It's illegal to carry a gun in Washington DC. How could there be a shooting? I thought that sort of thing was impossible in "enlightened" areas of the country.

I was not there, so I only know what I see on the news. If this guy is found guilty by a jury of his peers, and they convict him, this guy should be executed by Christmas. This was cold blooded murder, and there were LOTS of witnesses. Otherwise, we already live in anarchy.

Because that guy in CO bought guns in order to commit murder, I should have my right to purchase guns in CT stripped or curtailed? Do you use that logic everywhere evenly? In April, Kiat Than Ly walked into a Smith's Supermarket in Salt Lake City and bought a knife with the express purpose of stabbing as many people has he could. Should I undergo a background check before buying a steak knife? Are Cutco salesmen accessories in crime? By the way, he only got two people before he was stopped by another customer who was carrying a gun.

http://fox13now.com/2012/04/26/two-stabbed-in-downtown-slc-parking-lot/

It was his right to buy the gun. He was not exercising any right when he used it for murder. Why can't you make that distinction?

If you are accusing me of saying that he has the right to murder, then you are bearing false witness - not very Christian, eh?

I guess you must be convinced of the incompetence of American citizens to find it necessary to forcibly disarm them. Which of us is the real fearmonger? I hate to sound like an abortionist here, but if you don't like guns, don't buy one.

Second, please stop confusing murder control with gun control. Defending the human right to bear arms has nothing to do with advocating or facilitating murder. That's a straw man argument so fallacious that would make the self-defense straw man itch. There's probably been a lot of drunk driving accidents in the past year. It's time for you to surrender your driver's license, I guess.

Third, all humans standing on planet earth are born with the same right to keep and bear arms, but presently only a few countries respect it at all. Only the US and Switzerland come immediately to mind. We're trying to keep it that way, because once any government restricts gun ownership, it gets drunk on the infringment power, and the hangover can be very, very costly.

Finally, as for your comments about "need", it's really none of your business why I "need" to own or carry a gun any more than it is incumbent upon me to justify my choice of ice cream flavor with you.

"And he repeated his commitment to redefine marriage by 2015, regardless of what the public or his own backbenchers think about it."

I'm aware of four of those instances, and they were all gun free zones.

For instance, see his comments about how a"civilized" society would be in alignment with his thought process. Why should guns be banned? He thinks they should. Don't agree? You're "uncivilized".

My views didn't meet with your view of ideal. Rather than slough it off or (if you cared enough to comment) use an objective standard to show me in error, you suggested that I be visited by FBI.

Now you think that exercising both my first and second amendment rights warrants police action. While we're at it, what other constitutionally guaranteed rights do you think I should not enjoy? The Mayor of San Francisco thinks I have no right to the fourth amendment, either. Am I now required to quarter soldiers at the President's pleasure, too?

Perhaps I should be coerced to confess to a crime while in court?