And that "report" has already been shown to be a fabrication, by multiple media outlets, including CNN, I.E.:
CNN Scrutiny Corners Bloomberg Group As 'Every Liar For Gun Safety,' Says CCRKBA
How many school shooting incidents has the U.S. had since Sandy Hook? PolitiFact Oregon
A closer look: How many school shootings since Newtown?
BTW I wonder if the author is as concerned by the 210,000+ who die, each year, as a result of medical malpractice?:
How Many Die from Medical Mistakes in U.S. Hospitals? (Scientific American)
(The number of people who die from medical malpractice each year dwarfs the number of people who are murdered with a firearm: FBI Uniform Crime Reports: Murder Victims by Weapon, 2008–2012)
They’re still trotting out that 74 school shootings lie. That has been debunked but don’t expect the left to correct themselves. There’s nothing like a good lie to keep the sheeple stirred up.
It needs it more than ever.
You know, that Old School Amendment written for rich white guys in powdered wigs...so they could hunt freely in the 18th Century wilderness...
The simple liberty of public safety is an oxymoron. There is no liberty in safety. There is no safety in liberty. Stopped reading right there.
Really is sad that we are forced by Federal Edict to send our children into defenseless death traps that are public schools.
How much does it cost to keep armed guards in the schools?
My comment in reply..
Is the U.S. still deserving of a 1st Amendment?
Given the author’s blatant willingness to trample unalienable (impossible to take away or give up) rights, perhaps the question we should be asking ourselves is more directly involved with the First Amendment and the author’s ability to pen a screed so directly anti-American and unconstitutional?
Surely the progressives won’t mind a small limitation [upon their 1st Amendment rights] such as governmental approval - say from a group of Constitutional experts who judge solely upon the expressed intent of the framers and those who ratified the Bill of Rights - prior to their being able to voice an opinion that is likely to be in direct opposition to our supreme law.
Think of it as a means of governmental protection against stupidity, ignorance, distortion, lies, and tyranny all in one.
The Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments) has a common theme: absolute prohibition against specific government actions. In fact the words ‘shall not’ appear in 4 of the first 10 Amendments (while the other 6 Amendments include language that is equally prohibitive with regards to the government’s ability - legal or otherwise - to act in a manner that restricts those specified, recognized, rights).
‘Shall not’ is a very straight forward directive - meaning under no circumstances can the government engage in actions that restrict the recognized rights (not even when some among us really, really want to).
What’s that you say?
Congress shall make no law abridging (to lessen or restrict) the freedom of speech, or of the press?
To which I note: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (restrict or lessen).
Fortunately (for those who cherish freedom anyway - not so much for the author and his ilk) the good men who made the Constitution our supreme law saw fit to clarify things a bit further; as if unalienable rights and prohibitions on government actions that serve to diminish those rights wasn’t enough clarification (seemingly they knew there’d be dishonest people advocating tyranny in our future).
The 10th Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That slams the door shut on the author’s fascist fantasy.
I know, I know - you’re going to pretend the states could engage in your petty whims (legally) - right?
So much for your love of the 14th Amendment (go ahead - read it).
As I stated above - that slams the door shut on the author’s fascist fantasy.
Now for the “rights aren’t absolute” crap.
In my best Bill Clinton voice - that depends what the definition of is, is.
Or, in this case, what the definition of absolute is.
If by absolute we mean that the government has no power (or right) to impede upon my rights - then yes, our rights are absolute. That much is made clear by the fact that our rights are unalienable - meaning you (dear author) cannot take them away, nor can the fascist government that you so desperately crave take them away (nor can I give them up). And, as pointed out above - the Bill of Rights goes even further and explicitly denies government the ability to act upon your whims.
Where the government does have (legal) power is with actions undertaken. Even then the government has severe limitations upon its powers (but I digress).
Slander isn’t an example of free speech carried to the absolute; slander is an example of actions undertaken and harms caused by means of those actions. Likewise with the actions of some crazed idiot - most of whom have been progressives - with a gun. (We might want to have a national discussion with regards to banning progressives - as they clearly endanger everyone and the nation as a whole)
The dirty word here - to progressives anyway - is ‘responsibility.’ We can, and must, be held responsible for our actions. It is the person whose actions caused harm that is held responsible; not the tool used, and most definitely not the law abiding users of a similar tool.
Put another way: We don’t punish everyone with a keyboard simply because some use theirs to create dishonest articles (and false premises) as a means to restrict freedom for others. Nor do we blame the keyboard for those among us who author articles that call for harmful actions, and freedoms infringed, on the basis of ignorant, selfish whims.
I do wonder if the author is using an assault keyboard though - you know what I mean; black and all military-looking but insignificantly different for all other purposes, which in retrospect makes the adjective entirely meaningless but sufficiently scary so as to frighten the idiots who are prone to swallow that kind of crap in the first place.
If only someone would make a blanket that protected us from those idiots who foolishly desire government intrusion upon our rights. I’d buy a dozen of them.
No, it does not.
The Constitution does not GIVE you any rights at all. It can do no such thing.
The Second Amendment in particular and the Constitution in general PROTECTS your inherent, God-given rights, including particularly your right to defend yourself. Even by carrying an infantry rifle around with you, if such is your desire.