And then there’s this dumbass

Time to re-examine rights of Second Amendment
Trying to understand the tragedy at Fort Hood doesn’t require too much analysis. An angry, frustrated, depressed man who cannot stand his circumstances or face his future decides not only to end his own life but to avenge himself on the group he holds responsible. His next stop is the neighborhood gun store where he quickly purchases semi-automatic weapons and ammunition that will allow him to fire more than 100 rounds in a few minutes. The tragedy follows.

The real tragedy is that assholes like you don’t want me to have the right and the ability to shoot back.
We keep telling you stupid fuckers that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Sounds trite, sure, but criminals can always seem to find a gun, whether they’re entitled to walk into a gun store and buy one or not. Oh, and this bit is priceless:

His next stop is the neighborhood gun store where he quickly purchases semi-automatic weapons

Did you ever hear of waiting periods, background checks, and all the other crap you Bradyites have loaded honest gun-owners with? And you say “semi-automatic” like you really want to imply that he bought a military-style weapon with “cop-killer” bullets (that, BTW, have never been actually used to, you know, kill a cop). It makes one wonder if you even know what the class of “semi-automatic weapons” covers, since it also covers my 1911 with its commodious (!) 7-shot magazines that I have only two of.

When the Constitution’s amendment calling for the right of individuals to keep and bear arms to support a militia was passed, the arms were muskets that could be fired once a minute or less, and represented no risk for mass killing by a deranged shooter. Despite our present reality, we have done little to re-examine this right and the threat it now represents to our society.

And here we have the obligatory and purposeful ignorance of the clear intent of the Founders, not just in the Constitution but in their writings explaining it, to ensure that the general population (not just the “militia”, although that was also important) would have the right to bear arms. The reason, of course, being that the Founders had just fought a Revolution (ever hear of it, asshole?) against a nation where it was unusual and probably illegal for private citizens to own much more than, say, a fowling rifle — and certainly not a pistol — which significantly circumscribed the citizenry’s ability to protect itself against its government.
And what “threat” does an armed citizenry actually represent to society? Given all the stories we see (just not in the mainstream media) about people legally defending themselves with personal weapons against the Bad Guys (not to mention zombies, but that’s fodder for another post), I really can’t see the downside of the armed citizenry. But apparently

Stephen R. Dunlop, M.D.
President, Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence
Indianapolis

thinks he knows better than the great unwashed. Of course, he probably thinks that he’s safe in his fancy home with its electronic security and cops patrolling his neighborhood 24/7 (yeah, in his dreams). But we all know that when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Good luck with that, Dr. Dunlop. Sleep tight.
AFTER A BIT MORE THOUGHT: Dr. Dunlop’s main problem really is demonstrated here:

we have done little to re-examine this right

That’s because, Dr. Dunlop, the right was non-negotiable. The Second Amendment says “shall not be infringed”. It does not grant the right — the assumption is (and Founders’ writings support the assumption) that the right is a natural right (stemming from the natural right of self-defense) that governments do not have the power to suppress.
The problem with leftists is that they think the Constitution grants rights. It most certainly does not. It spends most of its time prohibiting the government from infringing on our God-given rights as human beings, and the true threat to our society comes when people like Dr. Dunlop try to encourage that infringement. (Not that our rights aren’t continually infringed in Washington* and haven’t been since the day the document was ratified, but that’s another story.)
STILL MORE: Don’t you just love it when a guy says something stupid and is almost immediately refuted? (H/T.)

__________________
* Yes, I’m fully aware that Congress didn’t meet in the District of Columbia until November, 1800, and that John Adams, not George Washington, was the first President in residence there. It’s a fucking metaphor, assholes.