Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!

[Silcc69]

Mass Shooting at Colo. Movie Theater, 12 People Dead

By ANTHONY CASTELLANO | Good Morning America – 6 hours ago

@GMA (http://twitter.com/intent/user?region=screen_name&screen_name=GMA) on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/GoodMorningAmerica)






A lone gunman dressed in riot gear burst into a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., at a midnight showing of the Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises" and methodically began shooting patrons, killing at least 12 people and injuring at least 50.
The suspect, James Holmes, 24, of Aurora, was caught by police in the parking lot of the Century 16 Movie Theaters, nine miles outside Denver, (http://www.denverpost.com/)after police began receiving dozens of 911 calls at 12:39 a.m. MT. Police said the man appeared to have acted alone.
Witnesses in the movie theater said Holmes crashed into the auditorium through an emergency exit about 30 minutes into the film, set off a smoke bomb, and began shooting. Holmes stalked the aisles of the theater, shooting people at random, as panicked movie-watchers in the packed auditorium tried to escape, witnesses said.
"You just smelled smoke and you just kept hearing it, you just heard bam bam bam, non-stop. The gunman never had to reload. Shots just kept going, kept going, kept going," one witness told ABC News.
"I'm with coworkers and we're on the floor praying to God we don't get shot, and the gunshots continue on and on, and when the sound finally stopped, we started to get up and people were just bleeding," another theatergoer said.


Photos: Shooting at 'Dark Knight' Screening at Colorado Movie Theater (http://abcnews.go.com/US/slideshow/colorado-theater-shooting-dark-knight-rises-16818553)
Police said 10 victims died inside the theater, while dozens of others were taken to local hospitals, including a child as young as 6 years old.
A San Diego woman identifying herself as James Holmes's mother spoke briefly with ABC News this morning.
She had awoken unaware of the news of the shooting and had not been contacted by authorities. She immediately expressed concern that her son may have been involved.
"You have the right person," she said.
"I need to call the police," she added. "I need to fly out to Colorado."
Holmes was wearing a bullet-proof vest and riot helmet and carrying a gas mask, rifle, and handgun, when he was apprehended, according to police. Holmes mentioned having explosives stored, leading police to evacuate his entire North Aurora apartment complex and search the buildings early this morning.
The highly-anticipated third installment of the Batman triology opened to packed auditoriums around the country at midnight showings on Friday morning, and features a villain named Bane who wears a bulletproof vest and gas mask. Trailers for the movie show explosions at public events including a football game. Though many moviegoers dressed in costume to attend the opening night screening, police have made no statements about any connection between the gunman's motives and the movie.






Police in New York have intensified security around showings of the film throughout the five boroughs today, with police commissioner Ray Kelley saying that "as a precaution against copycats and to raise the comfort levels among movie patrons in the wake of the horrendous shooting in Colorado, the New York City Police Department is providing coverage at theaters where the 'The Dark Knight Rises' is playing."


The Paris premiere of the movie has been cancelled in the wake of the shootings. "Warner Bros. is deeply saddened to learn about this shocking incident. We extend our sincere sympathies to the families and loved ones of the victims at this tragic time," the movie's producers, said in a statement.
Witnesses watching movies in theaters next to the one where the shooting took place said bullets tore through the theater walls and they heard screaming.




"The suspect throws tear gas in the air, and as the tear gas appears he started shooting," said Lamar Lane, who was watching the midnight showing of the movie with his brother. "It was very hard to breathe. I told my brother to take cover. It took awhile. I started seeing flashes and screaming, I just saw blood and people yelling and a quick glimpse of the guy who had a gas mask on. I was pushed out. There was chaos, we started running."


One witness said she saw people dropping to the ground after the gunshots began.
"We were maybe 20 or 30 minutes into the movie and all you hear, first you smell smoke, everybody thought it was fireworks or something like that, and then you just see people dropping and the gunshots are constant," witness Christ Jones told ABC's Denver affiliate KMGH (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/index.html). "I heard at least 20 to 30 rounds within that minute or two."


A man who talked to a couple who was inside the theater told ABC News, "They got up and they started to run through the emergency exit, and that when she turned around, she said all she saw was the guy slowly making his way up the stairs and just firing at people, just picking random people," he said. "The gunshots continued to go on and on and then after we didn't hear anything...we finally got up and there was people bleeding, there was people obviously may have been actually dead or anything, and we just ran up out of there, there was chaos everywhere."


Witnesses and victims were taken to Gateway High School for questioning.
Hundreds of police and FBI agents are involved in the investigation. A senior official who is monitoring the situation in Washington said that early guidance based on the early snapshot of this man's background indicated that this act does not appear to be linked to radical terrorism or anything related to Islamic terrorism.


Though police have said that they believe the shooter was acting alone, they checked all cars in the parking lot and cleared the area near the theater.


Dr. Comilla Sasson, at the University of Colorado Hospital where many of the victims were taken, said they are currently operating on nine critical patients and have treated 22 in all. She called the hospital "an absolutely terrifying scene all night."


"The good news is that the 3-month-old has actually been discharged home and is in the care of their parents
In a statement, President Obama said, "Michelle and I are shocked and saddened by the horrific and tragic shooting in Colorado. Federal and local law enforcement are still responding, and my administration will do everything that we can to support the people of Aurora in this extraordinarily difficult time. We are committed to bringing whoever was responsible to justice, ensuring the safety of our people, and caring for those who have been wounded."


A man who was in the adjacent theater with his son, said that the commotion began as one of the action scenes was starting up.
"These guys came through, and they say someone's shooting," he said. "I thought, 'Oh, they must have heard the fireworks, you know ... I had no idea. And then the alarms started to go off in the theater.'"
An explosive device was also found inside the movie house. Police are not sure whether the device, which investigators are calling a bomb, was already in place or whether it was thrown into the crowd.


Ambulances rushed to the scene as audience members fled the theater.
Investigators are now interviewing friends and associates of the suspect to get a sense of the man's background.
Matthew Mosk contributed to this report.



http://gma.yahoo.com/mass-shooting-colo-movie-theater-14-people-dead-085940786--abc-news-topstories.html

[GroobySteven]

Disgusting.

Moot point ... but what was a 6yr old child doing watching such a film and at such and hour?

[Dino Velvet]

Horrible tragedy. Waking up to it right now.

[mealticket]

terrible, so sad and senseless...

[Boomerang Man]

My heart goes out to the victims & their families. To the perpetrator, an eye for an eye.............

[Dino Velvet]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/20/12850048-12-shot-dead-at-dark-knight-rises-screening-in-aurora-colorado?lite

http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=alex-johnsonA502D601-7B76-AE3C-B50C-DF2ED7057EB3.jpg&width=380
James Holmes, 24, a former graduate student in the neuroscience program at University of Colorado medical school

[epris]

pray for the victims.. its terrible

[ValerieNelson]

Very sad. :(

[Dino Velvet]

http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/20/james-holmes-colorado-shooting-joker/

'Batman' Shooter 'He Said He Was The Joker'

http://ll-media.tmz.com/2012/07/20/0720-james-holmes-3.jpg


The Dark Knight - Hospital Scene (Two-Face and Joker) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfmkRi_tr9c)

[top4bigbutt]

This is fucked up, I wish this retard will be raped everyday in jail, and castration, he was wearing groin protectionas part of his gear sick fuck
That's what happen with guns:pussys use guns, guns make pussys fell they are brave gangsters, shootings childrens fucking pussy I wish the rest of your live will be hell....and then again our system: he will finish in jail with a bed and 3 meals that you me and the victim's taxes pay for

[onmyknees]

Disgusting.

Moot point ... but what was a 6yr old child doing watching such a film and at such and hour?



As details came in and in and one attempts to process all this, I admit I had the same thought. What a horrendous tragedy.

[flabbybody]

Disgusting.

Moot point ... but what was a 6yr old child doing watching such a film and at such and hour?
and who takes a three month old to the movies? thankfully the baby was unhurt

[danthepoetman]

Once again insanity shows its ugly face. The guy is indeed an asshole of humongous proportion, but I always kind of feel ashamed just to be human, every time such a thing happens. What the fuck is wrong with us, for our behaviour to have such tendencies to derail like that? I can’t get it…

[shaustin]

Eh, shit happens. With the state of the world and the dispositions of the majority of the people in it, I'm only shocked this type of thing doesn't occur more.

[danthepoetman]

Eh, shit happens. With the state of the world and the dispositions of the majority of the people in it, I'm only shocked this type of thing doesn't occur more.

This goes beyond just shit… But you’re right, shaustin, and being surprised it doesn’t implies that it could happen more often. That’s pretty much my point, you know; I think in a way we agree...
Just so disheartening…

[flabbybody]

Once again insanity shows its ugly face. The guy is indeed an asshole of humongous proportion, but I always kind of feel ashamed just to be human, every time such a thing happens. What the fuck is wrong with us, for our behaviour to have such tendencies to derail like that? I can’t get it…
yes. you'd hope someone so hopelessly troubled would just lock themselves in their apartment and blow their brains out. how could anyone want to kill total strangers who never did anything to them ?

[BellaBellucci]

Great. Another thread about the shooting, overshadowed by more bitching about the guy who took his baby to the theater. Why are you guys judging this parent and not the gunman? Hmm?

Complain all you like about the possible lack of judgment of someone to take a baby or a child to a late-nite movie (keeping in mind that in the latter case that the child is on school vaction), but nobody ever says, 'hey, maybe I shouldn't bring them because they might get shot.'

~BB~

[GroobySteven]

a child to a late-nite movie

Late night violent movie. Who lets a 6 yr old watch that?

[TatianaSummer]

Looks like this is only the beggining of things like these to start happen in America. An awakening call to start preparing for these things. Sad News.

[BellaBellucci]

Late night violent movie. Who lets a 6 yr old watch that?

An enlightened one. The movie in question is PG-13. My son's nine. We're going to see it tomorrow in IMAX and we're going to have a blast! Who doesn't know how to explain to a child the difference between real and make believe? Who doesn't want to proactively address the moral implications of the subject matter with their families? Lazy parents, that's who. It's really easy to ban a child from something, and quite different to take the time to walk them through it.

And I mean, we're taking about Batman here, not Saw. I saw the first Burton movie when I was 10. :geek:


Looks like this is only the beggining of things like these to start happen in America. An awakening call to start preparing for these things. Sad News.

Prepare? You mean attempt to prevent? Like this?

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/TSA-text-new1-1024x859.jpg

Yeah, I'll pass.

~BB~

[Dino Velvet]

how could anyone want to kill total strangers who never did anything to them ?

For some it's easier to lash out at those you have no personal or emotional connection to.

[danthepoetman]

Bella, I think everybody is just trying to express his/her sadness and disgust. We’re all concerned by stuff like that, and we all have to find a way to deal with it.

[BellaBellucci]

For some it's easier to lash out at those you have no personal or emotional connection to.

How would you know? Is there something you wanna tell us? :lol:

In all seriousness though, you're absolutely right. The human race is so entirely fucked.


Bella, I think everybody is just trying to express his/her sadness and disgust. We’re all concerned by stuff like that, and we all have to find a way to deal with it.

Agreed. But they're blaming the victim. Somebody who had no CONCERN over who might be in that theater shot it up all by himself. Let's stay on topic and place the blame where it actually belongs, shall we?

~BB~

[onmyknees]

Great. Another thread about the shooting, overshadowed by more bitching about the guy who took his baby to the theater. Why are you guys judging this parent and not the gunman? Hmm?

Complain all you like about the possible lack of judgment of someone to take a baby or a child to a late-nite movie (keeping in mind that in the latter case that the child is on school vaction), but nobody ever says, 'hey, maybe I shouldn't bring them because they might get shot.'

~BB~

I kinda was hoping I didn't see this thread either, but no such luck....anyway I'm not judging you or anyone else's parenting nor am I ignoring the shooter. I'm simply saying that as you hear this news and try to wrap your brain around it....that was one thought I had. That's all.

[danthepoetman]

I kinda was hoping I didn't see this thread either, but no such luck....anyway I'm not judging you or anyone else's parenting nor am I ignoring the shooter. I'm simply saying that as you hear this news and try to wrap your brain around it....that was one thought I had. That's all.

Exactly my feeling.

[Dino Velvet]

How would you know? Is there something you wanna tell us? :lol:

Not really. PM me later if you wanna.

[BellaBellucci]

Not really. PM me later if you wanna.

Maybe it's best if we just leave that one alone then, huh? :lol:

~BB~

[Dino Velvet]

Maybe it's best if we just leave that one alone then, huh? :lol:

~BB~

You're a nice lady.

[robertlouis]

In what circumstances could he carry that arsenal into a cinema without being apprehended in the first place? Is Colorado one of those states which has pretty loose regulations on carrying weapons, concealed or otherwise?

For once I am not having a go at the US approach to weapons - these questions come from genuine curiosity.

[Ben]

In what circumstances could he carry that arsenal into a cinema without being apprehended in the first place? Is Colorado one of those states which has pretty loose regulations on carrying weapons, concealed or otherwise?

For once I am not having a go at the US approach to weapons - these questions come from genuine curiosity.

Alex Jones always has an interesting take on everything. He certainly ignites various emotions in people.
I think a lot of his so-called conspiracy theories are, well, a bit over the top.

Dark Knight Massacre To Pass UN Gun Ban? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxevkqQJxPk&feature=plcp)

And Thom Hartmann:

Tragedy in Denver - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgWICWG2oj4&feature=plcp)

[onmyknees]

In what circumstances could he carry that arsenal into a cinema without being apprehended in the first place? Is Colorado one of those states which has pretty loose regulations on carrying weapons, concealed or otherwise?

For once I am not having a go at the US approach to weapons - these questions come from genuine curiosity.



Ok...your last sentence was enough to save you from what could have been some ugliness. Since you asked sincerely...Yes Colorado is a Western mountain state and it's gun laws reflect the geography and the history similar to Idaho and Montana. As such, it has a history of strong second amendment support.. Most of it sparsely populated once you get outside the Denver area. You'll see more cattle, and antelope than people in the majority of the state. Long guns are relatively easy to purchase with the usual FBI background checks. Part of the old horse culture still remains in places outside Ft. Collins and other areas. It's just simply a different culure than the east coast.

[Willie Escalade]

Second time something like this has happened in Colorado...

[Lovecox]

Another reason why you shouldn't yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Ba-dum- kssshh.

[GroobySteven]

An enlightened one. The movie in question is PG-13. My son's nine. We're going to see it tomorrow in IMAX and we're going to have a blast! Who doesn't know how to explain to a child the difference between real and make believe? Who doesn't want to proactively address the moral implications of the subject matter with their families? Lazy parents, that's who. It's really easy to ban a child from something, and quite different to take the time to walk them through it.




I think from 6 to 9 is a fairly good jump in maturity but maybe those parents of this "joker" thought the same about their child? I don't think kids of that age should be subjected to so much violence, comic book or otherwise. You can explain the difference between real and make believe ... but when I was 8 I was running around holding a broom handle pretending to be Luke Skywalker ... maybe we don't have to implicitly show them something that was made for adults.

PS - I not one of those that thinks violent movies makes for serial killers or mad gunmen but I do believe that those movies and video games, desensitises people to death and violence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8059204/Screen-violence-desensitises-teenage-brains.html - makes you wonder how it would affect a 6 yr old's brain ... or a 9 yr old?

[sucka4chix]

A child's brain is not the same as an adult's. There are many things they CANNOT process and cannot differentiate. Too many "parents" want to treat children as adults or "friends". That is ignorant irresponsible parenting that will ultimately effect us all. This quacks parents probably failed him.
A six yr old has NO BUSINESS at a midnight showing of Mickey Mouse. It's called discipline. Something lost a generation or 2 ago.

[thx1138]

Mass murder is as American as apple pie and motherhood. A recent example that never made it to mainstream news:
http://www.mysinchew.com/node/75605

[Sulka_bewitched_me]

A child's brain is not the same as an adult's. There are many things they CANNOT process and cannot differentiate. Too many "parents" want to treat children as adults or "friends". That is ignorant irresponsible parenting that will ultimately effect us all. This quacks parents probably failed him.
A six yr old has NO BUSINESS at a midnight showing of Mickey Mouse. It's called discipline. Something lost a generation or 2 ago.

:iagree: Couldn't have said it better myself. Oh and regarding bringing a young child/infant to a movie theater is just plain selfish on the parents part. I once went to a movie where a young couple brought their newborn to see said movie and the child was constantly crying and neither parent made any effort to leave with the child or try to soothe it. Needless to say, I or my family (having paid $14.00 to watch the movie) didn't want to endure that for the entire length of the movie, so I got up and complained to the manager and said either you ask them to leave or you refund me and my family our money. The parents were asked to leave but as they were walking out the young man looked into the crowd and yelled "Thanks alot you fucking asshole!" There's humanity in a nutshell. Self-centered, inconsidereate towards others and boorish in their behaviour. People nowadays think a movie theater is their rec room/tv room/family room and behave accordingly. Civility is dead. And yes this is a tragedy, horrible, unconscionable, etcetera......blah....blah....blah....ad nauseum.

[BellaBellucci]

I think from 6 to 9 is a fairly good jump in maturity but maybe those parents of this "joker" thought the same about their child? I don't think kids of that age should be subjected to so much violence, comic book or otherwise. You can explain the difference between real and make believe ... but when I was 8 I was running around holding a broom handle pretending to be Luke Skywalker ... maybe we don't have to implicitly show them something that was made for adults.

PS - I not one of those that thinks violent movies makes for serial killers or mad gunmen but I do believe that those movies and video games, desensitises people to death and violence.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8059204/Screen-violence-desensitises-teenage-brains.html - makes you wonder how it would affect a 6 yr old's brain ... or a 9 yr old?

I think it depends on the child. In my case, I was first exposed to real extreme violence, at the hand of my own father no less, starting at four years old, but was not allowed to watch violent movies (or anything 'R' rated because my parents were too lazy to think for themselves). And believe me, I am not desensitized to it by any means.

My son, on the other hand, has never been exposed to such, but has always watched movies with violence in them (notice I didn't say 'violent movies' as I would never watch one just for that). He plays with toy guns, and plays Call of Duty Black Ops on the regular. Out favorite movie is Zombieland. He is probably the sweetest child I've ever known, and I'm not just saying that because I'm his mother. He really doesn't want to hurt anybody.

Like most things in life, this is subjective, but that wasn't my point. My point was that this parent's arguable judgement call has nothing to do with the shooting. Both he and his child were victims of a senseless crime. My heart goes out to them.

~BB~

PS: Who else here even has children?

[Sulka_bewitched_me]

Forgot to add common sense is dead too.

[BellaBellucci]

Also:


He said: "I don't think anybody would deny that people do become desensitised to violence. But the real issue is whether that in and of itself causes negative consequences."

People were not simply slaves to the biological processes of their bodies and brains, he said. How they behaved also depended on a host of psychological and social factors, such as how much violence they experienced as children."

Well said. :geek:

~BB~

[ValerieNelson]

My point was that this parent's arguable judgement call has nothing to do with the shooting.


:iagree: It isn't like the gunman was watching the movie, then went postal because of the child.

Would I bring my child to a midnight showing? Now yes, especially since it's summer vacation and all, but when she was three months? No.

[BellaBellucci]

:iagree: It isn't like the gunman was watching the movie, then went postal because of the child.

From one mom to another, thank you. Someone needs to talk some sense into these childless boys. :lol:

And that's an interesting choice of wording, the post office mass shooting is one of my earliest memory of them ever occuring.

~BB~

[GroobySteven]

I think it depends on the child. In my case, I was first exposed to real extreme violence, at the hand of my own father no less, starting at four years old, but was not allowed to watch violent movies (or anything 'R' rated because my parents were too lazy to think for themselves). And believe me, I am not desensitized to it by any means.

My son, on the other hand, has never been exposed to such, but has always watched movies with violence in them (notice I didn't say 'violent movies' as I would never watch one just for that). He plays with toy guns, and plays Call of Duty Black Ops on the regular. Out favorite movie is Zombieland. He is probably the sweetest child I've ever known, and I'm not just saying that because I'm his mother. He really doesn't want to hurt anybody.

Like most things in life, this is subjective, but that wasn't my point. My point was that this parent's arguable judgement call has nothing to do with the shooting. Both he and his child were victims of a senseless crime. My heart goes out to them.

~BB~

PS: Who else here even has children?

He may be the sweetest child ever and of course, most parents would think that of their child but I just don't see it as a judgement call allowing him to play Call of Duty - which is violent - I think the impact that it could have on any child, wouldn't be apparent until much later in life. I don't think it would be the only factor but would it play into being one of them in de-sensitising them to violence? I play that game - I'm an adult and I think it's violent.

The fact a child was in this movie as no relation to the gunman or the deaths - he could have chosen any movie - but I'd question any parent taking a 6 yr old to a violent movie.

[Silcc69]

My parents didn't give a fuck about me watching certain R rated movies at a young age. They would just fast forward the sex scenes that was it.

[trish]

My parents didn't give a fuck about me watching certain R rated movies at a young age. They would just fast forward the sex scenes that was it.

And that's why to this day you cum too quick. (Sorry, couldn't resist the setup)

[Dino Velvet]

My parents didn't give a fuck about me watching certain R rated movies at a young age. They would just fast forward the sex scenes that was it.

Me too. When I saw Carrie my dad was only concerned with the nude shower scene.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_X_6zUOcktm4/TVLmbCkL_qI/AAAAAAAAAtE/_DO1km6g_YI/s1600/film+carrie4.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HntCP89LNDs/TkNbaOd9G9I/AAAAAAAAABc/2hYNQANx9ug/s1600/carrie+murder.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dXckUuFfpjo/TiC9LJEYX4I/AAAAAAAADMs/5yfzfdXeL7k/s1600/carrie1.jpg

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KRR1dnsr3yk/0.jpg

[BellaBellucci]

He may be the sweetest child ever and of course, most parents would think that of their child but I just don't see it as a judgement call allowing him to play Call of Duty - which is violent - I think the impact that it could have on any child, wouldn't be apparent until much later in life. I don't think it would be the only factor but would it play into being one of them in de-sensitising them to violence? I play that game - I'm an adult and I think it's violent.

The fact a child was in this movie as no relation to the gunman or the deaths - he could have chosen any movie - but I'd question any parent taking a 6 yr old to a violent movie.

Question it all you like. You're entitled to your opinion, and so am I, 'opinion' being the operative word. More importantly though, correlation does not prove causality, so again, I argue that it's all subjective.

~BB~

[GroobySteven]

Question it all you like. You're entitled to your opinion, and so am I, 'opinion' being the operative word. More importantly though, correlation does not prove causality, so again, I argue that it's all subjective.

~BB~

Yep. I agree and it's also a thin line which I'll cross when I get to it on at what age, allowing them to watch what.

[giovanni_hotel]

The mind of a child is SOOOO impressionable, many times parents take for granted how what they expose their child to under the age of 7 can have a profound, sometimes irreversible impact on their psychological development.

IMO it's not really a good idea to expose a child to violent media when he/she hasn't had the time to fully develop his moral sense of right and wrong.

It's naive to think exposing children to violence isn't potentially damaging to them.

[BellaBellucci]

Yep. I agree and it's also a thin line which I'll cross when I get to it on at what age, allowing them to watch what.

Exactly! :iagree:

~BB~

[Stavros]

Park Dietz was on BBC TV last night; he is a famous American Forensic Psychiatrist whose reputation was forged through his interrogations of Jeffrey Dahmer, who confessed that he used a condom when having sex with his victims (dead or alive), and if he ate parts of them, it was always the biceps which he ate with potato and onions. Here he is:

Dietz: The real issues with mass murderers is that all of them are both sad and depressed enough to be willing to die and also angry or paranoid enough that they are blaming other people for their suffering and misfortune. Those are two of the critical ingredients, there has never been a mass murderer, acting alone, who didn’t have both of those (characteristics) in mass murders against strangers where mass murder is defined as three or more people dead in one incident for psychological reasons.

The interview is here:
http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/10489768/the-psychology-of-a-mass-murderer (http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/10489768/the-psychology-of-a-mass-murdererDietz)

[/URL]on Jeffrey Dahmer:
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-263918.html (http://www.securityinfowatch.com/article/10489768/the-psychology-of-a-mass-murdererDietz)

Dietz is highly critical of the portrayal of acts of violence against women in movies, particularly if they take place before or after sex, an article on him is here:

[URL]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/dr-park-dietz-dangerous-minds-412116.html

[Quiet Reflections]

My son love violent stuff like power rangers, tom and jerry, looney tunes, comic books, and horror movies. At 8 years old he will tell you quick that it is all make believe and if you do that type of stuff to a real person that they will die and you will end up in jail. Kids are impressionable and no matter where they are they will be exposed to stuff like that. Our jobs as parents is to help them put it in perspective and learn right from wrong. It doesn't matter whether the violence is real or cartoon they will see it. We can shield them from it all we want but it seems to me that the kids that go off the rails are those that had people keeping them from reality all their lives. It is easy to say what you would do if you had kids or what you think of parents and how they raise their own but until you have to raise some of your own it is really just a bunch of BS talk. We worry about a 6 year old watching Batman but think nothing of them sitting in front of the TV watching the news and listening to mom and dad argue and curse each other.

[red-cyberman]

Well this is personal cause a friend of mine was killed in that shooting Jessica Ghawi aka Jessica Redfield.
Great human being, amazing person RIP

[Dino Velvet]

Well this is personal cause a friend of mine was killed in that shooting Jessica Ghawi aka Jessica Redfield.
Great human being, amazing person RIP

She was the survivor of the Toronto Mall Shooting. RIP.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-victim-jessica-ghawi-survived-toronto-mall-shooting-month-article-1.1118365

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1118495.1342799791%21/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/jessica-canada-shirt.jpg

[Ben]

She was the survivor of the Toronto Mall Shooting. RIP.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-victim-jessica-ghawi-survived-toronto-mall-shooting-month-article-1.1118365

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1118495.1342799791%21/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/jessica-canada-shirt.jpg

Read about that. Very sad.
And, too, what are the chances of that happening, too? It's crazy.

[robertlouis]

According to some press reports, there are moves to ban costumes in cinemas.

Yep, that should solve the problem of mass shootings. For fucks sake.

[flabbybody]

Does it ever occur to people who decide to have children that there are certain sacrifices that need to be made as parents of a little kid?... like not going to a fucking 2 AM Batman movie if you can't afford a babysitter. NO. You can't drag your child to a totally inappropriate movie for a four year old simply because you had a bad day at work and feel you deserve a night of fun. Then why did you have kids? Being a shitty parent does not validate your status as a functional adult.
You think the kids of these white trash self-indulged parents will become emergency room nurses or oral surgeons ...... probably not.
They're likely to become deliquents and drop outs..... like their parents

[BellaBellucci]

Does it ever occur to people who decide to have children that there are certain sacrifices that need to be made as parents of a little kid?... like not going to a fucking 2 AM Batman movie if you can't afford a babysitter. NO. You can't drag your child to a totally inappropriate movie for a four year old simply because you had a bad day at work and feel you deserve a night of fun. Then why did you have kids? Being a shitty parent does not validate your status as a functional adult.
You think the kids of these white trash self-indulged parents will become emergency room nurses or oral surgeons ...... probably not.
They're likely to become deliquents and drop outs..... like their parents

Wow.

~BB~

[bobvela]

According to some press reports, there are moves to ban costumes in cinemas.

Yep, that should solve the problem of mass shootings. For fucks sake.

Agreed... same goes for those now calling for increased gun control to prevent such an act in future (or many of the 'security' responses to 9/11).

The sad fact is there is only one kind of gun control that could prevent this kind of mass-shooting from happening ever again... a giant magnet... in space... which sucks up any and all guns from the earth... and keeps orbiting in case someone happens to build a firearm of their own.

Alas in this country we are quite bad at targeting the wrong thing when a tragedy like this happens... I’m fairly certain that this tragic shooting will come down to a case of beta male rage...which is not something you can easily target/fix so as to prevent the possibility of.

[GroobySteven]

Well this is personal cause a friend of mine was killed in that shooting Jessica Ghawi aka Jessica Redfield.
Great human being, amazing person RIP

Sorry to hear that.

[scopas66]

I own dozens of guns. Guns are not the problem. It is the crazy fucks who use them to hurt people. If he did not have the guns , then he would have used the homemade bombs that he made in his apartment. I personally never leave home without a gun.
NO ONE will ever get my guns!!!!!!!!!

[trish]

If one sane person owned all the guns in the world, perhaps there'd be no problem. But the law of large numbers doesn't work like that. In fact, the more guns there are and the easier it is to possess them more nuts will own and use them; and more ignorant and silly people will handle to them. All of us will be at an increased risk of being shot either deliberately or by accident. Guns infringe on our legitimate right to an expectation of safety and security. Guns ARE the problem.

[flabbybody]

I own dozens of guns. Guns are not the problem. It is the crazy fucks who use them to hurt people. If he did not have the guns , then he would have used the homemade bombs that he made in his apartment. I personally never leave home without a gun.
NO ONE will ever get my guns!!!!!!!!!
sorry. that horseshit gun lobby argument is very tired. Home made bombs are notoriously unreliable and inefficient when it comes to killing. But any nitwit can operate an assault weapon. It's specifically designed to kill, and kill quickly and easily. For what purpose would a private citizen own this sort of gun ?

[Stavros]

... it seems to me that the kids that go off the rails are those that had people keeping them from reality all their lives. It is easy to say what you would do if you had kids or what you think of parents and how they raise their own but until you have to raise some of your own it is really just a bunch of BS talk. We worry about a 6 year old watching Batman but think nothing of them sitting in front of the TV watching the news and listening to mom and dad argue and curse each other.

On the other hand, in the worst cases of feral youth with a temper that can explode into violence at any moment, they have often grown up in a dysfunctional household where violence -physical violence and violent language- are the 'natural' responses to a situation, in homes where alcohol and drug abuse are normal -far from being shielded from the reality of violence, it is often the only reality they have. Crucially, they do not grow up in homes with loving relationships; they are unable to love themselves or anyone else. The absence of love is another element to add to the depression and paranoia that drives pseudo-commandos -Breivik, for example, claims to loves something but it is abstract: his concept of Norway, but he has shown no capacity to love another person, and it is debatable if his apparently extreme vanity is actually self-love, or self-loathing. Often these guys feel they have to complete a 'mission' and that love would be a distraction. Lee Harvey Oswald also had problems forming relationships.

[kittyKaiti]

sorry. that horseshit gun lobby argument is very tired. Home made bombs are notoriously unreliable and inefficient when it comes to killing. But any nitwit can operate an assault weapon. It's specifically designed to kill, and kill quickly and easily. For what purpose would a private citizen own this sort of gun ?

Well let's see...

An armed populous keeps the government away. Look at all the nice little places like North Korea and Iran, where the people are stripped of everything. As much as many of them would like to live in a free Democracy, they don't have the capability to fight off the government and its military full of retarded drones who "just follow orders". Meanwhile we see places like Libya and Syria, where the citizens rebelled, used there ability to access "assault weapons" and threw off their oppressive, tyrannical governments. We see this now in Syria, where these heroic civilians, armed with guns, are fighting a genocidal government and for fucks sake, are whooping its ass. We forget that our forefathers, the dudes who MADE this country in 1776, USED the right to buy, possess and use firearms to FREE ourselves from corrupt British rule. I own a semi-automatic Smith & Wesson AR-15 chambered 5.56 NATO, because the Second Amendment of this great country says I can. I own it because I have the right to defend my home from intruders, whether they are civilian criminals or government criminals. And when the day comes that the Feds ban my right to own them, I'll repeat the same words our forefathers used in 1776 in the Declaration of Independence and like a good Syrian bad-ass, liberate my country from the corrupt thieves and maniacs that run this country.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

What makes this interesting little spree killing so fascinating to me, is that while the United Nations for the past three weeks has been deliberating a VERY unpopular international gun ban behind closed doors, a poor 24 year old college kid somehow acquires a military arsenal, rigs his apartment like he was a trained Navy SEAL with IED booby traps and then proceeds to throw tear gas cans in to a movie theater to shoot up civilians, carrying one of each type of weapons most gun owners have access to, a long gun "rifle", a shotgun and a pistol and then walks back out and allows the police to arrest him without a massive gun battle you'd expect from a dipshit in heavy body armor. With the nation now crying out for justice and gun control, this international UN gun ban has the support the government needs to ratify it and in the end, strip away the MOST IMPORTANT Constitutional right we have in America. The right that we used once before against out previous government. A right that is displayed in Syria. A right that the U.S. government is afraid we might use one day when more than enough "usurpations" of our rights have occurred under the previous Bush admin, the current Obama admin and the next administration. Blatant false flag operation is blatant.

[onmyknees]

If one sane person owned all the guns in the world, perhaps there'd be no problem. But the law of large numbers doesn't work like that. In fact, the more guns there are and the easier it is to possess them more nuts will own and use them; and more ignorant and silly people will handle to them. All of us will be at an increased risk of being shot either deliberately or by accident. Guns infringe on our legitimate right to an expectation of safety and security. Guns ARE the problem.



You can indulge in all the wishful thinking you like Trish, but it's pure folly. There are certain realities of American politics, and American culture that aren't going to change for historical and other reasons. I don't want to turn this into a political back and forth, however... You wish to ban guns, or severely restrict them. I wish African Americans would be more open minded to other political philosophies that might lead to greater empowerment because from any sane person's vantage their not doing all that well voting in the 97 percentile for one political party.....but I'm pragmatic enough to realize that's not going to happen. I can talk about it...preach about it, but at the end of the day, it's wasted time. You're smart enough to realize the majority of Americans are not going allow any infringement on the 2nd amendment to the degree you'd propose.You can talk about it, you can preach about it....but at the end of the day it's wasted time. These two things are somewhat political but more cultural and they're not changing anytime soon.....like it or not. We go down this road after every tragedy like this. As humans who largely feel compassion, we try to make sense of the senseless.

[Silcc69]

You can indulge in all the wishful thinking you like Trish, but it's pure folly. There are certain realities of American politics, and American culture that aren't going to change for historical and other reasons. I don't want to turn this into a political back and forth, however... You wish to ban guns, or severely restrict them. I wish African Americans would be more open minded to other political philosophies that might lead to greater empowerment because from any sane person's vantage their not doing all that well voting in the 97 percentile for one political party.....but I'm pragmatic enough to realize that's not going to happen. I can talk about it...preach about it, but at the end of the day, it's wasted time. You're smart enough to realize the majority of Americans are not going allow any infringement on the 2nd amendment to the degree you'd propose.You can talk about it, you can preach about it....but at the end of the day it's wasted time. These two things are somewhat political but more cultural and they're not changing anytime soon.....like it or not. We go down this road after every tragedy like this. As humans who largely feel compassion, we try to make sense of the senseless.

So how would go about preventing shit like this from happening again? Give me an honest answer OMK? This guy wasn't a criminal he seemed to come from a pretty good upbringing and he still went crazy.

[trish]

You can indulge in all the wishful thinking you like...Where did I indulge in wishful thinking. Please point it out. Where did I say I want to ban guns? Please point it out. I'm merely stating the fact that decreased regulation on firearms increases everyone risk of being deliberately or accidentally shot. I hold no hope of stopping the present trend of increasing firearm freedoms. I have no hope of changing the minds of fools who think the long history of armed conflict between U.S. citizens and the U.S. army (:roll:) is what keeps tyranny at bay.

(By the way, shouldn't a good Christian like OMK be Church on a Sunday morning and not posting on a porn forum? What automatic weapon would Jesus choose?)

[kittyKaiti]

Where did I indulge in wishful thinking. Please point it out. Where did I say I want to ban guns? Please point it out. I'm merely stating the fact that decreased regulation on firearms increases everyone risk of being deliberately or accidentally shot. I hold no hope of stopping the present trend of increasing firearm freedoms. I have no hope of changing the minds of fools who think the long history of armed conflict between U.S. citizens and the U.S. army (:roll:) is what keeps tyranny at bay.

(By the way, shouldn't a good Christian like OMK be Church on a Sunday morning and not posting on a porn forum? What automatic weapon would Jesus choose?)

The real facts say otherwise:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/gun-ownership-up-crime-down/

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/gun-sales-violent-crime-down-again

http://personalliberty.com/2010/09/20/fbi-report-gun-ownership-is-up-violent-crime-is-down-800068807/

[SFTB]

Please point it out. I'm merely stating the fact that decreased regulation on firearms increases everyone risk of being deliberately or accidentally shot.

A registerered firearm holder stopped this robbery by 2 thugs one with an unregistered weapon. Ask the patrons which side of the fence their on? And yes, he hit what he was shooting at, while they were running away.

71 year old Man Stops Armed Robbery - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoLGC-n4i4)

[buttslinger]

Kitty Kaity, Those stats don't account for the American guns bought here and hustled down to Mexico to slaughter 50,000 innocent civilians. Big money for US Gun Companies!! YAY!

[SFTB]

For what purpose would a private citizen own this sort of gun ?

When the 2nd amendment was penned, the citizenry had just risen up and overthrown a tyrannical government, and that memory was fresh. As far as why would a private citizen need such a weapon now, well, for one example you could be driving down the street minindg your own business when an angry mob decides to drag you out of your car and smash your head in.

La riots Truck Driver. - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOXcHEMiHr4)

[trish]

If you have to call them "real facts" to distinguish them from facts, they're already suspect. Personal Liberty? Opposing Views? Really? There indeed has been some drop in crime in the U.S. attributed to the shift in demographics (on average violent crimes are perpetrated by angry unwanted young men...both fewer unwanted births and aging population are factors that depress crime statistics). In the "real" world we don't get to hold all other factors constant to measure the effect of a single variable. But luckily logic and mathematics can help: increase the hazards (read firearms) and you will increase the risk of injury.

[kittyKaiti]

Kitty Kaity, Those stats don't account for the American guns bought here and hustled down to Mexico to slaughter 50,000 innocent civilians. Big money for US Gun Companies!! YAY!

Our right to bear arms is not in any form causing the problems in Mexico. Mexico's shitty government, which is flooded with corruption and both its inability and refusal to pay its military forces and law enforcement enough money to actually want to fight the crime, risking their lives, is causing the sharp rise in violence. With large portions of the Mexican police forces and army soldiers also affiliated with the drug Cartels, the majority of the weapons used in these cartel crimes are acquired through corrupt police officers and treasonous Mexican army soldiers who provide weapons, ammo and other supplies to drug cartels. Mexico's inability to control and deal with its own crime crisis is their problem, not ours.

[SFTB]

If you have to call them "real facts" to distinguish them from facts, they're already suspect. Personal Liberty? Opposing Views? Really? There indeed has been some drop in crime in the U.S. attributed to the shift in demographics (on average violent crimes are perpetrated by angry unwanted young men...both fewer unwanted births and aging population are factors that depress crime statistics). In the "real" world we don't get to hold all other factors constant to measure the effect of a single variable. But luckily logic and mathematics can help: increase the hazards (read firearms) and you will increase the risk of injury.

wow, you just quoted statistics, without quoting any, stated facts, without stating one

Think of the irony of someone protesting the right to bear arms, under flashing banners for "shemale sex in public" and tranny gangbang ads. Oh wait, that's your right to free speech? So a literal translation of the right to bear arms for safety is wrong, because some sick broken individual goes nuts. But translating the right to free speech into something way beyond the founding fathers imagination is cool?

[kittyKaiti]

If you have to call them "real facts" to distinguish them from facts, they're already suspect. Personal Liberty? Opposing Views? Really? There indeed has been some drop in crime in the U.S. attributed to the shift in demographics (on average violent crimes are perpetrated by angry unwanted young men...both fewer unwanted births and aging population are factors that depress crime statistics). In the "real" world we don't get to hold all other factors constant to measure the effect of a single variable. But luckily logic and mathematics can help: increase the hazards (read firearms) and you will increase the risk of injury.

Are you attempting to say that the majority of crimes are committed because a dude had sex with a woman who had a baby and he doesn't want the baby? Less abortions increases crime? Can you even provide a link to anything that would show increases in abortion rates will prevent men from killing people?

[dabaldone]

Where did I indulge in wishful thinking. Please point it out. Where did I say I want to ban guns? Please point it out. I'm merely stating the fact that decreased regulation on firearms increases everyone risk of being deliberately or accidentally shot. I hold no hope of stopping the present trend of increasing firearm freedoms. I have no hope of changing the minds of fools who think the long history of armed conflict between U.S. citizens and the U.S. army (:roll:) is what keeps tyranny at bay.

(By the way, shouldn't a good Christian like OMK be Church on a Sunday morning and not posting on a porn forum? What automatic weapon would Jesus choose?)

Indeed, assualt weapons are aptly named: their used to assualt and kill others. An average citizen with the "freedumb" to purchase all of these items legally caused the death of innocent people. And no, if more people had guns in the theater (the dumb argument used by gun nuts) more people would have ended up dead in th chaos.

These nuts who claim Obama is out to restrict gun rights are idiots. He allowed the ban on assualt weapons to expire (dumb). And has not taken ANY measures to infringe anyone's access to guns.

[BellaBellucci]

Kaiti, I <3 love you!!!

~BB~

[SFTB]

Indeed, assualt weapons are aptly named: their used to assualt and kill others.

We dont live in a society like Japan. We are one disaster or unpopular court decision away from chaos. Not just USA, but UK and Euro has seen plenty of their share of unrest lately. Better to be armed when the laws are thrown out the window.

Katrina Looters - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RVHDlPqZWE)

[kittyKaiti]

Wah, wah, guns kill people! So many people die from guns and shit! We should ban them and it will stop people from dying!

Yes, 12 people died today from that shooting. Meanwhile, 57 people died today from cigarette smoking. And that happens everyday. In the United States, an average of 32,000 people are killed per year in some manner by a firearm, whether in a crime or on accident. Compare that to cigarette and tobacco use... well, I hope you feel like idiots. Nearly 450,000 deaths alone in the United States because of direct cigarette and tobacco use and the related painful diseases and cancers attributed to its use. That doesn't include the other ~50,000 Americans who die annually from inhalation of second hand smoke. SECOND HAND SMOKE ALONE, has a higher death rate than every gun death in the country. Want it in an easier way to understand it? ~500,000 deaths per year from cigarettes since the turn of the 21st Century: 6 million dead. Comparable with World War II Nazi genocide of Jews. Gun related dead, since turn of 21st century: ~384,000. IT WOULD TAKE ALMOST 16 YEARS OF GUN DEATHS TO EVEN BE COMPARABLE WITH ONE YEAR'S WORTH OF TOBACCO DEATHS. Have fun smoking though. It's totally cool.

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/health/attrdeaths/index.htm

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/health_effects/index.htm

[BellaBellucci]

If we're going to ban guns, then let's also ban cutting tools, alcohol, tobacco, saturated fat, high fructose corn syrup, GMO crops, motor vehicles, caffeine, power windows, red meat, extreme sports, and, of course, religion. What else did I leave out?

So yayz! Let's do this! Because we live in a democratic nanny state, not a free republic, right? </sarcasm>

Keep this up and we'll be in neither. Fascism anyone?

~BB~

[trish]

Good argument for stiffer laws controlling both firearms and second smoke. But please stop arguing against straw man opponents. Nobody here is whining and nobody is suggesting we ban all guns. Let's just have some common sense regulation. E.g. Reinstate the ban against automatic weapons. Revoke SYG laws. Regulate clip capacity. Restrict concealed carry. If you want to carry, then man up and display your weapon.

[SFTB]

. E.g. Reinstate the ban against automatic weapons. Revoke SYG laws. Regulate clip capacity. Restrict concealed carry. If you want to carry, then man up and display your weapon.

Sorry Trish, sometimes open display of legal weapons and standing your ground is the only thing that keeps you from losing everything. se vid

and Denver is not an open carry municipality
http://opencarry.org/co.html

LA Riots - Armed store owners deter rioters - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs)

[trish]

I'm not against open display. Read again. I'm opposed to concealment.

[kittyKaiti]

Good argument for stiffer laws controlling both firearms and second smoke. But please stop arguing against straw man opponents. Nobody here is whining and nobody is suggesting we ban all guns. Let's just have some common sense regulation. E.g. Reinstate the ban against automatic weapons. Revoke SYG laws. Regulate clip capacity. Restrict concealed carry. If you want to carry, then man up and display your weapon.

Well, here is the problem with that:

1. Banning Automatic Weapons: They are already HEAVILY regulated. You must acquire a Class III license to get a-hold of fully automatic weapons. The ATF does not like handing out Class III permits, therefore, not many people have them. But that does not stop the average gun savvy person from opening up the interior of their AR-15 and modifying the firing pin to allow for (illegal) full automatic firing mode.

2. Revoke Stand Your Ground: And this is to achieve WHAT? Telling victims of crime to RUN, RUN, RUN as fast as you possibly can and if you can't escape, lay down and take your ass raping and beating like the bitch you are. SYG is also known as "the right to defend yourself from a dumb piece of shit law". Simple fact. If criminals don't want to get shot or stabbed or something else, well don't commit crimes. It is not my duty to retreat from my home, vehicle, business nor surrender to the demands of some retard in a ski mask. In every violent crime incident, it is ALWAYS your life or theirs. You really think that just running away or obeying their commands will save your life?

3. Clip Capacity: You must mean "magazine" capacity. These mag capacity limits are both stupid and useless. New York already bans any gun mag higher than 10 rounds. But guess what, I own several 30 round magazines for my AR-15. Why? Because they are legal to buy regardless. These are grandfather mags, unused mags that were manufactured before 1994. Magazine capacity limits dont really slow me down either. Changing out a mag is simple, at least for me, even if I have to use those 10 rounders.

4. Concealed Carry: Is there REALLY any difference between a person with a concealed carrying permit and a person carrying openly, also with a permit? Does this make any difference to the fact that said person is carrying a firearm?

[SFTB]

I'm not against open display. Read again. I'm opposed to concealment.

That doesnt make much sense. Concealed weapon permits require a background check and classes.

[GroobySteven]

Urgh - the same old retarded arguments: the US has more guns per head of population than most other countries but every time something like this happens they blame it on "wearing raincoats/Batman/drugs/whatever".
Listen, I get it - guns are cool, they're fun to take on the range and fire, I've done enough of it. That's the only reason most of you idiots support the right to bear arms. Stating it's in the Constitution is horseshit, Constitutions can be changed and you'd be happy to do it for something else. Trying to say it would protect you from the Government? Seriously? What backwards country do you live in? You live in what is meant to be (by your own admission) the Greatest Country on Earth - or the Greatest Democracy on Earth. Stating you own guns for when you might need to defend yourself from the government is like Christians awaiting the Rapture or survivalists wanted the end of times to come. You are living in a fucking fantasy and salivating over the potential of an apocalypse (or zombie outbreak). Get the fuck over yourselves - you want guns because you like them and enjoy them - so stop with the excuses.

I understand wanting to protect yourself. If I ended up living on the mainland, I'd consider having a gun in the house for protection but I live somewhere, where guns, especially assault type or semi-automatics are almost impossible to get, so I don't need to. Surely you fuckwits can see the difference between protecting yourself with A gun and someone being able to get a hold of 6000 rounds of ammunition, assault rifles, semi-automatics? Surely you understand that not every legitimate gun owner remains sane and normal ... or their gun cannot be taken from them (ie; see the idiot on his 1st post above about not having his guns taken).

Guns kill. Countries which have more stringent gun laws have fewer gun deaths (don't both throwing in the few examples of otherwise). Your country has too many fucking idiots, as most countries do to be trusted with those types of weapons. Once again big business wins over common sense and those of you who are pro-gun are no different from religious zealots, refusing to listen to common sense or any other form of argument that may possibly restrict weapons.

[BellaBellucci]

Urgh - the same old retarded arguments: the US has more guns per head of population than most other countries but every time something like this happens they blame it on "wearing raincoats/Batman/drugs/whatever".
Listen, I get it - guns are cool, they're fun to take on the range and fire, I've done enough of it. That's the only reason most of you idiots support the right to bear arms. Stating it's in the Constitution is horseshit, Constitutions can be changed and you'd be happy to do it for something else. Trying to say it would protect you from the Government? Seriously? What backwards country do you live in? You live in what is meant to be (by your own admission) the Greatest Country on Earth - or the Greatest Democracy on Earth. Stating you own guns for when you might need to defend yourself from the government is like Christians awaiting the Rapture or survivalists wanted the end of times to come. You are living in a fucking fantasy and salivating over the potential of an apocalypse (or zombie outbreak). Get the fuck over yourselves - you want guns because you like them and enjoy them - so stop with the excuses.

I understand wanting to protect yourself. If I ended up living on the mainland, I'd consider having a gun in the house for protection but I live somewhere, where guns, especially assault type or semi-automatics are almost impossible to get, so I don't need to. Surely you fuckwits can see the difference between protecting yourself with A gun and someone being able to get a hold of 6000 rounds of ammunition, assault rifles, semi-automatics? Surely you understand that not every legitimate gun owner remains sane and normal ... or their gun cannot be taken from them (ie; see the idiot on his 1st post above about not having his guns taken).

Guns kill. Countries which have more stringent gun laws have fewer gun deaths (don't both throwing in the few examples of otherwise). Your country has too many fucking idiots, as most countries do to be trusted with those types of weapons. Once again big business wins over common sense and those of you who are pro-gun are no different from religious zealots, refusing to listen to common sense or any other form of argument that may possibly restrict weapons.

My Gods. Where would I ever begin?!

You and I argue enough. I'll let Kaiti field this one. :lol:

~BB~

[trish]

1. Banning Automatic Weapons: They are already HEAVILY regulated.The automatic weapons ban expired. The regulation on automatic weapons therefore less restricted then it used to be.


2. Revoke Stand Your Ground:... Telling victims of crime to...to think before they shoot. Avoid gunfire if possible without further endangering you life. Self-defense has always been a legal plea way before SYG. SYG is not about defense, it's about escalating a dangerous situation even in cases where violence can be avoided.


4. Concealed Carry: Is there REALLY any difference between a person with a concealed carrying permit and a person carrying openly, also with a permit? Does this make any difference to the fact that said person is carrying a firearm? Yes. A firearm in apurse, for example, may be pointed directly at you (deliberately or coincidentally) and you would never know that you are at increased risk of injury. I don't know about you, but I was taught NEVER to pass the barrel across the body of another person, regardless of whether the safety is on or whether the chamber is empty. An ordinary person can assess his level of risk and most of the weapons in the joint are on display. Moreover, I believe fewer people would carry if they had to carry openly because they're embarrassed to go out in public toting their toys. Besides if you carried openly think of all the guns you could buy as accessories to your outfits.

[GroobySteven]

My Gods. Where would I ever begin?!

You and I argue enough. I'll let Kaiti field this one. :lol:

~BB~

There is nothing to argue about - I stated my piece.

[kittyKaiti]

Urgh - the same old retarded arguments: the US has more guns per head of population than most other countries but every time something like this happens they blame it on "wearing raincoats/Batman/drugs/whatever".
Listen, I get it - guns are cool, they're fun to take on the range and fire, I've done enough of it. That's the only reason most of you idiots support the right to bear arms. Stating it's in the Constitution is horseshit, Constitutions can be changed and you'd be happy to do it for something else. Trying to say it would protect you from the Government? Seriously? What backwards country do you live in? You live in what is meant to be (by your own admission) the Greatest Country on Earth - or the Greatest Democracy on Earth. Stating you own guns for when you might need to defend yourself from the government is like Christians awaiting the Rapture or survivalists wanted the end of times to come. You are living in a fucking fantasy and salivating over the potential of an apocalypse (or zombie outbreak). Get the fuck over yourselves - you want guns because you like them and enjoy them - so stop with the excuses.

I understand wanting to protect yourself. If I ended up living on the mainland, I'd consider having a gun in the house for protection but I live somewhere, where guns, especially assault type or semi-automatics are almost impossible to get, so I don't need to. Surely you fuckwits can see the difference between protecting yourself with A gun and someone being able to get a hold of 6000 rounds of ammunition, assault rifles, semi-automatics? Surely you understand that not every legitimate gun owner remains sane and normal ... or their gun cannot be taken from them (ie; see the idiot on his 1st post above about not having his guns taken).

Guns kill. Countries which have more stringent gun laws have fewer gun deaths (don't both throwing in the few examples of otherwise). Your country has too many fucking idiots, as most countries do to be trusted with those types of weapons. Once again big business wins over common sense and those of you who are pro-gun are no different from religious zealots, refusing to listen to common sense or any other form of argument that may possibly restrict weapons.

Yes, Constitutions can be changed. Our great Bush regime surely proved that when he rolled out the foundation for what will become in the next decade, the United Fascist Totalitarian States of Jesusland. We already have 4 year old girls with teddybears being groped by airport security, checking for supposed diaper bombs and throwing wheelchair bound old ladies on the floor to search her wheelchair for pipe bombs or some other bullshit on top of the PATRIOT Act and a dozen other Bush regime laws to strip Americans of their Constitutional rights of justice and due process in the name of preventing terrorism. Terrorism we already had the ability to prevent a long ass time ago but, well, after the DoD was informed over and over by several governments including Israel that 9/11 was going to happen, the government disregarded it anyway. Instead we went to war, used them as excuses to tear apart our civil and human rights, while claiming we are freeing Afghanistan and then Iraq. This isn't enough though for the so-called free Democratic West. The G8, G20, EU and every other greedy corporate run world government has been trying soooooooooooooo hard to stomp out our rights bit by bit with dumb shit like ACTA (international law authorizing border checkpoints to illegally search and seize your electronics for "pirated music") and Australia's AMCA internet blacklist to censor and ban half the internet like they do in China and Iran and even here in the USA, we get our retarded Republican scumbags trying to pass some other fascist law to monitor everything we do from threatening Google and Twitter and Facebook to surrendering all the user data to the FBI and CIA to spy on everyone more easily, illegal wiretapping and Guantanamo torture camps and the bizarre construction of these FEMA camps all over America as if we're preparing to intern all the Japanese again like we did in World War II. Yes, I love guns, they are cool. I also want them, not only to pose and take sexy photos with and shoot at the range but to be able to shoot whoever comes into my home without legal authority, be it a criminal or a Fed. Its already happened in Greece and the way America is spiraling down the toilet drain, it is not inconceivable to see the 99% decide to fight back one day when Mitt Romney and Mormon space Jesus comes into power and take away healthcare, social security, pensions and sends our children and parents overseas to murder more Muslims in a country we have no business in since day one (Iraq).

[kittyKaiti]

The automatic weapons ban expired. The regulation on automatic weapons therefore less restricted then it used to be.

to think before they shoot. Avoid gunfire if possible without further endangering you life. Self-defense has always been a legal plea way before SYG. SYG is not about defense, it's about escalating a dangerous situation even in cases where violence can be avoided.

Yes. A firearm in apurse, for example, may be pointed directly at you (deliberately or coincidentally) and you would never know that you are at increased risk of injury. I don't know about you, but I was taught NEVER to pass the barrel across the body of another person, regardless of whether the safety is on or whether the chamber is empty. An ordinary person can assess his level of risk and most of the weapons in the joint are on display. Moreover, I believe fewer people would carry if they had to carry openly because they're embarrassed to go out in public toting their toys. Besides if you carried openly think of all the guns you could buy as accessories to your outfits.

The automatic weapons ban did not expire. It is called the "Assault" weapons ban and that did expire. The Assault weapons ban outlawed the ownership of things like the AK-47 and M16, regardless if it fired full auto or semi-auto and bans certain guns parts and accessories that somehow made the weapon look more scary like... cool little sights and flash hiders and pistol grips so you can fire the gun without dropping it and general ease of use kinda stuff. New York and California still try to enforce their own state laws like that, it only makes the two governments look like retards.

Stand Your Ground does not imply: go harass a black kid with a iced tea and Skittles and then shoot him when he tries to stop you from harassing him. The entire idea that Zimmerman could even dare use the Stand Your Ground law on any basis is retarded. People don't seem to understand that Trayvon Martin utilized SYG after attempting to run from Zimmerman, who pursued, cornered and intimidated Martin further. Trayvon, used SYG in an attempt to stop Zimmerman's harassment, stalking and later murder.

I'm not sure who would carry a loaded gun in a purse. Anyone who has any level of sense would be trained, especially when you have to apply to a carrying permit, like in New York, where they teach you gun safety, would know not to carry a loaded gun in a purse with random objects pushing and bumping the gun and trigger. It belongs in a holster, whether on your belt, shoulder, thigh or ankle.

[GroobySteven]

Yes, Constitutions can be changed. Our great Bush regime surely proved that when he rolled out the foundation for what will become in the next decade, the United Fascist Totalitarian States of Jesusland. We already have 4 year old girls with teddybears being groped by airport security, checking for supposed diaper bombs and throwing wheelchair bound old ladies on the floor to search her wheelchair for pipe bombs or some other bullshit on top of the PATRIOT Act and a dozen other Bush regime laws to strip Americans of their Constitutional rights of justice and due process in the name of preventing terrorism. Terrorism we already had the ability to prevent a long ass time ago but, well, after the DoD was informed over and over by several governments including Israel that 9/11 was going to happen, the government disregarded it anyway. Instead we went to war, used them as excuses to tear apart our civil and human rights, while claiming we are freeing Afghanistan and then Iraq. This isn't enough though for the so-called free Democratic West. The G8, G20, EU and every other greedy corporate run world government has been trying soooooooooooooo hard to stomp out our rights bit by bit with dumb shit like ACTA (international law authorizing border checkpoints to illegally search and seize your electronics for "pirated music") and Australia's AMCA internet blacklist to censor and ban half the internet like they do in China and Iran and even here in the USA, we get our retarded Republican scumbags trying to pass some other fascist law to monitor everything we do from threatening Google and Twitter and Facebook to surrendering all the user data to the FBI and CIA to spy on everyone more easily, illegal wiretapping and Guantanamo torture camps and the bizarre construction of these FEMA camps all over America as if we're preparing to intern all the Japanese again like we did in World War II. Yes, I love guns, they are cool. I also want them, not only to pose and take sexy photos with and shoot at the range but to be able to shoot whoever comes into my home without legal authority, be it a criminal or a Fed. Its already happened in Greece and the way America is spiraling down the toilet drain, it is not inconceivable to see the 99% decide to fight back one day when Mitt Romney and Mormon space Jesus comes into power and take away healthcare, social security, pensions and sends our children and parents overseas to murder more Muslims in a country we have no business in since day one (Iraq).


Great post, I must say.
What happened in Greece though?

[shaustin]

Personaly I view guns as tools. Yes they are dangerous and deadly in the wrong hands, but so is an automobile. Strangely though you NEVER see people get up in arms about the number of vehicles on the road after a fatal crash. You never hear anyone say "It should be harder for people to buy cars, then this wouldn't happen." The truth is things exist, and those who want for things can find them, regardless of what laws and regulations restrict said things. I can see for alot of people guns might not fit into such a category, but for me and the area I live in, they do. Is it right for someone else I've never met to decide what's okay for me and what isn't? To come to my door and take from me useful tools I use and at times rely on? I don't believe it is. Firearms will likely exist for just as long as humanity does, it's the people who need to change, not the laws.

[GroobySteven]

Personaly I view guns as tools. Yes they are dangerous and deadly in the wrong hands, but so is an automobile. Strangely though you NEVER see people get up in arms about the number of vehicles on the road after a fatal crash.

Fucking brilliant deductions!
I've also never heard someone say, I'm going to sneak this Chevy into a movie theater and run down all these people.
An automobile has one purpose and so does a gun.

[trish]

1.So reinstate the ban against assault weapons.
2. Self defense is already a legitimate defense. SYG just encourages escalation.
3. Guns are carried in purses all the time. There is a new line of clothes for men with "gun pockets" at thigh level. When seated the gun is directed at your neighbor. Tied holsters have the same issue. Just carry in the open so the rest of us can assess the risk to our person.

[kittyKaiti]

1.So reinstate the ban against assault weapons.
2. Self defense is already a legitimate defense. SYG just encourages escalation.
3. Guns are carried in purses all the time. There is a new line of clothes for men with "gun pockets" at thigh level. When seated the gun is directed at your neighbor. Tied holsters have the same issue. Just carry in the open so the rest of us can assess the risk to our person.

The assault weapon ban didn't really do much though in the first place. It banned Kalashinkov brand rifles, so other companies cloned them and therefore, legal civilian AK-47s. The bans targeted "Colt" brand AR-15s, so other companies made their own and poof, AR-15s everywhere and legal. Ban the flash hiders but any normal person a stick one on again with clever modification. Pistol grips can be installed with ease. FFS, my toy airsoft gun replica of an M4 Carbine was so well 1 on 1 scale with my S&W AR-15 that the parts for the exterior were interchangeable like the rail mounts, foregrips, pistol grips, telescoping stock, etc. Ban it all you want because it won't stop people from doing it anyway. Gun bans work one way. Criminals disregard them. Law abiders don't.

SYG is not to create an escalation. SYG means that when there is a rapist chasing me down the street, I have the right to turn around a pop that fucker in the head with a 9mm. I have no duty to flee. It's based on MY right to be in a public location safely and understanding that HE has NO right to commit any offense against me or anyone. Only in those pussy states are you forced to flee and try to run until you are too tired or cornered or trapped, or maybe you're out in the middle of bumfuck with nowhere to run to for help but its illegal to stop and fight back because some dumb liberal P.O.S said you have no right to defend yourself.

[kittyKaiti]

Great post, I must say.
What happened in Greece though?

I dunno, Steve... I think this did:

Greece riots: Athens burns, police fire tear gas as violence flares up - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NljVxqRpbw0)

&#39;Greece doomed, economy total farce & fiction!&#39; - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6OCIn1QArw&feature=relmfu)

Anonymous: Address to Greeks During Feb. 12 Riots - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aSlLwRXHBJY)

Protesters clash with Greek riot police over austerity - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm5th5ThgB4)

I can get hundreds of videos like this.

[shaustin]

Fucking brilliant deductions!
I've also never heard someone say, I'm going to sneak this Chevy into a movie theater and run down all these people.
An automobile has one purpose and so does a gun.

Strange.....I've used automobiles for a variety of purposes before....and guns aswell.... I guess I must not be using either of them right. Guess I better go out and murder some people so no one will say I don't know the only purpose of my firearm.


And ya know what else I've never heard:

"The shotgun ran the red light and caused this fatal accident."
"That silver revolver right there, it was passing the .38 special and collided with the oncoming AR-15 killing everyone inside."
"Let's finish these beers and go take my new winchester for a spin in town."

[Faldur]

Had one person in the theatre been carrying and trained we wouldn't be having this conversation. Even old men can make it look easy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8

[trish]

1.
The assault weapon ban didn't really do much though in the first place.2. So there's no reason to oppose it so vociferously.

SYG means that when there is a rapist chasing me down the street, I have the right to turn around a pop that fucker in the head with a 9mm. I have no duty to flee. ItThat's called escalation. You do have a moral duty to avoid deadly violence if possible. Ordinary self-defense allows you to pop when avoidance is not an option.
3. Concealment infringes on our right to know about and assess the risks around us.

[trish]

Had one person in the theatre been carrying and trained we wouldn't be having this conversation.It was dark. The dude was covered in armor. Surely you jest. I hate to think of the death toll had the whole theater been packing.

[GroobySteven]

I dunno, Steve... I think this did:



I can get hundreds of videos like this.

I'm missing your point?

[GroobySteven]

"Let's finish these beers and go take my new winchester for a spin in town."

I'd say this one has probably been used before.
Great points you've made there ...

[GroobySteven]

Had one person in the theatre been carrying and trained we wouldn't be having this conversation. Even old men can make it look easy.


You must be jesting right? Dark, crowded theatre, moving people - it would have probably been more deaths.
This is the stupidest argument I always here on these killing sprees. Let's arm teachers so Columbine doesn't happen again?

[kittyKaiti]

Had one person in the theatre been carrying and trained we wouldn't be having this conversation. Even old men can make it look easy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8

Everywhere I go, I have at least two knives and a mace spray with me. Once I get settled here in Las Vegas, if you ever happen to see a hot chick, while visiting Nevada, with a Glock open carried, walking down the strip, that'll be me.

[kittyKaiti]

I'm missing your point?

You must not understand. When the government pisses off the people enough, we will retaliate. Its getting bad everywhere. Syria, Libya, Egypt, Greece. It's only a matter of time before we in America become sick of the extreme corruption that is destroying our nation, freedoms and economy. Imagine those riots in Athens, but in every major city in America. Our Democratic voting system no longer works and everyone is starting to wake up and see that.

[Dino Velvet]

Guy is wrapped in Kevlar like The Mummy. What do you aim for? Randomly moving target with no rhyme or reason as well. Good luck with that head shot through the haze.

This would work better but you'll never get close enough. I recommend fleeing even if you are armed. Your opponent has no fear of commitment and has tactical advantage. Know when someone has the drop on you.

http://www.thesurvivalzone.com/image_manager/attributes/image/image_2/41669115_9474705.jpg

[bobvela]

Grrr... linking to Wikipedia seems broken...


Kitty Kaity, Those stats don't account for the American guns bought here and hustled down to Mexico to slaughter 50,000 innocent civilians. Big money for US Gun Companies!! YAY!

You mean like the ones that the ATF was encouraging gun stores to sell to known or suspected stray purchasers? One of which lead to the death of a US border agent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious

Yes.. lets blame the gun companies!


These nuts who claim Obama is out to restrict gun rights are idiots. He allowed the ban on assualt weapons to expire (dumb).

Really? I was unaware that Obama was President in September 2004 when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. Hell... he wasn't even a US Senator then, he was a back bencher in the Illinois Senate.

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban)


And has not taken ANY measures to infringe anyone's access to guns.

Really? Ready to be wrong again (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/01/obama-administration-reverses-course-forbids-sale-antique-m-rifles/)?

Anything else you want to be proven wrong on?

[kittyKaiti]

You mean like the ones that the ATF was encouraging gun stores to sell to known or suspected stray purchasers? One of which lead to the death of a US border agent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_and_Furious

Yes.. lets blame the gun companies!


This isn't like a bunch of retail shops in America just started handing out AK47s and throwing them across the Rio Grande to the Cartel members on the other side. This is once again, our dipshit government, failing like it always does, to try and fix a problem the wrong way by taking something simple and complicating it. Don't blame the gun companies. Blame the Feds for giving guns to Cartel terrorists in the hope of somehow magically locating all the bad guys.

[Faldur]

Guy is wrapped in Kevlar like The Mummy. What do you aim for? Randomly moving target with no rhyme or reason as well. Good luck with that head shot through the haze.

Kevlar or no kevlar you put a slug square in his chest he won't be firing any rounds for a minute or two. The typical profile of these fruit cakes is they are cowards, shots start coming back his direction more than likely he is going to run like a little girl. And even if he doesn't, he will be far to focused on where the incoming rounds are coming from to worry about shooting innocents. Would you rather die fighting for your life, or on your knees begging for it?

And Steve, if the teachers in Columbine were armed the disaster there never would have happened. People don't go on random shooting sprees in places they know there are people with guns.

[Dino Velvet]

Another thing, thank God he was stopped at 24. What knowledge would he have attained by 34? Then 44... What would he be capable of doing and how strong would his will become?

His brain is dangerous and not at all well. Anyone like him who feels like he has nothing to lose so willing to throw it all away is someone to be avoided at all costs.

Any more background on his mother? From what I heard she wasn't shocked. Was this true?

Other people since his high school days claim to have never seen him with a woman. Not reading or projecting too specifically into that.

[Dino Velvet]

Kevlar or no kevlar you put a slug square in his chest he won't be firing any rounds for a minute or two. The typical profile of these fruit cakes is they are cowards, shots start coming back his direction more than likely he is going to run like a little girl. And even if he doesn't, he will be far to focused on where the incoming rounds are coming from to worry about shooting innocents.

And Steve, if the teachers in Columbine were armed the disaster there never would have happened. People don't go on random shooting sprees in places they know there are people with guns.

If I'm sitting next to Trish and she passes me The Bitch I might be able to bag his ass but how do I get a deer rifle into the picture show?

I'm still running even if my Magnum is dragging on the ground making sparks.

You have more courage than me. Hopefully we both make it to the next Batman sequel.

[GroobySteven]

And Steve, if the teachers in Columbine were armed the disaster there never would have happened. People don't go on random shooting sprees in places they know there are people with guns.


Oh dear...

[Ben]

If we're going to ban guns, then let's also ban cutting tools, alcohol, tobacco, saturated fat, high fructose corn syrup, GMO crops, motor vehicles, caffeine, power windows, red meat, extreme sports, and, of course, religion. What else did I leave out?

So yayz! Let's do this! Because we live in a democratic nanny state, not a free republic, right? </sarcasm>

Keep this up and we'll be in neither. Fascism anyone?

~BB~

You're right.... Well, take, say automobiles -- cars and trucks -- they kill on average 1 million animals -- cats, dogs etc., etc. -- in the U.S. every single day. But we rarely hear about it. I mean, people should drive less. And walk more, bike etc.
And, too, pollution. How many people die from pollution-related illnesses every year?
Look at cigarettes. They aren't banned. But they kill close to 400,000 Americans every single year. I've never smoked.
Anyway, these mass random killings are unique to America. Why? (They point out it's the number of guns. Well, up there in Canada they've more guns per capita.) Why is it white males? And, too, now it seems to be privileged white males. James Holmes was fairly privileged. So, it's white males. Not women. Why?
And even to the furthest extent: global warming. Which, according to the so-called political left [people like Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein] have pointed out that global warming could be the death knell of the species. (No mention of other species. No mention of 200 species going extinct every single day.) But the fossil fuel industry could be driving us to extinction. But there is no discussion about banning oil and coal. Merely reducing it. And switching to what are really unsustainable alternative energy sources. I mean, you still need to mine to build solar panels and wind turbines.
George Carlin takes us home -- :)
George Carlin - Saving the Planet - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw)

[GroobySteven]

You must not understand. When the government pisses off the people enough, we will retaliate. Its getting bad everywhere. Syria, Libya, Egypt, Greece. It's only a matter of time before we in America become sick of the extreme corruption that is destroying our nation, freedoms and economy. Imagine those riots in Athens, but in every major city in America. Our Democratic voting system no longer works and everyone is starting to wake up and see that.

Wake me up after that happens.
It's only a matter of time? Joe American is apathetic as long as he has his 100 channels, extra value meals and cheap gas so he doesn't have to walk anywhere. He's probaby never read a book or a proper newspaper.
While you may fantasize about it only being a matter of time, you need to realize the extreme minority you're in. The US can barely even organise a good riot so I don't see you're revolution happening anytime soon.

[Dino Velvet]

You're right.... Well, take, say automobiles -- cars and trucks -- they kill on average 1 million animals -- cats, dogs etc., etc. -- in the U.S. every single day. But we rarely hear about it. I mean, people should drive less. And walk more, bike etc.
And, too, pollution. How many people die from pollution-related illnesses every year?
Look at cigarettes. They aren't banned. But they kill close to 400,000 Americans every single year. I've never smoked.
Anyway, these mass random killings are unique to America. Why? (They point out it's the number of guns. Well, up there in Canada they've more guns per capita.) Why is it white males? And, too, now it seems to be privileged white males. James Holmes was fairly privileged. So, it's white males. Not women. Why?
And even to the furthest extent: global warming. Which, according to the so-called political left [people like Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein] have pointed out that global warming could be the death knell of the species. (No mention of other species. No mention of 200 species going extinct every single day.) But the fossil fuel industry could be driving us to extinction. But there is no discussion about banning oil and coal. Merely reducing it. And switching to what are really unsustainable alternative energy sources. I mean, you still need to mine to build solar panels and wind turbines.
George Carlin takes us home -- :)
George Carlin - Saving the Planet - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw)

Always thought deep down Carlin would rather end the World than save it. Just because he loved to make you laugh didn't mean he loved you.

Like from the grave...

George Carlin - Tips For Serial Killers !(FUNNY)! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s94HRG7Ajmc)

[Stavros]

You must not understand. When the government pisses off the people enough, we will retaliate. Its getting bad everywhere. Syria, Libya, Egypt, Greece. It's only a matter of time before we in America become sick of the extreme corruption that is destroying our nation, freedoms and economy. Imagine those riots in Athens, but in every major city in America. Our Democratic voting system no longer works and everyone is starting to wake up and see that.

I think that if I was an American I would be insulted by this hysterical garbage. Had you been living in Libya or Syria for the last 25 years I doubt you would cite either country in the same context as your embittered judgement of the 'state of the nation'. You continue to have more freedoms in the USA than the majority of people in Libya and Syria have ever known; the difference between corruption in the USA compared to either Libya or Syria is so great it suggests you don't know the meaning of the word. On the other hand you have a constitutional duty to overthrow a tyrannical government by force of arms, so does this mean you are busy organising a militia to do this? And what does your alternative government look like? People have been writing the last chapter of American democracy since Vietnam; but last time I checked, elections had not been abolished. And where would you rather be living now, Libya, Syria or Las Vegas?

[red-cyberman]

I really don't know what the hell is going on in his mind and what he was thinking in his sick brain but all I know many families lost their love ones because of a sicko.
You can be someone who worships GOD but anyone who kills in the name of religion or don't respect a human life don't deserve my respect and most of all how can someone be a human if he doesn't respect human life.

[giovanni_hotel]

Too many Americans nowadays are against reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.
It's easier to get a driver's license than it is to own a gun. That's really fucked up.

The only people who should be allowed to own high caliber semiautomatic weapons are the military and police.

The guns rights advocates have turned into another version of the religious moral majority. Gun ownership has become an article of faith instead of an issue of public safety.

[Silcc69]

Wake me up after that happens.
It's only a matter of time? Joe American is apathetic as long as he has his 100 channels, extra value meals and cheap gas so he doesn't have to walk anywhere. He's probaby never read a book or a proper newspaper.
While you may fantasize about it only being a matter of time, you need to realize the extreme minority you're in. The US can barely even organise a good riot so I don't see you're revolution happening anytime soon.

:iagree::iagree:

[Willie Escalade]

Wow...SMH at the turnaround in this thread.

Still bitch made shooting at innocent people with an automatic weapon in a dark, smoky theater wearing full body armor. If the dude was naked and using a revolver OR A KNIFE I'd have more respect for the man.

He'd better not live to see his 26th birthday.

[Quiet Reflections]

Too many Americans nowadays are against reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.
It's easier to get a driver's license than it is to own a gun. That's really fucked up.

The only people who should be allowed to own high caliber semiautomatic weapons are the military and police.

The guns rights advocates have turned into another version of the religious moral majority. Gun ownership has become an article of faith instead of an issue of public safety.
The AR-15 doesn't fire a high caliber round.

[Willie Escalade]

Oh yeah...this right here (thanks B-1).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/westboro-baptist-church-aurora-shooting-vigil_n_1693375.html?1342987654&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk1&pLid=182522&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

:yayo: :ignore:

American sanity at its best...

[scopas66]

Americans can own any gun they want with proper permits Its not the guns that are the problem. It's the fucking wacko's.I am so tired of the liberal bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ben]

The Batman Massacre: A Response
by Michael Nagler (http://www.commondreams.org/author/michael-nagler)

I want to make an offer to my fellow Americans who are, like myself, reeling from the worst “random” shooting the country has ever seen. My question: Have you had enough? Because if you have, I can tell you how to stop this kind of madness. I know that’s a bold claim, but this is not a time for small measures.

http://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imce-images/joker.jpg

We cannot fix this tomorrow, because we didn’t cause it yesterday. We have been building up to this domestic holocaust since – to take one milestone – television was made available to the general public at the conclusion of World War Two.
If you are still with me, you are prepared to believe that it was not a coincidence that this massacre took place at the scene of an extremely violent, “long-awaited” movie. Psychologists have proved over and over again that – guess what – exposure to violent imagery produces disturbances in the mind that must, in course of time, take form in outward behavior. The imagery can be in any medium, nor does it matter whether on the surface of our minds we think what we’re seeing is real or made up. This is a natural, scientific law. Exactly who will crack next and in what setting is nearly impossible to predict, and in any case it’s ridiculous to try to run around stopping the resulting violence from being acted out after the mental damage has been done. The only sane approach is not to do it in the first place.
As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman pointed out in his book, Let’s Stop Killing Our Kids, the video games that the Army uses to prepare ordinary men and women for combat, in other words to wipe out the normal empathy and inhibitions against hurting others that we’ve built up over millennia – a process known as civilization – are the very same games our young people buy across the counter throughout the country.
Of course, there are other factors. At some point we will have to talk about readily available weapons; at some point we’ll have to realize that a nation that engages in heartless drone warfare, torture, and extrajudicial killings cannot expect to live in peace. But until we liberate our minds from the endless pounding of violent imagery I fear we won’t be able to think clearly about those factors (or for that matter anything else).
With rare exceptions, film and video game producers will not stop turning out these dehumanizing products as long as there is profit to be made from them – and not enough sophistication about culture or the human mind to warn us about their dangers. But there is a way, one that has worked well on the small scales on which it has so far been tried: don’t watch them. Captain Boycott had the right approach.
Right now police have been posted at theaters where this same movie is being shown – still. But ask yourself, what are they protecting? Is it perhaps the belief that violence is just entertaining? People, tell me when you’ve had enough.
https://www.commondreams.org/sites/commondreams.org/files/imagecache/author_photo/michael_nagler.jpg (http://www.commondreams.org/author/michael-nagler)
Michael Nagler is Professor emeritus of Classics and Comparative Literature at UC, Berkeley, where he co-founded the Peace and Conflict Studies Program

[GroobySteven]

Americans can own any gun they want with proper permits Its not the guns that are the problem. It's the fucking wacko's.I am so tired of the liberal bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!

What's liberal or conservative got to do with it?
You've been a member on a tranny forum for 4 months and this is the only thing you've bothered to comment on?
It's the guns that the wackos can get that are the problem - if that wackos can't get them, then no problem. So what is your solution to get rid of the wackos?

[trish]

Americans can own any gun they want with proper permits Its not the guns that are the problem. It's the fucking wacko's.I am so tired of the liberal bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!Yeah. The wackos are the ones who yell "Americans can own any gun they want with proper permits Its not the guns that are the problem. It's the fucking wacko's." I'm tired of this ignorant bullshit being twisted into partisan politics. Neither the right nor the left have made any moves to take away any wacko's precious guns. The issue is between a sane approach to public safety and "let's all live in the wild wild west again, overthrow the tyrannical gov'ment and shoot 'dem revenuers."

[BellaBellucci]

The Batman Massacre: A Response
by Michael Nagler (http://www.commondreams.org/author/michael-nagler)

I want to make an offer to my fellow Americans who are, like myself, reeling from the worst “random” shooting the country has ever seen. My question: Have you had enough? Because if you have, I can tell you how to stop this kind of madness. I know that’s a bold claim, but this is not a time for small measures....

All I see here is an emotional appeal, not a logical one: one man's opinion, a man, no less, who is not a scientist but makes scientific claims with no supporting evidence or experience.

Video games intended to desensitize? Really? So why don't movies and games make everyone a violent psychopath?

The ENTIRE argument is subjective. The Constitution is clear on the issue.

~BB~

[GroobySteven]

All I see here is an emotional appeal, not a logical one: one man's opinion, a man, no less, who is not a scientist but makes scientific claims with no supporting evidence or experience.

Video games intended to desensitize? Really? So why don't movies and games make everyone a violent psychopath?

The ENTIRE argument is subjective. The Constitution is clear on the issue.

~BB~


So change the Constitution. It's broken.

[shaustin]

It's the guns that the wackos can get that are the problem - if that wackos can't get them, then no problem.

Since when are guns the ONLY way for an insane killer to take lives? When they start going to homemade bombs will you outlaw diesel fuel and fertilizer? If they then turn to running through crowded public places with chainsaws chopping people up, should we make them illegal too? While yes, getting rid of guns will stop a few select cases where access and ease were contributing factors, it will by no means deter an unstable person who is out for any random innocent's blood.

[kittyKaiti]

Too many Americans nowadays are against reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.
It's easier to get a driver's license than it is to own a gun. That's really fucked up.

The only people who should be allowed to own high caliber semiautomatic weapons are the military and police.

The guns rights advocates have turned into another version of the religious moral majority. Gun ownership has become an article of faith instead of an issue of public safety.

Sure, give all the power to the government. Meanwhile this happened in Anaheim, CA this weekend after the cops who are supposed to protect us, not only gunned down a man but then opened fire on crowds of people in a residential neighborhood, discharging deadly rubber bullets and bean bags on children and women and vicious K-9 unit dogs on said women and children. Fuck the police and fuck this country. Those pigs are lucky that wasn't my neighborhood or there would be dead bacon on the ground. What kind of fucking law enforcement, that you look up to as protectors, DARES to open fire on children and sick dogs on them. THIS IS WHY I COMPARE AMERICA WITH SYRIA. Watch that video and tell me NONE of you feel the same rage I do right now.

Police Shooting in Anaheim Leads to Violent Clash - RAW FOOTAGE & NEWS - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqzoKY1CyAg)

[braveheart0219]

I will contribute to your one way ticket to syria.

[GroobySteven]

Since when are guns the ONLY way for an insane killer to take lives? When they start going to homemade bombs will you outlaw diesel fuel and fertilizer? If they then turn to running through crowded public places with chainsaws chopping people up, should we make them illegal too? While yes, getting rid of guns will stop a few select cases where access and ease were contributing factors, it will by no means deter an unstable person who is out for any random innocent's blood.

You can kill a lot more people more easily with an assault rifle and at a distance. I'm sure it's easier to kill randomnly from 20ft away than 6 inches away with a blade. This is a tired argument and it's stupid - "ban paper in case you get a paper cut" - pathetic.
You like guns - and you're willing to support having them because you like them, regardless of the consequences. Everything else is just blind justification.

[GroobySteven]

Sure, give all the power to the government. Meanwhile this happened in Anaheim, CA this weekend after the cops who are supposed to protect us, not only gunned down a man but then opened fire on crowds of people in a residential neighborhood, discharging deadly rubber bullets and bean bags on children and women and vicious K-9 unit dogs on said women and children. Fuck the police and fuck this country. Those pigs are lucky that wasn't my neighborhood or there would be dead bacon on the ground. What kind of fucking law enforcement, that you look up to as protectors, DARES to open fire on children and sick dogs on them. THIS IS WHY I COMPARE AMERICA WITH SYRIA. Watch that video and tell me NONE of you feel the same rage I do right now.



"Power" isn't bought by havuing a gun.
You talk a big talk ... sincerely, after the rhetoric above, I'd be worried about you owning guns.

This is sickening and I've been on the receiving end of it and it makes me angry but your threats, whether empty or real, aren't how you'd resolve this. It would lead to just another dead tgirl.

[braveheart0219]

We outlaw pot and are going after medicinal growers but the public needs to be able to buy assault weapons at sporting goods stores with no waiting period ----because we need to defend ourselves against the goverment, police and military? really?

[kittyKaiti]

We outlaw pot and are going after medicinal growers but the public needs to be able to buy assault weapons at sporting goods stores with no waiting period ----because we need to defend ourselves against the goverment, police and military? really?

You complain as if guns are a huge problem in America. When was the last time in this country we had a spree shooting? A couple years? Earlier I posted statistics about tobacco and the resulting death toll it has caused. For the 12 people that died this weekend, about 57 people also died from cigarettes. While a spree killing occurs about once ever couple/few years. For every ~two dozen people killed in an atrocity like this, about ~1.5 million people died in the US during that same period, from tobacco and its related diseases. Of those ~1.5 million, 150,000 of them were non-smokers. Think of the non-smokers as civilian bystander casualties.

CDC Tobacco Death Toll (USA Annual): 443,000 Smokers + ~45,000 Non-Smokers (Second-Hand Smoke Exposure)

ALL GUN RELATED DEATHS PER YEAR, USA: ~32,000

Once you've achieved banning tobacco completely and ensuring that cigarettes are completely illegal within the United States of America, come back to this forum and let us know your progress and we can move on the gun bans. Until then, keep whining.

[GroobySteven]

ALL GUN RELATED DEATHS PER YEAR, USA: ~32,000

Wow.

[buttslinger]

As long as Boehner passes out checks from the Tobacco Lobby to his Republican Buddies, cigarettes will be legal. Same with the NRA.


Morons call that freedom.

George Carlin Stupid People - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rh6qqsmxNs)

[buttslinger]

The only thing that stopped more fatalities was that the Joker's AR-15 jammed, and he was too stupid to fix it.

[trish]

The modern interpretation of the Constitution and how it would be applied by the present court is relatively clear on the issue. The actual Constitution is not so clear on application. What is made clear in the Constitution is one of the founding intentions, namely the recognized state militias will in part be armed by the private expenditures of the soldiers themselves, be they drafted or volunteers. It was a cost cutting procedure. There is absolutely no evidence it was originally intended so that the citizens would be enabled to carry out an armed revolt against their own government. The explicit intent was to arm the government in part at private expense.

[SFTB]

The modern interpretation of the Constitution and how it would be applied by the present court is relatively clear on the issue. The actual Constitution is not so clear on application. What is made clear in the Constitution is one of the founding intentions, namely the recognized state militias will in part be armed by the private expenditures of the soldiers themselves, be they drafted or volunteers. It was a cost cutting procedure. There is absolutely no evidence it was originally intended so that the citizens would be enabled to carry out an armed revolt against their own government. The explicit intent was to arm the government in part at private expense.

Thomas Jefferson;
“Every generation needs a new revolution.”

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”

[buttslinger]

At Least sixty one percent of the House and Senate know the simple steps to take that would greatly improve the quality of life for every American, that is why they were elected. But if they did the right thing they wouldn't be re-elected. That's the catch. Catch 22.

[trish]

And you think he meant an armed revolution and armed resistance? Perhaps after he served his terms of office, eh?

[buttslinger]

The problem is not the NRA.
The problem is the NRA LOBBY.

[notdrunk]

The only thing that stopped more fatalities was that the Joker's AR-15 jammed, and he was too stupid to fix it.

Drum magazines have a reputation to jam. He would of probably done more damage if he used 30rd mags instead of a drum. Thank goodness.

[Stavros]

The modern interpretation of the Constitution and how it would be applied by the present court is relatively clear on the issue. The actual Constitution is not so clear on application. What is made clear in the Constitution is one of the founding intentions, namely the recognized state militias will in part be armed by the private expenditures of the soldiers themselves, be they drafted or volunteers. It was a cost cutting procedure. There is absolutely no evidence it was originally intended so that the citizens would be enabled to carry out an armed revolt against their own government. The explicit intent was to arm the government in part at private expense.

I am trying to understand this 2nd Amendment of yours, but it has generated a vast literature. But for the moment -is it not the case that the rationale for armed militias when the Amendment was adopted was that they would prevent the emergence of a dictorship -indeed, that were the USA to fall under the power of an autocrat/dictator that the militia would have a duty to overthrow the government in order to restore democracy? The Amendment was adopted in 1791 before the conflict with the British Empire had been resolved -indeed there followed another series of battles and what some refer to as a '2nd Revolution' in 1812- was it not the fear of a resurgent British imperial ambition that necessitated the concept of militias as a last resort against the Crown? When Parliament in 1689 restored the right to have arms it was a reaction against King James II attempt to disband Protestant militias by removing their right to bear arms. This was a key comparison the Americans made in 1791.

Second, am I right in thinking that the problem with the text of the 2nd Amendment is that it originally implied that the people armed are part of a collective -eg a Militia- but not individuals -whereas in Heller -vs-District of Columbia [2008] Justice Scalia argued precisely that all Americans are implied in the Amendment, ie that it is individual rights that are being upheld?

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/50849/district-columbia-v-heller-scalias-majority-opinion/ed-whelan

[onmyknees]

The modern interpretation of the Constitution and how it would be applied by the present court is relatively clear on the issue. The actual Constitution is not so clear on application. What is made clear in the Constitution is one of the founding intentions, namely the recognized state militias will in part be armed by the private expenditures of the soldiers themselves, be they drafted or volunteers. It was a cost cutting procedure. There is absolutely no evidence it was originally intended so that the citizens would be enabled to carry out an armed revolt against their own government. The explicit intent was to arm the government in part at private expense.


I see. Thankfully the Supreme Court does not, and has not agreed with you. You are in the distinct minority on your interpretation. So....if I can extrapolate what you're saying to other court decisions...can we surmise there is absolutely no evidence that the right to privacy was ever intended by the founders to extend to taking the life of 3 month old fetus ? Your argument cuts both ways.

[onmyknees]

I am trying to understand this 2nd Amendment of yours, but it has generated a vast literature. But for the moment -is it not the case that the rationale for armed militias when the Amendment was adopted was that they would prevent the emergence of a dictorship -indeed, that were the USA to fall under the power of an autocrat/dictator that the militia would have a duty to overthrow the government in order to restore democracy? The Amendment was adopted in 1791 before the conflict with the British Empire had been resolved -indeed there followed another series of battles and what some refer to as a '2nd Revolution' in 1812- was it not the fear of a resurgent British imperial ambition that necessitated the concept of militias as a last resort against the Crown? When Parliament in 1689 restored the right to have arms it was a reaction against King James II attempt to disband Protestant militias by removing their right to bear arms. This was a key comparison the Americans made in 1791.

Second, am I right in thinking that the problem with the text of the 2nd Amendment is that it originally implied that the people armed are part of a collective -eg a Militia- but not individuals -whereas in Heller -vs-District of Columbia [2008] Justice Scalia argued precisely that all Americans are implied in the Amendment, ie that it is individual rights that are being upheld?

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/50849/district-columbia-v-heller-scalias-majority-opinion/ed-whelan



"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." - Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984



"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson, proposal for Virginia's constitution of 1776.

With all due respect to Trish and others...there's little ambiguity in Jefferson's statement. I think I'll defer to his take on the issue .

[buttslinger]

there's little ambiguity in Jefferson's statement. I think I'll defer to his take on the issue .
Cuckoo sound - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1WcxRaMmIM)

[onmyknees]

strange....not sure what you're attempting to say. Are you at issue with Jefferson's views....or mine? Because you're poorly equiped to deal with either, frankly.

The problem is not the NRA.
The problem is the NRA LOBBY.


Now that's profound. lol

[trish]

I see. Thankfully the Supreme Court does not, and has not agreed with you. You are in the distinct minority on your interpretation. So....if I can extrapolate what you're saying to other court decisions...can we surmise there is absolutely no evidence that the right to privacy was ever intended by the founders to extend to taking the life of 3 month old fetus ? Your argument cuts both ways.Sorry to disappoint but I haven't offered an interpretation. I merely repeated the obvious fact that the only clear INTENT made EXPLICIT in the amendment is the intent to arm the recognized militias. Clearly there were implicit intentions not mentioned in the document. The acquisition of food, for example, in the day required the use of firearms. I am most definitely not a strict constructionist. So I don't really give a damn about original intent. My post was merely a response as to what is clearly explicit and what it read into it by the modern interpretation of the court. I'm quite happy with the concept of a living growing document. Scalia isn't, yet he plays the hypocrite by pretending to adhere to original intent while in reality reading the document fast and loose.

[braveheart0219]

You complain as if guns are a huge problem in America. When was the last time in this country we had a spree shooting? A couple years? Earlier I posted statistics about tobacco and the resulting death toll it has caused. For the 12 people that died this weekend, about 57 people also died from cigarettes. While a spree killing occurs about once ever couple/few years. For every ~two dozen people killed in an atrocity like this, about ~1.5 million people died in the US during that same period, from tobacco and its related diseases. Of those ~1.5 million, 150,000 of them were non-smokers. Think of the non-smokers as civilian bystander casualties.

CDC Tobacco Death Toll (USA Annual): 443,000 Smokers + ~45,000 Non-Smokers (Second-Hand Smoke Exposure)

ALL GUN RELATED DEATHS PER YEAR, USA: ~32,000

Once you've achieved banning tobacco completely and ensuring that cigarettes are completely illegal within the United States of America, come back to this forum and let us know your progress and we can move on the gun bans. Until then, keep whining.
cigarettes are a personal choice and death is self inflicted-try telling the shooting victim's families that guns are not a problem in the usa. Don't ban guns then -ban bullets-or you can buy ONE for personal use only.

[jenlee969]

The problem is not the NRA.
The problem is the NRA LOBBY.



Just thinking about this, I'd think this is about right. I mean, the NRA pushed for a bill in Florida that would have fined pediatricians for just even ASKING the parents of the child if there was a gun in the house.

And for all the people that are worried about the government having too much power as the argument for keeping their arms - well in the 21st Century, it's not the government's guns I'd be worried about, but their mouse clicks.


And FWIW, I think events like these are "the price of freedom" that we currently enjoy in the US. Oh, and something else I find amusing - many folks who vehemently seek to defend their interpretation of the Second Amendment would do so by beginning to infringe on the other Amendments to the Constitution... like "just locking up the crazies", or "making people live under more 'Christian principles' with movies and games"...


Though someone I chatted with noticed this - in some places, you can't buy more than one box of Sudafed without an ID check, etc... and yet this guy got 6,000 rounds of ammo in a couple weeks?

But hey, what do I know - I'm just a stupid tranny.

[buttslinger]

onmyknees-strange....not sure what you're attempting to say.

[giovanni_hotel]

There's a reason you can't buy arsenic, strychnine or cyanide caps at the local drugstore or hardware outlet, because there was legislative decision made that these compounds were too dangerous to be readily available to the general public.

I just read a stat there were over 200K nonfatal gun shooting in the U.S. in 2010.
That's insane.

The NRA IMO has stopped representing responsible gun owners and become the shadow mouthpiece for the gun manufacturing INDUSTRY.

And if any U.S. politician seriously attempted to launch a campaign to overturn the 2nd Amendment in total, he would be defeated by both libs and conservatives.

When did the NRA become fanatical???

I've heard gun advocates argue the 2nd Amendment is the one Amendment that's the foundation for the ENTIRE Constitution, as if the right to bear firearms is the 'force' behind our system of laws. Such craziness.

THe U.S. is the main supplier of guns to the Mexican drug cartels because of the ease of purchase and transport across the border, and our lax gun laws are absolutely a contributor to this massacre in Colorado.

No normal gun owner has any justification for possessing a mag with 30-, 60-, 90- round loads.

What's the REAL agenda behind the NRA???
Is it really just to protect the bottom line of gun and ammo manufacturers??

[onmyknees]

Sorry to disappoint but I haven't offered an interpretation. I merely repeated the obvious fact that the only clear INTENT made EXPLICIT in the amendment is the intent to arm the recognized militias. Clearly there were implicit intentions not mentioned in the document. The acquisition of food, for example, in the day required the use of firearms. I am most definitely not a strict constructionist. So I don't really give a damn about original intent. My post was merely a response as to what is clearly explicit and what it read into it by the modern interpretation of the court. I'm quite happy with the concept of a living growing document. Scalia isn't, yet he plays the hypocrite by pretending to adhere to original intent while in reality reading the document fast and loose.


Obvious to whom........ You and Piers Morgan? Because it's not all that obvious to the vast majority of the rest of us. Of course you're happy with a living breathing document, and a court that interprets it as such....until it gives you Citizen's United. As my last post clearly stated...no where in that historical time frame was your version of the 2nd amendment given any weight. Nor did they discuss gathering of food with respect to the 2nd amendment. ...that's a left wing fantasy brewed up by academia. You're free to have that version, but thankfully you're in the minority and will remain that way for a very long time.

[trish]

Obvious to whom.......To anyone who can read. Do you know what EXPLICIT means? Do you know what INTENTION means? Now read the 2nd Amendment and tell me what INTENTION was EXPLICITLY written down. Sheeesh! What an idiot! All nine justices will tell you the intention made explicit by the document is the intention to have armed state militia. What the justices disagree on is the application of the 2nd amendment to current jurisprudence as well as what intent remains implicit.


no where in that historical time frame was your version of the 2nd amendment given any weight.I presented no version of the 2nd amendment. I suggested no interpretation nor application. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.


Nor did they discuss gathering of food with respect to the 2nd amendmentDid I say they did? I merely suggested some intents must have remained unstated. Look up the word IMPLICIT. I don't know what those intents were. Neither do you. Neither does Scalia nor any other justice. Hunting was just a possible example. Some originalists see it as their task to ferret out implicit intent and apply it as best they can to present circumstances.

[onmyknees]

There's a reason you can't buy arsenic, strychnine or cyanide caps at the local drugstore or hardware outlet, because there was legislative decision made that these compounds were too dangerous to be readily available to the general public.

I just read a stat there were over 200K nonfatal gun shooting in the U.S. in 2010.
That's insane.

The NRA IMO has stopped representing responsible gun owners and become the shadow mouthpiece for the gun manufacturing INDUSTRY.

And if any U.S. politician seriously attempted to launch a campaign to overturn the 2nd Amendment in total, he would be defeated by both libs and conservatives.

When did the NRA become fanatical???

I've heard gun advocates argue the 2nd Amendment is the one Amendment that's the foundation for the ENTIRE Constitution, as if the right to bear firearms is the 'force' behind our system of laws. Such craziness.

THe U.S. is the main supplier of guns to the Mexican drug cartels because of the ease of purchase and transport across the border, and our lax gun laws are absolutely a contributor to this massacre in Colorado.

No normal gun owner has any justification for possessing a mag with 30-, 60-, 90- round loads.

What's the REAL agenda behind the NRA???
Is it really just to protect the bottom line of gun and ammo manufacturers??



"THe U.S. is the main supplier of guns to the Mexican drug cartels because of the ease of purchase and transport across the border"


provably false. The majority of guns used in Mexico come from Russia and China. They prefer cheap AK-47's. That's a left wing talking point, and the precise thinking behind Holder's Fast and Furious. Hillary, Holder and several anti second amendment members of Congress all made that charge, and were forced to walk it back because it's simply not true. Now if you say The Justice Department and ATF are a main supplier to Mexican Drug Cartels, I'd tend to agree.

You ask what the real ajenda of the NRA is...I ask what the real ajenda of ATF is...or have you forgotton Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Fast and Furious ?

[robertlouis]

It makes me sad that a massacre of innocents in a cinema has degenerated into the predictable HA shouting match between those advocating gun control and those clinging to the constitution.

Lest we forget, this tragedy occurred because the perpetrator had effectively open access to deadly weapons and as much ammo as he could get his hands on, regardless of whatever weird rationale was going on inside his head.

So please, instead of invoking the constitution and arguing over the philosophical issues, what, if anything, can be done at a simple practical level to prevent this sort of occurrence happening again? And without some sort of intervention, it will. As the majority seem to believe it's somehow a price worth paying for the liberty of carrying weapons I don't see any realistic prospect of change.

[giovanni_hotel]

Fast and Furious didn't buy guns and sell them to Mexican drug cartels. AG Holder and ATF was only monitoring sales from gun dealers along the border. Yes there was an ATF agent who suggested they actually buy guns and track their movement, but that wasn't ATF policy.

It's ironic that in every case, (RR, Waco, FF), people who were expressly breaking the law have become cult icons on the right.

If the Feds say you illegally own firearms, fight them in COURT. That's how the system works.

You don't get in a shootout with ATF agents.

[bobvela]

Too many Americans nowadays are against reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

Like what? in your ideal country... what kind of 'reasonable' restrictions would have prevented this or other mass shootings? Lord knows laws against murder, attempted murder, firing a firearm within city limits didn't stop this... what laws do you see that would?


It's easier to get a driver's license than it is to own a gun. That's really fucked up.

Sure, when getting a drivers license generally requires a test or two and a photo taken... buying a gun from a Federal Firearm Licensed dealer (ie every pawn shop or gun store) requires a federal background check.


The only people who should be allowed to own high caliber semiautomatic weapons are the military and police.

First up... define 'high caliber'... because I suspect you don't even understand what a 'semiautomatic weapon' is or just what portion of firearms would be covered by your desired ban.


The guns rights advocates have turned into another version of the religious moral majority.

Know the difference between the religious folks and the gun folks? While the religious folks generally bicker about which is the right faith or try to push their views into the schools or public square... we, the 'gun rights advocates' have already won... the majority of the US population is against increased firearm regulation... and keep winning in court (see DC v Heller & McDonald v Chicago for a start).


Gun ownership has become an article of faith instead of an issue of public safety.

Because it's not a major public safety issue... too often people point to the raw # of firearm deaths and ignore the shear number of firearms and owners in this country... the vast vast vast vast vast majority of which are owned and used in a legal manner.

[bobvela]

Fast and Furious didn't buy guns and sell them to Mexican drug cartels.

Yes... because doing so is the only way to arm them.


AG Holder and ATF was only monitoring sales from gun dealers along the border.

Um... it went a bit further than monitoring.

Go chat with an FFL some time... most firearm purchases are single buys, using a credit card... or cash (though if plastic is used, the chances of a multiple buy is higher).

A buyer coming in with a grocery bag full of cash... and buying a dozen firearms at a time tends to be suspicious... something that was happening at some gun stores in the south... being suspicious of these being straw purchases, the ATF was consulted... and told the FFL dealers to allow the sales to happen... assuring the FFLs that the purchases would be monitored after they left the store.

Guess what didn't happen?

Yes there was an ATF agent who suggested they actually buy guns and track their movement, but that wasn't ATF policy.


It's ironic that in every case, (RR, Waco, FF), people who were expressly breaking the law have become cult icons on the right.

You mean that Ruby Ridge & Waco are seen as cult icons to certain limited elements of the fringe right... and that Fast and Furious outrages any reasonably thinking person be they left or right.... right?


If the Feds say you illegally own firearms, fight them in COURT. That's how the system works.

Going to court should not be required to guarantee your rights (yes it is a last step, it should not however be a require step if the system functions properly)... most people expect to be left alone and not have to expend the massive time and financial costs of going to court.

[QUOTE=giovanni_hotel;1174364]You don't get in a shootout with ATF agents.

I was unaware that anyone here was advocating that... in general it's a bad idea to shoot at any law enforcement officer (be they in the right or not) as they have the force of law and a badge on their side.

[yodajazz]

Eh, shit happens. With the state of the world and the dispositions of the majority of the people in it, I'm only shocked this type of thing doesn't occur more.

Here's where your/our thoughts go wrong. How many people commit crimes out of 6-7 billion people? How many people in the 300 million or so people in the US are mass murderers? Then look at other traits. How many people, consider themselves to have been in love? How many people are sexually attracted to someone else? When you look at the real truth, Love is the rule of human behavior. I would guess, that even this murderer loved things. He just loves the wrong things, things that were destructive, rather that things that lead to constructive ends. Lots of people think that things a destructive when they are not. Thus you get people saying we should kill 1.4 billion Muslims when at least 90% of them are peaceful. Coincidently, the vast majority of them are having a lot of sex, producing lots of children. Love, is the rule of human behavior. That is why these things dont happen more often. I must add, that Love is about anything a person loves to do, not just just sex.

[Prospero]

So much bullshit after the slaughter of innocent people. May they rest in peace.

Even the candidates while offering platitudes about the tragedy refuse to even discuss the issue of gun control.

it was noted by - I think Atlantic monthly - that in the 48 hours since the slaughter 100 other people died as a result of guns in the US. In that same period NOT ONE person in the UK died through guns. The reason. We have very rigorous and tough control of guns.

How long will it take for the US to face up to the fact that it is the use of and ownership of guns that permits such mass killings to take place.

[giovanni_hotel]

The Assault Weapons Ban Act,(The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act), signed into law under Clinton in 1994 with bipartisan congressional support, expired in 2004 and most political wonks don't think there's a chance in hell that bill would be signed into law today, all thanks to the NRA.

The AR-15, a civilian version of the M-16, would have been covered under the Assault Weapons Ban Act, and would have been banned as an 'semiautomatic assault weapon', so yes this particular attack could have been prevented with more effective laws in place.

80-90 million Americans own roughly 270 million firearms, and we Americans buy over half of all the firearms sold worldwide(2007).

The sheer number of firearms circulating through this country is mind boggling.
Why??

[Prospero]

NRA responsible for more deaths than al-Queda IMHO

[bobvela]

The Assault Weapons Ban Act,(The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act), signed into law under Clinton in 1994 with bipartisan congressional support, expired in 2004 and most political wonks don't think there's a chance in hell that bill would be signed into law today, all thanks to the NRA.

Really? You think so? Get ready to be proven wrong!


The AR-15, a civilian version of the M-16, would have been covered under the Assault Weapons Ban Act, and would have been banned as an 'semiautomatic assault weapon', so yes this particular attack could have been prevented with more effective laws in place.

In the form that I expect the AR-15 in question was in... maybe... however the actual aspects of the law... what actually makes something an 'assault weapon' are relatively easy to get around.

Case in point... one area that was regulated was a 'pistol grip’ on a rifle (Oooo, scary! Someone might swing the rifle and take an eye out!)

With a little work (or aftermarket part (readily available)) an AR-15 receiver (the part with the serial number and the only part considered a 'firearm') can utilize a 'thumbhole stock'... which suddenly removes the 'pistol grip' definition from applying to a given rifle... never mind the fact that it shoots and handles exactly the same.

Hell... a few years ago a friend and I each purchased a Romanian version of the AK-47 (WASR-10)... while both legal at the time as is... he modified his to have a thumbhole stock (which would make it fully legal under the assault weapon ban)... while I modified mine with a telescoping stock (which in addition to the existing pistol grip, would have made it extra illegal/regulated under the assault weapons ban).

Let's go back... did the AWB prevent what you would call an 'assault rifle’ from being sold? Not really. The firearm makers slimily looked at the law, and made sure that what they built and sold was legal under it. The law (thankfully) was poorly written... and was about as effective as a law which required that all cars sold in the US have at least 20% of it’s parts manufactured in the US... the result... non-compliant cars are quickly upgraded by those with money to a compliant status!



80-90 million Americans own roughly 270 million firearms, and we Americans buy over half of all the firearms sold worldwide(2007).

The sheer number of firearms circulating through this country is mind boggling.
Why??

Thanks! You are helping to prove my point... despite (based on your numbers(from a source I'd be interested to see)) 270 million guns… in a nation of what? 310 million people... and we have how few mass shootings? When you compare the #’s in this country against those in other countries with tight gun control (or much smaller populations)... we are doing quite well... even if such one of shootings are a tragic event.

[GroobySteven]

I just still can't believe you invoke a 250 year old law as your RIGHT - clearly out of date and open to interpretation. It's no different to the Christians using the Bible as justification to bash gays or ban abortions or Muslim's using their version of the Koran to stone a woman to death or walk into a crowd with bombs strapped to them.

[Prospero]

I just still can't believe you invoke a 250 year old law as your RIGHT - clearly out of date and open to interpretation. It's no different to the Christians using the Bible as justification to bash gays or ban abortions or Muslim's using their version of the Koran to stone a woman to death or walk into a crowd with bombs strapped to them.

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

[bobvela]

I just still can't believe you invoke a 250 year old law as your RIGHT

Q: How old should a law be before we say that it is out of date? The 13th amendment is only 147 years old... by your logic... in 113 years... slavery will be for sure ok again... right? If so... how far back does that extend? 200 years? 150?

I'm sorry that you think that the supreme law of the land is so open to interpretation... but then I would expect that from an anti-gun bigot like you (don't worry, I've not forgotten about the other thread... I've just been busy).


clearly out of date and open to interpretation.

You must have missed my mentioning of DC v Heller or McDonald v Chicago... the interpretations of the "250 year old law" (as you call a 221 year old constitutional amendment) which have upheld the right of the individual citizen to keep and bare arms.


It's no different to the Christians using the Bible as justification to bash gays or ban abortions or Muslim's using their version of the Koran to stone a woman to death or walk into a crowd with bombs strapped to them.

Actually... it is... but bigots like you do not understand the difference between a long standing law/custom which respects individual liberties (so long as they do not directly interfere with the rights of others)... and those that directly harms others... not to mention those it targets.

Again... you are an anti-gun bigot, plain and simple.

Before you cry of semantics... I will remind you that you made such a statement about yourself not once (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1172988&postcount=1930), but twice (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1173034&postcount=1956).

Don't believe me? If someone came here and said that they were "anti-gay", "anti-trans", "anti-black", or "anti-<insert group here>"... they would be called as such... you labeled yourself here as "anti-gun" which demonstrates to all who/what you are.

[GroobySteven]

Q: How old should a law be before we say that it is out of date? The 13th amendment is only 147 years old... by your logic... in 113 years... slavery will be for sure ok again... right? If so... how far back does that extend? 200 years? 150?

I'm sorry that you think that the supreme law of the land is so open to interpretation... but then I would expect that from an anti-gun bigot like you (don't worry, I've not forgotten about the other thread... I've just been busy).



You must have missed my mentioning of DC v Heller or McDonald v Chicago... the interpretations of the "250 year old law" (as you call a 221 year old constitutional amendment) which have upheld the right of the individual citizen to keep and bare arms.



Actually... it is... but bigots like you do not understand the difference between a long standing law/custom which respects individual liberties (so long as they do not directly interfere with the rights of others)... and those that directly harms others... not to mention those it targets.

Again... you are an anti-gun bigot, plain and simple.

Before you cry of semantics... I will remind you that you made such a statement about yourself not once (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1172988&postcount=1930), but twice (http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=1173034&postcount=1956).

Don't believe me? If someone came here and said that they were "anti-gay", "anti-trans", "anti-black", or "anti-<insert group here>"... they would be called as such... you labeled yourself here as "anti-gun" which demonstrates to all who/what you are.

You're putting the equality of gays, blacks, trans or any group of individuals as the same as being anti-gun? You're a fucking womble and clearly, looking through you're past threads a troll.

Your question:
Q: How old should a law be before we say that it is out of date?
A: When it becomes irrelevant, out of touch and at odds with the current societies needs and morals. That's when.
Imagine the audacity to try and equate this with anti-slavery. Shame on you.


"you do not understand the difference between a long standing law/custom which respects individual liberties (so long as they do not directly interfere with the rights of others)"

It's affects the rights of others when because of the prolification of what you want has a direct affect on other people being killed. Using something out of date as your justification is no different from those using the Bible, Koran or any other crutch to support your zealous attitudes.

[SammiValentine]

Don't believe me? If someone came here and said that they were "anti-gay", "anti-trans", "anti-black", or "anti-<insert group here>"... they would be called as such... you labeled yourself here as "anti-gun" which demonstrates to all who/what you are.

tbh it merely demonstrates he is British ?? We are chalk and cheese when it comes to guns.

[Prospero]

Defend to the death the right of every American to have assault weapons. Let him be the last man standing having slaughtered thousands who dared to challenge his right to keep something designed simply to kill. What a jackass Bobvela is... and what a dark and strange obsession so many Americans have with this ludicrous right to bear arms. Is the Constitution such sacred writ? What unreason you can argue and fall back on the Constitution as if this is an immutable law of the universe? Are not even the men who framed this fallible humans writing a set of rules based upon the realities of their time? Might those rules not actually fit our present age when weapons that can kill hundreds in minutes can now be held by people like that gunman in Colorado or Breivik in Norway.

Is not the life of the little girl who died in that cinema more sacred than your right to carry a gun?

[GroobySteven]

tbh it merely demonstrates he is British ?? We are chalk and cheese when it comes to guns.

No I don't think it does Sammi. I've lived in the US long enough and have plenty of American friends who are anti-gun or at least anti- the ease of
ability for anyone to assault/semi-auto type weaponry. The gun lobby and manufacturers and whackos like this guy just have bigger voices, more money, cry louder and create more paranoia through their media to enable to allow them to continue to buy weaponry which clearly is for more than personal home protection and hunting.

[Token Williams-Black]

Personally, I think this incident is an embarrassment to the whole country. We're "the greatest country in the world" yet we let stuff like this happen. I have no words, seriously...

I really can't find a reason why a civilian should have an automatic weapon. I'm also trying to figure out how a dude can park his Hyundai in the parking lot, exit wearing full body armor, enter a theater with multiple weapons, and start shooting. Will someone PLEASE explain how this happened?

[SammiValentine]

No I don't think it does Sammi. I've lived in the US long enough and have plenty of American friends who are anti-gun or at least anti- the ease of
ability for anyone to assault/semi-auto type weaponry. The gun lobby and manufacturers and whackos like this guy just have bigger voices, more money, cry louder and create more paranoia through their media to enable to allow them to continue to buy weaponry which clearly is for more than personal home protection and hunting.

Which is a very British view, you do not need to preach to the converted. ;-)

[GroobySteven]

Which is a very British view, you do not need to preach to the converted. ;-)
My point being, it may be a British view ... but there are plenty of Americans feel the same! :-)

[Jericho]

I really can't find a reason why a civilian should have an automatic weapon.

Because I'm an AMERICAN goddamit, and I WANT them!

I hate sounding Anti-American (i love you guys) but, that does seem to be the prevailing attitude! :shrug

[bimale69]

Because I'm an AMERICAN goddamit, and I WANT them!

I hate sounding Anti-American (i love you guys) but, that does seem to be the prevailing attitude! :shrug

The problem isnt the guns themselves, its nutjob assholes aquiring them at a gun show or online and doing what that piece of dogshit did at that theater.

[GroobySteven]

The problem isnt the guns themselves, its nutjob assholes aquiring them at a gun show or online and doing what that piece of dogshit did at that theater.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz .... it's the guns. There are always nutjobs in every country and the only time they get to killing sprees of this magnitude is when they get guns.
It's not just the nutjobs - it's a society that allows them to purchase these guns.

[Jericho]

The problem isnt the guns themselves, its nutjob assholes aquiring them at a gun show or online and doing what that piece of dogshit did at that theater.

Nah, that dog don't hunt.
The problem is the weapons themselves.
There is no NEED whatsoever for civilians to own semi/automatic weaponry...You have them because you WANT them.

[yosi]

Americans can own any gun they want with proper permits Its not the guns that are the problem. It's the fucking wacko's.I am so tired of the liberal bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!

anyone can carry atomic bombs with proper permits , it's not the atomic bombs that are the problem , it's the fucking wacko's..........

[Stavros]

"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." - Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984

"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson, proposal for Virginia's constitution of 1776.

With all due respect to Trish and others...there's little ambiguity in Jefferson's statement. I think I'll defer to his take on the issue .

But Jefferson's proposal, though it may reflect his views, is not written into the Constitution or its Amendments, and that is the text which forms the basis of the law.

Context here is critical for two reasons: 1) for 1791 it explains the precise concerns that existed at a time when the new America was justifiably anxious that its Revolution would be derailed and that British Imperialism would try to re-assert itself on its financially most lucrative Colonies; hence the resort to armed militias; and 2) Because contemporary America must find a way of 'keeping the Constitution alive' to the changes that have taken place since 1776 either by Amending the Constitution, or by interpreting its provisions in the context of 'today'.

The rift between Justice Scalia's judgement, and Justice Stevens' in Heller -vs- Dictrict of Columbia, suggests that one Justice believes there is a Constitutional right for all citizens to own firearms, while the other believes this right is partial and mediated through the concept of armed militias = ie, an individual -vs- collective right. If Stevens is right, then States have the right to impose limitations on the ability of citizens to obtain firearms; if Scalia is right then restrictions -other than those imposed on those who are mentally ill etc- could be interpreted as UnConstitutional.

BUT, if there is a contemporary opinion to be had, the changes that have taken place to firearms ought surely to be factored in. It is one thing for a patriotic American in 1791 to purchase a rifle to arm himself against another British invasion -which did indeed happen in 1812- but does this mean in 2012 any American believed at the time to be sane, needs and therefore should have the right to purchase automatic and semi-automatic assault weapons, 6,000 rounds of ammunition and all the rest of whatever else he wants in his private arsenal? And when the records show that 100% of these weapons are used against other Americans rather than an invading army, is it not time to subject the 2nd Amendment to what you Americans call a reality check?

[yosi]

How long will it take for the US to face up to the fact that it is the use of and ownership of guns that permits such mass killings to take place.

this will never happen , they will fight for the right to be killed....

it's much safer to be out in London in the middle of the night than most american cities , who cares why....

[trish]

With all due respect to Trish and others...there's little ambiguity in Jefferson's statement. I think I'll defer to his take on the issue . With all due respect, I never said Jefferson's views on the second amendment's raison d'etre were as ambiguous as they are in amendment itself. My point is that the only intent made explicit in the amendment is the intent that private citizens could use their own weapons when serving in state militia. Jefferson's other intentions never made it into the amendment. Perhaps because the other framers didn't agree with them. Perhaps because the framers thought one significant reason was sufficient. Perhaps stylistic brevity. It doesn't matter. Clearly the explicit intention is antiquated, as would be many of the original intentions behind the second amendment including many of Jefferson's. What matters is the history of interpretative precedents that lead to today's applications of the law. The precedents were based on arguments that through time refit the amendment to new circumstances, new technologies and newly perceived intentions. I agree with Stravros, the bare bones of the second amendment's intent are not as clear as Jefferson's personal views. However, I presume a lot more could be said about intent of the courts that interpreted the amendment through the years by studying the relevant cases and precedents. This temporal string of interpretations is what clarifies the law, not Jefferson's lone opinion nor the opinion of any group of founders.

Even though I believe our current guns laws are way to lax, I don't think the Constitution needs to be amended. I just think the court needs become the deliberative, rational, non-partisan body it was originally conceived to be.

[Dino Velvet]

Picture tells a 1000 words. Look at this failure.

http://thumbs.mugshots.com/gallery/images/0f/ba/James-Holmes-mugshot-21460323.png.400x800.jpg


Now Mr Spaceman in court.

http://thumbs.mugshots.com/gallery/images/5f/a2/James-Holmes-mugshot-21478039.png.400x800.jpg


This is also James Holmes. All he wanted was a Slurpee Machine back then.

James Holmes Speaking at Science Camp - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lotOPjLlbDU)

[shaustin]

Maybe all the people who hate guns so much should grow a fucking pair and just say what they SHOULD be saying if they're truly so afraid. ALL guns should be abolished. Take every gun on the planet and melt it down. Don't fight against something only to the point YOU personally feel comfortable with it, if your going to go down that road go all the damn way, not just until you get tired and feel like giving up. If you truly believe guns are so horrible, believe they are ALL equally as bad. Ragging on a specific section of gun users, in this case the private citizenry, is hypocritical and cowardly. If your going to campaign to end gun use then do just that, but have enough self respect to realize that it doesn't stop with Mr. & Mrs. Smith, until all the guns are gone from the world, those who wish to use them to do harm to others will find a way.

[shaustin]

Picture tells a 1000 words. Look at this failure.

http://thumbs.mugshots.com/gallery/images/0f/ba/James-Holmes-mugshot-21460323.png.400x800.jpg


The guy definatley has alot of mental issues, looks alot more like a douchey facebook photo than a mugshot.

[Stavros]

Maybe all the people who hate guns so much should grow a fucking pair and just say what they SHOULD be saying if they're truly so afraid. ALL guns should be abolished. Take every gun on the planet and melt it down. Don't fight against something only to the point YOU personally feel comfortable with it, if your going to go down that road go all the damn way, not just until you get tired and feel like giving up. If you truly believe guns are so horrible, believe they are ALL equally as bad. Ragging on a specific section of gun users, in this case the private citizenry, is hypocritical and cowardly. If your going to campaign to end gun use then do just that, but have enough self respect to realize that it doesn't stop with Mr. & Mrs. Smith, until all the guns are gone from the world, those who wish to use them to do harm to others will find a way.

But you do have a Constitution and Laws, and these instruments have attempted to regulate the purchase of firearms because over the years it has been realised that some people are not trustworthy with them. You have a Standing Army paid for by taxes, just as you have police forces which means: you have dedicated, and armed organisations to guarantee your security. What you need to address are the causes of crime, because the relatively easy availability of firearms in the USA means gun-related crime is more common than it is, for example, in the UK. Instead of starting with the end result, try working on what causes crime. Limiting the availability of guns is one way of changing the profile of, and the fatal element in crime, that is what I think you are reluctant to engage with.

[shaustin]

But you do have a Constitution and Laws, and these instruments have attempted to regulate the purchase of firearms because over the years it has been realised that some people are not trustworthy with them. You have a Standing Army paid for by taxes, just as you have police forces which means: you have dedicated, and armed organisations to guarantee your security. What you need to address are the causes of crime, because the relatively easy availability of firearms in the USA means gun-related crime is more common than it is, for example, in the UK. Instead of starting with the end result, try working on what causes crime. Limiting the availability of guns is one way of changing the profile of, and the fatal element in crime, that is what I think you are reluctant to engage with.

That right there negates the majority of what followed. The CAUSE of a crime....to be honest, I don't recall a criminal ever answering the question "Why'd you do it?" with "Because I had a gun of course.". Holding a gun doesn't cause a person to suddenly want to commit a crime. The TRUE causes for crimes are much deeper in the majority of cases. Which is actually why I dislike all the gun opposition in this thread, the focus that SHOULD be placed on the real cause is all being thrown into a gun debate. It takes understanding, empathy, insight, and a mentality unclouded by hate in order to weed through the facts and find a true cause for a case such as this.

[trish]

Maybe all the people who hate guns so much should grow a fucking pair and just say what they SHOULD be saying if they're truly so afraid. ALL guns should be abolished.Don't hate guns. I own three hunting rifles. Not afraid either. It's the people who feel the need to carry that are afraid and insecure. But I do resent the increased degree of risk to my security that comes with hundreds of insecure assholes all around me carrying concealed firearms.


I don't recall a criminal ever answering the question "Why'd you do it?" with "Because I had a gun of course.". But that is one of the most common reasons given for murder, it just goes under the name of temporary insanity. "I was enraged...the gun was right there...so I shot her." It's also the reason for many accidental killings. "We were just messing around and the gun went off." You see, GUNS DO KILL PEOPLE.

[Dino Velvet]

Can we all agree putting an instrument that causes mass damage in the hands of a person so damaged(perception or reality) is never sound strategy?

[Stavros]

Can we all agree putting an instrument that causes mass damage in the hands of a person so damaged(perception or reality) is never sound strategy?

Yes, of course. But how does someone in a shop determine if the person who wants to buy is a mass murderer? Psychopaths by definition can conceal the simmering hatred and violence in them, and appear to be cool, calm, and collected. I think this is why the issue of regulation is more important than the debate on ownership in the USA. There are probably more people organised to promote or oppose gay marriage than are united for gun control. It is and has been one of the most intractable issues in the US that I can think of.

[Stavros]

That right there negates the majority of what followed. The CAUSE of a crime....to be honest, I don't recall a criminal ever answering the question "Why'd you do it?" with "Because I had a gun of course.". Holding a gun doesn't cause a person to suddenly want to commit a crime. The TRUE causes for crimes are much deeper in the majority of cases. Which is actually why I dislike all the gun opposition in this thread, the focus that SHOULD be placed on the real cause is all being thrown into a gun debate. It takes understanding, empathy, insight, and a mentality unclouded by hate in order to weed through the facts and find a true cause for a case such as this.

Can I suggest you look at the figures and explanations for the decline in gun-related crimes in Washington DC since the 1990s? A key cause of such crimes was the crack cocaine epidemic and turf wars among the dealers. One part of the decline was harsh policing; but another was the generation who watched their parents and elders getting shot when zonked out of their brains who decided to 'just say no' -thus the market for crack cocaine declined, and with it the gun-related crime: cause and effect. Has gun ownership in Washington DC declined? I don't know, but its use in crime does seem to have.

[shaustin]

But that is one of the most common reasons given for murder, it just goes under the name of temporary insanity. "I was enraged...the gun was right there...so I shot her." It's also the reason for many accidental killings. "We were just messing around and the gun went off." You see, GUNS DO KILL PEOPLE.

Accidents happen, if you mess around with ANY potentially lethal device the results are gonna be the same. The route problem right there is uneducated stupidity. If your going to have a weapon in your home, you secure it, and if you have children, you inform them of the severity that comes with such an ownership. There should never be an excuse such as "We were messing around with a loaded weapon.", not because if the gun was never there it wouldn't have happened, but because the owner and/or the person doing the fooling around obviously failed in life as inteligent and responsible human beings.

As for crimes of passion and temporary insanity, once again, I agree that in a number of cases there would be times when the ease of using a firearm would increase the chances of the crime to be commited, but it's impossible to say for sure that in the majority of such instances a person would not turn to a less effective weapon if they were already at the point to take another's life. And to me, the vast majority of such plea's are thinly veiled attempts to disregard personal liablity. People ALLOW themselves to be taken away by rage and fear and other emotions in most of those cases. Just because you allow your mind to act instead of think, doesn't mean you were incapable of thought. In times of stress and turmoil, people tend to give in and block out judgement. A choice made subconciously is still a decision reached upon by the individual, it is a part of them, not some temporary madness that infected them and then left.

[Dino Velvet]

Yes, of course. But how does someone in a shop determine if the person who wants to buy is a mass murderer? Psychopaths by definition can conceal the simmering hatred and violence in them, and appear to be cool, calm, and collected. I think this is why the issue of regulation is more important than the debate on ownership in the USA. There are probably more people organised to promote or oppose gay marriage than are united for gun control. It is and has been one of the most intractable issues in the US that I can think of.

That's not so easy. Looking for a little common ground first in this discussion. There is no simple answer.

People that work in gun shops are not the best judges of character either.

[Queens Guy]

Maybe the problem is how we deal with, or ignore dealing with, mental illness in the U.S.

The gunman who shot at Rep. Giffords in Tuscon, AZ, the gunman who shot up Virginia Tech, and this guy were all mentally ill. (And this guy even went to a Medical School, which all have Psychiatrists on staff.)

Everybody realized these men were troubled. They all should have been under psychiatric care. For their own good. Gun Permits are not an absolute right, even in the most 'gun friendly' parts of the U.S. They are never given to people who are mentally ill. The most devout 'gun advocates' don't think mentally ill people should possess firearms.

So why not create a better system to report mentally ill people so they can't get gun licenses? Create some kind of 'psychiatric hold' that shows up on the background check. Or to pull the permit from somebody who already has one.



Should

[shaustin]

Can I suggest you look at the figures and explanations for the decline in gun-related crimes in Washington DC since the 1990s? A key cause of such crimes was the crack cocaine epidemic and turf wars among the dealers. One part of the decline was harsh policing; but another was the generation who watched their parents and elders getting shot when zonked out of their brains who decided to 'just say no' -thus the market for crack cocaine declined, and with it the gun-related crime: cause and effect. Has gun ownership in Washington DC declined? I don't know, but its use in crime does seem to have.

That's actually kind of along the lines of what I was trying to point out. In that situation the crack is the actual cause of the gun crime, not the guns themselves. If all the energy that was focused by the citizens and the police was on getting rid of guns and not the crack, the true cause behind the crime would still be prevailent.

[trish]

Accidents happen, if you mess around with ANY potentially lethal device the results are gonna be the same. "OH NO,We were just messing around and I accidentally stabbed my buddy through the heart with a Bowie knife. I didn't know it was loaded!!" Yeah, right.


As for crimes of passion and temporary insanity, once again, I agree that in a number of cases there would be times when the ease of using a firearm would increase the chances of the crime to be commitedI would add the adjective, "effectively". The presence of a firearm not only increases the chance that a crime of passion will be committed but increases the chances the it will be committed effectively and more likely to result in murder rather than battery.

[trish]

That's actually kind of along the lines of what I was trying to point out. In that situation the crack is the actual cause of the gun crime, not the guns themselves. If all the energy that was focused by the citizens and the police was on getting rid of guns and not the crack, the true cause behind the crime would still be prevailent.Once you realize crack heads uses guns to commit crimes you need effective GUN REGULATION to keep guns out of the hands of drug abusers.

[Queens Guy]

Can I suggest you look at the figures and explanations for the decline in gun-related crimes in Washington DC since the 1990s? A key cause of such crimes was the crack cocaine epidemic and turf wars among the dealers. One part of the decline was harsh policing; but another was the generation who watched their parents and elders getting shot when zonked out of their brains who decided to 'just say no' -thus the market for crack cocaine declined, and with it the gun-related crime: cause and effect. Has gun ownership in Washington DC declined? I don't know, but its use in crime does seem to have.


There is NO LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP in Washington, DC. At least there wasn't until the recent lawsuit by the name of Heller vs. D.C. which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Heller, the lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit, was a Special Police Officer at the U.S. Supreme Court Library. He wasn't some 'ordinary Joe'. He was trained and was armed while at work. But, Washington, D.C. wouldn't give him a license to carry his gun when he went home.

Chicago, until the recent decision of McDonald vs. Chicago, didn't allow any civilian to own a gun in his own home. Again, not even in his own home. McDonald, the plaintiff who wanted to protect himself in his home in 'a bad part of town' was in his 60's or 70's and never had trouble in the law. As of today, Chicago still don't allow ANY civilian to carry a weapon on the street.

The laws of D.C. and Chicago is one of the reasons why 'gun rights' people don't trust 'gun control' people when they speak of 'passing reasonable gun control legislation'. In Chicago and D.C. 'reasonable' was determined to be a complete ban. Those 2 cities have a lot of gun violence, with not 1 legal gun on the street.

[shaustin]

"I didn't know it was loaded!!"

Anyone who ever says this after a shot is fired deserves to have the next one hit them in the forehead. Like I said, if your going to own a gun and have children, educate them. If you pick up a weapon you always check for ammunition, period. No adult who isn't a child mentally would ever say that, and no child who isn't mature enough should be allowed access to firearms. Anyone who uses "I didn't know it was loaded." is full of shit or was failed by an adult who should be held responsible in their place.

[loren]

The modern interpretation of the Constitution and how it would be applied by the present court is relatively clear on the issue. The actual Constitution is not so clear on application. What is made clear in the Constitution is one of the founding intentions, namely the recognized state militias will in part be armed by the private expenditures of the soldiers themselves, be they drafted or volunteers. It was a cost cutting procedure. There is absolutely no evidence it was originally intended so that the citizens would be enabled to carry out an armed revolt against their own government. The explicit intent was to arm the government in part at private expense.

Umm no. The Second Ammendment is quite clear: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State (Each State used to have it's own militia. The closest modern equivalient we have is the National Guard. These State Guard units were for all intents and purpposes private armies that the governors could call upon to deal with civil disorder, incursions, securing the State's borders, etc.), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (it doesn't say the right of the militia, it says the right of the people)."

And as for your statement that it was never intended that the citizens should be able to rise up in revolt against the government; firstly, in the Declatation of Independence it says, "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, ..." The Founding Fathers envisioned a day when the very government they were forming would turn against it's citizens. Furthermore, the wording of the Second Ammendment gives the people, not the militia. (BTW the militia mentioned in this ammendment doesn't really concern the Army which was already established in the Constitution.) It only mentions that the militia should be well regulated while giving the people the individual right to own and possess firearms.

[loren]

Anyone who ever says this after a shot is fired deserves to have the next one hit them in the forehead. Like I said, if your going to own a gun and have children, educate them. If you pick up a weapon you always check for ammunition, period. No adult who isn't a child mentally would ever say that, and no child who isn't mature enough should be allowed access to firearms. Anyone who uses "I didn't know it was loaded." is full of shit or was failed by an adult who should be held responsible in their place.
:iagree:

[buttslinger]

In high school, one of the twins I had known since he was a little kid shot himself to death.playing Russian roulette. In elementary school, my buddy two doors down shot himself accidentally. Twice. Years later his big brother shot a hole in his leg with a .45 and had to crawl a long ways through the woods, bleeding profusely. The safety had been on. The cop actually shot it off again in the house with the safety on.
Moral of the story: Guns are Dangerous!!!!

[trish]

Umm no. The Second Ammendment is quite clear: Yes. Citizens have the right to bear arms. One reason for this right is to make it possible for private citizens to join or be drafted into a state militia and provide their own weapon. I never said those two aspects of the amendment were unclear. But those are the only two aspects of the amendment. Everything else is unclear. What sort of arms? Tactical nukes? Bazookas? Surface to air missiles? Automatic assault weapons. None of these existed even in the dreams of our founders. How the 2nd Amendment is to be applied is not at all made clear by the amendment itself, but is rather delineated by the history of precedents set by the various courts over the course of time. As the amendment continues to be interpreted by each new court its meaning and application will vary and evolve. How and in what direction is as unclear as the future.


And as for your statement that it was never intended that the citizens should be able to rise up in revolt against the governmentYes the founders thought that U.S. citizens should revolt against the U.S. government.:roll:

[BluegrassCat]

Yes the founders thought that U.S. citizens should revolt against the U.S. government.:roll:

Exactly. That's why George Washington joined the Whiskey Rebellion and led them to victory, overthrowing the newly formed United States.

[shaustin]

Yes the founders thought that U.S. citizens should revolt against the U.S. government.:roll:

This is actually a known fact. The founding fathers may have lived in another time, but they knew just about as much about tyranny and corruption as anyone today. They foresaw the possibility that the institution they were establishing could be used against the people just like any other ruling party throughout history. So in plain language, they stated their wish that were such a time to ever come the people uphold the same obligation they themselves felt during their fight for independence. They wanted to ensure that the government they bled to create would always be used to serve the people, and that the people it was founded to protect would never be oppressed by the governments whim.

[trish]

They wanted to ensure that the government they bled to create would always be used to serve the people... And to do so said government has to survive and not be overturned, otherwise it would be some other government serving the people and the founders wouldn't be our founders anymore. In spite of the "known facts" the founders obviously never intended U.S. citizens to overthrow the U.S. government. They instead did their very best to create a system of checks and balances with an amendable Constitution just to avoid that eventuality.

The Declaration gives the then British citizens in the colonies rousing arguments to rise up against Britain. When those words were written the U.S. didn't exist yet. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not explicitly harken back to those words in the Declaration. It would have been easy to explicitly write down such a connection when composing the 2nd Amendment. The writers chose not to.

Very little is clear when it comes to the 2nd Amendment's raison d'etre. It is the courts that need to apply that interpret it and provide the current intent of the Amendment. None of those precedents (as far as I know) entail the need for U.S. citizens to defend themselves against the U.S. government or to overthrow said government.

[onmyknees]

Yes, of course. But how does someone in a shop determine if the person who wants to buy is a mass murderer? Psychopaths by definition can conceal the simmering hatred and violence in them, and appear to be cool, calm, and collected. I think this is why the issue of regulation is more important than the debate on ownership in the USA. There are probably more people organised to promote or oppose gay marriage than are united for gun control. It is and has been one of the most intractable issues in the US that I can think of.


Most Europeans can not understand that intractability and never will. My point has been all along, it makes for some good back and forth dialogue regarding our founding documents, and that can't be a bad thing, but in the final analysis NOTHING is going to happen with respect to tightening gun regs. Normally the political philosophies of liberals and democrats overlap, but this is one area they don't. Western and southern Democrats don't want any part of a gun control discussion.. It's east and west coat liberals. Even Obama won't go anywhere near this. I see some of those on here who are more squishy regarding the second amendment, lamenting about the power of the NRA. To be sure it's a powerful lobby, but could it be that if it didn't have the rank and file support of the majority of US citizens? They draw their power from somewhere. And I have to correct you about your assertion that there is more organization towards gay marriage than gun restrictions. Watch the politicians.... they'll show you which way the wind is blowing...in this case Obama. He made his move on gay marriage because he didn't think it would hurt him politically. That is to say the country is evenly divided on that issue. He won't make that type of move against guns....not gonna do it.

[shaustin]

And to do so said government has to survive and not be overturned, otherwise it would be some other government serving the people and the founders wouldn't be our founders anymore. In spite of the "known facts" the founders obviously never intended U.S. citizens to overthrow the U.S. government. They instead did their very best to create a system of checks and balances with an amendable Constitution just to avoid that eventuality.

The Declaration gives the then British citizens in the colonies rousing arguments to rise up against Britain. When those words were written the U.S. didn't exist yet. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not explicitly harken back to those words in the Declaration. It would have been easy to explicitly write down such a connection when composing the 2nd Amendment. The writers chose not to.

Very little is clear when it comes to the 2nd Amendment's raison d'etre. It is the courts that need to apply that interpret it and provide the current intent of the Amendment. None of those precedents (as far as I know) entail the need for U.S. citizens to defend themselves against the U.S. government or to overthrow said government.

Your completely missing the point. They did their best, but they knew as the times changed it might not be enough to prevent it from changing into something unhealthy. They DID intend U.S. citizen's to overthrow the U.S. Government, IF the government ever became oppressive of the people.

It's called a Revolution, the Founding Fathers knew their fair share about them, and they also knew the necessity for them. That's why they placed those words in the Constitution, so that should that day ever come when the people felt the need to revolt, they would know that it was with their consent that such a government be overturned.

[robertlouis]

Most Europeans can not understand that intractability and never will. My point has been all along, it makes for some good back and forth dialogue regarding our founding documents, and that can't be a bad thing, but in the final analysis NOTHING is going to happen with respect to tightening gun regs. Normally the political philosophies of liberals and democrats overlap, but this is one area they don't. Western and southern Democrats don't want any part of a gun control discussion.. It's east and west coat liberals. Even Obama won't go anywhere near this. I see some of those on here who are more squishy regarding the second amendment, lamenting about the power of the NRA. To be sure it's a powerful lobby, but could it be that if it didn't have the rank and file support of the majority of US citizens? They draw their power from somewhere. And I have to correct you about your assertion that there is more organization towards gay marriage than gun restrictions. Watch the politicians.... they'll show you which way the wind is blowing...in this case Obama. He made his move on gay marriage because he didn't think it would hurt him politically. That is to say the country is evenly divided on that issue. He won't make that type of move against guns....not gonna do it.

At last, a reply of sorts to the question I asked about 100 posts ago. OMK is right. There's no realistic possibility of change in America's gun laws, whether radical or incremental, because it simply will not fly politically. There's the sadness.

Even here in the UK where our gun control laws are amongst the strictest in the world, some crazies slip through the net, most recently in Cumbria in 2010. However, deaths from gun crime here represent a minute percentage compared to the carnage across the pond, and the incidence of multiple shootings on the UK mainland is negligible, although not for the witnesses and survivors, who included my aunt at Dunblane - just three in my lifetime, at Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria. In each case the government response has resulted in a review of gun control laws and appropriate action. We must be getting something right, but it's equally clear that the government has the overwhelming support and consent of the people, as every poll shows.

That isn't going to happen in the US. Obamacare's travails are a picnic by comparison. And an awful lot of people are in denial.

[Willie Escalade]

tsntx shared this on her Facebook page. Hmm...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8027/7634464402_a85a7efc9d_o.jpg

Just sharing something I thought was interesting...

[onmyknees]

At last, a reply of sorts to the question I asked about 100 posts ago. OMK is right. There's no realistic possibility of change in America's gun laws, whether radical or incremental, because it simply will not fly politically. There's the sadness.

Even here in the UK where our gun control laws are amongst the strictest in the world, some crazies slip through the net, most recently in Cumbria in 2010. However, deaths from gun crime here represent a minute percentage compared to the carnage across the pond, and the incidence of multiple shootings on the UK mainland is negligible, although not for the witnesses and survivors, who included my aunt at Dunblane - just three in my lifetime, at Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria. In each case the government response has resulted in a review of gun control laws and appropriate action. We must be getting something right, but it's equally clear that the government has the overwhelming support and consent of the people, as every poll shows.

That isn't going to happen in the US. Obamacare's travails are a picnic by comparison. And an awful lot of people are in denial.


not a bad post...but you and a few of your Britt buds have this incredibly annoying habit of constantly trying to either equate or compare the US and the UK. I'm guessing you don't realize you're doing it. I'm glad you feel you're doing something right about your absence of a second amendment and a bill of rights...but please don't preach. You're a smart guy, and you know your history wasn't always this passive, at least outside your borders. There was plenty of carnage to go around. The entire purpose of that skirmish centuries ago was that we didn't want to be like you. All you need to do is look at this thread...there's people who you would never assume would be so strident about the right to bear arms. On 9 out of 10 other issues, they probably agree with you, but the 2nd Amendment is serious business. Try to grasp that. You're a fine bunch of folks, and we can be friends, but...we're not you and we don't want to be you, with all due respect. There's nothing sad about preventing infringement on the Constitution and no one is in denial about anything. It's sad when people die be it from smoking or at the hands of violence.

[buttslinger]

This I say unto you-
Most people who shoot someone are too stupid to spell Constitution. The United States is not a piece of paper or a flag, it's people.

[robertlouis]

not a bad post...but you and a few of your Britt buds have this incredibly annoying habit of constantly trying to either equate or compare the US and the UK. I'm guessing you don't realize you're doing it. I'm glad you feel you're doing something right about your absence of a second amendment and a bill of rights...but please don't preach. You're a smart guy, and you know your history wasn't always this passive, at least outside your borders. There was plenty of carnage to go around. The entire purpose of that skirmish centuries ago was that we didn't want to be like you. All you need to do is look at this thread...there's people who you would never assume would be so strident about the right to bear arms. On 9 out of 10 other issues, they probably agree with you, but the 2nd Amendment is serious business. Try to grasp that. You're a fine bunch of folks, and we can be friends, but...we're not you and we don't want to be you, with all due respect. There's nothing sad about preventing infringement on the Constitution and no one is in denial about anything. It's sad when people die be it from smoking or at the hands of violence.

I don't necessarily disagree with your opening statement, nor with the raw emotion that the 2nd Amendment clearly stirs in so many American hearts, which I can and do respect. It just saddens me that any attempt, no matter how minor, to regulate access to arms and in this case in particular, to ammunition, is doomed to total failure, until it happens again and everyone shrugs their shoulders and accepts it as one definition of freedom with a human cost worth paying again and again. I guess I'm saying that I understand it, but I can't personally agree with it.

BTW, death from smoking is largely self-inflicted. Being killed by a gun is not.

[buttslinger]

F Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, and Orson Welles all went to Europe and made lots of friends, and got immersed into the culture. And they all said when they got back home, the Land of Freedom and Fairness they had grown up in, wasn't so free and wasn't so fair.

[mealticket]

I think they talk about the fact that he was a top student etc, is because it is such a contrast to the evil things he has done, it is all part of the news sensationalism...

[Quinn]

tsntx shared this on her Facebook page. Hmm...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8027/7634464402_a85a7efc9d_o.jpg

Just sharing something I thought was interesting...


If by "interesting" you mean "stupid" then I couldn't agree more. Whoever put this piece of tripe together never bothered to perform so much as a cursory review of how the justice system works in Colorado and what procedures MUST be followed before formal charges can be filed. I could go on and on, but what's the point?

-Quinn

[Stavros]

I'm glad you feel you're doing something right about your absence of a second amendment and a bill of rights...

Factually incorrect -a Bill of Rights was presented to Parliament in 1689 and passed (it was a statutory form of the Declaration of Right made by King William and Queen Mary earier in the year), it remains the basis of the Constitutional Monarchy under which we live in the UK, and was a Bill of Rights that influenced the men who made the Revolution of 1776...

[giovanni_hotel]

When more cops start getting shot by NRA members, Congress will finally decide to pass more comprehensive restrictive gun legislation.

IMO letting randoms stockpile massive depots of ammunition AND weapons is not a good idea.

[robertlouis]

When more cops start getting shot by NRA members, Congress will finally decide to pass more comprehensive restrictive gun legislation.

IMO letting randoms stockpile massive depots of ammunition AND weapons is not a good idea.

Or maybe a mass shooting at an NRA Convention? :joke:

[buttslinger]

Cops and Mayors hate these lax gun laws.

[kittyKaiti]

When more cops start getting shot by NRA members, Congress will finally decide to pass more comprehensive restrictive gun legislation.

IMO letting randoms stockpile massive depots of ammunition AND weapons is not a good idea.

I cite this once again as complete, total and factual evidence that the current government of the United States of America and its law enforcement is unable to ensure our security.

Police Shooting in Anaheim Leads to Violent Clash - RAW FOOTAGE & NEWS - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqzoKY1CyAg)

[giovanni_hotel]

No offense Kitti, but that Anaheim shooting is only outrageous to non-Black people. From my perspective, it's more like, 'big deal, what's new??'

I'm always amazed when White people are shocked when they aren't treated with the utmost respect by law enforcement.

Honestly, you can stockpile all the ammo and guns you can find and you wouldn't have the firepower to take on the U.S. military or the National Guard if they are given instructions to 'put down' an domestic insurgent force.

Uncle Sam has tanks and 50 caliber machine guns. Lots of em. End of story.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa116/myphot_2007/UncleSamSaysYouAreNext1-1.jpg

[trish]

Your completely missing the point. No, you're missing the point. It is sheer speculation that any line in the Declaration provided a consensus intent for the 2nd Amendment. The only intent made explicit in the 2nd Amendment pertains to arming the various recognized militia with privately own firearms. There no doubt were other intentions for the amendment that the founders agreed upon. But these were not written into the law. All further interpretation and application was left to the courts. No courts have, to my knowledge, ever affirmed your theory that an intention of the amendment is to allow citizens to attack U.S. troops.

[Faldur]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Not really sure why "the right of the people" is so hard to understand.

[trish]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Not really sure why "the right of the people" is so hard to understand.Evidently you can't read. I am not disputing that second amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. What is in dispute here is the reason for the second amendment. This is not a deep nor a subtle point. I don't know why you are you having such difficulty grasping the issue?

Some say one reason was self-defense. Some say one intention to allow for possible armed revolution against the U.S. government. Some say one intention was to allow citizens on the frontier to hunt for food. The founders may or may not have had a consensus on all these issue. But the only intention written into the amendment was to maintain armed and regulated militia.

Again, I am NOT making the argument that the restricted nature of the explicitly given intention restricts the right to bear arms to members of militia. My only point is that the minimality of amendment makes its application unclear in modern circumstances and that there is nothing in the amendment that tells us how to regulate or not regulate assault weapons, portable surface to air missile launchers, tactical nukes, or any "arms" of modern invention. Remember the founders were thinking of flintlocks.

[Dino Velvet]

Is James Holmes faking psychosis? (http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=AlExs7SWKXIORUipgFT6_TqbvZx4;_ylu=X3oDMTVodjZ lYzMxBGEDMTIwNzI0IG5ld3MgR01BIGhvbG1lcyBmYWtpbmcgd ARjY29kZQNwemJ1ZmNhaDUEY3BvcwMxBGVkAzEEZwNpZC0yNDQ xODU1BGludGwDdXMEaXRjAzAEbWNvZGUDcHpidWFsbGNhaDUEb XBvcwMxBHBrZ3QDMQRwa2d2AzE5BHBvcwMyBHNlYwN0ZC1mZWE Ec2xrA3RpdGxlBHRlc3QDNzAxBHdvZQMxMjc5NTYzMg--/SIG=145rkmd3a/EXP=1343239074/**http%3A//gma.yahoo.com/james-holmes-goofy-behavior-sign-psychosis-faking-expert-142209134--abc-news-topstories.html)



http://l1.yimg.com/dh/ap/default/120723/psyscho_main.jpg

[giovanni_hotel]

Yes he is, faking it.

If he were really homicidal, the kind of guy who ENJOYS killing people, there IMO would be less affect on his part in court and more a sense of calm, not the silent distress I see on his face from someone who had no idea how shitty he would feel killing innocent victims.

Playing first person shooter video games is nothing like the real thing. Most normal people or even those slightly off center experience profound emotional angst from killing another human being.

Even if a person is justified in killing someone else, privately many of these people still feel this overwhelming sense of 'wrongness' about taking another life. It's a big factor contributing to the suicide rate among Iraq/Afgan vets being so high.

There's a reason why guys like Ted Bundy/Ed Gein/Jeffrey Dahmer etc. are called MONSTERS. They totally had no remorse for what they had done. Their victims were insects.

This stupid ass is going to get the death penalty for being a self-absorbed, petulant child who had a really bad temper tantrum.

[Dino Velvet]

Anybody surprised? (http://news.yahoo.com/3-arrested-separate-dark-knight-incidents-080930278.html)


A Maine man was arrested when he told authorities that he was on his way to shoot a former employer a day after watching "The Dark Knight Rises," Maine state police said Monday.
Timothy Courtois of Biddeford, Maine, had been stopped for speeding, and a police search of his car found an AK-47 assault weapon, four handguns, ammunition and news clippings about the mass shooting that left 12 people dead early Friday, authorities said.
http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/MqKylKG9uaNVXLSUqtDTWQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD05MzQ7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/c642a370a30d3414160f6a706700b8df.jpg

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/PZeeLstPgYUvdgzpRcA.rw--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9aW5zZXQ7aD00NTc7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_us/News/ap_webfeeds/0453c8eca30d3414160f6a706700539e.jpg

[Dino Velvet]

Playing first person shooter video games is nothing like the real thing.

That's right.

[Stavros]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Not really sure why "the right of the people" is so hard to understand.

But Faldur, if the only intention of the Amendment was to confer rights of ownership of firearms on individuals, why didn't it just say so? The amendment begins with the reference to a Well Regulated Militia because that is what it refers to, the Amendment in the context of its times does not give individuals a right to own firearms, it is a collective right they hold as members of a militia raised in their state. As I am sure you know, Congress disbanded the Army and the Navy after the Treaty of Paris, Congress did not want the US to have a standing army and reluctantly formed one in 1785 -ok, so individual ownership today is allowed under certain conditions, but historically the 2nd Amendment does not allow it, Scalia's judgement in Heller -vs- District of Columbia fails the history test; but anyway was intended to be a political rather than a judicial opinion.

[BluegrassCat]

Two pieces of evidence:

More guns mean more homicides. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

More gun control laws mean fewer gun deaths. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

These relationships need to be taken into account when people argue for more "gun freedom."

[loren]

Honestly, you can stockpile all the ammo and guns you can find and you wouldn't have the firepower to take on the U.S. military or the National Guard if they are given instructions to 'put down' an domestic insurgent force.

IDK when you look at historical examples, in nearly every case, a well motivated domestic insurgent force will wear down and defeat an occupying force. To quote Ho Chi Minh, "We will loose ten for every one of you that we kill. And it is you who will tire first."


But Faldur, if the only intention of the Amendment was to confer rights of ownership of firearms on individuals, why didn't it just say so? The amendment begins with the reference to a Well Regulated Militia because that is what it refers to, the Amendment in the context of its times does not give individuals a right to own firearms, it is a collective right they hold as members of a militia raised in their state. As I am sure you know, Congress disbanded the Army and the Navy after the Treaty of Paris, Congress did not want the US to have a standing army and reluctantly formed one in 1785 -ok, so individual ownership today is allowed under certain conditions, but historically the 2nd Amendment does not allow it, Scalia's judgement in Heller -vs- District of Columbia fails the history test; but anyway was intended to be a political rather than a judicial opinion.

According to our Founding Fathers, the militia is the people. Furthermore, as I have already stated, the Second Ammendment only mentions the militia (which is different than the National Army) while giving the people the right to firearm ownership.

[buttslinger]

"Violence is as American as cherry pie," - H. Rap Brown, 1967

[shaustin]

No, you're missing the point. It is sheer speculation that any line in the Declaration provided a consensus intent for the 2nd Amendment. The only intent made explicit in the 2nd Amendment pertains to arming the various recognized militia with privately own firearms. There no doubt were other intentions for the amendment that the founders agreed upon. But these were not written into the law. All further interpretation and application was left to the courts. No courts have, to my knowledge, ever affirmed your theory that an intention of the amendment is to allow citizens to attack U.S. troops.

Wow, you not only missed the point, you completely blew by it!

I never ONCE mentioned the 2nd amendment at all, let alone made any theory that it was intended to allow citizen's to attack the military. I simply reiterated what the founding fathers themselves wrote down in the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

[MrsKellyPierce]

I wish the media would stop focusing on this bug eyed nerd and now they are calling him "sideshow bob" I mean really...

Lets focus on the ones that got away, lost their lives, and protected people losing their lives

Three men lost their lives saving their girlfriends..

[robertlouis]

No comments, just facts.

[Willie Escalade]

No comments, just facts.
Can't argue with this...

[dabaldone]

Wow, this needs to be reposted. Any pro-gun argument pales in comparison with these facts. Thanks robertlouis!

[Faldur]

No comments, just facts.

Nice "facts".. might one ask which year your stats are from?

Figure 2.3 Countries ranked by violent death rate per 100,000 population, 2004-09
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Murder_per_capita_by_country.svg/350px-Murder_per_capita_by_country.svg.png
Source: GBAV 2011 database

Figure 2.3(detail) Countries with average annual violent death rates of more than 30 per 100,000 population, 2004-09
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Murder_per_capita_by_country.svg/350px-Murder_per_capita_by_country.svg.png
Source: GBAV 2011 database

Lets stick to "real" facts...

[MrF]

Well, if you Google "countries with most per capita gun deaths" you find USA with 10.3 per 100k per year according to CDC. And while I can't vouch for the numbers, it's hard to believe that some of the places on Faldur's list are worse than us. Regardless, the gun laws need to be tightened. I don't mind the 2nd Amendment, but there has to be some limits. Sure, NRA folks vote. But so do I. And hopefully sensible people can rule on this issue.

[loren]

No comments, just facts.
Just to put your numbers in perspective, in 2010 (I would've loved to have used 2011 numbers, but the FBI hasn't published them yet. If they have, I couldn't find them.) 8,734 Americans were murdered with firearms . In comparison, 2,437,163 Americans died in the same year. Firearm related murders account for, get this, less than .004% of American deaths. A total of one American being killed with a firearm every 60.22 minutes while at the same time one American dies nearly every 13 seconds from other causes (we're dropping like flies). One American dies every 6 minutes in a hostital because of mistakes or infection, for crying out loud. I'm almost four times as likely to die in a car crash as I am to be shot. Maybe, we need background checks and waiting periods to buy cars.

From the CDC the top ten causes of death in America is:
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

Just the facts.

[onmyknees]

Nice "facts".. might one ask which year your stats are from?

Figure 2.3 Countries ranked by violent death rate per 100,000 population, 2004-09
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Murder_per_capita_by_country.svg/350px-Murder_per_capita_by_country.svg.png
Source: GBAV 2011 database

Figure 2.3(detail) Countries with average annual violent death rates of more than 30 per 100,000 population, 2004-09
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0a/Murder_per_capita_by_country.svg/350px-Murder_per_capita_by_country.svg.png
Source: GBAV 2011 database

Lets stick to "real" facts...



Thanks for the clarification Faldur. I grow weary from the misinformation put forward by some of these posters. What RL will apparently never be able to reconcile ( either because of his ideology or his birthplace) is that we as Americans understand that many of our freedoms come with perils. We weigh those perils against the loss of those freedoms. The Perils of freedom....many died for freedom......many are killed by it. We need character reform....not a change to our Constitution. In his book, Democracy in America, de Tocqueville observed that Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power, claimed too great a voice in the public sphere, to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality. I've noticed the loudest voices in favor of infringing on rights are those that fancy themselves as intellectual. That's the point blokes like RL can't quite digest. He's visited America, but he doesn't know America. He's a bit down on the US lately. Ask the Syrians if they'll be asking the Finns, The Spanish, or the UN for help from an increasingly brutal tyrant. Somewhere in the world there's a dirty, dangerous mess that needs to be cleaned up, and more likely than the rest of the world will find some excuse not to do it...and they'll bash the US with the left hand, and beg for help with the right. I'm not quite putting RL in that category, but he's getting dangerously close.

[maxpower]

Just to put your numbers in perspective, in 2010 (I would've loved to have used 2011 numbers, but the FBI hasn't published them yet. If they have, I couldn't find them.) 8,734 Americans were murdered with firearms . In comparison, 2,437,163 Americans died in the same year. Firearm related murders account for, get this, less than .004% of American deaths. A total of one American being killed with a firearm every 60.22 minutes while at the same time one American dies nearly every 13 seconds from other causes (we're dropping like flies). One American dies every 6 minutes in a hostital because of mistakes or infection, for crying out loud. I'm almost four times as likely to die in a car crash as I am to be shot. Maybe, we need background checks and waiting periods to buy cars.

From the CDC the top ten causes of death in America is:
Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

Just the facts.



You can't compare firearm murders with death from disease and natural causes, that's ridiculous. The point is that the gun deaths might have been prevented. And of those 36,909 suicides, how many involved a gun? I'd bet the majority of them.

[BluegrassCat]

Thanks for the clarification Faldur. I grow weary from the misinformation put forward by some of these posters. What RL will apparently never be able to reconcile ( either because of his ideology or his birthplace) is that we as Americans understand that many of our freedoms come with perils. We weigh those perils against the loss of those freedoms. The Perils of freedom....many died for freedom......many are killed by it. We need character reform....not a change to our Constitution. In his book, Democracy in America, de Tocqueville observed that Ordinary Americans enjoyed too much power, claimed too great a voice in the public sphere, to defer to intellectual superiors. This culture promoted a relatively pronounced equality. I've noticed the loudest voices in favor of infringing on rights are those that fancy themselves as intellectual. That's the point blokes like RL can't quite digest. He's visited America, but he doesn't know America. He's a bit down on the US lately. Ask the Syrians if they'll be asking the Finns, The Spanish, or the UN for help from an increasingly brutal tyrant. Somewhere in the world there's a dirty, dangerous mess that needs to be cleaned up, and more likely than the rest of the world will find some excuse not to do it...and they'll bash the US with the left hand, and beg for help with the right. I'm not quite putting RL in that category, but he's getting dangerously close.

Nice copy and paste from Wikipedia. Alexis de Tocqueville - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville)

[SFTB]

No offense Kitti, but that Anaheim shooting is only outrageous to non-Black people.

Sorry Gio, the Nation's Top Cop and President are black, if there is some heat you feel from police, blame it on them.


I'm always amazed when White people are shocked when they aren't treated with the utmost respect by law enforcement.

Gio, it's time to stop with the racism. I work with immigrants who risked everything to come here. They work their asses off, and they're going to be somebody someday, and do well for their families. If you feel held back, it might be time to look inward instead of outward.


Honestly, you can stockpile all the ammo and guns you can find and you wouldn't have the firepower to take on the U.S. military or the National Guard if they are given instructions to 'put down' an domestic insurgent force.

Uncle Sam has tanks and 50 caliber machine guns. Lots of em. End of story.


You really should read a history book.
Look up American Revolution, see how some farmers and townfolk took on the biggest army and navy in the known world. Or the French Revolution, or the overthrow of the Czars.

[BluegrassCat]

And as we know from the history books the Confederacy successfully left the Union and formed its own country.