The only gun I need is in my pants and it won't hurt anyone. It does misfire occasionally though.

i thought it was that he was austistic.

Didn't hear the anti-social part before.

From what I read here, along with the neighbor's, local police and even his brother's words, I would wager he had a good chance at having APD.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/12/diagnosing-adam-lanza/266322/

I tried having a conversation about him with my fiance last night and when I mentioned what I thought I knew about him, she right away told me that he very well could have had ASPD, because he displayed many signs of it.

She is a LPN by the way and her sister is a RN working at StonyBrook University Hospital. They make for great conversation when it comes to people like this because they have plenty of people they can talk to with a better understanding than me.

Although even if he didn't have ASPD, it is obvious that this boy had real issues and that he was the biggest threat here, with or without guns.

Part of the problem here is that supposedly if a teacher or doctor sees a real issue with a child, they can't really go out and say it. They can't warn that the child may have a chance at doing something terrible down the road due to what they have experienced throughout their time with him/her. Unless they have proof that he/she will cause someone harm, stating anything could in fact cost them their license.

It seems like people had an idea that something could be wrong.

Do you know how to read a graph? (It's on Page 1 btw, not page 6. Page 6 is only about Australia)

The blue line is the gun ownership per household. At the right, you know that part where gun ownership is LOWEST, it has a staggering amount of homicide per capita. 

The crime rate is low at the left where countries have more guns. Or at least at the level of the blue line. At the right, it's WAY above the line.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/21/sacred-text-us-gun-habit

i guess im doing it wrong. my guns havent even killed one person.

As for needing a gun, I and most every other lawful gun owner hope to never NEED to use a gun, we just have it in case we do. I never want to be in a situation where i need to use it, but i take comfort in knowing if the time arises, I will be prepared, and be able to protect myself and others.

In the mean time gun owners like myself use their guns for fun, target shooting, plinking, trap, skeet, competive, hunting, etc.

i live in a low crime area, and im glad about that, with that knowledge and and having my gun on me, insures that im highly unlikely to be a victim of a crime

If he truly understood the constitution he'd understand why it is important to be vigilant when following it. Even the slightest compromise could mean all of our rights. Hell, we see this in European countries with their much larger (and ever-increasing) censhorship policies and a lack of many individuals freedoms  that we'd have protected against here. The only reason there isn't tyranny in these political states is because of international intervention. 

The rights given in the Bill of Rights aren't things that change with time. They're absolute rights of nature, and are necessary for free men to exist. 

I'm starting to see how true Alexander Hamilton was, even today with this following quote. 

"Foreign influence is truly the Grecian horse to a republic. We cannot be too careful to exclude its influence."

Mine just fires blanks.

something people seem to keep forgetting, or just not know. is that the Bill of Rights, doesnt grant us any rights, its just protects them.

We already have these natural rights, they are God given, we are born with them. and the bill of rights merely acknowledges them, and protects them.

many of the founders didnt want the bill of rights because they thought it was redundent, as we already had said rights.