Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!

[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Q: How old should a law be before we say that it is out of date?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clearly out of date and open to interpretation.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, but twice.

Don't believe me? If someone came here and said that they were "anti-gay", "anti-trans", "anti-black", or "anti-"... 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Q: How old should a law be before we say that it is out of date?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, but twice.

Don't believe me? If someone came here and said that they were "anti-gay", "anti-trans", "anti-black", or "anti-"... 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-"... 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!

[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!

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.