Okay, besides the obvious complete and utter ignorance of your post, I am sure a lot of really ignorant and idiotic people do not understand the difference between Sikhs and Muslims. So if they were Muslims this would have all been good? With that being said, your post has to be one of the most ignorant, idiotic, and completely oblivious to reality things I have read, heard, and seen in a long time.

"bald and white" our papers described him as.

White supremicist? General nut job?

Cue the guns argument....

1 )He had an illegal gun...(not really an argument, as he still got his hands on a gun). Doesn't matter whether he had a legal gun or not. If it was illegal, do more to get them off of the streets. Ofcourse, if a lot of people have a gun and there are loads of guns in a country, it becomes pretty easy to get them. Then again, if the gun was legal, another argument that the current system does not screen out people that it shouldn't.

All this rubbish about guns helping you to protect each other. NO. Guns everywhere in your country LETS people like this do what they do.

2) He's one of few people that do this? ....Well, no....this happens a lot in the States, so either theres a lot of hatred OR there are a lot of psychotic people (or both).

3) It's too soon to be talking about this, people have just died......And they will keep on dieing this way. Nothing will change. People will continue to do this stuff AND continue to be allowed to do this stuff. It's all well and good being able to protect yourself at home, but these shootings are happening in public. So where is the actual protection when you're out? What good are the guns when you are out, other than to the people that INTEND on harming others?

But its fine because as a percentage, these kids accidently shooting each other, these shootings, really don't kill that many do they? Cars kill more people. And you can all comfort yourselves by pointing to these stats and tell yourselves, you do not have a problem.

RIP to those dead, hope the injured pull through. More victims of psychopathic people getting their hands on deadly weapons.

But, the second amendment to the constitution says that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Obviously this guy was necessary to the security of the free state, not to mention that he was a member of a "well regulated Militia," which is why he was able to purchase a gun in the first place, so what is the story about? This, along with the events in Colorado, are all a bit frustrating considering that people think that gun rights are more important than personal security.

"are all a bit frustrating considering that people think that gun rights are more important than personal security. "

Tragic irony.

"The Other"

"
Are Americans really that stupid to not know the difference between Sikh and Muslim?
"

Many don't...to speculate that "most" don't wouldn't be far-fetched, IMO. I'm not really sure I'd call it stupid. Obviously ignorant of the difference. But I think you're leaping to conclusions that he intended to kill Muslims in retaliation for 9/11 or other Muslim attacks. Maybe; maybe not. I have no idea what his motivation was.

In any case, another tragedy...getting tired of them.

"
your post has to be one of the most ignorant, idiotic, and completely oblivious to reality things I have read, heard, and seen in a long time
"

You must not have been on here lately. LOL

We're a democracy (well, technically a republic) and the politicians on both sides are largely afraid to touch this issue. They let a very sensible ban on assault weapons expire and, other than some weasel words, nobody of consequence is saying we should restore it and possibly do more. Would a quixotic attempt to change that be successful? Extremely doubtful. As you say, there are always "answers" and, like it or not, enough people believe them that it isn't going to change, at least not anytime soon.

That's just reality.

I've always found the 2nd Amendment ambiguous. Many others disagree. What IS the purpose of the introductory phrase? Is it to say, "and if not for this, ignore what follows"? That seems to be your interpretation. I'm not sure. It clearly says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" but if that was meant unequivocally, why not just say that and leave off the first part?

I don't have an answer. I DON'T think the Founding Fathers ever envisioned assault weapons that can fire many rounds per second. Would they have done differently if they had? Darned if I know.

"We're a democracy (well, technically a republic) and the politicians on both sides are largely afraid to touch this issue."

Disgusting world we live in isn't it, where politicians think nothing of sending kids (16-22) to die in a foreign country that a lot of people don't want them to go to, but won't touch immigration (in the UK) or gun control (in the US) because they fear it will cost them an election.

We're at the point in the UK, where we just want someone with a backbone. I'd respect someone far more for making difficult decisions that need to be made. People are idiots generally (and I'm talking about everyone). People don't wear seat belts. People speed. People go out and vandalise things. People smoke. People drink and drive.

There is such a thing as a primeminister or president for the right time. Winston Churchill was by all accounts a rubbish peacetime primeminister. An incredible wartime leader though.

"They let a very sensible ban on assault weapons expire and"

Well....theres only two sets of people that NEED to own an assault rifle. Police and military. And people planning on "assaulting" other people. You may aswell legalise grenades too. How bout some RPG's?

"Disgusting world we live in isn't it"

It is sometimes easy to reach that conclusion, but good things don't make headlines.

Have a great day (well....rest of the day in your case). Go you British Olympians!!

There's almost a religious view it seems on the founding fathers. Almost like they were Gods.

They were just men that did what they did, hundreds of years ago....they could have been wasted when they did it.

And...as with religion...people seem to cherry pick the stuff they want to enforce and declare it a right that cannot be changed.

It's all interperatation. Who's to actually decide which arms people can own? Is that not an infringement on rights that there are regulations and stipulations to the right?

But wait....if there are already regulations and stipulations to the right, surely its OK to add more of them?

"Have a great day (well....rest of the day in your case). Go you British Olympians!!"

Cheers dude, and you.

Been trying to get tickets for the last 4 days...

Ticketmaster are an absolute disgrace. Their site is a joke. Shows tickets still up hours after they have gone. IT's slow, makes you wait 10 minutes each time.

Then you have to empty your basket.....

Tickets going in seconds....

They just can't deal with the traffic and they just bump you from the queues if they overload.

"I've always found the 2nd Amendment ambiguous."

The thing about the 2nd amendment is that it was written when the BEST shooters in the country could possibly get off 3 to 4 rounds in a minute with only some accuracy. Now, the fastest shooters, or should I say guns, can fore off 3 to 4 rounds a second, and some even more with excellent accuracy. I think that #2 needs to be amended, but let "The People" decide what we think is appropriate.

Only one solution to this problem.

WE MUST ARM ALL THE BROWN PEOPLE WITH LONG BEARDS SO THEY CAN BE SAFE!!!!

you do know long beards is a term used for turkey hunting right?? Just saying :)

I hunted the bearded clam last night.