully.

[Ulysses G.]

He had the guns legally and there was no reason for the police to read the manifesto or to take it seriously. All the blame is on the screwball that murdered all those people for no sane reason. No one else was responsible for his crimes.

[morrobay]

He had the guns legally and there was no reason for the police to read the manifesto or to take it seriously. All the blame is on the screwball that murdered all those people for no sane reason. No one else was responsible for his crimes.

Why shouldnt the police or sheriff take a call from the family about a video he made that was threatening and scary ??.That is their job.

The problem again ( in terms of preventative law enforcement ) is that law enforcement did not take it seriously.

And again I hope they have to pay for this blunder that resulted in a tragedy .

Of course this blunder is independent of the guilt here.

[Ulysses G.]

No one said that they should not take the call and they not only took it, but followed up on it. However, they felt that there was no good reason to enter his home. The police did their job and they followed the law. Hindsight is always 20/20.

[morrobay]

No one said that they should not take the call and they not only took it, but followed up on it. However, they felt that there was no good reason to enter his home. The police did their job and they followed the law. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I meant the police should have taken call seriously and done a search . And Im through going around in circles here.

[NeverSure]

What a bunch of hooey.

The NRA is nothing more than its voluntary, dues paying, private sector members.

The reason that the politicians won't go against the NRA is at least two fold. There are 5 million member voters backing them up, and even without the NRA there are many citizens and members of congress who agree with the NRA. Maybe 100 million citizens who own guns.

It's not the NRA. It's the people. Without the people there wouldn't be an NRA.

America has a gun culture. Get over it. Many members of congress would vote pro-gun based on their own beliefs even in the absence of an NRA.

If congress wants to get re-elected they'd better not vote anti gun, and that's the voters speaking.

And that's why this particular well of sympathy/concern has run dry when it comes to gun crime in the USA. If that's the way you want it, this is what will happen over and over again until enough people find it intolerable. Until that day you are exercising your rights and freedoms at a cost you feel small enough to bear.

Children used to be put up chimneys to clean them, women/black people were denied votes, gay people denied the right to marry etc etc At some stage a society decides to change what have been long accepted norms, until that day comes there will be countless victims. Live in the US... accept the fact that guns are a part of life, live in LOS and accept the fact that the rule of law is a fantasy...every paradise has its mosquito!

"Children used to be put up chimneys to clean them, women/black people were denied votes, gay people denied the right to marry etc etc At some stage a society decides to change what have been long accepted norms, until that day comes there will be countless victims. Live in the US... accept the fact that guns are a part of life, live in LOS and accept the fact that the rule of law is a fantasy...every paradise has its mosquito!"

And this has what to do with guns or securing a nation by the people against governments?

You think the "well has run dry?"

The well has run dry in W. Europe where you pansies are stripped of freedom of speech and have lost the sovereignty of your nations and stand haplessly by and can only watch and complain. W. Europe has been fairly peaceful since WWII but it won't always be and when something bad happens you are defenseless.

America has never even signed any of the important UN treaties and is therefore not even accountable to the UN. The concept of letting a EU tell it what to do in any way is outrageous and will never happen.

I have 100 million citizens with 300 million guns and ammunition who will someday teach you something about getting freedoms back if someone tries to take them - foreign or domestic.

THAT MAKES America the safest place to be in the world right now. It's you W. Europeans - the members of the EU who are in real danger and defenseless.

But you'll never understand that until it's too late because you don't remember history. Neither did the Jews in Germany when they gave up their guns.

[chuckd]

No one said that they should not take the call and they not only took it, but followed up on it. However, they felt that there was no good reason to enter his home. The police did their job and they followed the law. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I meant the police should have taken call seriously and done a search . And Im through going around in circles here.

The police could have searched his apartment only if he gave them consent or if they had a search warrant.

They could only obtain a search warrant if they could provide probable cause to a judge, who would have then signed off on one.

They met with him, he was polite and answered their questions so no suspicions were raised. They obviously felt nothing was amiss after six officers called on him.

The matter was dropped.

[morrobay]

No one said that they should not take the call and they not only took it, but followed up on it. However, they felt that there was no good reason to enter his home. The police did their job and they followed the law. Hindsight is always 20/20.

I meant the police should have taken call seriously and done a search . And Im through going around in circles here.

The police could have searched his apartment only if he gave them consent or if they had a search warrant.

They could only obtain a search warrant if they could provide probable cause to a judge, who would have then signed off on one.

They met with him, he was polite and answered their questions so no suspicions were raised. They obviously felt nothing was amiss after six officers called on him.

The matter was dropped.

Can we assume the family who reported him had probable cause and knew him better than these six saps of police officers.?

Not one of which asked if they could search the apartment. If one had asked and he said no. Then that

should be probable cause. I guess we have two different ways of looking at this: Im finding ways it could

have been prevented, and not by "hindsight" While you and others just want to drop it like the six saps

in Santa Barbara.

[ClutchClark]

So, UG, you think it's acceptable to refer to him as 'gay as a goose?" Or you think that having Asperger's Syndrome makes him gay, or just act gay?

You might want to chose your words carefully if you decide to respond.

Scott,

Do you really think THIS particular thread is the one you need to push your gay agenda? Somehow I think the violent deaths of all these young people is more important than whether some goose is offended at an expression.

[ClutchClark]

The Santa Barbara police went out and interviewed him and left. If they would have gone to the trouble to get a search warrant

they would have found the guns and manifesto. Its called proactive law enforcement. In my opinion the police might be liable here. Hopefully.

Liable? Because they chose not to violate this person's Civil rights?

Please do some research on what is necessary before a judge will issue a search warrant...perhaps read up on "Probable Cause".

Not one of which asked if they could search the apartment. If one had asked and he said no. Then that

should be probable cause. I guess we have two different ways of looking at this:

That last sentence is the first correct statement you have made on this thread. There is your way of looking at it and then there is the "legal" way of looking at it. Denying a police request to search ones' private property does not provide evidence for probable cause--the very idea is so seriously flawed it is absurd.

Please research the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.

These killings were a terrible tragedy but this was not the fault of Law Enforcement failing to do their job...based on what is available in the news.

Has a transcript been made available of the phonecall that prompted the "welfare check" by LEO? As I understand it, the shooter's parents were concerned for their son's safety and the contacted one of his two psychologists. That counselor then contacted a crisis hotline and an employee of that crisis hotline contacted the Police. In other words, the call was not a complaint that the shooter intended to cause harm to others.

[NeverSure]

Ya all carrying on about guns are way off here. Actually if one of the good denizens in Illa Vista was armed he could have been stopped earlier.

The point that is important here is that the family called the police two weeks ago in response to one of his videos .

The Santa Barbara police went out and interviewed him and left. If they would have gone to the trouble to get a search warrant

they would have found the guns and manifesto. Its called proactive law enforcement. In my opinion the police might be liable here. Hopefully.

He had the guns legally and there was no reason for the police to read the manifesto or to take it seriously. All the blame is on the screwball that murdered all those people for no sane reason. No one else was responsible for his crimes.

Why shouldnt the police or sheriff take a call from the family about a video he made that was threatening and scary ??.That is their job.

The problem again ( in terms of preventative law enforcement ) is that law enforcement did not take it seriously.

And again I hope they have to pay for this blunder that resulted in a tragedy .

Of course this blunder is independent of the guilt here.

You guys have no clue about American rights under the constitution. A constitution that we love.

The police can't act, and a judge can't issue a search warrant without "probable cause." The police have to have a reasonable suspicion which they can articulate to a judge that the guy has committed a crime before they can get a search warrant. They can't just go on a fishing expedition.

"The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British government and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America. The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress submitted the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment." Link

Text if the Fourth Amendment, a part of the ten amendments together called the Bill of Rights:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[Chicog]

You guys have no clue about American rights under the constitution. A constitution that we love.

The police can't act, and a judge can't issue a search warrant without "probable cause." The police have to have a reasonable suspicion which they can articulate to a judge that the guy has committed a crime before they can get a search warrant. They can't just go on a fishing expedition.

"The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British government and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America. The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress submitted the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment." Link

Text if the Fourth Amendment, a part of the ten amendments together called the Bill of Rights:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Do you give that to the TSA when you travel?

[morrobay]

Well maybe its high time the constitution was amended: So that lives are more important than civil rights.

[ClutchClark]

Well maybe its high time the constitution was amended: So that lives are more important than civil rights.

And in this statement, you would find some Americans in agreement with you. Or atleast that certain restrictions be placed on the Rights guaranteed to Americans, specifically, the 2nd Amendment. As there are already limitations on other Constitutionally guaranteed Rights.

[NeverSure]

Can we assume the family who reported him had probable cause and knew him better than these six saps of police officers.?

Not one of which asked if they could search the apartment. If one had asked and he said no. Then that

should be probable cause. I guess we have two different ways of looking at this: Im finding ways it could

have been prevented, and not by "hindsight" While you and others just want to drop it like the six saps

in Santa Barbara.

You don't get it about freedoms FROM the police. He was 22 years old with no priors. He could legally own guns. He could have had them on the floor inside his front door in plain sight and there's nothing the police could do about it. That's not breaking any law.

A video is an exercise in freedom of speech. I can't be arrested for stating that I'm well under way to becoming the next Hitler. I

have to commit a crime, and the police have to have articulable probable cause before they can arrest me.

Get this. I can walk down main street in town with my Glock in plain sight on my hip and the police can't do anything about it unless they know that I'm a convicted felon and not allowed to have guns. If they try to stop me and talk to me I can just keep walking and I don't have to answer them back. If they stop me they are arresting me without probable cause that I have committed a crime. They'll go down for false arrest.

If they try to stop me and ask for ID I not only don't have show them my ID, but I don't have to stop or say a word to them.

I have more power than the police. I can arrest one of them at gun point in what is called a Citizen's Arrest if I catch him committing a crime. But If I ask him for ID he has to show it to me to prove he's police if he's acting in a police capacity (claims to be.)

[NeverSure]

Well maybe its high time the constitution was amended: So that lives are more important than civil rights.

In the words of the famous late actor Charlton Heston, "You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands."

[ClutchClark]

Can we assume the family who reported him had probable cause and knew him better than these six saps of police officers.?

Not one of which asked if they could search the apartment. If one had asked and he said no. Then that

should be probable cause. I guess we have two different ways of looking at this: Im finding ways it could

have been prevented, and not by "hindsight" While you and others just want to drop it like the six saps

in Santa Barbara.

You don't get it about freedoms FROM the police. He was 22 years old with no priors. He could legally own guns. He could have had them on the floor inside his front door in plain sight and there's nothing the police could do about it. That's not breaking any law.

A video is an exercise in freedom of speech. I can't be arrested for stating that I'm well under way to becoming the next Hitler. I

have to commit a crime, and the police have to have articulable probable cause before they can arrest me.

Get this. I can walk down main street in town with my Glock in plain sight on my hip and the police can't do anything about it unless they know that I'm a convicted felon and not allowed to have guns. If they try to stop me and talk to me I can just keep walking and I don't have to answer them back. If they stop me they are arresting me without probable cause that I have committed a crime. They'll go down for false arrest.

If they try to stop me and ask for ID I not only don't have show them my ID, but I don't have to stop or say a word to them.

I have more power than the police. I can arrest one of them at gun point in what is called a Citizen's Arrest if I catch him committing a crime. But If I ask him for ID he has to show it to me to prove he's police if he's acting in a police capacity (claims to be.)

If you say you want to be the next Hitler, then your assertion is correct.

However, if you said you were on your way to commit a crime during a "Terry Stop" while in posession of a firearm (even holstered and not displayed in a menacing manner) then the police would have the Right, actually the legal obligation to detain you. Ofcourse, you are aware of this distinction and it is not contradicting what you stated. I am only mentioning it for the benefit of the misguided poster.

[NeverSure]

You guys have no clue about American rights under the constitution. A constitution that we love.

The police can't act, and a judge can't issue a search warrant without "probable cause." The police have to have a reasonable suspicion which they can articulate to a judge that the guy has committed a crime before they can get a search warrant. They can't just go on a fishing expedition.

"The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights that prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted in response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, a type of general search warrant issued by the British government and a major source of tension in pre-Revolutionary America. The Fourth Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James Madison, along with the other amendments in the Bill of Rights, in response to Anti-Federalist objections to the new Constitution. Congress submitted the amendment to the states on September 28, 1789. By December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states had ratified it. On March 1, 1792, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment." Link

Text if the Fourth Amendment, a part of the ten amendments together called the Bill of Rights:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Do you give that to the TSA when you travel?

Traveling on an airplane is deemed a privilege, not a right. So is driving a car on public roads. I don't have the same rights there as I do at home or just walking.

I can choose to not fly or not drive but if I do I'm subject to scrutiny.

[Chicog]

Well maybe its high time the constitution was amended: So that lives are more important than civil rights.

In the words of the famous late actor Charlton Heston, "You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands."

You really have been brainwashed. They weren't his words.

[Chicog]

Well maybe its high time the constitution was amended: So that lives are more important than civil rights.

And in this statement, you would find some Americans in agreement with you. Or atleast that certain restrictions be placed on the Rights guaranteed to Americans, specifically, the 2nd Amendment. As there are already limitations on other Constitutionally guaranteed Rights.

There is a reason they are called amendments. They can be amended.

That's exactly what happened to the 18th with the 21st..

[NeverSure]

"Proud To Be An American"

If tomorrow all the things were gone I'd worked for all my life,
And I had to start again with just my children and my wife.
I'd thank my lucky stars to be living here today,
‘Cause the flag still stands for freedom and they can't take that away.

And I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free.
And I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.
And I'd gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land God bless the U.S.A.

From the lakes of Minnesota, to the hills of Tennessee,
across the plains of Texas, from sea to shining sea,

From Detroit down to Houston and New York to LA,
Well, there's pride in every American heart,
and it's time to stand and say:

I'm proud to be an American where at least I know I'm free.
And I won't forget the men who died, who gave that right to me.
And I'd gladly stand up next to you and defend her still today.
‘Cause there ain't no doubt I love this land God bless the U.S.A.

[NeverSure]

Well maybe its high time the constitution was amended: So that lives are more important than civil rights.

In the words of the famous late actor Charlton Heston, "You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands."

You really have been brainwashed. They weren't his words.

[thai4me]

It is the person behind the car/knife/gun that kills.

More news.

http://www.thestar.com.my/News/Nation/2014/05/27/Unloved-killer-was-adored-Mum-loved-him-very-much-say-her-Penang-schoolmates/