# Active Shooter at University of Utah



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

Shots fired at University of Utah


> Salt Lake City Police Dispatch confirmed that they are assisting the University of Utah Police in the incident.
> The Department of Public Safety tweeted that they have sent a helicopter crew to assist the University of Utah Police.
> TRAX reported that the Red Line will not proceed beyond Stadium Station near The University of Utah.
> Shots fired at University of Utah | fox13now.com





> Salt Lake City / County Police, Fire, and UHP - Live Audio Feed Web Player
> Salt Lake City / County Police, Fire, and UHP - Live Audio Feed Web Player


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

CBS says one dead. Shooter believed to be white male, black clothing.
Also they appear to be posting twitter feed(s) for this event.
Breaking news: 1 confirmed dead, U of U campus 'shots fired' alert issued | KUTV

edit: they have brought in a city police helicopter with tactical team on board.


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

It's sounding like an isolated incident, though they're still looking for the shooter. Haven't been any more shots for a while.


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

Disgruntled boyfriend. Offed himself after shooting ex. That would be my guess from what we know so far.

Here we go again, the gun grabbers will be out in 3....2.....1....


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

Not to take away from current events, but every shooting seems to make national news, I wonder how many people died yesterday from driving while texting or was killed by a drunk driver, just saying, seems some behavior is socially excepted and some not, every death whether it’s a shooting or otherwise is a tragedy.......


----------



## Sasquatch (Dec 12, 2014)

rstanek said:


> Not to take away from current events, but every shooting seems to make national news, I wonder how many people died yesterday from driving while texting or was killed by a drunk driver, just saying, seems some behavior is socially excepted and some not, every death whether it's a shooting or otherwise is a tragedy.......


Good point and I have felt the same way. It's because those same people don't really care about saving lives. They care about an agenda. The agenda of getting rid of guns. Remember these words as you may have heard them before, "By any means necessary".


----------



## Boss Dog (Feb 8, 2013)

He is still on the lose but, police have lifted the lock down on the campus. 


> 24-year-old Austin Boutain was named by the Salt Lake City Police Department late Monday as a suspect in the University of Utah deadly shooting.
> Dale Brophy, Chief of Police for the University of Utah said the shooting happened when Boutain attempted to steal a car from an individual near Red Butte Gardens.
> "There was no relationship whatsoever that we can put together," Brophy said in a press briefing around 1:50 a.m. Tuesday morning.
> Police reported that the suspect ran up into the hills east of the university following the shooting. Police believed that he was still hiding in the area. Boutain was considered armed and dangerous.
> Suspect named in shooting at University of Utah | fox13now.com


Neither Drudge, FOX nor CNN have picked it up yet. I got an alert on my cell phone scanner app. It sends out an alert when it senses an extra large number of log-on's to one particular scanner. I use "Scanner Radio" by GordonEdwards.net LLC 
There is a free and a pay app. I use the free one, haven't noticed that I'm missing anything yet.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

They will make national news of this incident, and yet another charge for the guns, and not one peep about how many died in Chicago over the weekend. Hypocritical self serving puppets.


----------



## OSC (Oct 21, 2017)

If the Sandy Hook massacre didn't move the needle any in terms of getting the country to come to it's senses about guns, nothing will. 

One should never worry about the "gun grabbers" because if 20 dead kids isn't enough to change the reality nothing will.


----------



## hawgrider (Oct 24, 2014)

OSC said:


> If the Sandy Hook massacre didn't move the needle any in terms of getting the country to come to it's senses about guns, nothing will.
> 
> One should never worry about the "gun grabbers" because if 20 dead kids isn't enough to change the reality nothing will.


Interesting tone.... So its the guns fault is what your tone sounds like.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

OSC said:


> If the Sandy Hook massacre didn't move the needle any in terms of getting the country to come to it's senses about guns, nothing will.
> 
> One should never worry about the "gun grabbers" because if 20 dead kids isn't enough to change the reality nothing will.


Your in favor of gun control measures? Please clarify and elaborate ..... if you dare.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

My guns are lazy they is around and do nothing, unless I make them do something...


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

OSC said:


> If the Sandy Hook massacre didn't move the needle any in terms of getting the country to come to it's senses about guns, nothing will.
> 
> One should never worry about the "gun grabbers" because if 20 dead kids isn't enough to change the reality nothing will.


I may be wrong in my assumption, but I believe the gun grabbers kind of eased away from Sandy Hook when they found out it was indeed a tried and true, up and down, absolute nut case, . . . with a mom who just was not involved enough in his life to see possibly where he was headed.

I'm thinking that if they would have grabbed the guns, . . . they got to grab mom too, . . . and even dumbo-crats aren't going to that party.

OTOH, . . . make him a scrawny little tattooed red-neck chewing Beech Nut tobacco and having a banjo in his back seat next to the AR, . . . AND, . . . having him actually use the AR or worse, . . . an AK, . . . while listening to Allen Jackson or the Dixie Chicks on his Apple phone, . . . and have a stars and bars bumper sticker,............

Yeah, . . . we'd a been in for a fight. Sadly, . . . nut case shootings fade off the radar in a few days, . . . witness: Las Vegas. Over, done with, being swept under the rug even as we speak, . . .

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## OSC (Oct 21, 2017)

A Watchman said:


> Your in favor of gun control measures? Please clarify and elaborate ..... if you dare.


When you're dealing with absolutists (and there are absolutists on all sides of the issue), nuance goes out the window. So explaining the nuances of my position in a complex issue like this is a waste of time, agreed?


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

OSC said:


> When you're dealing with absolutists (and there are absolutists on all sides of the issue), nuance goes out the window. So explaining the nuances of my position in a complex issue like this is a waste of time, agreed?


Ohhhhh, just for giggles, let's hear your nuances. Humor us wrong headed and not willing to listen absolutists on the wrong side of the issue.


----------



## OSC (Oct 21, 2017)

hawgrider said:


> Interesting tone.... So its the guns fault is what your tone sounds like.


Not at all. I apologize for making it sound that way.

No. I was talking about the reaction. If twenty dead kids wasn't enough to make us try something different than the status quo, nothing will ever make us try something different than the status quo. Periodic mass casualty events caused by *(and stopped by--it should be said) *firearms will simply be a part of the American landscape going forward.


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

It’s always easier to blame inanimate objects rather then the human equation , but the problem still remains,mental illness , until that issue is addressed nothing changes, just my two cents.....


----------



## OSC (Oct 21, 2017)

Prepared One said:


> Ohhhhh, just for giggles, let's hear your nuances. Humor us wrong headed and not willing to listen absolutists on the wrong side of the issue.


Should you be able to buy a tank, missiles, hand grenades etc...


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

rstanek said:


> It's always easier to blame inanimate objects rather then the human equation , but the problem still remains,mental illness , until that issue is addressed nothing changes, just my two cents.....


Yep, and there seem to be more crazy people than ever. We didn't have all these senseless shootings 50 years ago and the gun laws were a lot less strict back then. School gun clubs were common back then.


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

I always blame the Shooters (There is where we need to look for restrictions if Actions have REAL CONSEQUENCES ) Restrict Individuals not the whole populace ...


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

OSC said:


> Should you be able to buy a tank, missiles, hand grenades etc...


No but "Small Arms" IN THEIR ENTIRETY should be in the realm of Citizenry/Militia as far as legal Availability goes ALWAYS ...


----------



## OSC (Oct 21, 2017)

Gator Monroe said:


> No but "Small Arms" IN THEIR ENTIRETY should be in the realm of Citizenry/Militia as far as legal Availability goes ALWAYS ...


Right&#8230;that is the nuance I'm talking about. If you are willing to accept "some" limits on your arsenal, the "debate" over what is allowed is then just a matter of degrees at it's core.


----------



## Redneck (Oct 6, 2016)

rstanek said:


> Not to take away from current events, but every shooting seems to make national news, I wonder how many people died yesterday from driving while texting or was killed by a drunk driver, just saying, seems some behavior is socially excepted and some not, every death whether it's a shooting or otherwise is a tragedy.......


*From the CDC: From 2000 to 2015 more than half a million people died from drug overdoses. 91 Americans die every day from an opioid overdose.*
*
From the NHTSA: Every day, 28 people in the United States die in alcohol-related vehicle crashes-that's one person every 51 minutes. Drunk-driving fatalities have fallen by a third in the last three decades; however, drunk-driving crashes claim more than 10,000 lives per year. These deaths and damages contribute to a cost of $52B per year.*

You see anyone calling for a ban on cars? On alcohol again? You seeing droves of doctors going to jail for over prescribing pain killers?

A gun is a tool, no different than a car. Shooting is an activity no different than meeting friends at a bar for a drink. Pain killers are a tool when used properly are valuable in treating medical conditions. All tools and activities can be misused. Why is only one ever vilified when misused?


----------



## Gunn (Jan 1, 2016)

Inanimate objects, are to blame. I blame them when I go into the store and look at them and they start saying " Buy Me, Buy Me". And I walk out with them. It is their fault not mine.
Now to the issue at hand, Utah college campuses are some or were some of the safest campuses due to they used to allow conceal carry on campus. I don't know if they still so. When my family members went to BYU, it was very common to have a pistol in your book bag or a rifle or shotgun in the vehicle during hunting season.


----------



## maine_rm (Jun 24, 2017)

OSC said:


> Should you be able to buy a tank, missiles, hand grenades etc...


I see no reason why should not be able to own my own tank. If that is my wish and that should be possible. Grenades etc. also should be available there are rules and guidelines already in place for automatic weapons if these guidelines and rules were actually followed and our country dealt with the mental health epidemic that is going on that I think that would solve ( good Lord forgive me if I bring religion into this but I don't see where that would hurt either regardless of your believes a little bit of fear of the Almighty is a good thing)a lot of your problems. By no means am I constitutionalist but I do not recall anywhere in the Second Amendment any kind of limits being imposed


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

OSC said:


> Not at all. I apologize for making it sound that way.
> 
> No. I was talking about the reaction. If twenty dead kids wasn't enough to make us try something different than the status quo, nothing will ever make us try something different than the status quo. Periodic mass casualty events caused by *(and stopped by--it should be said) *firearms will simply be a part of the American landscape going forward.


It should also be noted that it is not necessary to have a firearm to commit mass murder. Never was. There are many incidents in history of mass murder without a gun being touched, as everyone knows. Until you can fix crazy and stop ideologies of evil, your not going to stop mass murder.

It should also be noted I am not looking to own a tank, grenades, or missles. ( Although I wouldn't turn any one of then down :tango_face_grin: ) I just want 2A left alone. When the left speaks of fair common sense gun control they are being disingenuous and everyone knows it. The lefts agenda has been made clear time and again. Case in point is the latest bump stock law being suggested, touted as a common sense law by the left and the bone headed and gullible right. I haven't seen a more dishonest, ambiguous, open ended POS since , well, since the last common sense gun law the left has suggested.

Leave 2 A as is.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

OSC said:


> Should you be able to buy a tank, missiles, hand grenades etc...


Um actually, Yes!
The constitution was written to allow the citizens to be armed and as on the same footing as the government for the people to be allowed to prevent tyranny.
Remember the Musket and cannons of their day was the state of the art then.
Now the next question would be who could afford these devices, is another question.
Prior to 1934 you could own anything you wanted to, the Automatic weapons ban was a knee jerk reaction to the fact that the gangsters were better armed than the cops were.
History, facts. you can have your own opinions, but you are not entitled to you own facts.


----------



## OSC (Oct 21, 2017)

Urinal Cake said:


> Um actually, Yes!
> The constitution was written to allow the citizens to be armed and as on the same footing as the government for the people to be allowed to prevent tyranny.
> Remember the Musket and cannons of their day was the state of the art then.
> Now the next question would be who could afford these devices, is another question.
> ...


And atomic weaponry....


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

And as back then, those who can afford them either own them or have paid access to them.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

Urinal Cake said:


> My guns are lazy they is around and do nothing, unless I make them do something...


Same here... My guns are so lazy, all they do is lay around. They won't even clean after themselves.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

OSC said:


> And atomic weaponry....


Now you're being silly.
Are you from Austin? That would explain a lot...


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OSC said:


> And atomic weaponry....


Do you somehow think that special weapons are needed in order to take back a nation from tyranny or arbitrary rule?

On the other hand, are you aware of the fact that in this nation's early days, cannons were owned and maintained by private citizens? They weren't the typical citizen, but were those who could afford such items. Could I afford a few hand grenades? Sure, and I could afford the additional safe that would be required for storage. Could I afford an artillery piece, as well as the rounds? Nope. I doubt a group of us could afford even one, much less enough to make a difference. That's neither here or there, but what is pertinent is that the government tells (allegedly) free citizens what weapons they can have.

We see that the places with the tightest gun laws are not the safest places in this country, and this has been understood for some time, now. So, why is it that governments from local to federal, violate our God-given right to keep and bear arms? Why are the politicians who want more and more gun control also the ones who are for bigger and more restrictive government? It isn't hard to figure out this non-mystery.


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

We outnumber Current Duty Military and Law Enforcement of all stripes 14 to 1 and there are more Firearms in private hands (Non Military /Non Law Enforcement ) in Anchorage Alaska than there is in ALL of China


----------



## OSC (Oct 21, 2017)

Urinal Cake said:


> Now you're being silly.
> Are you from Austin? That would explain a lot...


Your stance seems to be "if they have it, I should be able to have it." I was pointing out the absurdity of the stance. That's all.


----------



## OSC (Oct 21, 2017)

Denton said:


> Do you somehow think that special weapons are needed in order to take back a nation from tyranny or arbitrary rule?
> 
> On the other hand, are you aware of the fact that in this nation's early days, cannons were owned and maintained by private citizens? They weren't the typical citizen, but were those who could afford such items. Could I afford a few hand grenades? Sure, and I could afford the additional safe that would be required for storage. Could I afford an artillery piece, as well as the rounds? Nope. I doubt a group of us could afford even one, much less enough to make a difference. That's neither here or there, but what is pertinent is that the government tells (allegedly) free citizens what weapons they can have.
> 
> We see that the places with the tightest gun laws are not the safest places in this country, and this has been understood for some time, now. So, why is it that governments from local to federal, violate our God-given right to keep and bear arms? Why are the politicians who want more and more gun control also the ones who are for bigger and more restrictive government? It isn't hard to figure out this non-mystery.


While I disagree with much of that, the debate would be rather pointless. I do admire your ability to make your case.


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

The Second Amendment is not about Hunting or Trap & Skeet , or Target Shooting or Collecting ...


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OSC said:


> While I disagree with much of that, the debate would be rather pointless. I do admire your ability to make your case.


Take it up with the founders. I am factually correct. I'd prefer you fine folks who think you have a better idea go somewhere else.


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

AAAANNNND another troll! Is it just me? Or have we seen a marked uptick in asshats trying to baur ya into something they can twist?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

jim-henscheli said:


> AAAANNNND another troll! Is it just me? Or have we seen a marked uptick in asshats trying to baur ya into something they can twist?


I'm watching him closely. I think he's after the PBR in the break room fridge.


----------



## 1skrewsloose (Jun 3, 2013)

Troll! Wow seems like a lot are showing up here lately. What's up with that? Sure they can be here, but to spout the same crap as the msm gets old really fast. jmo. I'm surprised the first few post didn't call us all racists and bigots.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

OSC said:


> Your stance seems to be "if they have it, I should be able to have it." I was pointing out the absurdity of the stance. That's all.


Is that you in the red hat?


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

1skrewsloose said:


> Troll! Wow seems like a lot are showing up here lately. What's up with that? Sure they can be here, but to spout the same crap as the msm gets old really fast. jmo. I'm surprised the first few post didn't call us all racists and bigots.


It is getting old, right. I've seen the SandyHook _"If 20 dead kids dont change things...."_ phrase, usually verbatim, from the same couple posters, in every thread talking about 2A.


----------



## OSC (Oct 21, 2017)

Denton said:


> Take it up with the founders. I am factually correct. I'd prefer you fine folks who think you have a better idea go somewhere else.


"I mean, obviously, the (2nd) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear.' So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided."

Scalia said he would consider the limitations society observed when the Constitution was written - and then "see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons."


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OSC said:


> "I mean, obviously, the (2nd) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear.' So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided."
> 
> Scalia said he would consider the limitations society observed when the Constitution was written - and then "see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons."


I mean, obviously, you haven't spent a minute's worth of time studying the origin of the founding documentation of our government or the origin of our rights and how the founding fathers understood them.

Let me make this simple. The 2nd amendment is so that if, one day, we need to take back our government from tyranny or arbitrary rule, we will have the means by which to do so. That isn't hard to understand.
You made the asinine nuclear weapons assertion, and I cleared up that assertion. Special weapons aren't used on one's own nation. Weapons that can be used domestically are, constitutionally, fair use. Clearly, much of those weapons are financially out of reach, so there's not much use in talking about that.

So now, let's get to the newest batch of ignorance - "I mean, obviously, the (2nd) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear.' So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided."

Spend a few years doing the study I and others did, do it with decades old dictionaries in one hand so that you can understand old language, and then come back. I should hear from you maybe before I die of old age. Before that, you are a waste of time, and it is clear that your level of knowledge isn't high enough to do more than parrot what people who are either equally ignorant or are intentionally misleading citizens are telling you.

There is another possibility that I would be remiss in omitting; you could be very well in the know, but are someone who is working against the constitution and those who believe in individual liberty as well as the laws of nature and nature's God. As I don't know you, I can't say for sure.


----------



## OSC (Oct 21, 2017)

Denton said:


> I mean, obviously, you haven't spent a minute's worth of time studying the origin of the founding documentation of our government or the origin of our rights and how the founding fathers understood them.
> 
> Let me make this simple. The 2nd amendment is so that if, one day, we need to take back our government from tyranny or arbitrary rule, we will have the means by which to do so. That isn't hard to understand.
> You made the asinine nuclear weapons assertion, and I cleared up that assertion. Special weapons aren't used on one's own nation. Weapons that can be used domestically are, constitutionally, fair use. Clearly, much of those weapons are financially out of reach, so there's not much use in talking about that.
> ...


The "newest batch of ignorance" you quoted comes from the late Justice Scalia. I would wager he studied the constitution more that most.

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

MountainGirl said:


> It is getting old, right. I've seen the SandyHook _"If 20 dead kids dont change things...."_ phrase, usually verbatim, from the same couple posters, in every thread talking about 2A.


Very old. We seem to have more then a couple of very left leaning trollies. Don't you have to love their condescension and arrogance?



> While I disagree with much of that, the debate would be rather pointless. I do admire your ability to make your case.


Translation: Your totally wrong, ignorant, and just plain stupid. Clearly you are not on the same evolutionary plane as I am and are not worthy of my time. To belabor the point with you would be useless. But hey, you gave it the old college try!


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

If you showed Liberals pics of the Klan marching on DC in 1919 and 1924 (Millions of Kluxers converged on DC for up to a week at a time with blessing of the Democrat/Klan controlled Government ) and marched down Pennsylvania Avenue 40 abreast and miles long and ask a Liberal if this was the Controlling Party /Political Faction today as a Klan inspired and controlled Government in 20th and now 21st Century . Would the Liberals want Guns to fight that tyranny ?


----------



## OSC (Oct 21, 2017)

Prepared One said:


> Very old. We seem to have more then a couple of very left leaning trollies. Don't you have to love their condescension and arrogance?
> 
> Translation: Your totally wrong, ignorant, and just plain stupid. Clearly you are not on the same evolutionary plane as I am and are not worthy of my time. To belabor the point with you would be useless. But hey, you gave it the old college try!


I had to give the post a like myself&#8230;.made my morning.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OSC said:


> The "newest batch of ignorance" you quoted comes from the late Justice Scalia. I would wager he studied the constitution more that most.
> 
> https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided


Scalia was not a founding father. Now, rather than scouring the internet for talking points, do your own research. Do that, and you'll learn just how misled you and the rest of us have been.


----------



## OSC (Oct 21, 2017)

Denton said:


> Scalia was not a founding father. Now, rather than scouring the internet for talking points, do your own research. Do that, and you'll learn just how misled you and the rest of us have been.


As I stated, earlier; the discussion is pointless when you have absolutist (from any quarter) in the mix.


----------



## Salt-N-Pepper (Aug 18, 2014)

Well... all these shootings making national news, yet not a peep about the two dead and 26 injured in shootings last weekend in gun-control haven Chicago. Huh, agenda much, media?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OSC said:


> As I stated, earlier; the discussion is pointless when you have absolutist (from any quarter) in the mix.


Originalist. Otherwise known as a constitutional-minded citizen.

You are correct that this conversation is pointless. Why? I am dealing with someone who is lacking in knowledge of individual rights and responsibilities as viewed by the founding fathers through the lens of the laws of nature and nature's God.

The good news is this conversation has given me an idea for a podcast. Thanks for that.


----------



## OSC (Oct 21, 2017)

Denton said:


> Originalist. Otherwise known as a constitutional-minded citizen.
> 
> You are correct that this conversation is pointless. Why? I am dealing with someone who is lacking in knowledge of individual rights and responsibilities as viewed by the founding fathers through the lens of the laws of nature and nature's God.
> 
> The good news is this conversation has given me an idea for a podcast. Thanks for that.


Not really. You were apparently ignorant of what one of the foremost constitutional scholars thinks about the 2nd Amendment. If one of us is lacking knowledge relative to the topic at hand, it would be you at least in that case. Sorry.

As for the Founding Fathers, there were 56 signers to the Declaration of Independence, 55 delegates to the first Constitutional Convention where only 35 or so (I forget the exact number) signed off on the Constitution. Narrowing the beliefs of 56, 55, or 35 persons down to one mindset is impossible. What you mean to say is this-if you're interested in accuracy, "Those founders I agree with&#8230;." then go from there.

Nature and Nature's God? I'll file that with your "special weapons" argument as gibberish.

Glad to have helped with the podcast.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OSC said:


> Not really. You were apparently ignorant of what one of the foremost constitutional scholars thinks about the 2nd Amendment. If one of us is lacking knowledge relative to the topic at hand, it would be you at least in that case. Sorry.
> 
> As for the Founding Fathers, there were 56 signers to the Declaration of Independence, 55 delegates to the first Constitutional Convention where only 35 or so (I forget the exact number) signed off on the Constitution. Narrowing the beliefs of 56, 55, or 35 persons down to one mindset is impossible. What you mean to say is this-if you're interested in accuracy, "Those founders I agree with&#8230;." then go from there.
> 
> ...


There was a disagreement among the framers of the Bill of Rights. A part wanted the 1st Amendment to be as it was given to us. Another portion wanted the right to keep and bear arms to be the first, as it would be with the particular, God-given right that we would ensure the security of the rest. Whether or not it was made the first amendment is immaterial. What is important is that they knew exactly what the notion of keeping and bearing arms was - and is. That you either ignore what it means, or are intentionally working to undermine it, is also immaterial.

So, do you think special weapons should be used by citizens in their own nation when combating tyranny? If so, please explain. It'll be interesting reading, I am sure.

As far as the laws of nature and nature's God being gibberish, you, once again, are at odds with the framers of this nation.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

Congratulations at Googling the number of delegates as well as signers. That doesn't show knowledge, and it doesn't indicate years of research. It indicates a lazy and ignorant mind who merely wishes to argue - or worse.

Headed to work. Have a good day, and good luck with your future years of research and learning.


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

The Second Amendment was not about "Hunting" or Trap & Skeet or Benchrest or collecting ...


----------

