Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!

Yes he is, faking it.

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

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

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

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

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

Anybody surprised?

Quote:

---

A Maine man was arrested when he told authorities that he was on his way to shoot a former employer a day after watching "The Dark Knight Rises," Maine state police said Monday.
Timothy Courtois of Biddeford, Maine, had been stopped for speeding, and a police search of his car found an AK-47 assault weapon, four handguns, ammunition and news clippings about the mass shooting that left 12 people dead early Friday, authorities said.

---

http://l1.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Mq...706700b8df.jpg

http://l2.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/PZ...706700539e.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

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

---

That's right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

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


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

---

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

Two pieces of evidence:

More guns mean more homicides. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research...ath/index.html

More gun control laws mean fewer gun deaths. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...-deaths/69354/

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

Three men lost their lives saving their girlfriends..

No comments, just facts.