:iagree::iagree:Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Printable View
:iagree::iagree:Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Wow...SMH at the turnaround in this thread.
Still bitch made shooting at innocent people with an automatic weapon in a dark, smoky theater wearing full body armor. If the dude was naked and using a revolver OR A KNIFE I'd have more respect for the man.
He'd better not live to see his 26th birthday.
The AR-15 doesn't fire a high caliber round.Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
Oh yeah...this right here (thanks B-1).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...comm_ref=false
:yayo: :ignore:
American sanity at its best...
Americans can own any gun they want with proper permits Its not the guns that are the problem. It's the fucking wacko's.I am so tired of the liberal bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Batman Massacre: A Response
by Michael Nagler
I want to make an offer to my fellow Americans who are, like myself, reeling from the worst “random” shooting the country has ever seen. My question: Have you had enough? Because if you have, I can tell you how to stop this kind of madness. I know that’s a bold claim, but this is not a time for small measures.
http://www.commondreams.org/sites/co...ages/joker.jpg
We cannot fix this tomorrow, because we didn’t cause it yesterday. We have been building up to this domestic holocaust since – to take one milestone – television was made available to the general public at the conclusion of World War Two.
If you are still with me, you are prepared to believe that it was not a coincidence that this massacre took place at the scene of an extremely violent, “long-awaited” movie. Psychologists have proved over and over again that – guess what – exposure to violent imagery produces disturbances in the mind that must, in course of time, take form in outward behavior. The imagery can be in any medium, nor does it matter whether on the surface of our minds we think what we’re seeing is real or made up. This is a natural, scientific law. Exactly who will crack next and in what setting is nearly impossible to predict, and in any case it’s ridiculous to try to run around stopping the resulting violence from being acted out after the mental damage has been done. The only sane approach is not to do it in the first place.
As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman pointed out in his book, Let’s Stop Killing Our Kids, the video games that the Army uses to prepare ordinary men and women for combat, in other words to wipe out the normal empathy and inhibitions against hurting others that we’ve built up over millennia – a process known as civilization – are the very same games our young people buy across the counter throughout the country.
Of course, there are other factors. At some point we will have to talk about readily available weapons; at some point we’ll have to realize that a nation that engages in heartless drone warfare, torture, and extrajudicial killings cannot expect to live in peace. But until we liberate our minds from the endless pounding of violent imagery I fear we won’t be able to think clearly about those factors (or for that matter anything else).
With rare exceptions, film and video game producers will not stop turning out these dehumanizing products as long as there is profit to be made from them – and not enough sophistication about culture or the human mind to warn us about their dangers. But there is a way, one that has worked well on the small scales on which it has so far been tried: don’t watch them. Captain Boycott had the right approach.
Right now police have been posted at theaters where this same movie is being shown – still. But ask yourself, what are they protecting? Is it perhaps the belief that violence is just entertaining? People, tell me when you’ve had enough.
https://www.commondreams.org/sites/c...ael_nagler.jpg
Michael Nagler is Professor emeritus of Classics and Comparative Literature at UC, Berkeley, where he co-founded the Peace and Conflict Studies Program
What's liberal or conservative got to do with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by scopas66
You've been a member on a tranny forum for 4 months and this is the only thing you've bothered to comment on?
It's the guns that the wackos can get that are the problem - if that wackos can't get them, then no problem. So what is your solution to get rid of the wackos?
Yeah. The wackos are the ones who yell "Americans can own any gun they want with proper permits Its not the guns that are the problem. It's the fucking wacko's." I'm tired of this ignorant bullshit being twisted into partisan politics. Neither the right nor the left have made any moves to take away any wacko's precious guns. The issue is between a sane approach to public safety and "let's all live in the wild wild west again, overthrow the tyrannical gov'ment and shoot 'dem revenuers."Quote:
Originally Posted by scopas66
All I see here is an emotional appeal, not a logical one: one man's opinion, a man, no less, who is not a scientist but makes scientific claims with no supporting evidence or experience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
Video games intended to desensitize? Really? So why don't movies and games make everyone a violent psychopath?
The ENTIRE argument is subjective. The Constitution is clear on the issue.
~BB~
Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaBellucci
So change the Constitution. It's broken.
Since when are guns the ONLY way for an insane killer to take lives? When they start going to homemade bombs will you outlaw diesel fuel and fertilizer? If they then turn to running through crowded public places with chainsaws chopping people up, should we make them illegal too? While yes, getting rid of guns will stop a few select cases where access and ease were contributing factors, it will by no means deter an unstable person who is out for any random innocent's blood.Quote:
Originally Posted by seanchai
Sure, give all the power to the government. Meanwhile this happened in Anaheim, CA this weekend after the cops who are supposed to protect us, not only gunned down a man but then opened fire on crowds of people in a residential neighborhood, discharging deadly rubber bullets and bean bags on children and women and vicious K-9 unit dogs on said women and children. Fuck the police and fuck this country. Those pigs are lucky that wasn't my neighborhood or there would be dead bacon on the ground. What kind of fucking law enforcement, that you look up to as protectors, DARES to open fire on children and sick dogs on them. THIS IS WHY I COMPARE AMERICA WITH SYRIA. Watch that video and tell me NONE of you feel the same rage I do right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
Police Shooting in Anaheim Leads to Violent Clash - RAW FOOTAGE & NEWS - YouTube
I will contribute to your one way ticket to syria.
You can kill a lot more people more easily with an assault rifle and at a distance. I'm sure it's easier to kill randomnly from 20ft away than 6 inches away with a blade. This is a tired argument and it's stupid - "ban paper in case you get a paper cut" - pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by shaustin
You like guns - and you're willing to support having them because you like them, regardless of the consequences. Everything else is just blind justification.
"Power" isn't bought by havuing a gun.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
You talk a big talk ... sincerely, after the rhetoric above, I'd be worried about you owning guns.
This is sickening and I've been on the receiving end of it and it makes me angry but your threats, whether empty or real, aren't how you'd resolve this. It would lead to just another dead tgirl.
We outlaw pot and are going after medicinal growers but the public needs to be able to buy assault weapons at sporting goods stores with no waiting period ----because we need to defend ourselves against the goverment, police and military? really?
You complain as if guns are a huge problem in America. When was the last time in this country we had a spree shooting? A couple years? Earlier I posted statistics about tobacco and the resulting death toll it has caused. For the 12 people that died this weekend, about 57 people also died from cigarettes. While a spree killing occurs about once ever couple/few years. For every ~two dozen people killed in an atrocity like this, about ~1.5 million people died in the US during that same period, from tobacco and its related diseases. Of those ~1.5 million, 150,000 of them were non-smokers. Think of the non-smokers as civilian bystander casualties.Quote:
Originally Posted by braveheart0219
CDC Tobacco Death Toll (USA Annual): 443,000 Smokers + ~45,000 Non-Smokers (Second-Hand Smoke Exposure)
ALL GUN RELATED DEATHS PER YEAR, USA: ~32,000
Once you've achieved banning tobacco completely and ensuring that cigarettes are completely illegal within the United States of America, come back to this forum and let us know your progress and we can move on the gun bans. Until then, keep whining.
Wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
As long as Boehner passes out checks from the Tobacco Lobby to his Republican Buddies, cigarettes will be legal. Same with the NRA.
Morons call that freedom.
George Carlin Stupid People - YouTube
The only thing that stopped more fatalities was that the Joker's AR-15 jammed, and he was too stupid to fix it.
The modern interpretation of the Constitution and how it would be applied by the present court is relatively clear on the issue. The actual Constitution is not so clear on application. What is made clear in the Constitution is one of the founding intentions, namely the recognized state militias will in part be armed by the private expenditures of the soldiers themselves, be they drafted or volunteers. It was a cost cutting procedure. There is absolutely no evidence it was originally intended so that the citizens would be enabled to carry out an armed revolt against their own government. The explicit intent was to arm the government in part at private expense.
Thomas Jefferson;Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
“Every generation needs a new revolution.”
“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive.”
At Least sixty one percent of the House and Senate know the simple steps to take that would greatly improve the quality of life for every American, that is why they were elected. But if they did the right thing they wouldn't be re-elected. That's the catch. Catch 22.
And you think he meant an armed revolution and armed resistance? Perhaps after he served his terms of office, eh?
The problem is not the NRA.
The problem is the NRA LOBBY.
Drum magazines have a reputation to jam. He would of probably done more damage if he used 30rd mags instead of a drum. Thank goodness.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
I am trying to understand this 2nd Amendment of yours, but it has generated a vast literature. But for the moment -is it not the case that the rationale for armed militias when the Amendment was adopted was that they would prevent the emergence of a dictorship -indeed, that were the USA to fall under the power of an autocrat/dictator that the militia would have a duty to overthrow the government in order to restore democracy? The Amendment was adopted in 1791 before the conflict with the British Empire had been resolved -indeed there followed another series of battles and what some refer to as a '2nd Revolution' in 1812- was it not the fear of a resurgent British imperial ambition that necessitated the concept of militias as a last resort against the Crown? When Parliament in 1689 restored the right to have arms it was a reaction against King James II attempt to disband Protestant militias by removing their right to bear arms. This was a key comparison the Americans made in 1791.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Second, am I right in thinking that the problem with the text of the 2nd Amendment is that it originally implied that the people armed are part of a collective -eg a Militia- but not individuals -whereas in Heller -vs-District of Columbia [2008] Justice Scalia argued precisely that all Americans are implied in the Amendment, ie that it is individual rights that are being upheld?
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...nion/ed-whelan
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I see. Thankfully the Supreme Court does not, and has not agreed with you. You are in the distinct minority on your interpretation. So....if I can extrapolate what you're saying to other court decisions...can we surmise there is absolutely no evidence that the right to privacy was ever intended by the founders to extend to taking the life of 3 month old fetus ? Your argument cuts both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis." - Stephen P. Halbrook, "That Every Man Be Armed", 1984
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson, proposal for Virginia's constitution of 1776.
With all due respect to Trish and others...there's little ambiguity in Jefferson's statement. I think I'll defer to his take on the issue .
Cuckoo sound - YouTubeQuote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
strange....not sure what you're attempting to say. Are you at issue with Jefferson's views....or mine? Because you're poorly equiped to deal with either, frankly.
The problem is not the NRA.
The problem is the NRA LOBBY.
Now that's profound. lol
Sorry to disappoint but I haven't offered an interpretation. I merely repeated the obvious fact that the only clear INTENT made EXPLICIT in the amendment is the intent to arm the recognized militias. Clearly there were implicit intentions not mentioned in the document. The acquisition of food, for example, in the day required the use of firearms. I am most definitely not a strict constructionist. So I don't really give a damn about original intent. My post was merely a response as to what is clearly explicit and what it read into it by the modern interpretation of the court. I'm quite happy with the concept of a living growing document. Scalia isn't, yet he plays the hypocrite by pretending to adhere to original intent while in reality reading the document fast and loose.Quote:
Originally Posted by onmyknees
cigarettes are a personal choice and death is self inflicted-try telling the shooting victim's families that guns are not a problem in the usa. Don't ban guns then -ban bullets-or you can buy ONE for personal use only.Quote:
Originally Posted by kittyKaiti
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
Just thinking about this, I'd think this is about right. I mean, the NRA pushed for a bill in Florida that would have fined pediatricians for just even ASKING the parents of the child if there was a gun in the house.
And for all the people that are worried about the government having too much power as the argument for keeping their arms - well in the 21st Century, it's not the government's guns I'd be worried about, but their mouse clicks.
And FWIW, I think events like these are "the price of freedom" that we currently enjoy in the US. Oh, and something else I find amusing - many folks who vehemently seek to defend their interpretation of the Second Amendment would do so by beginning to infringe on the other Amendments to the Constitution... like "just locking up the crazies", or "making people live under more 'Christian principles' with movies and games"...
Though someone I chatted with noticed this - in some places, you can't buy more than one box of Sudafed without an ID check, etc... and yet this guy got 6,000 rounds of ammo in a couple weeks?
But hey, what do I know - I'm just a stupid tranny.
onmyknees-strange....not sure what you're attempting to say.
There's a reason you can't buy arsenic, strychnine or cyanide caps at the local drugstore or hardware outlet, because there was legislative decision made that these compounds were too dangerous to be readily available to the general public.
I just read a stat there were over 200K nonfatal gun shooting in the U.S. in 2010.
That's insane.
The NRA IMO has stopped representing responsible gun owners and become the shadow mouthpiece for the gun manufacturing INDUSTRY.
And if any U.S. politician seriously attempted to launch a campaign to overturn the 2nd Amendment in total, he would be defeated by both libs and conservatives.
When did the NRA become fanatical???
I've heard gun advocates argue the 2nd Amendment is the one Amendment that's the foundation for the ENTIRE Constitution, as if the right to bear firearms is the 'force' behind our system of laws. Such craziness.
THe U.S. is the main supplier of guns to the Mexican drug cartels because of the ease of purchase and transport across the border, and our lax gun laws are absolutely a contributor to this massacre in Colorado.
No normal gun owner has any justification for possessing a mag with 30-, 60-, 90- round loads.
What's the REAL agenda behind the NRA???
Is it really just to protect the bottom line of gun and ammo manufacturers??
Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Obvious to whom........ You and Piers Morgan? Because it's not all that obvious to the vast majority of the rest of us. Of course you're happy with a living breathing document, and a court that interprets it as such....until it gives you Citizen's United. As my last post clearly stated...no where in that historical time frame was your version of the 2nd amendment given any weight. Nor did they discuss gathering of food with respect to the 2nd amendment. ...that's a left wing fantasy brewed up by academia. You're free to have that version, but thankfully you're in the minority and will remain that way for a very long time.
To anyone who can read. Do you know what EXPLICIT means? Do you know what INTENTION means? Now read the 2nd Amendment and tell me what INTENTION was EXPLICITLY written down. Sheeesh! What an idiot! All nine justices will tell you the intention made explicit by the document is the intention to have armed state militia. What the justices disagree on is the application of the 2nd amendment to current jurisprudence as well as what intent remains implicit.Quote:
Obvious to whom.......
I presented no version of the 2nd amendment. I suggested no interpretation nor application. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.Quote:
no where in that historical time frame was your version of the 2nd amendment given any weight.
Did I say they did? I merely suggested some intents must have remained unstated. Look up the word IMPLICIT. I don't know what those intents were. Neither do you. Neither does Scalia nor any other justice. Hunting was just a possible example. Some originalists see it as their task to ferret out implicit intent and apply it as best they can to present circumstances.Quote:
Nor did they discuss gathering of food with respect to the 2nd amendment
Quote:
Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel
"THe U.S. is the main supplier of guns to the Mexican drug cartels because of the ease of purchase and transport across the border"
provably false. The majority of guns used in Mexico come from Russia and China. They prefer cheap AK-47's. That's a left wing talking point, and the precise thinking behind Holder's Fast and Furious. Hillary, Holder and several anti second amendment members of Congress all made that charge, and were forced to walk it back because it's simply not true. Now if you say The Justice Department and ATF are a main supplier to Mexican Drug Cartels, I'd tend to agree.
You ask what the real ajenda of the NRA is...I ask what the real ajenda of ATF is...or have you forgotton Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Fast and Furious ?
It makes me sad that a massacre of innocents in a cinema has degenerated into the predictable HA shouting match between those advocating gun control and those clinging to the constitution.
Lest we forget, this tragedy occurred because the perpetrator had effectively open access to deadly weapons and as much ammo as he could get his hands on, regardless of whatever weird rationale was going on inside his head.
So please, instead of invoking the constitution and arguing over the philosophical issues, what, if anything, can be done at a simple practical level to prevent this sort of occurrence happening again? And without some sort of intervention, it will. As the majority seem to believe it's somehow a price worth paying for the liberty of carrying weapons I don't see any realistic prospect of change.