Two men shot and killed at a gun range in Texas, one of them a Navy SEAL. Can't argue that they should've been better-armed this time, I suppose.
One of them was a former Navy SEAL and best-selling author (a book called American Sniper) who was described as "America's Best Sniper." Iraqi insurgents put a price on his head, so it may be possible that the prime suspect (a fellow Texan) was trying to collect. Still, that's pretty messed-up.
just yesterday i wordlessly article bombed a facebook acquaintance who posted an image macro of the "HOW COME MASSACRES NEVER HAPPEN AT A GUN RANGE?!" argument on their wall. i just went over to add this one to the pile (up to the minute coverage!!) and the post has been deleted. retraction... ACCEPTED
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/o...ed-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html?_r=1& This will kill the gunfap crowd on here. A centre-right leader banning guns? How anti-Freedom!
Uh, I'm pretty sure that's not true. Any part of the U.S. Constitution (including the Articles) can and have been repealed or changed. I don't see why the Bill of Rights would enjoy protection the rest of the document doesn't have. They're technically just the first ten amendments.
What, you don't remember the part of the Constitution that says "Incidentally if any of the first ten amendments that haven't even been written yet because they were used as part of a sales pitch for this bad boy are repealed, this entire document becomes null and void"?
Sorry, I did a little research and I was mistaken. Don't know why I thought that then Obviously as was said it would be very difficult politically to repeal, however.
Considering the failure of the ERA* and that this no-brainer took 203 years to be ratified, our ridiculously difficult (and yes, it is too difficult) amendment process would never, ever succeed in repealing the Second Amendment. *Personally I think it's redundant and nothing about it would protect women more than current interpretation of the 14th Amendment already does, but it had a lot of support.
Turns out that the victims knew the shooter. They were trying to help a fellow serviceman deal with his PTSD. On 1 hand though, the weapon used was a handgun, so an assault weapon ban would not have helped. OTOH, man with mental issues had a gun...
The sniper with 150 kills thought it would be a good idea to use a gun as a form of PTSD therapy for his friend? Have I understood this correctly?
...By taking him to a shooting range? Great idea. Guess I shouldn't expect any less from someone who murdered 150 people and said President Obama was "against the Second Amendment." There's nothing that shooting things can't cure. EDIT: lol
The latter point is probably the more important one, yes. Professional-grade treatment, this does not appear to have been.
