you made the statement. I wanted to know why. This is a discussion/argument forum. Tangentially it relates to the discussion as a larger realm of the insistence to view issues as only solvable through governmental overreach without the consequences spelled out by the founders. Therea are no laws in place that would have prevented this individual from legally obtaining a firearm. To suggest we need to add other measures to prevent a singular incident is to ignore what will have to be given up (forcibly) by everyone else (unless you enjoy the privilege of exemption due to membership/affiliation with a political class).
I've bee accaused of both. Most conservatives generally see my views as scattershot while most liberals tend to hear me until I say something out of lock step with a democratic party line. I think it mostly has to do with how I conduct myself as a person juxtaposed with what I am willing to relate in others with respect to perspectives
Was Robert E Lee fighting to defend slavery? He led the Confederate army, so that logic would dictate a resounding "yes". There is no denial of how slavery was viewed as an institution in the southern states. However, it was nested in a broader view of other states imposing their will through nefarious channels. Hence, the animus that gained root until it was enough to cause the split.
I answered the way I did to explain why I didn't regard being a Confederate soldier as "treason" as the war was not originally fought to "end slavery" but to "preserve the Union". When taken in context of how our Constitution was set up, the Union did not hold the right to deny sovereign states to secede. If Lincoln had begun the war from its inception on the basis that slaves were being denied rights as citizens, then there would have been Constitutional standing. As it was, the grand notion that slavery was the driving force for the Union's involvement is intellectual hilarity. The union needed the raw materials provided in the southern states to feed their industrial machine at a cheap price. If a tariff was tacked on all of a sudden, then their base prices skyrocket. I am not stating this as support for slavery as a moral institution. I don't know anyone on this board that would. What I am pointing out is that this re-writing of history to paint this virtuous and glorious banner is fine if you like living in a fantasy world. It doesn't exactly cut to an honest representation of history as many on this board would have anyone believe. I wanted to see how critically you had absorbed this information, and I now have my answer.