Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!

[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...



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...



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