Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO! [Archive] - Page 2 - HungAngels

giovanni_hotel

07-25-2012, 05:06 AM

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

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.

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.

Cops are cops. They are the physical embodiment of the laws passed in every local municipality, the enforcement behind those laws.

Sometimes cops crack heads and don't give a fuck. If you're a minority or fit the 'profile' of a generic suspect, you're gonna get hassled on principle.

My observation isn't 'racist'. It's real life for many people of color. See the current stop-and-frisk policy in NYC, where more Black and Latino youths have been accosted by cops LEGALLY than the total number of Black/Latino youths in the entire city.

That's textbook police harassment.

White people, welcome to the real world. If a cop decides to give you shit, well you just got shat on. Suck it up and deal.

You're a fool if you think a few state militias with their scary machine guns could defeat the U.S. military.

The only way an insurrection would be successful against the U.S. army would be if a few infantry divisions with all their artillery and supplies decided to turn traitor.

BTW, are the pro-gun people against any restrictions on the 2nd Amendment?? Or do you believe there are too many restrictions already??

loren

07-25-2012, 06:00 AM

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.

It is true that many gun deaths could be avoided. I feel for all those families, no death is easy for the survivors to bear. My father died in the same year that I referenced, he was one of the ones who died in a hospital. His death probably could've been avoided if the SOB he saw about a month before, then again two weeks before, would've taken the time to check him out instead of simply giving him some pills and shoving him out the door.

As I said in my earlier post, I'm four times as likely to be die in a car crash as I am to be shot. I'm not asking you to give up your car or even make it harder for you to purchase another one in the future, I'd appreciate it if you left my firearms alone.

shaustin

07-25-2012, 06:04 AM

White people, welcome to the real world. If a cop decides to give you shit, well you just got shat on. Suck it up and deal.

BTW, are the pro-gun people against any restrictions on the 2nd Amendment?? Or do you believe there are too many restrictions already??

Personally I don't believe that no matter what race, religion, or color you are. Police officers, exponentially more so then your average citizens, have an obligation to conduct themselves with decorum and courtesy. They operate by procedures and rules in order to protect and serve the populous, at their best anyway. At their worst they are no better than the worst of criminals themselves, abusing power and exploiting the weak. I believe no one person is more important than another and has no right to treat another as a lesser, be they your average person or a uniformed officer. I myself have been unfairly treated by the police on more than one occasion in my life, but I never took it lying down, to do that is only to encourage the behavior and to help to bring unjust treatment onto another that will come after you. There is no place for a poor guardian of the peace in this day and age, if their fellow officers are unable or unwilling to do something about them, then it falls to the victims to take a stand.

As for the 2nd, I don't mind regulations and restrictions on handguns and heavy artillery, though I believe for those people who are enthusiasts they have the right if they feel like taking the time and filling out the paperwork, getting the background checks, taking a full physical and mental exam, whatever, to own what they choose to, within reason. That stuff I could go either way, deadly weapons of course are bad, but in the right hands they can be safe and productive as well, I reserve final judgment. But to me, rifles and shotguns, they have enough restrictions as it is in my opinion, they have practical uses in hunting and pest control, mercy killings for livestock and pets, home protection from wildlife and intruders, unless modified they are fairly hard to conceal, the majority of sport shooters use shotguns for discs and rifles for target shooting, with all that I see no reason to deny the responsible people who wish to have relatively easy access to such firearms.

Willie Escalade

07-25-2012, 06:41 AM

All I hear is a nation in denial. I'm done here. It's been fun, but goodbye.

I'm not in denial...believe that...

Faldur

07-25-2012, 06:53 AM

All I hear is a nation in denial. I'm done here. It's been fun, but goodbye.

Ya, and all many of us Yanks hear is a bunch of brits trying to tell us how to live. How'd that work out the first time?

Have a pint and cool off..

Quinn

07-25-2012, 06:58 AM

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

He certainly has the educational background to know what's necessary to fake a range or disorders. Still, if he's going to use an insanity defense, he has little chance of winning. The rate of success for this type of defense is extremely low. Given the extensive preparation, etc., that preceded this tragic event, he'll never pull it off.

-Quinn

maxpower

07-25-2012, 07:34 AM

It is true that many gun deaths could be avoided. I feel for all those families, no death is easy for the survivors to bear. My father died in the same year that I referenced, he was one of the ones who died in a hospital. His death probably could've been avoided if the SOB he saw about a month before, then again two weeks before, would've taken the time to check him out instead of simply giving him some pills and shoving him out the door.

As I said in my earlier post, I'm four times as likely to be die in a car crash as I am to be shot. I'm not asking you to give up your car or even make it harder for you to purchase another one in the future, I'd appreciate it if you left my firearms alone.

That's not a good analogy. The purpose of a car is for transportation. If a car-related death occurs, it is due to accident or misuse. While some gun-related deaths are accidental, most occur because the gun was being used for it's purpose, unlike the car. Also, people spend far more time in traffic than they do looking at the business end of a gun, so I'm not surprised that car deaths are more likely.

Sorry to hear about your dad.

Prospero

07-25-2012, 07:36 AM

Now if fighter bombers or missiles had existed at the time of the creation of your Constitution and the right to bear arms had included those weapons would all you gun fetishists be arguing for the right to own them. It is incredible the sort of nonsense talked by people like OMK, Faldur and Loren to name just three.

I have no desire to tell Americans what to do. I DO know the country. I have visited maybe 500 times. I have lived there as well. So this is not some Brit trying to impose British values but a human trying to get those on here who seem to think that a terrible murder rate is acceptable just so they can own that assault weapon or automatic pistol to see another, and in my view, better point of view. There are plenty of Americans who share my view..

And OMK ludicrous comparisons with Syria or some other dictatorship and the need thus for Americans to cling to their armoury... putrid.

I re-post the followng - leaving aside its final ironic comment but just for the statistics. America is in many ways a great country founded on great principles. The misinterpretation of the Constition to include owning weapons as you guyss argue is NOT one of the things that makes it great.

As i said before I think of that little girl gunned down by a man whose right to own assault weapons you support and I say her life is more sacred than the bullshit you guys spout.

kittyKaiti

07-25-2012, 08:17 AM

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.

Sure, you can't compare the ~12,000 gun related criminal acts per year to causes of NATURAL death. Meanwhile, cigarettes kill ~45,000 NON-SMOKERS, (ie: PEOPLE WHO DO NOT SMOKE BUT ARE CONSTANTLY EXPOSED TO THE RETARDS WHO DO such as children whose parents smoke around them constantly, among others like the elderly) who end up dying from NOT ONCE SMOKING A CIGARETTE!

Now compare the ~45,000 non-smokers who died (in essence were murdered by those who smoked around them) versus, the ~12,000 violent deaths caused by gun murders. The other ~20,000 gun deaths caused by suicides and accidents, which in that case would be comparable with the people who DO SMOKE INTENTIONALLY and die every year (~443,000 dead annually) from this "suicidal/accidental" inhalation of death.

Now, if all you retards would stop ignoring this simple argument for the sake of your personal anti-gun hippie fuck agendas and note that CIGARETTES KILL MORE NON-SMOKERS ANNUALLY THAN EVERY GUN RELATED DEATH IN AMERICA ANNUALLY.

maxpower

07-25-2012, 08:25 AM

Sure, you can't compare the ~12,000 gun related criminal acts per year to causes of NATURAL death. Meanwhile, cigarettes kill ~45,000 NON-SMOKERS, (ie: PEOPLE WHO DO NOT SMOKE BUT ARE CONSTANTLY EXPOSED TO THE RETARDS WHO DO such as children whose parents smoke around them constantly, among others like the elderly) who end up dying from NOT ONCE SMOKING A CIGARETTE!

Now compare the ~45,000 non-smokers who died (in essence were murdered by those who smoked around them) versus, the ~12,000 violent deaths caused by gun murders. The other ~20,000 gun deaths caused by suicides and accidents, which in that case would be comparable with the people who DO SMOKE INTENTIONALLY and die every year (~443,000 dead annually) from this "suicidal/accidental" inhalation of death.

Now, if all you retards would stop ignoring this simple argument for the sake of your personal anti-gun hippie fuck agendas and note that CIGARETTES KILL MORE NON-SMOKERS ANNUALLY THAN EVERY GUN RELATED DEATH IN AMERICA ANNUALLY.

And laws have been enacted to put health warnings on cigarettes, limit their sales, and keep people from being exposed to second-hand smoke.

kittyKaiti

07-25-2012, 08:34 AM

And laws have been enacted to put health warnings on cigarettes, limit their sales, and keep people from being exposed to second-hand smoke.

As if that has stopped the ~45,000 people annually from dying from second hand smoke. As if any laws regulating cigarettes actually stops children and youths from gaining access to them and smoking them anyway. As if any forms of prohibition have EVER worked in this nation without inducing a WAVE of black market and Mafia style criminal activity and illegal trafficking and higher rates of violence and crime. Ban all the guns you want but remember what the alcohol prohibition did. A black market for it was formed, run by violent and murderous mobsters. The banning of these guns will only take them from the law abiding citizens and the only people able to access them will be the criminals who will utilize these black markets to access them and then use them against said now disarmed law abiding citizens and the police and government regardless.

Prospero

07-25-2012, 08:58 AM

"anti-gun hippie fuck agendas"

Yep - of course. rational argument. Thanks KittyKaiti. So eloquent....

giovanni_hotel

07-25-2012, 09:03 AM

No one is talking about a BAN on firearms, but unfortunately that's all you gun lovers ever hear in these convos.

It's about enacting common sense restrictions on gun sales and ammo. No person realistically needs a 30+ round magazine clip. Buying a gun shouldn't be easier than obtaining a driver's license.

But it's cool.
The more I read, the more I'm finding out the NRA has become so militant pro-gun because of their 'relationship' with firearms manufacturers. The NRA's agenda IMO isn't about the 2nd Amendment and ALL about freaking out all the bubbas into purchasing vast quantities of firearms they don't realistically need.

There was a segment on MSNBC about how gun sales have dropped historically as more people move to urban areas and firearms manufacturers stumbled upon the idea, with the help of the NRA, to regularly scare the shit out of gun owners that politicians were trying to take away their guns.

Look at all the rhetoric and demagoguing directed at Pres. Obama and his 'secret agenda' to ban ALL privately owned guns. Never mind that Obama signed two gun control bills into law that reduce restrictions on gun owners,(allowing them to carry guns in checked baggage on Amtrak and allowing gun owners to take loaded firearms into national parks.)

WHen in doubt, follow the money.

GroobySteven

07-25-2012, 09:57 AM

Ya, and all many of us Yanks hear is a bunch of brits trying to tell us how to live. How'd that work out the first time?

Have a pint and cool off..

Makes a change from a bunch of Yanks trying to tell the rest of the world how to live ... and failing time after time.

It worked out pretty well for us for the most part, if you must know. We live in a country which has a relatively low violence rate, not many gun deaths with a democracy that mostly works without the use of lobbyists. We also managed to get rid of most of the religious nutters by chasing them off to foreign lands - which is why gay marriage, pro/anti-abortion and the teaching of Darwin in schools is almost a non-issue.

Oh, AND we can get a pint in the pub at 18. So you can go and fight for your country, own an assault rifle in your country but you can't walk into the neighbourhood bar and order a beer? But that's another story about a country which basis it's laws on out of date historical papers, religious fervour and a cowboy culture.

Stavros

07-25-2012, 10:39 AM

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...

It also a fact that the Global Burden of Armed Violence Index, in its own words states:
data on conflict and non-conflict deaths are assembled separately. The GBAV methodology therefore established two different datasets: one on intentional homicides (to cover non-conflict death) and one on direct conflict deaths

For this reason you will note that the tables copied by Faldur do not include the following countries:

1. Afghanistan
2. Algeria
3. Burundi
4. Central African Republic
5. Chad
6. Colombia
7. Côte d’Ivoire
8. Democratic Republic of the Congo
9. Ethiopia
10. Georgia
11. India
12. Indonesia
13. Iraq
14. Kenya
15. Lebanon
16. Myanmar
17. Nepal
18. Nigeria
19. Pakistan
20. Palestine
21. Philippines
22. Russian Federation
23. Somalia
24. Sri Lanka
25. Sudan
26. Thailand
27. Turkey
28. Uganda
29. Yemen
(GBAV 2011, Methodological Annexe)

The study also notes:
Lethal violence is strongly associated with negative development outcomes and is accompanied by low levels of
overall MDG achievement.
The higher the level of lethal violence recorded in a country, the larger its gap with respect to other countries in
terms of development.
A reduction in a country’s incidence of lethal violence corresponds with improved MDG performance across most
indicators.
High rates of intentional homicide are accompanied by significantly higher levels of extreme poverty and hunger (MDG 1),
lower primary education enrolment (MDG 2), and higher infant mortality and adolescent birth rates (MDGs 4 and 5).
Countries that report proportionately lower levels of income inequality and unemployment exhibit comparatively
lower levels of homicide.
States that feature lower levels of human development and income almost always report high and very high levels of
lethal violence.
Monitoring of armed violence should be integrated into routine MDG progress assessments and there is a need for
more investments in national data gathering capacities and observatories.
(Ch 5: More armed violence, less development).

I will leave it to you Americans to argue over the rising numbers of people leaving school barely able to read and write, the numbers living on food stamps because they are so poor; and the correlation of these social problems with homicides. The point being that you might want to assess the impact of firearms on the US population in the context of the USA, where 46 million people live below the poverty line -a line established by the US that is.

The full report, including a special report on Violence against Women, is here:
http://www.genevadeclaration.org/measurability/global-burden-of-armed-violence/global-burden-of-armed-violence-2011.html

Stavros

07-25-2012, 11:03 AM

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."

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.

If I was called upon to declare upon Oath, whether the Militia have been
most serviceable or hurtful upon the whole; I should subscribe to the latter.
– George Washington, September 1776

When you refer to the militia as 'the people' you are perverting historical fact for present-day purposes. In the Revolutionary War it would be better to think of the militias harassing the British in the countryside like guerilla bands, as well as being, as Washington indicated, an essential addition to the Continental Army (and not just because some of these militias fought with the CA at, for example, the Battle of Bunker Hill). If you think of the brave stand taken by the Minutemen at Lexington and Concord, bear in mind that they had been formed in the mid-17th century and that they were selected mostly young men who were then armd for the purposes of defence. Most definitely NOT 'the people' in its broadest sense:

Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers. Typically 25 years of age or younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were the first armed militia to arrive or await a battle.
(http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm
or the book John Shy, A People Numerous & Armed: Reflections on the Military Struggle for American Independence, University of Michigan Press, 1990).

The 'armed militia' referred to in the 2nd Amendment were the armed militia that existed before the American Revolution; these were the 'guarantors' of local security that existed before the creation of police forces and the armed forces of the US, and continued to exist after the disbandmen of the Continental Army after the end of the revolutionary war.

Once again, 'the people' referred to are those selected to fight in an armed militia, not every Tom, Dick, Harry -and Jane.

Stavros

07-25-2012, 11:09 AM

But that's another story about a country which basis it's laws on out of date historical papers, religious fervour and a cowboy culture.

I agree with most of what you say Seanchai, except that the Constitution, far from being out of date, is a living document that continues to play a crucial role in the development of law. Because of its values and principles, it is the reference point and justification for many issues -the controversy is over the interpretation of what the intentions of the authors of the Constitution were then, with realities today. That is also why American politics continues to fascinate an outside like me.

yodajazz

07-25-2012, 11:16 AM

GroobySteven

07-25-2012, 12:48 PM

SammiValentine

07-25-2012, 01:35 PM

As if that has stopped the ~45,000 people annually from dying from second hand smoke. As if any laws regulating cigarettes actually stops children and youths from gaining access to them and smoking them anyway. As if any forms of prohibition have EVER worked in this nation without inducing a WAVE of black market and Mafia style criminal activity and illegal trafficking and higher rates of violence and crime. Ban all the guns you want but remember what the alcohol prohibition did. A black market for it was formed, run by violent and murderous mobsters. The banning of these guns will only take them from the law abiding citizens and the only people able to access them will be the criminals who will utilize these black markets to access them and then use them against said now disarmed law abiding citizens and the police and government regardless.

I thought America still had loads of places in prohibiton, a lot are tottally "dry" to this day ?

kittyKaiti

07-25-2012, 01:46 PM

Not a fan of the Daily Mail but this is a good re-cap of everything and designed of course to pull at your heart for the senseless loss of these people's lives caused by ONE NUTCASE and the ability for him to access MULTIPLE ASSAULT TYPE WEAPONS. Shame on those who support the purchase of these types of guns. You are fools buying into paranoia and the industries that create it, to profit from you. Shame on you.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2176911/Dark-Knight-Rises-Colorado-Shooting-A-hero-died-saving-girlfriend-man-birthday-party--tragic-stories-victims-killed-Dark-Knight-massacre.html

Shame on me for buying "assault type weapons"? Just because one retard goes out and murders people, does not mean the hundreds of thousands of gun owners who possess "assault type weapons" will go out and mass murder people. I enjoy how all of you anti-gun people here will blatantly ignore everything I show you, including FBI and CDC data reports and horrifying video footage of your beloved, completely trusting authorities to ensure your personal security at any given second. While some scumbag is knocking down your door to murder you and your children and you dial for 911 because you are unarmed and then wait ten minutes for the police to arrive, at my home, said scumbag has been dead for 10 minutes before the police arrive and me and my family are safe and unharmed. In addition to that, said idiot and inefficient basket-weaving trained police cannot be any more trusted with "assault type weapons" than any other citizen. Just because the idiot has a badge, does not imply he has a brain.

The gun I hold in my image, is my security from crime and government. It is my hobby, sport, personal past-time and my insurance against dangers foreign and domestic, civilian or government authority. Anyone who would bend over to the authority of the government and expect total safety of you physically and the safety of your rights and gladly surrender your arms to them, is not worthy of any protection or freedom at all. We cannot trust any government, especially ones like the United States, who have long used its power across the globe to fuck up countries for the sake of profit and destroy its own civilian populous in the name of capitalism and corporate greed. Owning a gun is no more dangerous than not owning one and leaving all your security in the hands of a totally inept government.

GroobySteven

07-25-2012, 02:18 PM

Hot photo Kitti but yes, shame on you.
You're going to use that gun to defend your house from intruders? You couldn't get it around the doorways? What can that do to defend your house that a pistol couldn't? You'd be in more danger of having it taken off you.

Seriously, your rhetoric here doesn't sound unlike some of these people who goes "off the rails".

Isn't this the same corporate greed that's feeding your fears and selling you weapons which are clearly more than for simple self-defensive or hunting?

loren

07-25-2012, 02:20 PM

Loved your post Kitty.:kiss:

If gun controll works, then why is Chicago, which is in the State of Illinois (which has some of if not the most restrictive gun laws in the country) one of the most dangerous cities in the country? And the States of California and New York aren't exactly Second Ammendment friendly and they're national leaders in firearm related homicides.

Jericho

07-25-2012, 02:24 PM

Shame on me for buying "assault type weapons"? Just because one retard goes out and murders people, does not mean the hundreds of thousands of gun owners who possess "assault type weapons" will go out and mass murder people. I enjoy how all of you anti-gun people here will blatantly ignore everything I show you, including FBI and CDC data reports and horrifying video footage of your beloved, completely trusting authorities to ensure your personal security at any given second. While some scumbag is knocking down your door to murder you and your children and you dial for 911 because you are unarmed and then wait ten minutes for the police to arrive, at my home, said scumbag has been dead for 10 minutes before the police arrive and me and my family are safe and unharmed. In addition to that, said idiot and inefficient basket-weaving trained police cannot be any more trusted with "assault type weapons" than any other citizen. Just because the idiot has a badge, does not imply he has a brain.

The gun I hold in my image, is my security from crime and government. It is my hobby, sport, personal past-time and my insurance against dangers foreign and domestic, civilian or government authority. Anyone who would bend over to the authority of the government and expect total safety of you physically and the safety of your rights and gladly surrender your arms to them, is not worthy of any protection or freedom at all. We cannot trust any government, especially ones like the United States, who have long used its power across the globe to fuck up countries for the sake of profit and destroy its own civilian populous in the name of capitalism and corporate greed. Owning a gun is no more dangerous than not owning one and leaving all your security in the hands of a totally inept government.

Whoa!

martin48

07-25-2012, 02:29 PM

trish

07-25-2012, 03:06 PM

?..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...Good., then we agree the Declaration is irrelevant to the issue of gun regulation...though it's odd then that you would bring it up in this discussion.

Prospero

07-25-2012, 03:14 PM

Kitty Kaiti - the Timothy McVeigh of Hungangels.

Queens Guy

07-25-2012, 03:53 PM

No one is talking about a BAN on firearms, but unfortunately that's all you gun lovers ever hear in these convos.

It's about enacting common sense restrictions on gun sales and ammo. No person realistically needs a 30+ round magazine clip. Buying a gun shouldn't be easier than obtaining a driver's license.

I'm all for 'common sense' restrictions, and I think you are for them too.

BUT, plenty of politicians who call themselves 'gun control' are really 'gun ban'. Until recent Supreme Court decisions, the City of Chicago outlawed the possession of a gun in the home. Everywhere in Illinois, the State that Chicago is in, they have outlawed the possession of a gun in public.

Washington, D.C. also outlawed the possession of guns in the home. Even for those people who were employed as Special Police Officers and were armed at work, protecting federal employees.

New York City supposedly allows gun permits, but you pretty much have to be a friend of the Mayor or another politician to get one. The fees are extremely high and the application looks like something a potential vice presidential candidate would submit for vetting. Which gives the City plenty of reasons to turn you down. It's a virtual ban.

(If you'd like to look up the stuff about Chicago and D.C., the Supreme Court decisions are McDonald vs. Chicago and D.C. vs Heller.)

The 'gun rights' people have reason to not trust the supposed 'gun control' folks, who have shown by their actions that they are really want to see 'gun bans'.

trish

07-25-2012, 04:06 PM

BUT, plenty of politicians who call themselves 'gun control' are really 'gun ban'.So what? That is not a reason to oppose reasonable regulation. In point of fact Illinois does not ban guns. You can have them in your home, you can carry them on the street, you can rack them in your car, take them here and take them far. What you can't do in Illinois (yet) is carry them concealed. I applaud Illinois for last bit of boldness. Banning concealed carry is not (as some would falsely describe it) a total ban on guns.

buttslinger

07-25-2012, 04:13 PM

I notice they don't allow guns in Court, but the Judge gets an armed Police Officer standing there right behind him. That doesn't seem FAIR!

Queens Guy

07-25-2012, 04:34 PM

So what? That is not a reason to oppose reasonable regulation. In point of fact Illinois does not ban guns. You can have them in your home, you can carry them on the street, you can rack them in your car, take them here and take them far. What you can't do in Illinois (yet) is carry them concealed. I applaud Illinois for last bit of boldness. Banning concealed carry is not (as some would falsely describe it) a total ban on guns.

I'm not against reasonable regulation. I'm just saying that you don't have to be a 'nut' to think people that have imposed virtual bans, choosing to ignore the letter and spirit of the law, might not deserve your trust.

I'm for reasonable regulation. Banning concealed carry for everybody, IMO, isn't reasonable. You think it is. Banning it for certain people because of their past behavior or current mental status is reasonable. But everybody? No matter what reason? It's as close to a ban as you can get.

Why would you want to encourage 'open carry'? It's illegal in some of the States that allow 'concealed carry'. IMO opinion, 'open carry' is just plain foolish, no matter how you feel about people having guns. Those that we both agree shouldn't have guns now know exactly who they should steal them from. Would you encourage 'open carry' of other valuable items? Those that can't kill people, like iPhones and jewelry? Or laptops? 'Open carry' helps to provoke fights that can otherwise be avoided. Banning 'open carry' is a 'reasonable' restriction, and one I approve of.

Prospero

07-25-2012, 04:37 PM

kittyKaiti

07-25-2012, 04:39 PM

Kitty Kaiti - the Timothy McVeigh of Hungangels.

Yes. That is exactly what I said I am. I exactly stated in my arguments that I am going to target civilians like some p.o.s. terrorist. That is exactly what I typed in my responses. 100% exactly what I wrote and implied. Fucking retard. It's nice to see that in today's world, the people who liberated America from the grips of the corrupt British crown (George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson) would today be sent to Guantanamo to be waterboarded and executed without trial. Patriotism is dead. Overtaken by fascism. The same fascism you Brits had dragged us into a war against in WWII. Next time you morons over there are faced with a battle against another rising fascist dictatorship, don't call us in to save your asses because we are the only country with guns.

Look forward to you taking on the US government alone with your one gun.

Sure, that's also what I implied. I was going to take on America alone. As if millions of Americans are not also both distraught and prepared or preparing for what is expected to come. Why have gun sales skyrocketed in the past 4 years? Because many people are waking up to the realization that our true Western Democratic ideals are dying in the name of the Dollar and greed for that useless paper. While you can all sit back and enjoy the ride when the crisis that hit Greece comes to your doorstep, people like me are prepared to protect our homes, businesses, property, families and neighbors. While the police turn against us and use excessive violent force against peaceful protest and our rights to express grievances are trampled in the name of preventing so-called terrorism, you can sit on your ass while the rest of the intelligent people fight your battle for you. Keep on voting for the lesser of the evils when the elections come around, our system here in the U.S. has been flawed for a very long time and nowadays, corporate lobbying is what really buys the votes and our leaders.

Whoa!

Yes, paranoia and preparation is wrong. It would be insane to be prepared for any possibilities, even ones like total economic failure. We've NEVER had one of those before right?

Hot photo Kitti but yes, shame on you.
You're going to use that gun to defend your house from intruders? You couldn't get it around the doorways? What can that do to defend your house that a pistol couldn't? You'd be in more danger of having it taken off you.

Seriously, your rhetoric here doesn't sound unlike some of these people who goes "off the rails".

Isn't this the same corporate greed that's feeding your fears and selling you weapons which are clearly more than for simple self-defensive or hunting?

"Off the rails"? Because I have opposing views to our government's current political system, it is wrong, crazy and should be illegal? I am a terrorist because I do not agree with our government's ways? I guess then it was totally fucking wrong when the women rose up in protest against our "FREE" Democracy in the early 1900's for the right to vote. I guess it was also wrong to rise up during the Civil Rights movement against the government for the equal freedoms of African Americans who in turn were assaulted by riot police and firemen who used their rescue vehicles as weapons of hate and sprayed protesters with hoses in the 60's. I guess it was also wrong for US now, transsexuals and those who love us, when the Stonewall Riots occurred and we fought with physical violence against the police (who you all claim will save us when we need them), the same NYPD then, who still now, suffer from endless PR crises revolving around officers arresting transsexuals for "prostitution" because some transwoman was walking down the street and the police decided to arrest her for no other reason than being a tranny in a straight world and then humiliated and beaten in the holding cells by your beloved defenders. Rising up against corruption is completely fucking insane and wrong I suppose, or at least these days. This is what forms the foundation of a society that will accept fascist and totalitarian regimes to form, when we are so dumbed down to these events and issues and anyone who says anything not in-line with the government is a terrorist.

Prospero

07-25-2012, 04:42 PM

Interesting... I found this in another thread regarding sylvia boots.
Now if NONE of the individuals in this had been able to enjoy easy access to weapons would any of this happened/

"In August 2002, Amara dated Jorge Espinoza without knowing that he was Tanya's boyfriend. After sex he brutally beat her and stole her car. Again she filed a police complaint. Three weeks later Jorge returned and shot her in the head. Miraculously Amara survived and still has the bullet in her head. She filed a third police complaint and was unofficially advised to carry a gun for self-defense.

"On March 17, 2003 Amara and Tanya encountered each other in the ladies room at the Yukon Mining Co restaurant. Insults, hair pulling and punches started and were continued in the parking lot, and friends of both women joined in. It escalated to the point where Amara pulled out her gun. Tanya tried to take it away from her. It went off and Tanya's hand was seared with gunpowder burns. A few minutes later it was apparent that one of Tanya's friends, Laura Banuelos, was dying of a gun wound. Amara was arrested.

Prospero

07-25-2012, 04:47 PM

i hope and pray i dont stumble across the nutjob who uses the name KittiKaiti with her paranoid and illinformed grasp of both history and reality. "Patriotism is dead. Overtaken by fascism." She speaks the lingo of the radical survivalists - a mishmash of paranoia and political claptrap. Add to that noxious mix weaponry and you have yourself a real recipe for madness. You gonna go hide in the woods Kitty for the coming confrontation withe "the man." I withdraw the claim that she is the Timothy McVeigh.
I think Anders Breivik is nearer the mark. Kitty Kaiti Brevik.. sounds about right.

kittyKaiti

07-25-2012, 04:49 PM

SFTB

07-25-2012, 04:51 PM

GroobySteven

07-25-2012, 04:52 PM

Sylvia would have knifed her. Sorry, you can blame that death on drugs, crazy jealousy, etc

Clearly you don't know the facts or have read it.

Queens Guy

07-25-2012, 04:54 PM

Im curious to know how many people have actually prevented street robbery my felons armed with guns because they are also carrying weapons? Anyone got any intelligent info on that - rather than the line that just goes 'i carry a gun to stop being the victim of violent crime."

Similarly how many armed burglars have been shot by householders in the US defending their property?

That's a great question. And it should be part of the debate.

However, it's tough information to get. We don't have a national police force. So all the police departments and sheriff's offices use their own forms and document things differently. They all report and keep track of car accidents pretty much the same way, so those stats are pretty trustworthy. They are all required to report a few crimes, the worst ones, to the FBI, who maintains those statistics. But, some don't even keep track of and they all aren't required to report those things. If a legal gun owner justifiably shoots a robber, then a crime hasn't occurred.

That information is only obtained sporadically, and usually only if a gun owner chooses to report it to the newspaper or an organization like the NRA. So it's 'self-reported' information, which isn't as trustworthy as auto accident information is, for instance. Or the number of people murdered, which is one of the crimes which all local law enforcement must report to the FBI.

I'm all for 'reasonableness' and I think it is information which should be accurately gathered. Of course, it will still be 'self-reported' to some extent because if the gun owner draws his weapon but doesn't fire, he may not choose to report that event. I would report it, because I would then have a good description of a robber, but not everybody would.

GroobySteven

07-25-2012, 04:56 PM

How many gun owners have had their own guns used on themselves?
How many gun owners have had their guns stolen and used in crimes?

kittyKaiti

07-25-2012, 04:57 PM

TsJizelle

07-25-2012, 04:59 PM

apparently one of the women who died in the shooting was also present at the Eaton Centre shooting that happened recently here in Toronto. What are the chances you'd be present for 2 major North American public shootings in the same month?

it's all very sad and I'll never understand how some people think doing things like this are ok :(

GroobySteven

07-25-2012, 05:10 PM

So you're comparing a person who says she will use her guns to defend her home and family to a man who blew up a building and mass murdered children?

Well you've talked a bit more than just that haven't you? There was going to be dead bacon on the streets a few days ago and you've made points about taking on the government?

Prospero

07-25-2012, 05:11 PM

I am Lady Breivik since you are spouting the sort of asinine political gibberish that McVeigh and Breivik spouted ... drivelling on about your government being fascist. God help us. Bush, Reagan, Obama, Clinton, Ford, Kennedy, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR... how many of those names do you feel it right to label fascist. Get real.

SFTB

07-25-2012, 05:26 PM

Clearly you don't know the facts or have read it.
No I just lived there and dated Sylvia's friend at the time.

Prospero

07-25-2012, 05:29 PM

But the woman who died as "collateral damage" in the second incident would probably not have died if it had been a knifefight ... no stray bullets ....

Jericho

07-25-2012, 05:32 PM

The same fascism you Brits had dragged us into a war against in WWII. Next time you morons over there are faced with a battle against another rising fascist dictatorship, don't call us in to save your asses because we are the only country with guns.

Don't worry Pearl, we wont, we'll ask the Germans...They'll show up on time! :hide-1:

But, seriously, I loathe the "Nanny State", and probably, unlike most Brits here, I'm in favour of gun ownership.
But, you're going out of your way to prove the point, civilians should not have access to assault weaponry.

Stavros

07-25-2012, 05:34 PM

I don't know how people can make a comparison between Switzerland and the USA with regard to the high rate of gun possession and low rate of crime, when if anything that exposes the social dislocation in the US which can result in people using guns to rob and steal, or to kill. The Swiss confederation was formed precisely in order to end the violent conflicts that had made peace impossible; similar to the US the Swiss have a deep mistrust of central power, and devolve a lot of decision making to the people -but perhaps it because of the loyalty the Swiss have for their country, its laws and its values which makes the kind of gun crime unthinkable.

But here is the clincher, and ironic in view of some of the interpretations of the 2nd Amendment -there is no full-time standing army, but young men are trained and retained as part of a national guard available to be called up for service between the ages of 21 and 32; they are issued with weapons and ammunition which they keep at home. You could say that Switzerland has an armed militia where the people keep and bear arms...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/1566715.stm

PS Prospero, Timothy McVeigh did not use firearms in Oklahoma.

SFTB

07-25-2012, 05:35 PM

Makes a change from a bunch of Yanks trying to tell the rest of the world how to live ... and failing time after time.

I get the national pride thing, Olympics this week and all. But seriously, we could go a couple more centuries and still not reach the body count the British Empire racked up during it's colonial period.

Prospero

07-25-2012, 05:36 PM

Stavros - I am well aware that McVeigh didn't use guns. That was not the point of comparison i was making.

Prospero

07-25-2012, 05:37 PM

SFTB... a crazy and spurious line of argument. What do the british empire's misdeeds - which are not defensible - have to do with this discussion?

GroobySteven

07-25-2012, 05:39 PM

No I just lived there and dated Sylvia's friend at the time.

Then you should know better.

GroobySteven

07-25-2012, 05:41 PM

I get the national pride thing, Olympics this week and all. But seriously, we could go a couple more centuries and still not reach the body count the British Empire racked up during it's colonial period.

Absolutely. The Spanish would be even worse. It's a good that most countries have moved on.

SammiValentine

07-25-2012, 05:42 PM

I get the national pride thing, Olympics this week and all. But seriously, we could go a couple more centuries and still not reach the body count the British Empire racked up during it's colonial period.

sorry but you guys win the instant kill rack up, by a country mile, and then some... A-bombs anyone ?!

Prospero

07-25-2012, 05:44 PM

Let's play the atrocity count... Anyone want to openwith King Leopold of the Belgians and the Congo. How about Calley in May Lai? I'll offer Genghis Khan? The Americans during the savage putting down of the Phillipines in the late 19th century? (An estimated one million killed by the US as it put down an independence rising) How about the Hutsis and the Tutsis? The Crusades.. with rivers of blood in Jerusalem? The virtual destruction of the native American people as the white man spread west? I could go on.......

SammiValentine

07-25-2012, 05:45 PM

How about the ICF having a proper nawty tear up with the chelsea boys ??

SFTB

07-25-2012, 05:47 PM

sorry but you guys win the instant kill rack up, by a country mile, and then some... A-bombs anyone ?! :)

Sammi, we could tit for tat all day, I'd bring up the Bengal famines, you'd mention the American Indians. Not interested, the pious Brit attitude about guns is a little tired. You kept them out of civilians hands so you didnt have to crush any rebellions.

Prospero

07-25-2012, 05:47 PM

u are right Sammi...

Prospero

07-25-2012, 05:48 PM

I guess the virtual genocide of a continent doesn't count then SFTB?

SammiValentine

07-25-2012, 05:55 PM

Sammi, we could tit for tat all day, I'd bring up the Bengal famines, you'd mention the American Indians. Not interested, the pious Brit attitude about guns is a little tired. You kept them out of civilians hands so you didnt have to crush any rebellions.

Somone who needs a gun in the UK can apply for one, fill in the paperwork, prove your not a nutter or need a gun, you get a certificate, licence and can get a gun. Dont see how that is pious pesonally..

Actually we couldnt go tit for tat cos I dont play that game, I see your point, but I was merely throwing comment as it what most people would think when you read such a line... :)

Silcc69

07-25-2012, 06:05 PM

Sure, that's also what I implied. I was going to take on America alone. As if millions of Americans are not also both distraught and prepared or preparing for what is expected to come. Why have gun sales skyrocketed in the past 4 years? Because many people are waking up to the realization that our true Western Democratic ideals are dying in the name of the Dollar and greed for that useless paper. While you can all sit back and enjoy the ride when the crisis that hit Greece comes to your doorstep, people like me are prepared to protect our homes, businesses, property, families and neighbors. While the police turn against us and use excessive violent force against peaceful protest and our rights to express grievances are trampled in the name of preventing so-called terrorism, you can sit on your ass while the rest of the intelligent people fight your battle for you. Keep on voting for the lesser of the evils when the elections come around, our system here in the U.S. has been flawed for a very long time and nowadays, corporate lobbying is what really buys the votes and our leaders.

Gun sales always shoot up when a Democrat get's into the WH due to the NRA scare tactics. In which the only gun related law Obama has implemented is allowing guns in federals parks.

trish

07-25-2012, 06:46 PM

I'm for reasonable regulation. Banning concealed carry for everybody, IMO, isn't reasonable. You think it is. Banning it for certain people because of their past behavior or current mental status is reasonable. But everybody? No matter what reason? It's as close to a ban as you can get.

Why would you want to encourage 'open carry'? Banning concealed carrying leaves a hell of a lot dangerous things you can still do. It's nowhere near a virtual banning of all guns. If you want to carry a gun in public have the balls to carry it in the open so that everyone is aware of the risk they take by being in your proximity and so everyone can see the orientation of the barrel.

Bringing a gun into a public area is an infringement on our general right to a safe public space. If you're going to bring a hazardous instrument into a playground, a tennis court, a store and thereby increase our risk of injury, then at the very least let us know: display your piece. Why is that so unreasonable? I know, I know...you have this fantasy that all the bad guys will then know who is carrying and take them out first. Comic book fantasies are generally not a good basis of rational thought.

kittyKaiti

07-25-2012, 07:25 PM

Well you've talked a bit more than just that haven't you? There was going to be dead bacon on the streets a few days ago and you've made points about taking on the government?

What I wrote about "dead bacon" was in regards to the idea that if in my neighborhood, on a street I've lived on for 25 years, was to have a ton of idiot cops walk on my street and commence opening fire on crowds of children, infants in strollers and mothers holding babies in their arms with mace pepper balls, rubber bullets and bean bags and then watching from my bedroom window has my neighbors dive to shield their children from said barrage of lethal weaponry, my reaction would have in fact been to return fire from my house with my AR-15 to ward off the vicious and murderous attack launched by the police against said crowds of children, infants and mothers. In the video from the Anaheim incident, you can watch as fathers and mothers used their own bodies to guard their 5 year olds from being shot in the face with bean bags and mace pepper balls and one heroic man, who attempted to fight off a vicious K-9 Unit dog which was attacking a baby stroller. This sick display of behavior from police only fuels the hatred people already have of them and of the government who condones this behavior.

Do any of you know what would happen to a toddler struck by a rubber bullet or bean bag fired from a shotgun? Instantaneous death from the impact of those bags and bullets or a minimum of serious skull fractures, loss of teeth or permanent blindness. An infant would be killed immediately as its head is crushed from the force of the impacting beanbag rounds and the inhalation of those exploding mace pepper balls, essentially paintballs filled with OC powder, the same chemical used in pepper spray and mace, would induce respiratory arrest, asthma attacks and other severe breathing problems. Now, I don't know about any of you people but what does one do when the police begin opening fire a barrage of said weaponry against a crowd of children, infants and parents? Do you dial 911? Well shit, that won't work because all the responders are busy at the scene shooting the neighborhood children.

trish

07-25-2012, 08:06 PM

Yeah shoot back, that'll save the children.

kittyKaiti

07-25-2012, 09:08 PM

Yeah shoot back, that'll save the children.

It actually just might. I could alternatively use something they would consider "less lethal" and shoot at them with bb guns and pepper spray but that would involve me going into hand-to-hand combat with my local PD and I'd rather not get shot up in the face with beanbags with the rest of my neighbors' three and four year olds.

trish

07-25-2012, 09:46 PM

It actually just might.Remind me not to stand next to you at a public protest in the event things go awry...I'd rather live to write the book.

Queens Guy

07-25-2012, 09:52 PM

Banning concealed carrying leaves a hell of a lot dangerous things you can still do. It's nowhere near a virtual banning of all guns. If you want to carry a gun in public have the balls to carry it in the open so that everyone is aware of the risk they take by being in your proximity and so everyone can see the orientation of the barrel.

Bringing a gun into a public area is an infringement on our general right to a safe public space. If you're going to bring a hazardous instrument into a playground, a tennis court, a store and thereby increase our risk of injury, then at the very least let us know: display your piece. Why is that so unreasonable? I know, I know...you have this fantasy that all the bad guys will then know who is carrying and take them out first. Comic book fantasies are generally not a good basis of rational thought.

There we go. The ad hominem attack. 'Comic book fantasies.' 'Irrational.'

I can't possibly raise a good point, which you choose to disagree with by presenting another good point. No, I'm irrational and have comic book fantasies. That must be it.

There can't possibly be good things and bad things about 'open carry' as compared to 'concealed carry'. Of course not. You must be right. About everything. You must be.

Faldur

07-25-2012, 10:13 PM

Yeah shoot back, that'll save the children.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. -Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

Stavros

07-25-2012, 10:34 PM

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. -Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

Re the two quotes in sequence:

1) was not quoted by Jefferson, they are words that were underlined in his copy of Beccaria's book On Crimes and Punishments (1674)

2) Jefferson never said or wrote The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -the quote was unknown before 2007, ref: Matt Carson, On a Hill They Call Capitol: A Revolution is Coming (Carsons Publishing, 2007), p131.

Note, to labour this point again, that the 2nd Amendment refers to 'People' not 'Persons', ie a collective of persons, not individuals.

BluegrassCat

07-25-2012, 10:38 PM

trish

07-25-2012, 10:55 PM

There we go. The ad hominem attack. 'Comic book fantasies.' 'Irrational.'

I can't possibly raise a good point, which you choose to disagree with by presenting another good point. No, I'm irrational and have comic book fantasies. That must be it.

There can't possibly be good things and bad things about 'open carry' as compared to 'concealed carry'. Of course not. You must be right. About everything. You must be.Your recent response is nothing but an ad hominem attack! I see no arguments given whatsoever. Let me repeat my response to the assertion that "'open carry' is just plain foolish" and that banning concealed carry amounts to a virtual ban of all firearms.

"Banning concealed carrying leaves a hell of a lot dangerous things you can still do. It's nowhere near a virtual banning of all guns. If you want to carry a gun in public have the balls to carry it in the open so that everyone is aware of the risk they take by being in your proximity and so everyone can see the orientation of the barrel.

Bringing a gun into a public area is an infringement on our general right to a safe public space. If you're going to bring a hazardous instrument into a playground, a tennis court, a store and thereby increase our risk of injury, then at the very least let us know: display your piece. Why is that so unreasonable? I know, I know...you have this fantasy that all the bad guys will then know who is carrying and take them out first. Comic book fantasies are generally not a good basis of rational thought."

Sorry you didn't like the part about comic book fantasies...but I thought I counter that tired old argument about bad guys taking you out first 'cause they spied your weapon before you had a chance to make it.

loren

07-25-2012, 10:57 PM

Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM)

giovanni_hotel

07-25-2012, 10:57 PM

BTW, let's quit making fun of the Brit members here for being Brits. They are our one true ally and call shit the way they see it. Wrong or right. There's so much cultural overlap I don't see the point in condescending them as if they don't know 'how things are' over here across the pond.

From my experience most of them are more informed about life in the States than vice versa, and if one of them notices there happens to be a steaming pile of shit in the middle of my living room, it would be to my advantage not to step in it.

That said, we have too many guns in this country period.
And I do agree with much of Kitty's politics but I still don't think we are on the doorstep of the 2nd American Revolution.

We need political reform, not a violent insurrection.

trish

07-25-2012, 11:00 PM

Re the two quotes in sequence:

1) was not quoted by Jefferson, they are words that were underlined in his copy of Beccaria's book On Crimes and Punishments (1674)

2) Jefferson never said or wrote The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -the quote was unknown before 2007, ref: Matt Carson, On a Hill They Call Capitol: A Revolution is Coming (Carsons Publishing, 2007), p131.

Note, to labour this point again, that the 2nd Amendment refers to 'People' not 'Persons', ie a collective of persons, not individuals.That's a good one :D and typical.

loren

07-25-2012, 11:09 PM

trish

07-25-2012, 11:21 PM

hmmmm

martin48

07-25-2012, 11:42 PM

hmmmm

This is the trouble with the internet

Stavros

07-26-2012, 02:58 AM

Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM)

Are these two being sarcastic or just exhibiting the skills in deception they perform with admittedly clever showmanship on stage? The Continental Army commanded by Washington fought a British army -not a British militia, and the militia referred to in the clip are those which had existed in states (eg in Connecticut) for decades before the revolution even began! And also, People, where I come from, is the Plural form of the word Person, and the structure of the sentence, pauses and all, begins with a reference to Militias because that is what the Amendment is about. Simple really.

giovanni_hotel

07-26-2012, 03:02 AM

+1 Stavros!!!

BluegrassCat

07-26-2012, 03:09 AM

Are these two being sarcastic or just exhibiting the skills in deception they perform with admittedly clever showmanship on stage? The Continental Army commanded by Washington fought a British army -not a British militia, and the militia referred to in the clip are those which had existed in states (eg in Connecticut) for decades before the revolution even began! And also, People, where I come from, is the Plural form of the word Person, and the structure of the sentence, pauses and all, begins with a reference to Militias because that is what the Amendment is about. Simple really.

Yep, it's embarrassing how deeply wrong-headed their take on it is. It's like saying "Congress shall make no law respecting...religion" meant that laws are only allowed to disrespect religion. Just flatly and weirdly wrong.

SammiValentine

07-26-2012, 03:34 AM

+1 Stavros!!!

+10000 to stavros in this thread so far lol x

shaustin

07-26-2012, 04:01 AM

It's odd how people so easily dismiss the rights of others when it has no bearing on themselves. Getting a bit closer to the original topic, a tragic loss of life and not gun ownership and the 2nd amendment, and what could have been done to avoid it. Personally I find it sad that after 34 pages into the thread more than 2 dozen are commited solely to firearms. Why has the theatre not been scrutinized for not having security to the point that a clown with assault weapons and body armor can waltz right into a film in progress? Shouldn't they have had people watching the theatre entrances? Why were there no metal detectors or uniformed guards at the front door? Wouldn't a stationed parking attendent at the lot have seen a man with guns and been able to call 911 before he had made it inside? In fact why have theatres that gather so many people into a dark confined space at all, surely that's just a giant bullseye for mass murderers, why aren't all films placed directly to dvd for watching in the safety of ones own home?

Yes that last one looks like an exaggerated overreaction. But to someone who never goes to the theatre, it would look like a good idea. To them it would mean that the incident would not have occured, and since they have no vested interest in using the theatres themselves why not just get rid of them? It's very much the same as people who do not have any guns, let alone handguns or assault weapons, who are so anti-gun. It's easy for someone to take away a right they do not use themselves, but when any of their rights may be in jeopardy, it's always those same people who bite, claw, and scream until they are assured they will get their way. Very few people are willing to recognize the right of others versus their own, for that a person must have understanding, empathy, and intelligence enough to step away from personal bias' so that they can look at the whole picture and how others are effected, not just themselves.

giovanni_hotel

07-26-2012, 04:12 AM

There's a middle ground between being pro-gun without exception and banning ALL guns.

trish

07-26-2012, 04:18 AM

It's odd how people so easily dismiss the rights of others when it has no bearing on themselves.Exactly, very few people think about the risk that carry poses to the general public and how that unasked for risk infringes on the public's right to an expectation of safety. At least open carry would be a compromise that would allow people to readily assess the proximate dangers.

What? you want to turn movie theaters into airports? It's the theater's fault, not the fact that it's easier to buy a gun in the U.S. than vote!

shaustin

07-26-2012, 04:38 AM

Exactly, very few people think about the risk that carry poses to the general public and how that unasked for risk infringes on the public's right to an expectation of safety. At least open carry would be a compromise that would allow people to readily assess the proximate dangers.

What? you want to turn movie theaters into airports? It's the theater's fault, not the fact that it's easier to buy a gun in the U.S. than vote!

Personally I myself am against the idea of ANYONE carrying a handgun on their person in public, even police. When I see a weapon, I become aware of it, and unless I know the individual personally I myself am always uneasy and wary until I'm away from that person. Humans are strange and fragile things, and I don't feel comfortable being within range of that kind of power without having the same in my hands. But I'm able to recognize that others don't feel the same and I'm capable of accepting I don't have the right to tell them that what they believe is wrong. So for now I'm willing to set aside my personal wishes and allow others to do as they will.

And no, personally I'd rather not have theatre's with rigorous security, that was just an arguement from a different viewpoint than most people would think of, it was simply ment to provoke thought. To me, it's the person that commits an illegal act and what has occured in their life up until that point that is of real concern. To me those are the true causes and the waypoints by which I myself make judgements of events, the tools that were used mean very little in the larger picture.

loren

07-26-2012, 07:40 AM

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.

According to Stavros, the lilly-livers, and the English, the Second Ammendment has nothing to do with individual rights to firearm. Instead only certain select persons (chosen by the government, I suppose) are allowed to join the militia and as such only they are entitled to possess and own firearms. As such, the First and Forth Ammendments have nothing to do with individual liberties and instead are only applied to select groups.

It has been supposed by some on this forum that the Second Ammendment, being 221 years old, is outdated and has no legal bearing in the modern day. Since there is apparently some sort of expiration date placed on pieces of legislation, how about we go ahead and get rid of the rest of the Bill of Rights? I mean the other nine ammendments are 211 years old too, so they've gotta be just as outdated and out of touch with modern concerns. And what about the Constitution, we should get rid of that too, it's even older - and, hey, old has got to go. I guess that laws should only be valid for the length of time that the generation who wrote them is still in the majority of elected government positions. Once enough of the old geezers are voted out of office, then any laws they passed and signed are no longer valid.

giovanni_hotel

07-26-2012, 08:53 AM

M-16s for everyone!!
We're handing out .32s to all the kiddies at the local elementary for back to school night.

More guns make good neighbors.

Prospero

07-26-2012, 09:28 AM

Stavros - your knowledge on this subject is deeply impressive.

Prospero

07-26-2012, 10:28 AM

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/how-i-ended-my-lifelong-love-affair-with-guns/260327/

GroobySteven

07-26-2012, 10:34 AM

It has been supposed by some on this forum that the Second Ammendment, being 221 years old, is outdated and has no legal bearing in the modern day. Since there is apparently some sort of expiration date placed on pieces of legislation, how about we go ahead and get rid of the rest of the Bill of Rights?

You got it. If it's out of date, or no longer relevant then it should be AMENDED. Something tells me they've done that before, right?

Stavros

07-26-2012, 12:30 PM

Why has the theatre not been scrutinized for not having security to the point that a clown with assault weapons and body armor can waltz right into a film in progress? Shouldn't they have had people watching the theatre entrances? Why were there no metal detectors or uniformed guards at the front door? Wouldn't a stationed parking attendent at the lot have seen a man with guns and been able to call 911 before he had made it inside?

In fact why have theatres that gather so many people into a dark confined space at all, surely that's just a giant bullseye for mass murderers, why aren't all films placed directly to dvd for watching in the safety of ones own home?

I think you will find that he must have cased the cinema complex before, as he broke in through a rear entrance, and probably knew which was the quietest zone in the parking area.

Going to the cinema is a way of getting out, and unless you have a 65" screen at home with wrap around sound, 3D and so on, the experience just isn't the same. Particularly with a film shot in IMAX like The Dark Knight Rises -its the kind of film I would pay to see in an IMAX for the experience. Shooters go berserk in shopping malls, should we now buy everything online?

Stavros

07-26-2012, 12:38 PM

According to Stavros, the lilly-livers, and the English, the Second Ammendment has nothing to do with individual rights to firearm. Instead only certain select persons (chosen by the government, I suppose) are allowed to join the militia and as such only they are entitled to possess and own firearms. As such, the First and Forth Ammendments have nothing to do with individual liberties and instead are only applied to select groups.

It has been supposed by some on this forum that the Second Ammendment, being 221 years old, is outdated and has no legal bearing in the modern day. Since there is apparently some sort of expiration date placed on pieces of legislation, how about we go ahead and get rid of the rest of the Bill of Rights? I mean the other nine ammendments are 211 years old too, so they've gotta be just as outdated and out of touch with modern concerns. And what about the Constitution, we should get rid of that too, it's even older - and, hey, old has got to go. I guess that laws should only be valid for the length of time that the generation who wrote them is still in the majority of elected government positions. Once enough of the old geezers are voted out of office, then any laws they passed and signed are no longer valid.

You have not understood some of the points I have been making: on the one hand the context of 1791 when the US had only reluctantly created a Standing Army, not believing the central government should do this -indeed Congress at one point had no tax raising powers to fund an army -the pre-existing militias in the states were seen as the foundation of local security in a Union where power was devolved away from the centre, one of the strongest and enduring elements of America's revolution that sets it apart from the Revolutions in, say, France, Russia and China.

Again, the context of the weapons themselves follows: not as many Americans had guns in 1791 as today, and the guns were average or if anything old-fashioned muskets. One of my cardinal points is that whether or not you believe the 2nd Amendment confers rights on an individual or a collective (I lean to the latter but that's my interpretation), the USA in 2012 does allow individuals to purchase firearms subject to certain conditions which vary from state to state.

But as President Obama has stated: do you want people to carry battlefield weapons on your streeets? This is why you have to reconcile the intentions of an Amendment passed in 1791 with the reality of 2012, if not in the principle, then in its operation: do you really need an AK-47 to secure your apartment?

Stavros

07-26-2012, 12:43 PM

You got it. If it's out of date, or no longer relevant then it should be AMENDED. Something tells me they've done that before, right?

18th Amendment to the Constitution -the prohibition of alcohol, January 1919

21st Amendment to the Constitution -repeal of Amendment 18 -Dec 1933.

trish

07-26-2012, 03:47 PM

some verifiable stories and an opinion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/opinion/armed-but-not-so-safe.html?smid=pl-share

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/opinion/kristof-safe-from-fire-but-not-gone.html?smid=pl-share

GroobySteven

07-26-2012, 05:06 PM

Dino Velvet

07-26-2012, 06:05 PM

I think you will find that he must have cased the cinema complex before, as he broke in through a rear entrance, and probably knew which was the quietest zone in the parking area.

Going to the cinema is a way of getting out, and unless you have a 65" screen at home with wrap around sound, 3D and so on, the experience just isn't the same. Particularly with a film shot in IMAX like The Dark Knight Rises -its the kind of film I would pay to see in an IMAX for the experience. Shooters go berserk in shopping malls, should we now buy everything online?

I definitely don't want my local AMC to turn into LAX. Just going to the picture show. Leave me alone.

MrsKellyPierce

07-26-2012, 06:07 PM

Faldur

07-26-2012, 06:15 PM

GUN OWNERS or those that support the purchase and ownership of assault type/automatic guns.
Where would you draw the line on weaponry? Any gun that that military currently uses? Types of ammos? Grenades or grenade launchers? Where is the line?

All you wish to know can easliy be found..

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/

loren

07-26-2012, 06:24 PM

do you want people to carry battlefield weapons on your streeets?
What is a battlefield weapon? Virtually every firearm on the market either was at some point or is directly descended from a "battlefield weapon".

I have a question for you; do you view the First and Forth Ammendments as individual rights, or are they only applied to collective groups?

GUN OWNERS or those that support the purchase and ownership of assault type/automatic guns.
Where would you draw the line on weaponry? Any gun that that military currently uses? Types of ammos? Grenades or grenade launchers? Where is the line?
I wouldn't exactly feel comfortable if someone were walking down the street with a stinger or a dragon for that matter. I, personally, would never own a full-auto. It's a waste of ammo, anything more than 7-10 rounds per and you're just wasting lead (In the Korean War, approx. one million rounds were fired for each casualty.) Now some would argue, I'm not in this group, that there should be no limit whatsoever. I don't really believe in owning full-auto (that's just my view), however some States allow such ownership with special licensing and permits.

Did you know that technically according to the (thankfully) expired "assault weapons" ban, my reproduction single shot, black powder, muzzleloading, .58 cal Enfield Rifled Musket is an assault weapon? Because it has a bayonet.

loren

07-26-2012, 06:38 PM

I think you will find that he must have cased the cinema complex before, as he broke in through a rear entrance, and probably knew which was the quietest zone in the parking area.

There are some people that are saying that someone let the shooter into the theatre through the emergancy exit. If this is true I would like to believe that it was a mistake and they had no idea of his intentions. There are others who say he was let in with full knowledge of what he wanted to do.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/252995/396/Witness-Someone-let-gunman-inside-Colorado-movie-theater
"As I was sitting down to get my seat, I noticed that a person came up to the front row, the front right, sat down, and as credits were going, it looked like he got a phone call. He went out toward the emergency exit doorway, which I thought was unusual to take a phone call. And it seemed like he probably pried it open, or probably did not let it latch all the way. As soon as the movie started, somebody came in, all black, gas mask, armor, and threw a gas can into the audience, and it went off, and then there were gunshots that took place."

GroobySteven

07-26-2012, 06:50 PM

All you wish to know can easliy be found..

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/

I'm asking those of you who support having assault rifles YOUR opinions.

buttslinger

07-26-2012, 07:56 PM

As a tool to have by your side as protection from your enemies, and delivering food to your table, the credit card has replaced the musket. SURELY.
My obituary is going to say I went to school, and went to work, it's not going to say I hated my crappy job and all that meaningless homework.
Education and Jobs are the overwhelmingly important factor in our individual lives and the National Standings of Quality of Life.
But must people are concerned with sex, fun, sport.
History is a product of the glands.

And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Dino Velvet

07-26-2012, 08:02 PM

delete

shaustin

07-26-2012, 09:13 PM

Going to the cinema is a way of getting out, and unless you have a 65" screen at home with wrap around sound, 3D and so on, the experience just isn't the same. Particularly with a film shot in IMAX like The Dark Knight Rises -its the kind of film I would pay to see in an IMAX for the experience. Shooters go berserk in shopping malls, should we now buy everything online?

It's a subjective experience, personally I hate 3D movies and won't see something in a theatre if it's only in 3D. To me it's like eating a meal cooked by a world class chef, yes a better experience would be eating said meal in a five star resturaunt with chandeliers and an orchestra, but the meal itself, just like a movie, would be "practically" the same if eaten from a tv tray on an old lumpy couch. You might aswell say unless you have a full size stadium with scoreboard, lights, and goals playing soccer at home just isn't the same experience. I myself actually watched 'The Dark Knight Rises' at home last night, and while it was an alright movie which capped off the trilogy decently enough, on it's own it wasn't as engaging as the first two, and I can guarentee that for myself, seeing the same exact film on a large screen with surround sound and all the bells and whistles would have added absolutely nothing to the experience.

I'm doubting you read my last post before you made yours, so to clarify my actual position I'll just cut and paste: "And no, personally I'd rather not have theatre's with rigorous security, that was just an arguement from a different viewpoint than most people would think of, it was simply ment to provoke thought."

Stavros

07-26-2012, 09:47 PM

I have a question for you; do you view the First and Forth Ammendments as individual rights, or are they only applied to collective groups?

They are collective in that they refer to the citizens as a plurality; they are individual insofar as religious belief and the right not to have one's home ransacked without a warrant are individual. What makes the 2nd Amendment so elusive for some and why the Supreme Court justices can produce contrary interpretations of it, is the context provided by the phrase 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...', which in my interpretation, and I am not a jurist, must be a collective right.

The point is that the US has decided individuals can own firearms subject to certain conditions, it makes no difference if I disapprove and not just because I am not American. As has been stated by many in this thread , gun ownership is not a political issue that has any traction nationally, it is up to each state to impose its own conditions. The practical, operational issue for you is to decide how the conditions of 1791 relate to 2012 with regard to the technology of the firearms you can buy.

The concept of a battlefield weapon is not so hard to grasp, it is what our soldiers are bearing in Afghanistan, or AK-47's, or Uzi's or Kalashnikov's.

Thanks for the update on the back entrance, I am sure more information on the events that night will filter through in time.

yodajazz

07-27-2012, 12:56 AM

I still don't think any US citizen needs a gun that shoots off 60 rounds in less than a minute. Sane or Not or no criminal background. That should be for military/police officials only.

Everyone is capable of insanity, and not to mention this guy had no criminal background!

Exactly! The major argument many make on owning assault type weapons, is that they want to. We have other things we can compare this to. Some drugs are legal while others are legal. People who use illegal drugs want them. I'm sure that many 14 years would love to drive cars legally. Others would like to be able to drive 100+ miles per hour. by the way, aren't certain weapons such as rocket launchers already illegal? Or is banning 14 year olds from driving, really the first step in taking away all of or motor vehicles?

Quiet Reflections

07-27-2012, 01:20 AM

GUN OWNERS or those that support the purchase and ownership of assault type/automatic guns.
Where would you draw the line on weaponry? Any gun that that military currently uses? Types of ammos? Grenades or grenade launchers? Where is the line?
I would draw the line at rocket/grenade launchers and belt-fed or chain guns. As far as ammo goes Im ok with the current laws.

onmyknees

07-27-2012, 02:14 AM

GUN OWNERS or those that support the purchase and ownership of assault type/automatic guns.
Where would you draw the line on weaponry? Any gun that that military currently uses? Types of ammos? Grenades or grenade launchers? Where is the line?

Since I was in the military and proficient with everything from an old M-1 carbine to a fully automatic M-16 to a pedestal mounted 50 cal. Browning, I enjoy shooting the civilian versions of the first two. No citizen can by law own a fully automatic weapon ( there are some special exceptions...collectors, etc). I'd draw the line at a particular caliber...that would prohibit grenade launchers, etc.

Would my life be altered to the point where I couldn't survive if some weapons were banned? Obviously no. But here's several issues no one has been able to reconcile.
1. What weapons to ban fully? How big is the list?
2. What are we to make of the 2nd amendment if we start to infringe on it? The actual amendment speaks to infringement. What next.....banning racist speech ? Then looking at the Commerce Clause to force citizens to buy a particular product and calling it commerce? lol
3. If you had 100% consensus and certain styles of firearms were outlawed on say August 1, what are you going to do about the tens of millions of firearms in the hands of private citizens ? Send the ATF in to confiscate them? That happened....recall Ruby Ridge ? That's the result you're going to see. People are not going to go quietly on this.

In response to the prospect of guns being outlawed or restricted, Even Moses himself held up a firearm in his right hand and mouthed..."from my cold dead hands". Ok...it wasn't Moses, but rather Charlton Heston, but the message can't be understated. Folks are not going to give up thier firearms. I realize that's puzzling to some of you in the UK and Europe.

buttslinger

07-27-2012, 05:46 AM

Convicted Felons aren't allowed to have firearms.

trish

07-27-2012, 06:39 AM

1. What weapons to ban fully?How about we just start by reinstating the assault weapons ban. There is no need to draw the dividing once and for all. As our needs and our technology advances the line will no doubt move to fit the situation.

2. What are we to make of the 2nd amendment if we start to infringe on it?What do you mean by "start to infringe on it"? Is the law so sharply drawn that any regulation or restriction on who can bear what arms could constitute an infringement? Newborns to American citizens are citizens. Is it an infringement of their 2nd Amendment rights to keep guns out of their hands? Does a six year old have the right to bear arms or to they have to have a guardian's permission? The 2nd Amendment gives the people the right to bear arms. Since a fetus is a person does a fetus have 2nd Amendment rights? The Constitution gave citizens the right to vote, but by citizens they didn't mean women. Did the framers of the 2nd Amendment mean to give women the right to bear arms or is that a modern construal? Is it an infringement of an individual's 2nd amendment right to deny them the right to own a shoulder held surface to air missile? How about the 1st Amendment, is it okay to yell fire in a crowded theater? Is it okay for a pharmaceutical to lie about the outcome of it testing of a drug? I think it's safe to say that even the founders would not have regarded some restrictions and regulations on gun ownership an infringement of Constitutional rights. It's not like there's a sharp line of demarcation and to step beyond it is to slide down a glass slope into the grip of tyranny.

If you had 100% consensus and certain styles of firearms were outlawed on say August 1, what are you going to do about the tens of millions of firearms in the hands of private citizens ? If there was a 100% consensus on which guns to ban one would think 100% of the owners the banned guns would agree to turn them in. After all the presumption is they agreed to the ban.

kittyKaiti

07-27-2012, 08:44 AM

GUN OWNERS or those that support the purchase and ownership of assault type/automatic guns.
Where would you draw the line on weaponry? Any gun that that military currently uses? Types of ammos? Grenades or grenade launchers? Where is the line?

The line is simple. But first of all, "assault type" and "automatic" are not at all the same weaponry. "Assault type" was poorly defined in the expired assault weapons ban, as pointed out by loren, would technically have included a shitty black powder musket with a bayonet being classified as an "assault weapon" and therefore illegal. The government is simply full of idiots and the majority of those who wish to ban guns or "certain guns" know nothing about them more than "OMG FULL AUTO" and throw around words like "ASSAULT".

A semi automatic (one shot per pull of the trigger) rifle, like my AR-15 should be completely legal. Limitations of its magazine capacity are senseless. I am capable of exchanging mags easily and quickly whether it being 30 rounds or 10 rounds. This does not slow me much, nor inhibit my ability to induce damage against a target. A shotgun alone, can be fired by a person well enough to throw 5 or 6 rounds of buckshot into a crowd within several seconds. Should this be considered an assault weapon? Even a person armed with a bolt action rifle, magazine fed or not, can learn to reload fairly quickly and do significant damage in a spree. The ability to take down mass targets is not just dependent on walking into a crowded theater and spraying a full auto gun into it. Any person with a bolt action rifle could go rooftop and pop one after another into people like a sniper attack. This significantly impaired speed and capacity weapon is still capable of inducing dozens of deaths and injuries until police or a carrying civilian can stop the suspect. You can ban all the guns you want and this will not stop crazed people from using them to their tactical advantage in these types of attacks.

What kind of weapons should we ban? Is full auto necessary? It's all based opinion on what uses they would have and for when and why. Would overthrowing a violent regime be a reason like in Syria? Could the people in Syria or Libya even been capable of overthrowing the regime if they were totally unable access to full auto weapons? Unarmed populouses make for easy control. We can claim that places like the U.S. or Britain are perfect and could never ever turn against their people, but this has happened across the globe repeatedly for decades. Being prepared or thinking outside the box (just because I'm in America does not imply we will always be free and safe from tyranny). The right to bear arms was instated for this very reason. Not because our founders wanted them to hunt or shoot at targets for sport, but to defend themselves and the "PEOPLE" from those who wish to threaten the way of freedom and Democracy.

We keep saying that only trusted people should have guns. So everyone here says only cops and soldiers deserve them. Yet the Fort Hood massacre was done by a soldier. How many cops have unjustifiably murdered a civilian? How often do we hear of police or soldiers using excessive lethal force against unarmed people? How many civilians were killed in Iraq by our soldiers and how many war crimes have been covered up over the many decades our country has been at war across the globe? Why are civilians the only people who require such regulation and "trust"? The wearing of a badge or the wearing of a camouflage uniform does not imply superior trust and sanity, yet many of you seem to act like it does.

While owning grenades and bombs and nuclear weapons and a tank my be excessive for the typical civilian, a semi-automatic rifle, handgun, shotgun and the varied ammunition types that go with them are acceptable in my mind. Because I know better that in America, hundreds of other things will kill me long before I ever get shot by anyone.

Someone asked the question if an AK-47 is really necessary to defend your apartment. Well this depends on where you live. Gang violence and drug use are a growing threat in the country and the ability to defend your home with maximum ability to ensure holding off a horde of insane gangbangers is a reality in many cities around the country. Places like Chicago, Philly, Baltimore and border towns in Texas near Juarez, are hotspots of group gang violence and attacks in which one or two people are targeted by groups of violent offenders. While we can always dial 911 and expect the police to save us, response times are a joke in many areas and in my own experience, not fast enough to make me give up my arms for the idea that police can arrive to stop home invaders, kidnappers, rapists, murderers or other violent offenders in time. I am not the kind of person to give up my arms for that BS.

I've had my run ins with violent or what could have become violent situations on my property in the past. And dialing 911 only results in sitting on my ass holding off the morons for 15 minutes before one car rolls up and officer dipshit steps out to deal with the situation. This also implies that police are capable of not only arriving in time to save you, but also to arrest, charge, convict and imprison the offenders so that they will be incapable of ever being a threat to you again. It's not like you can call the cops on some idiot and they will never bother you again. I also know this from personal experiences that calling police is NEVER a deterrent. The only way I was capable of stopping offenders who targeted me for years when I was a teenager was to use threat of violent force against them as a deterrent. These bullies who harassed me with violence, threats and other verbal abuse and property damage NEVER stopped no matter how many times the police were called. The only reason these idiots gave up on me was my choice to acquire a weapon and threaten them with death, at which point I was never bothered again.

trish

07-27-2012, 01:12 PM

We should adopt the Kennedy/Oswald Rule: Ban all guns that can fire one shot every 2.7 seconds. :)

Quiet Reflections

08-02-2012, 09:44 PM

Chinese teen kills nine in knife attack

http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-kills-eight-knife-attack-reports-102629246.html

shaustin

08-03-2012, 03:16 AM

Chinese teen kills nine in knife attack

http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-kills-eight-knife-attack-reports-102629246.html

Asians don't need bullets to kill people.

onmyknees

08-03-2012, 05:25 AM

How about we just start by reinstating the assault weapons ban. There is no need to draw the dividing once and for all. As our needs and our technology advances the line will no doubt move to fit the situation.
What do you mean by "start to infringe on it"? Is the law so sharply drawn that any regulation or restriction on who can bear what arms could constitute an infringement? Newborns to American citizens are citizens. Is it an infringement of their 2nd Amendment rights to keep guns out of their hands? Does a six year old have the right to bear arms or to they have to have a guardian's permission? The 2nd Amendment gives the people the right to bear arms. Since a fetus is a person does a fetus have 2nd Amendment rights? The Constitution gave citizens the right to vote, but by citizens they didn't mean women. Did the framers of the 2nd Amendment mean to give women the right to bear arms or is that a modern construal? Is it an infringement of an individual's 2nd amendment right to deny them the right to own a shoulder held surface to air missile? How about the 1st Amendment, is it okay to yell fire in a crowded theater? Is it okay for a pharmaceutical to lie about the outcome of it testing of a drug? I think it's safe to say that even the founders would not have regarded some restrictions and regulations on gun ownership an infringement of Constitutional rights. It's not like there's a sharp line of demarcation and to step beyond it is to slide down a glass slope into the grip of tyranny.
If there was a 100% consensus on which guns to ban one would think 100% of the owners the banned guns would agree to turn them in. After all the presumption is they agreed to the ban.

Refer to Kitty's Post.

You're living in an alternate universe if you think anybody's turning any gun in after legally purchasing it. Your counter arguments are inane, and you draw illogical inferences. There are restrictions in place already...have you applied for a pistol permit in NYC recently? Or have you turned all your firearms in to the Mayor along with your 20 oz. slurpie cups?
A fetus as a person? Are you conceding that...or just using it for another illogical argument ?

trish

08-03-2012, 06:40 AM

A fetus as a person? Are you conceding that...or just using it for another illogical argument ? Neither. The astute reader will notice I gave a number of examples that illustrated a couple of points. First, the very framers did not intend the right to bear arms to extend to each and every citizen; and they understood the document was to be interpreted by accordingly. Hence the fact that very young children could be denied the opportunity to bear arms was not viewed as an infringement of their rights. We do not know if there was a consensus on whether the 2nd Amendment was to be extended to women. Second, other examples given illustrate that the 2nd Amendment is unclear as to which arms the 2nd Amendment applies. Scalia, for example, is of the opinion it did not apply to canon. I know gun nuts who disagree. Scalia is not so sure about surface to air missile shoulder launchers. Some liberal judges are pretty sure they aren't covered by the 2nd Amendment. To my mind it is not a matter of becoming clear on the intentions of the framers. Modern weaponry was beyond their comprehension and the question of where they would have stood on the issue of shoulder launched missiles is intrinsically indeterminate. It is up to us to decide, either through the courts or legislation. I suggest we start by reinstating the ban against assault weapons.

You're living in an alternate universe if you think anybody's turning any gun in after legally purchasing it.If you read your own post astutely it was you who asked us to consider the scenario where there was 100% consensus on which weapons to ban. I merely did the math.

There are restrictions in place alreadyYes there are and no I don't subscribe to the Mayor's ban on 20 o.z. servings of pop, if that is at all relevant here. In the former case the law under estimates the risk to the general populace posed by those who would needlessly carry dangerous firearms into public spaces. In the latter case the law over regulates an individual risk that endangers no one else (though the supporters will point out that insurance costs__not risk__ will generally rise if self-inflicted diabetes is not kept in check).

Femboyurge

08-03-2012, 10:46 AM

Asians don't need bullets to kill people.

If you are a maniac and just want to kill many people at random, you'd kill more by simply driving a car into a crowd at very high speed. That will kill more than with a semi-automatic weapon, at least.

It's pretty absurd that most Europeans (at least so it seems) and many Americans as well think that private citizens shouldn't have an undisputable right to own and carry guns but cops and soldiers should.

Femboyurge

08-03-2012, 10:51 AM

Refer to Kitty's Post.

You're living in an alternate universe if you think anybody's turning any gun in after legally purchasing it. Your counter arguments are inane, and you draw illogical inferences. There are restrictions in place already...have you applied for a pistol permit in NYC recently? Or have you turned all your firearms in to the Mayor along with your 20 oz. slurpie cups?
A fetus as a person? Are you conceding that...or just using it for another illogical argument ?

It happens in Sweden from time to time that people turn in old unlicensed guns. Those guns weren't bought by the ones who turns them in, though, but rather by their grandfathers, since we have had "gun control" here since the 1920's.

Though my countrymen are pretty naïve and trusting the authorities. I hope that most Americans will never get that naïve.

There are also a few places in Europe where people have a sound view on guns, like Switzerland and the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic is by my knowledge the only country in Europe where any unpunished citizen can still get a license to carry. In the rest of Europe you might own a gun on the mercy of the authorities, but you can't legally carry it in self-defense, at least not by the letter of the law.

trish

08-03-2012, 04:59 PM

my countrymen are pretty naïve and trusting the authorities.If you trust that the person carrying a concealed weapon next to you in the subway didn't leave a round in the chamber, or remembered to slide the safety into the "on" position, or doesn't have the barrel oriented toward your torso, or isn't a lunatic who will fire willy-nilly at the slightest provocation, then you're pretty naïve and trusting of paranoid strangers who want to carry lethal weapons in total secrecy.

yosi

08-03-2012, 11:58 PM

It's pretty absurd that most Europeans (at least so it seems) and many Americans as well think that private citizens shouldn't have an undisputable right to own and carry guns but cops and soldiers should.

Absurd?
they are right about it, private citizens shouldn't have a right to own and carry guns.

guns don't kill , poeple do , if poeple don't get guns they don't kill .

Quiet Reflections

08-04-2012, 12:40 AM

if poeple don't get guns they don't kill .
You can't possibly believe that.

Faldur

08-04-2012, 02:27 AM

if poeple don't get guns they don't kill .

He didn't have a gun, how'd that turn out?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/MCVEIGH.jpg

buttslinger

08-04-2012, 02:44 AM

trish

08-04-2012, 03:23 AM

Throughout history people have killed people. They typically employ weapons, oftentimes weapons designed for the very purpose of killing people quickly and efficiently. Those weapons are called assault weapons. Ban them.

fred41

08-04-2012, 06:21 AM

yodajazz

08-04-2012, 09:47 AM

Argument aside. this was a bad example.
...It could in fact, be used as an example to show that the simplest weapons (aside from firearms) can be used for mass destruction.

...it in fact started a debate as to whether armed marshals should be on flights.

I think its a good example. There is an implied argument that if there was more weapons floating around, in bars, church, movie theaters, etc, we would be safer. I'm a person who sees more danger in everyday anger, especially if we were all carrying assualt weapons. I cited this example before of my friends neighbor, who had her oldest child kill her youngest. Everyone said they were inseparable. I think about being in college, when I got jealous over a love triangle and drove recklessly. Luckily no one was hurt. What if I had access to rocket launchers and hand grenades? Or when I did have access to a gun, and went looking for someone who owed me $50.00. Luckily my right mind kicked in, and I did not go all the way. I never got my $50. But how different would my life had been had I used that gun for harm? Fifty is nothing compared to the happy times I have had over the years. I have been blessed to have lived longer than some of my colleagues. At no time in my life, would it have been better if I had access to assault weapons.

By the way, in the example of 9/11, I wonder why they did not use their overhead luggage, to take on the attackers? A boxcutter cannot go though a suitcase or overnight bag. I have heard of several post 9/11 flight incidents where, out of control passenger were subdued or even killed. So safety was not about assault weapons.

Prospero

08-04-2012, 10:45 AM

And armed sheriffs aboard jets was quickly shown to be an absurdity - bullets puncturing the pressurized cabin walls and surely causing more deaths than a single bullet would occasion.

Faldur

08-04-2012, 03:37 PM

We built a training facility for the US Air Marshals. Mock airplane fuselages. I guarantee you don't want to be waving a little box cutter around when one of these guys is in one of the seats. The rounds they fire would have difficulty penetrating drywall, never less the skin of a plane.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Glaser_Safety_slug.png

onmyknees

08-04-2012, 04:36 PM

All the guns in the USA didn't stop 20 arabs armed with boxcutters from bringing us to our trembling little knees. The greatest weapon we had in 1776 was our brains, and we better start using them for our good and the good of the world. Stupidity isn't macho. Seventy percent of the NRA thinks semi-automatic weapons on the street is ridiculous. It's all fuckin' politics. While Rome is burning.
There is no security, only opportunity-MacArthur. (did I post that before?)

Where'd ya get that stat about 70% ? If the question was asked..."Do you think it's a bad idea to have semi automatic weapons on the streets of Chicago?" Why sure 70% would agree. But if Part 2 is ...."Well then we'll need you to turn in your weapons to accomplish that"....let's see what the survey says then.

And your point about security....Sorry Beg to differ. Say hello to my little friend. I've never had a break in...never even get any of those bible thumpers at my door. He likes T Girls but doesn't take kindly to all this talk about semi automatic weapons bans or folks with that political inclination. Better not show up talkin' that stuff...or otherwise unannounced! :dancing:

trish

08-04-2012, 05:40 PM

mmmm

buttslinger

08-04-2012, 05:46 PM

When I lived in a bad neighborhood I was broken into twice, the second time they stole my .22 pistol and some knives.
OMK, aren't you a convicted felon? You can't own a firearm!
I would like to own an MP43 Nazi submachinegun, not for protection, for fun.
Gun Control is not a two sided issue, it has 100 sides.
I don't really believe it when people say they carry guns for protection, I think it's glandular, they get off on it. Most cops go 20 years without even drawing their weapon.
And like taxes, government waste, these hot button topics could be addressed to the best possible outcome by a Senate Commitee armed with a budget, facts, data, intelligence, 8 hours a day 40 hours a week til the best reasonable solution has been hammered out. Allowing to the fact that this is the Land of the Free, where you can still own a P-51 Mustang.
First, kill all the lawyers.

buttslinger

08-04-2012, 05:56 PM

mmmm

Trish, it's said too many times on this forum, but I'd lick your asshole...mmmmm.....:Bowdown:

trish

08-04-2012, 05:58 PM

oooo that's so nice...thank you buttslinger.

Here's another...famous last words->

trish

08-04-2012, 06:59 PM

a triptych ->

onmyknees

08-05-2012, 12:59 AM

a triptych ->

Very cute Trish....Spend all day doing that? If you spent nearly as much time on your "aimless" ramblings about the Constitution, you might be able to make a cogent point. :dancing:

As I said about 100 posts ago....It's all wasted words. Nothing is going to happen, so move along now.

buttslinger

08-05-2012, 01:15 AM

As I said about 100 posts ago....It's all wasted words. Nothing is going to happen, so move along now.

Hey, yardbird, did you ever say what you went to the joint for? Why were your Rights as an American Citizen revoked?
maybe I heard it wrong

onmyknees

08-05-2012, 05:19 AM

Hey, yardbird, did you ever say what you went to the joint for? Why were your Rights as an American Citizen revoked?
maybe I heard it wrong

I'll tell ya this much....punks like you would not have made it out the other side. In fact....you'd be somebody's bitch before the sunset on your first day....even before you got to call mommy. They trade guys like you for cigarettes. :dancing:

As far as my rights....fully intact with record cleared....and with exemplary military service.....but thanks for asking. And I even defend your right to be a twink.

buttslinger

08-05-2012, 05:46 AM

I'll tell ya this much....punks like you would not have made it out the other side. In fact....you'd be somebody's bitch before the sunset on your first day....even before you got to call mommy. They trade guys like you for cigarettes. :dancing:As far as my rights....fully intact with record cleared....and with exemplary military service.....but thanks for asking. And I even defend your right to be a twink.

Haw Haw Haw Haw

trish

08-05-2012, 06:27 AM

:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

buttslinger

08-05-2012, 07:50 AM

OMK: First in War, First in Peace, and Fifth in line for the Rush Limbo call-in show.....

Ryz

08-05-2012, 07:56 AM

Looks like the people of Colo.......

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120515232312/random-ness/images/8/8c/CSi_Miami_sunglasses.gif

Were dying to see the Dark Knight.

AWWWWWH YEEEEEAH

bobvela

08-05-2012, 09:09 AM

How about we just start by reinstating the assault weapons ban. There is no need to draw the dividing once and for all. As our needs and our technology advances the line will no doubt move to fit the situation.

I triple dog dare you to explain how the previous assault weapons ban would have prevented the shooting.

Go on... do it.

A couple of warnings though...

1. Gun owners/fans such as myself tend to know the law related to such things far better than the average anti-gun bigot (ala seanchai) or zealot (ie Brady Campaign)... let alone the average person (ie you).

2. I just happened to have a conversation this morning with a manager of a local movie theater who was defending the chain's semi-new policy of searching bags (mostly purses) for weapons... never mind the fact that the Aurora shooter didn't carry his weapons in in a bag... and that I just happened to be (fully legally) carrying a revolver in my pocket both the previous night, and during this conversation… and was somehow immune (given current polices of the chain) from said inspection.

Again... go on... prove to all of us how the Assault Weapons Ban (as I've said previously (don't make me link to my discussion of it being a purely cosmetic law)) would have miraculously prevented said shooting.

Be warned... I have forgotten more about the functioning of different firearms and the laws pertaining to them than you know now... or likely will ever know... so you’ve a rather steep hill to climb… but even still... I dare you.

trish

08-05-2012, 02:00 PM

First prove I ever claimed that the assault weapons ban would have stopped that particular shooting. Go ahead... do it. Then prove the absence of the ban along with concealed carry and all the other shit the NRA won for Coloradans would have stopped that particular shooting. Go ahead... do... oops wait a minute... it didn't, the shooting happened in spite of all those extra-2nd Amendmentlike "protections". Thank you NRA for making life easier for murderers.

onmyknees

08-05-2012, 02:17 PM

OMK: First in War, First in Peace, and Fifth in line for the Rush Limbo call-in show.....

See...now you're getting all excited, and agitated. I suppose that's what the use of the larger text is trying to convey ? Look at me...look at me I'm using larger fonts. I'll somehow inject Rush Limbaugh into the discussion, and that will make my argument more relevent, and then everyone will see I'm right.....That's weak, but predictable. You're a light weight and now matter what size font you use.....
Now really....let's talk man to man......isn't there something more constructive you could be doing with your time? You know you still owe your parents tens of tens of thousands of dollars they shelled out for your college education. Unfortunately or them, for you, and for us, that's an investment that's failed miserably at paying any dividends.

It's probably time to re-direct you back onto to the topic.

Instrumental

08-05-2012, 02:36 PM

Wanting to ban "assault weapons" (which if it hasn't been pointed out is just a fabricated buzz word for semi-automatic rifles) shows a lack of understanding about firearms. Despite rifles usually having higher capacity and firing rounds with better long range accuracy, they're probably still less dangerous than handguns due to the simple fact that they aren't concealable.

And Trish, as far as I know, no one was exercising their right to concealed carry in that theater so that is a moot point. Perhaps if someone was utilizing their 2nd amendment rights to the fullest, the shooting wouldn't have been as tragic. Furthermore, depending on the seating capacity of the movie theater, they wouldn't be allowed to carry in there anyway. I know in Michigan, any building that can seat 2500+ people you can't bring a firearm inside it.

The assault weapons ban was easily circumvented by manufacturers and was basically just a ban on whatever looked like a scary weapon.

One thing is for sure it's foolishly naive to expect people to care about what is and isn't legally allowed when they are planning to kill and maim dozens of people. I can see it now, "Aww man, this place doesn't allow firearms inside :( Massacre canceled."

trish

08-05-2012, 02:39 PM

The dude was covered in Kevlar and armor. But yeah, perhaps the NRA's next move should be to lobby that all citizens should carry at all times.

BTW: being able to buy your assault weapons legally over the web sure makes life easier for murderers.

BBaggins06

08-05-2012, 03:54 PM

Be warned... I have forgotten more about the functioning of different firearms and the laws pertaining to them than you know now... or likely will ever know... I dare you.

Most people wouldn't be as happy as you are about having Alzheimer's ...

Faldur

08-05-2012, 04:01 PM

BTW: being able to buy your assault weapons legally over the web sure makes life easier for murderers.

Your feared "semi-automatic" weapon jammed and was tossed aside. Most of the carnage was inflicted with a shotgun and hand gun.

And you cannot buy an "assault weapon" on the internet in the US. Assault weapons are defined by the US military as one capable of full automatic fire. Any weapon with such capability is forbidden by law for a US citizen to possess.

trish

08-05-2012, 04:09 PM

Being able to buy your weapons over the web without background check sure makes life easier for murders. Also makes life harder for prosecutors and enforcement.

Instrumental

08-05-2012, 04:58 PM

It yes, that would make it easier for them. Fortunately the scenario you've created is entirely fabricated and firearms ordered online have to be transferred through an FFL dealer who submits their info in a background check. Ultimately irrelevant in this case since the guy had no prior history.

buttslinger

08-05-2012, 05:25 PM

Gun Control and Abortion are great coctail party conversation, you can have half the room yelling at the other half in 3 minutes.
The Pro-Choicers don't want Romney messing with their bodies, the Gun Lobby doesn't want Obama to mess with their guns.
Abortion is murder, but kids killing their classmates and 2,000 guns a day shipped to Mexico, that's the price of freedom.
Cowboys shooting varmints on their Montana Ranch, that's what's all-American, Gangbangers shooting each other in the hood, that's what's wrong with America.
It's too bad we can't enact laws for what we LIKE. Then everybody would be happy.

trish

08-05-2012, 05:26 PM

firearms ordered online have to be transferred through an FFL dealerNot so. Depends on the online dealer.

Do you need a Background Check to buy a gun in America? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slTcG3bJjBQ)

Ultimately irrelevant in this case since the guy had no prior history. Good argument for checking more than just a prior history background. Perhaps a psychological profile, certification of firearm safety training etc.

onmyknees

08-05-2012, 06:05 PM

Not so. Depends on the online dealer.

Do you need a Background Check to buy a gun in America? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slTcG3bJjBQ)

Good argument for checking more than just a prior history background. Perhaps a psychological profile, certification of firearm safety training etc.

:confused:....and you're the same person who gets your shorts knotted up when someone dare suggest that maybe some sort of ID should be required at least initially when registering to vote as proof of citizenship and eligibility. And the fact that States and cities will assist you in getting that documentation for free....doesn't deter you from seeing infringment or supression of a right.... You'd call that suppression of a civil right, and that would be your mildest accusation. We know what follows that ..........yet here you are requiring everything from a shrink session to safety training...what's next....high school report cards..........college transcripts ?
That's why your argument won't get anywhere...because you're not consistent in your application of standards or requirements. We all know what the intent behind some of the regulations say for example in NYC even on long guns. It's almost impossible even with your rigorous protocol for a perfectly stable, law abiding citizen to purchase even a single shot 22 cal. pistol for target practice, which is why the Supreme Court struck down the DC gun ban..... Although Justice Breyer seems to think if you live in an urban area, you're not guaranteed the same rights as someone on a farm in Montana. It's settled law. Stop trying to pretend it's not.

I can predict your counter argument with relative ease, but I'm busy today so I'll get back to you.

trish

08-05-2012, 06:54 PM

and you're the same person who gets your shorts knotted up when someone dare suggest that maybe some sort of ID should be required at least initially when registering to vote as proof of citizenship and eligibility.Yes. Of course. Every day people in the U.S. are injured or killed from incidents involving firearms; some accidents, some murders, some suicides. Compared to those numbers voter fraud is non-existent. We don't require voter safety lessons nor voting licenses either, merely register and you can vote. Voters on the public square don't increase the general risk of violent injury.

So if you want an id for something as simple, unassuming, risk free and non-lethal as voting for which there is no evidence of abuse, why would you not want even stronger regulations on dangerous, lethal weapons designed for killing?

giovanni_hotel

08-05-2012, 07:09 PM

An ID for voting is a little silly. Whenever I vote at my precinct in Northern Virginia, they ALWAYS ask me to give my address to make sure it matches with the one they have on file. Sometimes I'm asked to present my voter card.

Hard to fake your identity as a voter if you can't vouch for where you live.

Guns are a totally different story. It's crazy that we expect more certification to legally drive a car than to own a firearm.

Faldur

08-05-2012, 07:23 PM

Hard to fake your identity as a voter if you can't vouch for where you live.

Lol, ever hear of a phone book?

buttslinger

08-05-2012, 07:42 PM

Everybody knows voter ID is another Republican Governor's genius idea to keep themselves in power. One American coming between another American Voting is fucking SICK.

Owning a military tank or fighter jet is 100% legal as long as it's not armed. But you don't see fruitcakes strafing Pennsylvania Ave, because restoring a tank or flying a plane takes a logical mind. And lots of money. The second ammendment is a bold experiment I believe in. Just like no father should let his daughter date OMK, no true American should let the NRA twist the United States Constitution.

trish

08-05-2012, 07:50 PM

ever hear of a phone book? what's a phone book and what century are you living in? :)

shaustin

08-05-2012, 07:58 PM

1984

trish

08-05-2012, 08:18 PM

July 20, 2012
Any day of the week, any year.

You're invoking 1984 when it's your side that wants voter id?

Willie Escalade

08-05-2012, 11:43 PM

Yet ANOTHER shooting...

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?id=8762321&section=news%2Fnational_world

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/06/us/shooting-reported-at-temple-in-wisconsin.html?_r=2

Silcc69

08-06-2012, 06:45 PM

And here is the alleged the shooter:

http://c498390.r90.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Wade-Page-500x281.jpg

Prospero

08-06-2012, 06:48 PM

But let's not forget, boys and girls, it's not the gun he used that killed all those people at prayer - it was the man. The gun is innocent!

Silcc69

08-06-2012, 06:52 PM

After reading a little bit you can tell he wanted to kill muslims but the idiot didn't even kill the right people. Is he a conservative or a liberal?

Prospero

08-06-2012, 07:00 PM

Oh surely in America Muslims or Sikhs. They're all the same, aren't they... weirdos in turbans?

trish

08-06-2012, 07:05 PM

But let's not forget, boys and girls, it's not the gun he used that killed all those people at prayer - it was the man. The gun is innocent!

I heard he was shooting 45 caliber ballots. You should have to have a picture ID to get a hold of those things.

Sulka_bewitched_me

08-06-2012, 07:12 PM

"But it's still too early to contemplate a gun debate" :soapbox

shaustin

08-06-2012, 07:58 PM

You're invoking 1984 when it's your side that wants voter id?

Uhm......got me confused with someone else? I didn't realize this was middle school gym class and they were picking teams, guess I got picked by the 'voter id' people or something while I wasn't paying attention.

The only side I'm on is my own. I have ideas and beliefs and if they align with someone elses great, if not, they can go do their thing and I'll continue on with my way of living. I'm not even sure where, how, or why 'voter id's' came into the picture, I truly stopped paying attention to the details of this thread like a dozen pages or more ago, it got waaaay too far from the OP and has fallen down the "gun debate" hole and broken it's leg. I'd put it out of it's misery, but, ya know, the hole is really deep. So it'll just have to lay down there in pain and hopefully die of starvation.

trish

08-06-2012, 08:34 PM

Well pay attention to where in the conversation you're chiming in at and to which posts you seem to be responding to. Keeping that small bit of advice in mind you should do okay :). Good to know you're not willing to support voter suppression with a 1984 reference:)

BluegrassCat

08-06-2012, 08:54 PM

Perhaps if someone was utilizing their 2nd amendment rights to the fullest, the shooting wouldn't have been as tragic.

"Somebody" was exercising their 2nd amendment rights to the fullest, that was the problem.

buttslinger

08-07-2012, 12:13 AM

A while ago I was talking with my brother about the feasibility of constructing a Popular Mechanics style cruise missle, with hobbyist remote control, GPS, it would be a nice project. I think if I put my mind to it I could make the front pages of every paper in the world, luckily for me and the world, I'm not insane.

Now, back to reality.
The reason the internal investigation by the FTA of Fast and Furious has taken so long is that the Constitution Waving Gun-nuts have blocked and impeded the Light of Day at every opportunity. The snowball that may have began as a genuine protection of individual rights has now grown into an uncontrollable avalanche-ball careening down the mountain. By slamming the door on bleeding heart liberal gun control sissies, they've opened the door to criminals and lunatics.

Quiet Reflections

08-07-2012, 01:50 AM

Weapons not food, not homes, not shoes
Not need, just feed the war cannibal animal
I walk the corner to the rubble that used to be a library
Line up to the mind cemetery now
What we don't know keeps the contracts alive an movin'
They don't gotta burn the books they just remove 'em
While arms warehouses fill as quick as the cells
Rally round the family, pockets full of shells
Bulls On Parade - Rage Against The Machine - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-58-36lSqG4)

Femboyurge

08-08-2012, 06:22 PM

Absurd?
they are right about it, private citizens shouldn't have a right to own and carry guns.

guns don't kill , poeple do , if poeple don't get guns they don't kill .

:roll:

trish

08-08-2012, 06:29 PM

Without weapons specifically designed to kill quickly, efficiently and in large numbers, people will be that much less efficient at killing each other.

Femboyurge

08-08-2012, 06:46 PM

Without weapons specifically designed to kill quickly, efficiently and in large numbers, people will be that much less efficient at killing each other.

Good. In that case I suppose that you also want to disarm all cops and get rid of all armies, because what civilians kill is like a drop in the Atlantic in comparison.

Prospero

08-08-2012, 08:48 PM

Good. In that case I suppose that you also want to disarm all cops and get rid of all armies, because what civilians kill is like a drop in the Atlantic in comparison.

What an utterably stupid remark. Of course more die in wars. But the killing during ordinary life - in peacetime - is massively aggravated by guns in the hands of civilians.

trish

08-15-2012, 06:08 AM

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/gunman-arrested-near-campus-of-texas-am/?smid=pl-share

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/business/a-kalashnikov-factory-in-russia-survives-on-sales-to-us-gun-owners.html?smid=pl-share

Dino Velvet

08-30-2012, 09:21 PM

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/james-holmes-application-letter-iowa-163256614.html

Read James Holmes’ rejected grad school application letter

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/KhT28aU.VDr9ezKTgKgsEQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTQwO3E9ODU7dz00MA--/http://media.zenfs.com/208/2011/06/21/blogger-stableford-40_041211.jpg

By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/author/dylan-stableford/) | The Lookout (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/) – 2 hrs 37 mins ago

James Holmes, the former Univ. of Colorado graduate student accused of killing 12 people during last month's theater shooting in Aurora (http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-movie-theater-shooting/), Colo., had applied to the Univ. of Iowa's neuroscience program in 2011, but was rejected.
"Do NOT offer admission under any circumstances," Dan Tranel, neurology professor and director of psychology at the Univ. of Iowa, wrote in an email to the admissions committee published Thursday by the Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_21433754/university-iowa-re-james-holmes-do-not-offer#ixzz252VxnKun).
The Jan. 30, 2011, email included Tranel's recommendations for seven applicants, including Holmes. Other candidates for the program were characterized by Tranel as "stellar," "solid," "solid, not spectacular" and "probably fine." Tranel advised the committee to offer admission to four, saying he was not sure about two others. Holmes, though, he was sure about.
Holmes applied to several other schools, including the Univ. of Illinois--which accepted him. But he chose to attend the Univ. of Colorado Denver.
[Complete coverage: Colorado theater shooting (http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-movie-theater-shooting/)]
According to his application (http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2012/0830/20120830_075103_James%20Holmes%20records%20%28reda cted%29.pdf), Holmes--a graduate of the Univ. of California-Riverside--wanted to pursue a degree in neuroscience because of his "foremost passions, the science of learning, cognition and memory."
"I have always been fascinated by the complexities of a long lost thought seemingly arising out of nowhere into a stream of awareness," Holmes wrote in his application letter. "I have an unquenchable curiosity, a strong desire to know and explore the unknown, and a need to persist against the odds."
Holmes--who gave himself the title of "aspiring scientist"--also recounted his childhood in California and his experience as a camp counselor for underprivileged children:
Behind the cluster of houses, rows upon rows of strawberries grew in the Salinas valley. As a child I passed these strawberry fields everyday on my way to school into the town of Castroville, "The Artichoke Center of The World". At school everyone wore a mandatory uniform consisting of navy blue jeans for the boys and a navy blue skirt for the girls, while everyone donned a white shirt. I didn't know at the time why uniforms were necessary but later discovered the uniforms were issued to curb gang rivalry. Looking back, my life could have gone in a completely different direction had I not possessed the foresight to choose the path of knowledge. I chose to appreciate an education, cultivating my mind. Sine then I have strived to find new and better ways to learn, to improve. This is why I aim to attend graduate school and why my primary aim is to explore learning and memory.
In the field of cognitive neuroscience, researchers come from many different backgrounds and bring part of who they are to their investigations. I too will bring my past, specifically my strong moral upbringing. In addition, I will also exemplify my resolution and clairvoyance in problem solving. These abilities and more are typified in a summer job I performed as a camp counselor for underprivileged children.
Assuming a leadership role was something I was previously unaccustomed to but I took on the task with fervor. For the next week, twelve boys ages ten to eleven would look up to me for guidance and direction in Cheyenne cabin. Following them, nine more weeks with nine more groups. Every day there were activities for the kids but one of the activities "create your own," tended to turn into chaos. At first I chose to let the kids decide what they wanted to do and put it to a vote. Democracy right? Bad idea. Some wanted to go to the game room, others wanted to rest, some wanted to go to the field but there was no way to manage everyone if they split up. The outcome resulted in twelve kids arguing with each other, name calling and pushing. To resolve these types of incidents from occurring again I changed my strategy. "Create your own" became game room on Monday, sports on Tuesday, drawing on Wednesday... and if the kids were really good I devised something special for them like lizard catching. In the middle of that week when the campers were writing letters to home about their camp experience one of the little guys asked me how to spell amazing.
When it was time for each cabin to go home there were always kids telling me they wanted the same cabin next summer and if I would be back again to be their cabin counselor. At those moments I felt a sense of unparalleled accomplishment.
Other times I felt that I could be doing more. On average, two of the kids per cabin were clinically diagnosed with ADHD. One of the weeks, I mentored a kid with Schizophrenia. At 3:30 a.m. he woke up and vacuumed the ceiling of our cabin. These kids were heavily medicated, but this did not solve their problems, only create new ones. The medication changed them from highly energetic creative kids to lax beings who slept through the activities. I wanted to help them but couldn't. This is where neuroscience research becomes invaluable.
With a neuroscience doctorate there is even more to accomplish. Those most in need of an education including children and people with cognitive disabilities, can benefit from the results of research into the workings of learning, memory and brain-behavior relations. Indeed all aspects of society have the potential to gain from advancements in our understanding of learning and memory because we are all connected. We all share one brain, the human brain.
Holmes is accused of killing 12 people and injuring 58 others during the July 20 massacre at a midnight screening of "A Dark Knight Rises"--several weeks after failing an oral exam at University of Colorado Denver. According to the Arapahoe County District Attorney's office, Holmes was barred from the school's Anschutz Medical Campus (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/school-factor-batman-shootings-prosecutors-215043575.html) after he made threats in June.
Prosecutors also say Holmes told a classmate in March that he wanted to kill people (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/james-holmes-told-classmate-wanted-kill-prosecution-alleges-202253868.html).
Holmes' defense attorneys say he is mentally ill.

Dino Velvet

03-22-2013, 08:13 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/21/aurora-theater-shooter-james-holmes-converts-islam/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

Aurora, Colo., theater shooter James Holmes converts to Islam

By Jessica Chasmar (http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/jessica-chasmar/)
-
The Washington Times

The man who shot up an Aurora, Colo., movie theater during a screening of “The Dark Knight Rises” last summer has reportedly converted to Islam and prays up to five times a day.
A prison source say the beard James Holmes (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/james-holmes/) sported in court last months represents his new-found faith. The source said Mr. Holmes (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/james-holmes/) has turned Muslim as a way of justifying his horrific crimes on July 20 which left 12 people dead and 58 people wounded, the Daily Mail reports.

“He has brainwashed himself into believing he was on his own personal jihad and that his victims were infidels,” the source told the National Enquirer.
Mr. Holmes (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/james-holmes/) now prays five times a day, sticks to a strict Muslim diet and spends hours each day studying the Koran, the source told the Enquirer.
But most Muslim inmates are not happy with the convict’s new religion.
“None of them condone forms of terrorism or extremism,” the source added. “And they don’t want their religion to be connected to that awful shooting.”
Mr. Holmes (http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/james-holmes/) is charged with 166 counts, mostly for murder and attempted murder, the Mail reports. He could be executed or spend the rest of his life in prison if convicted. A Colorado judge entered a not guilty plea on his behalf earlier this month