Their idea is that our tolerance for gays causes God to kill us in myriad ways, killing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing our poor in New Orleans, killing associated people in Tuscon. Their message thus is "start hating gays and stuff like this won't happen," and then they leverage that message at national tragedies for publicity. It's fairly smart as far as getting attention goes, though counter-productive, and certainly one of those things that would probably *should* be illegal. The kind of amorality that you can't make up

And there isn't a 13-year-old i've met so far that i would trust to bear arms in public, and that's including me back then. I don't know what you lot are thinking

They think America is a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah, so they rub salt in pretty much any wound they can find. Any tragedy is God punishing us, etc.

I don't think they're for or against the Iraq war per se, but dead soldiers coming home is an opportunity those fucks can't pass up.

Russia Today covered this issue and the new rule in New Hampshire allowing guns back in the NH capital.

http://rt.com/usa/news/usa-guns-new-hampshire-gun-control/

Don't worry guys, they found out today he was a gamer. By tomorrow it will all be Activisions fault or something v__v

Dear lord, people are advocating 13 year olds carrying fire arms? I don't see how any sane person could think that would make anybody safer.

No one is advocating it.  It is the way things are now.  The way things were 50 years ago.  And the way things will be in 50 years.

So it's sickening to use this as an occasion to argue that everyone should own a gun, but it's just peachy to use it as an occasion to argue that no one should have a gun or that we should use this as an opportunity to "chip away at the ol' Second Amendment"?

Are you arguing that such political opportunism is wrong and shouldn't be done, or that it is okay and should be continued? Which side are you on, or is that those of a libertarian bent shouldn't use such tragedies to push a political agenda but everyone else is permitted to do so?

Or maybe there are some of us in the middle who think that maybe this is a perfect opportunity to discuss Arizona's insane concealed carry law. Why do we license people to drive but in some states, don't even bother to check the mental capacity or training of someone who carries a FIREARM in public, concealed or otherwise? That isn't "personal protection", that's downright insanity.

And before anyone labels me a "gun hater", I work in a gun shop. I spend 50 hours a week surrounded by firearms. I own firearms. I see some of the people who carry around me and question their mental capacity but at least all those people have basic firearm training and are NOT mental patients or violent felons, as it's a requirement for a carry permit in Minnesota. While it's not a foolproof system, it provides a thin layer of protection between the public and lunatics walking the streets with loaded Desert Eagles, just itchin' for a fight to break out so they can play "hero".

People can do whatever they wnt with their words and thoughts.  However, I believe it would be better if there was just a chance for people to be human, and not just political partisans looking a short time after the event, to go into spin mode and use it for this agenda or that.  It was done before any of the facts came in.  There are cases, like the case of where a listener and person motivated by Glen Beck, decided to go to the ACLU and Tides Foundation and wanted to shoot up them both.  That was politically motivated.  In this, it is just a nutjob, but then goes political, right with the sheriff doing it.

I see the issue here is that it is on autopilot.  it is like people can't help BUT think these things.  The political war of wards and thoughts is 24x7x365 now, and I think there would be time for people just to stop and see the bigger picture.  If there isn't a chance for people to stop in horror together and even begin to remotely connect on even a few values, not much chance of anything getting better.

Pretty much, to not be able to do this, is to be like a religious convert that seeks ANY opportunity to get their message out, even when such isn't called for.

AZ recently changed the law to allow legal gun owners to carry firearms concealed without a permit, thus joining VT, AK, and several other states (although more limited in scope).  Dozens of states already allowed (and still do) legal gun owners to carry firearms open (not concealed) without a permit and that's been the standard in some states since before the nation was legally founded.

Is this law bad or crazy?  I don't know but it puts the laws in AZ closer to what most gun owners think of when they think of the 2nd Amendment.  AZ still has too many gun restrictions for me and so does the state I live in, NH.  However, it was a step in the right direction.  Maybe some day states like AZ and NH won't have any gun laws other than the 100s of federal laws?  That seems like a more Constitutional way to go.

As for driving, you don't need a Learner’s Permit in NH to learn how to drive.  In fact, you cannot get one as we don’t have Learner’s Permits in NH.  Insurance is option, although it certainly isn’t required.  The same goes for seat belt usage.  However, we do have driver's licenses.  I'd like to see the NH driver's license turned into to a license that lasts until people turn 70.  I get it, there should be a short test to get a DL but after that, you shouldn't have to get it renewed.  Of course, most people would get it renewed from time to time because they would lose their license, move and so on.  That is something that people from AZ are more familiar with than those from other states.