Nothing that guy has said has been dishonest. The reports that the neighbor hit the shooter and may have caused his death is beyond question. The shooter called his father and told him he’d been hit. Even CNN is reporting that.

If you don’t want that exact issue to “be the narrative” then you shouldn’t write articles with titles like “Good Guy with a Gun is a Myth” because this shooting tends to prove otherwise.

And things like IEDs that are easily made, in addition to small arms and suicide bombers, etc.

So you’d prefer to dwell in a land of make believe? You must be a liberal!

Why can we only take one thing away from any event? There are multiple angles to this story and ignoring the ones you don’t like doesn’t do any good.

Unless you’re going to agree that the Heller decision exists, you kind of do have to agree with me. It’s historical fact that you can easily verify.

Again: Tell that to every group that’s fought against the US military and managed to survive. There are plenty of examples you can choose from.

That’s exactly what you’ve said, repeatedly. You’ve argued, repeatedly, that armed rebellion is futile in the face of the US military’s air/ground power. That’s demonstrably false since multiple groups have successfully fought against our armed forces.

The SCOTUS disagreed with you when it issued Heller.

You’re the one saying that the US military can suppress all insurrection, armed or unarmed, because it has overwhelming military might.

You apparently didn’t read the entire comment, or else you just chose to ignore it because it doesn’t fit with your naive belief that superior firepower equals instant victory.

So you’d prefer that the shooter go unopposed and have killed more people?

No, to eliminate private gun ownership you’re going to have to overturn 2A.

I think that any armed rebellion is similar to any other armed rebellion, yes.

So you keep saying. In your scenario, exactly who is the “US military” referring to? All branches of the military or did one (or more) go rogue? What about civilian control? What about the soldiers whose families may be the targets of your proposed widespread, indiscriminate bombing campaigns?

Yes. If they hadn’t they likely would have used chemical weapons immediately. They instead waited until the situation deteriorated so badly that Assad had no choice but to attack everyone in broad geographic areas.

I’m not sure we’re arguing about the same thing.

Like in Syria? What Civil War are you talking about?

Even if what you’re written is accepted as true, we’re not in the ‘70s anymore, the Supreme Court issued the Heller decision, and the 2A is what the NRA has always argued it was.

Again, a look at how other groups have countered the US military should be enough to show you that so-called “overwhelming military force” does not work like you think it does. Unless you can simply attack without worrying about collateral damage, you can’t just send in heavy weaponry and fire away and anything and…