The Sandy Hook Tragedy

Green Mountain Guns wrote: No you prove my point.
In your first post you state the sole purpose is the mass killing of people and ignore the legal uses that I stated. Ignoring or disregarding evidence is proof of a closed mind. Then you state that it is to emulate the professional while disregarding ones right to self defense. You may have thought professional referred to "The Professional" movie, another Hollywood fantasy about a hitman. When did you become the advertising police? Where is the illegal remarks in their ad? Why do you believe that this or any other individual with minimal training can carry out this type of crime with your definition of high capacity magazines? In the Paducca, Kentucky school shooting incident, the lone gunman was a gamer that only shot the gun used on one previous occasion, yet the gaming skills carried over to actual shooting. Then you presume that people again wish to emulate the professional instead of considering the terms train with, become proficient in the use of and so on. This indicates a prejudice against something whether you're willing to admit it. You stand on the Scalia "opinion" which is not a Supreme Court ruling. I suggest you look up NFA firearms to define the limitations on owning any firearm that you seem to be hung up on. There is already ample limitations on the ownership thereof. You are free to percieve any or all of my statements as an attack on you as you are clearly a very sensative sort, and to say otherwise is a waste of my time.

You of course distort my remarks. I stand by my statement that this weapon is intended for the mass killing of people. You did cite other uses, but all of those uses are to emulate the mass killing of people. Is that not right? In regard to the professional comment, I clearly took the reference by Bushmaster, that it was the weapon used by professionals, which of course had no reference to the movie character who used a bolt action single shot if I recall right. No, my reference point was that it was similar to the weapons used by professionals engaged in the business of being prepared for the killing multiple individuals in a short time period, i.e., combat use, law enforcement swat use, etc. I only brought the advertisement up because you made the statement that you were unaware of any manufacturer advertising that their guns are used for mass killing. The advertisement clearly shows otherwise. I did not state the advertisement was illegal, that is your conjecture and distortion. The advertisement was only mentioned in response to your remark that you were unaware of any manufacturer selling firearms for mass killing. But of course you unable to make your case without using lies and distortions.

The Scalia opinion is of course a Supreme Court Ruling. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 United States Supreme Court 570, 2008. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion of the Court. In particular, see pages 54 - 57 where the court held:
" Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons"

As I have stated earlier, there is and will continue to be political debate on whether to ban certain styles of firearms and high capacity magazines. If you and others can not articulate any arguments other than ad hominen attacks, or easily refuted "facts", then this will be a short debate.

Last time I'll bother with someone so closed minded. The many legal uses include, collecting, target shooting both formal and informal, hunting, and most of all SELF DEFENSE. Ignore the statement on NFA firearms as you already have, or look to get a further explanation of limited ownership under the second amendment. Please totally continue to disregard contributing factors in nearly all of your example shootings like violent video game desensitizing and psychotropic perscription drugs used to keep our youth in timebomb mode.

can you post credible links to back up your statements? that helps to keep the comments credible. thanks

http://www.cchrint.org/videos/
Here is but a starting point. If anyone actually cares, you can research the side effects of "medication" used to treat our mentally ill. Understand that only around 5% of our mentally ill are deemed dangerous to others.

I agree with your statement