Report Inappropriate Comments

A few things missed in the commentary, every shooting happened in a "gun free zone" in states where murder is illegal. To think that mentally unstable or those of criminal intent will follow new laws is not realistic. Just because drunk drivers kill people on the road we don't outlaw cars or alcohol. If driver "A" is caught speeding we don't take driver "B's" car away, even if it's a highly tuned sports car and can go really fast on high octane fuel.

The Second Amendment is clear when looked at in context. The Militia was the people and they must be armed to stay free. Well regulated was well trained and familiar with Arms. The writers wanted to be sure citizens could protect themselves against an oppressive Government. They would be perfectly fine with people owning any weapon available.

Writers of Rhode Island Constitution spelled it out in Article I, Section 22, " The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the whole thing.

The First Ten Amendments/Bill of Rights puts restrictions on Government, and recognizes unalienable rights of citizens.

The difficulty with the mental heath is if the person has no convictions of violence the State has no jurisdiction to infringe on any of their rights. A part of the Fifth Amendment: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". I also find that mental stability could be subjective to the opinion of the psychologist. If the Dr. is anti-gun will he be more likely to deem the patient "unfit"?

The article states 34% of families with school age children have firearms in the house. That would mean there are a lot of children not shooting classmates and teachers that have access to weapons.

We have drug, sex, sensitivity and driver training in schools but no firearms training. You can't even have a plastic Army soldier glued to a hat in school without a national news story. Maybe it's time to change the fear bred by ignorance and have basic rifle training in High School.