Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaustin

That's actually kind of along the lines of what I was trying to point out. In that situation the crack is the actual cause of the gun crime, not the guns themselves. If all the energy that was focused by the citizens and the police was on getting rid of guns and not the crack, the true cause behind the crime would still be prevailent.

---

Once you realize crack heads uses guns to commit crimes you need effective GUN REGULATION to keep guns out of the hands of drug abusers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Can I suggest you look at the figures and explanations for the decline in gun-related crimes in Washington DC since the 1990s? A key cause of such crimes was the crack cocaine epidemic and turf wars among the dealers. One part of the decline was harsh policing; but another was the generation who watched their parents and elders getting shot when zonked out of their brains who decided to 'just say no' -thus the market for crack cocaine declined, and with it the gun-related crime: cause and effect. Has gun ownership in Washington DC declined? I don't know, but its use in crime does seem to have.

---

There is NO LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP in Washington, DC. At least there wasn't until the recent lawsuit by the name of Heller vs. D.C. which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Heller, the lead Plaintiff in the lawsuit, was a Special Police Officer at the U.S. Supreme Court Library. He wasn't some 'ordinary Joe'. He was trained and was armed while at work. But, Washington, D.C. wouldn't give him a license to carry his gun when he went home.

Chicago, until the recent decision of McDonald vs. Chicago, didn't allow any civilian to own a gun in his own home. Again, not even in his own home. McDonald, the plaintiff who wanted to protect himself in his home in 'a bad part of town' was in his 60's or 70's and never had trouble in the law. As of today, Chicago still don't allow ANY civilian to carry a weapon on the street.

The laws of D.C. and Chicago is one of the reasons why 'gun rights' people don't trust 'gun control' people when they speak of 'passing reasonable gun control legislation'. In Chicago and D.C. 'reasonable' was determined to be a complete ban. Those 2 cities have a lot of gun violence, with not 1 legal gun on the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

"I didn't know it was loaded!!"

---

Anyone who ever says this after a shot is fired deserves to have the next one hit them in the forehead. Like I said, if your going to own a gun and have children, educate them. If you pick up a weapon you always check for ammunition, period. No adult who isn't a child mentally would ever say that, and no child who isn't mature enough should be allowed access to firearms. Anyone who uses "I didn't know it was loaded." is full of shit or was failed by an adult who should be held responsible in their place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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.

---

Umm no. The Second Ammendment is quite clear: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State (Each State used to have it's own militia. The closest modern equivalient we have is the National Guard. These State Guard units were for all intents and purpposes private armies that the governors could call upon to deal with civil disorder, incursions, securing the State's borders, etc.), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (it doesn't say the right of the militia, it says the right of the people)."

And as for your statement that it was never intended that the citizens should be able to rise up in revolt against the government; firstly, in the Declatation of Independence it says, "...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, ..." The Founding Fathers envisioned a day when the very government they were forming would turn against it's citizens. Furthermore, the wording of the Second Ammendment gives the people, not the militia. (BTW the militia mentioned in this ammendment doesn't really concern the Army which was already established in the Constitution.) It only mentions that the militia should be well regulated while giving the people the individual right to own and possess firearms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaustin

Anyone who ever says this after a shot is fired deserves to have the next one hit them in the forehead. Like I said, if your going to own a gun and have children, educate them. If you pick up a weapon you always check for ammunition, period. No adult who isn't a child mentally would ever say that, and no child who isn't mature enough should be allowed access to firearms. Anyone who uses "I didn't know it was loaded." is full of shit or was failed by an adult who should be held responsible in their place.

---

:iagree:

In high school, one of the twins I had known since he was a little kid shot himself to death.playing Russian roulette. In elementary school, my buddy two doors down shot himself accidentally. Twice. Years later his big brother shot a hole in his leg with a .45 and had to crawl a long ways through the woods, bleeding profusely. The safety had been on. The cop actually shot it off again in the house with the safety on.
Moral of the story: Guns are Dangerous!!!!

Quote:

---

Umm no. The Second Ammendment is quite clear:

---

Yes. Citizens have the right to bear arms. One reason for this right is to make it possible for private citizens to join or be drafted into a state militia and provide their own weapon. I never said those two aspects of the amendment were unclear. But those are the only two aspects of the amendment. Everything else is unclear. What sort of arms? Tactical nukes? Bazookas? Surface to air missiles? Automatic assault weapons. None of these existed even in the dreams of our founders. How the 2nd Amendment is to be applied is not at all made clear by the amendment itself, but is rather delineated by the history of precedents set by the various courts over the course of time. As the amendment continues to be interpreted by each new court its meaning and application will vary and evolve. How and in what direction is as unclear as the future.

Quote:

---

And as for your statement that it was never intended that the citizens should be able to rise up in revolt against the government

---

Yes the founders thought that U.S. citizens should revolt against the U.S. government.:roll:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Yes the founders thought that U.S. citizens should revolt against the U.S. government.:roll:

---

Exactly. That's why George Washington joined the Whiskey Rebellion and led them to victory, overthrowing the newly formed United States.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Yes the founders thought that U.S. citizens should revolt against the U.S. government.:roll:

---

This is actually a known fact. The founding fathers may have lived in another time, but they knew just about as much about tyranny and corruption as anyone today. They foresaw the possibility that the institution they were establishing could be used against the people just like any other ruling party throughout history. So in plain language, they stated their wish that were such a time to ever come the people uphold the same obligation they themselves felt during their fight for independence. They wanted to ensure that the government they bled to create would always be used to serve the people, and that the people it was founded to protect would never be oppressed by the governments whim.

Quote:

---

They wanted to ensure that the government they bled to create would always be used to serve the people...

---

And to do so said government has to survive and not be overturned, otherwise it would be some other government serving the people and the founders wouldn't be our founders anymore. In spite of the "known facts" the founders obviously never intended U.S. citizens to overthrow the U.S. government. They instead did their very best to create a system of checks and balances with an amendable Constitution just to avoid that eventuality.

The Declaration gives the then British citizens in the colonies rousing arguments to rise up against Britain. When those words were written the U.S. didn't exist yet. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not explicitly harken back to those words in the Declaration. It would have been easy to explicitly write down such a connection when composing the 2nd Amendment. The writers chose not to.

Very little is clear when it comes to the 2nd Amendment's raison d'etre. It is the courts that need to apply that interpret it and provide the current intent of the Amendment. None of those precedents (as far as I know) entail the need for U.S. citizens to defend themselves against the U.S. government or to overthrow said government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Yes, of course. But how does someone in a shop determine if the person who wants to buy is a mass murderer? Psychopaths by definition can conceal the simmering hatred and violence in them, and appear to be cool, calm, and collected. I think this is why the issue of regulation is more important than the debate on ownership in the USA. There are probably more people organised to promote or oppose gay marriage than are united for gun control. It is and has been one of the most intractable issues in the US that I can think of.

---

Most Europeans can not understand that intractability and never will. My point has been all along, it makes for some good back and forth dialogue regarding our founding documents, and that can't be a bad thing, but in the final analysis NOTHING is going to happen with respect to tightening gun regs. Normally the political philosophies of liberals and democrats overlap, but this is one area they don't. Western and southern Democrats don't want any part of a gun control discussion.. It's east and west coat liberals. Even Obama won't go anywhere near this. I see some of those on here who are more squishy regarding the second amendment, lamenting about the power of the NRA. To be sure it's a powerful lobby, but could it be that if it didn't have the rank and file support of the majority of US citizens? They draw their power from somewhere. And I have to correct you about your assertion that there is more organization towards gay marriage than gun restrictions. Watch the politicians.... they'll show you which way the wind is blowing...in this case Obama. He made his move on gay marriage because he didn't think it would hurt him politically. That is to say the country is evenly divided on that issue. He won't make that type of move against guns....not gonna do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

And to do so said government has to survive and not be overturned, otherwise it would be some other government serving the people and the founders wouldn't be our founders anymore. In spite of the "known facts" the founders obviously never intended U.S. citizens to overthrow the U.S. government. They instead did their very best to create a system of checks and balances with an amendable Constitution just to avoid that eventuality.

The Declaration gives the then British citizens in the colonies rousing arguments to rise up against Britain. When those words were written the U.S. didn't exist yet. The 2nd Amendment to the Constitution does not explicitly harken back to those words in the Declaration. It would have been easy to explicitly write down such a connection when composing the 2nd Amendment. The writers chose not to.

Very little is clear when it comes to the 2nd Amendment's raison d'etre. It is the courts that need to apply that interpret it and provide the current intent of the Amendment. None of those precedents (as far as I know) entail the need for U.S. citizens to defend themselves against the U.S. government or to overthrow said government.

---

Your completely missing the point. They did their best, but they knew as the times changed it might not be enough to prevent it from changing into something unhealthy. They DID intend U.S. citizen's to overthrow the U.S. Government, IF the government ever became oppressive of the people.

It's called a Revolution, the Founding Fathers knew their fair share about them, and they also knew the necessity for them. That's why they placed those words in the Constitution, so that should that day ever come when the people felt the need to revolt, they would know that it was with their consent that such a government be overturned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

Most Europeans can not understand that intractability and never will. My point has been all along, it makes for some good back and forth dialogue regarding our founding documents, and that can't be a bad thing, but in the final analysis NOTHING is going to happen with respect to tightening gun regs. Normally the political philosophies of liberals and democrats overlap, but this is one area they don't. Western and southern Democrats don't want any part of a gun control discussion.. It's east and west coat liberals. Even Obama won't go anywhere near this. I see some of those on here who are more squishy regarding the second amendment, lamenting about the power of the NRA. To be sure it's a powerful lobby, but could it be that if it didn't have the rank and file support of the majority of US citizens? They draw their power from somewhere. And I have to correct you about your assertion that there is more organization towards gay marriage than gun restrictions. Watch the politicians.... they'll show you which way the wind is blowing...in this case Obama. He made his move on gay marriage because he didn't think it would hurt him politically. That is to say the country is evenly divided on that issue. He won't make that type of move against guns....not gonna do it.

---

At last, a reply of sorts to the question I asked about 100 posts ago. OMK is right. There's no realistic possibility of change in America's gun laws, whether radical or incremental, because it simply will not fly politically. There's the sadness.

Even here in the UK where our gun control laws are amongst the strictest in the world, some crazies slip through the net, most recently in Cumbria in 2010. However, deaths from gun crime here represent a minute percentage compared to the carnage across the pond, and the incidence of multiple shootings on the UK mainland is negligible, although not for the witnesses and survivors, who included my aunt at Dunblane - just three in my lifetime, at Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria. In each case the government response has resulted in a review of gun control laws and appropriate action. We must be getting something right, but it's equally clear that the government has the overwhelming support and consent of the people, as every poll shows.

That isn't going to happen in the US. Obamacare's travails are a picnic by comparison. And an awful lot of people are in denial.

tsntx shared this on her Facebook page. Hmm...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8027/7...5a7efc9d_o.jpg

Just sharing something I thought was interesting...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robertlouis

At last, a reply of sorts to the question I asked about 100 posts ago. OMK is right. There's no realistic possibility of change in America's gun laws, whether radical or incremental, because it simply will not fly politically. There's the sadness.

Even here in the UK where our gun control laws are amongst the strictest in the world, some crazies slip through the net, most recently in Cumbria in 2010. However, deaths from gun crime here represent a minute percentage compared to the carnage across the pond, and the incidence of multiple shootings on the UK mainland is negligible, although not for the witnesses and survivors, who included my aunt at Dunblane - just three in my lifetime, at Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria. In each case the government response has resulted in a review of gun control laws and appropriate action. We must be getting something right, but it's equally clear that the government has the overwhelming support and consent of the people, as every poll shows.

That isn't going to happen in the US. Obamacare's travails are a picnic by comparison. And an awful lot of people are in denial.

---

not a bad post...but you and a few of your Britt buds have this incredibly annoying habit of constantly trying to either equate or compare the US and the UK. I'm guessing you don't realize you're doing it. I'm glad you feel you're doing something right about your absence of a second amendment and a bill of rights...but please don't preach. You're a smart guy, and you know your history wasn't always this passive, at least outside your borders. There was plenty of carnage to go around. The entire purpose of that skirmish centuries ago was that we didn't want to be like you. All you need to do is look at this thread...there's people who you would never assume would be so strident about the right to bear arms. On 9 out of 10 other issues, they probably agree with you, but the 2nd Amendment is serious business. Try to grasp that. You're a fine bunch of folks, and we can be friends, but...we're not you and we don't want to be you, with all due respect. There's nothing sad about preventing infringement on the Constitution and no one is in denial about anything. It's sad when people die be it from smoking or at the hands of violence.

This I say unto you-
Most people who shoot someone are too stupid to spell Constitution. The United States is not a piece of paper or a flag, it's people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

not a bad post...but you and a few of your Britt buds have this incredibly annoying habit of constantly trying to either equate or compare the US and the UK. I'm guessing you don't realize you're doing it. I'm glad you feel you're doing something right about your absence of a second amendment and a bill of rights...but please don't preach. You're a smart guy, and you know your history wasn't always this passive, at least outside your borders. There was plenty of carnage to go around. The entire purpose of that skirmish centuries ago was that we didn't want to be like you. All you need to do is look at this thread...there's people who you would never assume would be so strident about the right to bear arms. On 9 out of 10 other issues, they probably agree with you, but the 2nd Amendment is serious business. Try to grasp that. You're a fine bunch of folks, and we can be friends, but...we're not you and we don't want to be you, with all due respect. There's nothing sad about preventing infringement on the Constitution and no one is in denial about anything. It's sad when people die be it from smoking or at the hands of violence.

---

I don't necessarily disagree with your opening statement, nor with the raw emotion that the 2nd Amendment clearly stirs in so many American hearts, which I can and do respect. It just saddens me that any attempt, no matter how minor, to regulate access to arms and in this case in particular, to ammunition, is doomed to total failure, until it happens again and everyone shrugs their shoulders and accepts it as one definition of freedom with a human cost worth paying again and again. I guess I'm saying that I understand it, but I can't personally agree with it.

BTW, death from smoking is largely self-inflicted. Being killed by a gun is not.

F Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway, and Orson Welles all went to Europe and made lots of friends, and got immersed into the culture. And they all said when they got back home, the Land of Freedom and Fairness they had grown up in, wasn't so free and wasn't so fair.

I think they talk about the fact that he was a top student etc, is because it is such a contrast to the evil things he has done, it is all part of the news sensationalism...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willie Escalade

tsntx shared this on her Facebook page. Hmm...

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8027/7...5a7efc9d_o.jpg

Just sharing something I thought was interesting...

---

If by "interesting" you mean "stupid" then I couldn't agree more. Whoever put this piece of tripe together never bothered to perform so much as a cursory review of how the justice system works in Colorado and what procedures MUST be followed before formal charges can be filed. I could go on and on, but what's the point?

-Quinn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by onmyknees

I'm glad you feel you're doing something right about your absence of a second amendment and a bill of rights...

---

Factually incorrect -a Bill of Rights was presented to Parliament in 1689 and passed (it was a statutory form of the Declaration of Right made by King William and Queen Mary earier in the year), it remains the basis of the Constitutional Monarchy under which we live in the UK, and was a Bill of Rights that influenced the men who made the Revolution of 1776...

When more cops start getting shot by NRA members, Congress will finally decide to pass more comprehensive restrictive gun legislation.

IMO letting randoms stockpile massive depots of ammunition AND weapons is not a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

When more cops start getting shot by NRA members, Congress will finally decide to pass more comprehensive restrictive gun legislation.

IMO letting randoms stockpile massive depots of ammunition AND weapons is not a good idea.

---

Or maybe a mass shooting at an NRA Convention? :joke:

Cops and Mayors hate these lax gun laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

When more cops start getting shot by NRA members, Congress will finally decide to pass more comprehensive restrictive gun legislation.

IMO letting randoms stockpile massive depots of ammunition AND weapons is not a good idea.

---

I cite this once again as complete, total and factual evidence that the current government of the United States of America and its law enforcement is unable to ensure our security.

Police Shooting in Anaheim Leads to Violent Clash - RAW FOOTAGE & NEWS - YouTube

No offense Kitti, but that Anaheim shooting is only outrageous to non-Black people. From my perspective, it's more like, 'big deal, what's new??'

I'm always amazed when White people are shocked when they aren't treated with the utmost respect by law enforcement.

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.

Uncle Sam has tanks and 50 caliber machine guns. Lots of em. End of story.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/a...AreNext1-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaustin

Your completely missing the point.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

Evidently you can't read. I am not disputing that second amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms. What is in dispute here is the reason for the second amendment. This is not a deep nor a subtle point. I don't know why you are you having such difficulty grasping the issue?

Some say one reason was self-defense. Some say one intention to allow for possible armed revolution against the U.S. government. Some say one intention was to allow citizens on the frontier to hunt for food. The founders may or may not have had a consensus on all these issue. But the only intention written into the amendment was to maintain armed and regulated militia.

Again, I am NOT making the argument that the restricted nature of the explicitly given intention restricts the right to bear arms to members of militia. My only point is that the minimality of amendment makes its application unclear in modern circumstances and that there is nothing in the amendment that tells us how to regulate or not regulate assault weapons, portable surface to air missile launchers, tactical nukes, or any "arms" of modern invention. Remember the founders were thinking of flintlocks.

Is James Holmes faking psychosis?



http://l1.yimg.com/dh/ap/default/120...yscho_main.jpg

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.