Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

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.

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

Chinese teen kills nine in knife attack


http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-k...102629246.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quiet Reflections

Chinese teen kills nine in knife attack


http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-k...102629246.html

---

Asians don't need bullets to kill people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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 ?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

There are restrictions in place already

---

Yes 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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaustin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Femboyurge

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yosi

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

---

You can't possibly believe that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yosi

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

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?)

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

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?)

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

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.

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.

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/wikipedi...afety_slug.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

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:

mmmm

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

mmmm

---

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

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


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

a triptych ->

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

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

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

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

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

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__...sunglasses.gif

Were dying to see the Dark Knight.

AWWWWWH YEEEEEAH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

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.

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."

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobvela

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 ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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.

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.