On who's part?

Let you figure that problem all by yourself!

Well, let's look at a couple of things, mushroom. From a legal standpoint, possession and use of a HAM radio is not constitutionally protected. If you remember, your rights are endowed by your creator and the Constitution is there to restrict the government, not you. Just as the government must show a reason to restrict all of your other rights, like your right to free speech, your right against unlawful search and seizure, your right of free assembly, your right against cruel and unusual punishment, the government must show why they want to restrict your right of possessing a firearm. Legally, it cannot just be that they don't want you to have one. Sure, there are weapons that are legally restricted. Nuclear weapons for example, because that creates a national security issue. But, you're allowed to have automatic weapons, silencers, explosives, handguns, rifles. If you pass the same background check you have for any weapon, and pay any tax stamps due where applicable, you can legally possess them. Another issue is the background checks. Legally speaking, the background check doesn't go that far. Ask yourself why that is. Mental issues are not allowed to be reported in most cases. If you're seeing a psychologist for a bi-polar disorder, that will not show up on your background check for a firearm. Privacy laws prevent that from happening. HIPAA laws, man. The fact that the police have been called to your house 10 times in the last year (not matter what it's for) is also not allowed on there either. Were you ever convicted for a certain list of crimes? That's what matters. So instead of focusing on the tool that was used, maybe we should focus on issues like that. And I'll argue the same point with your driver's license. You have no Constitutional right to drive on a public roadway. And just because you do not have a license, does that actually prevent you from getting behind the wheel of a car and driving it down the road? Of course it doesn't. There are already laws on the books to stop that from happening, but it happens all the time. There are laws against driving without insurance, but it happens all the time. There are laws against killing people, but it happens all the time. What I am curious about is why the focus is usually always on the type of weapon, not the person. Do we ban cars because of the all DUI fatalities? Is that the answer? There are more people killed in alcohol related crashes that are shot in schools, but yet there is no focus on that. Why? There were more people killed in Chicago than both Iraq & Afghanistan togther since 2003. Nobody seems to be addressing that problem, but instead only seem to want to restrict guns (any type of gun) from people that will actually obey the law. I just don't get the logic of the argument. Don't you think that the fact that you have a chance of being put to death for killing someone (in some of the less liberal states anyway), that would give people more pause than there being a law against illegally possessing a firearm? I mean there are all kinds of laws against taking firearms in gun-free zones, but that sure as hell isn't working, is it? What's going to stop someone from shooting up my office I'm sitting in right now? A sign that says "no guns allowed", or a sign that says "we shoot back"? I just don't see the logic in the "more gun legislation" argument.

People have rights, and it is tyrannical to deny them. Guns do nothing alone. The problem is the shooter, not the gun. Millions of people own such guns and never murder anyone. It is unjust to penalize all of these millions of law-abiding people because of a few extremists. Guns are used to stop crimes much more than to commit them, but the liberal media does not wish to tell of that. The media deceives people on all levels and controls weak-willed people.

Agreed, ReiSan. 100%

Actually, we do have a right to drive on public roadways - it's called "freedom of movement." I agree that background checks are a large part of the problem, but just as significant is private sales, largely unreported. But I still have yet to hear a cogent argument for freely amassing and transporting a personal arsenal without regulation. Yes, cars kill, knives kill, rocks kill, but large capacity rifles allow anyone with a grudge to slip into the crowd, or target a crowd from a distance and kill dozens, injure dozens more in confined spaces in a few minutes with virtually no chance for their defense.

So you're going to restrict everyone because someone else MIGHT do something? Is that the logic you're using?

The conservatives seem to be the only one blaming the shooter, not his choice of weapons.

The conservatives are more objective about this topic. The liberal media sensationalizes school shootings but refuses to report incidents in which guns are used to stop crimes and defend people. That is biased reporting meant to deceive the public. Media deceives us on all levels and controls many people totally.

I don't hear anyone saying we should blame the van in the Toronto incident. Why not?

How do you stop psychos from doing psycho stuff?

you cant

Then how do you make it harder for nuts to get guns while keeping them available to law abiding citizens?

not sure

More gun control is the mindless mantra chanted by liberal media. Christians assert that we need to "bring back God". Both groups crassly exploit school shooting to try to promote their agendas with simple-minded solutions to a complex problem.

It's the break down of society from within, ReiSan. Breakdown of family values. Lack of respect for law and order. All that comes from the home.