[BobbyBangin]

I'm not conservative but I agree with this...

[gdok]

Few points. When someone kills someone drunk driving we do not blame the car, when someone kills someone with a knife we don't blame the knife and virtually any other murder is not blamed on some object.

Second if the latest shooter happened to be pulled over with guns in his trunk on the way to the shooting (let's say he was dressed normally) he would have cried that they were his moms guns and no one would want to charge the poor autistic boy who didn't know any better. In other words the gun laws we have are rarely prosecuted. Liberals scream for more gun regualtions/laws but in the same breath refuse to lock up people (ex the line stop locking up the black youth) for existing gun law violations.

My only point is that evil is evil and is hard to stop. If evil can't find a gun it will find something else.

[Wolfie708]

One word describes humanity, and this thread proves it as well as most with the amount of support for guns (which are not designed to clean your teeth with you know )...........


Pathetic


Anyone who uses the argument of self defence and deterrent for the use of guns needs their bumps feeling in my honest opinion, as sorry, but anyone who thinks murder (please note I said murder and not killing) of ANY kind is justified is so wrong they should apply for the Darwin Awards

Sick, diseased, warped, and twisted......... Those 4 words should be added to the dictionary definition of Human PMSL
************* [ - Post Merged - ] *************

Originally Posted by gdok Few points. When someone kills someone drunk driving we do not blame the car

We ban them from driving though, and quite often give them a jail sentence.

Moreover, the rules we have on the road today are based on a lot of the deaths and suchlike that we have learned from........... Strange why there is such a childlike teddy throw when the subject of learning from gun (weapons) deaths and injury comes up though isn't it?

[crazelunatic]

Look I agree MORE gun control laws will NOT help. Look at all the places where weapons are allowed compared to the places where guns are not. Chicago, NYC, etc. They have MANY problems with crime. Hell Chicago has a higher death rate than Iran and Iraq. That tell you something? Just because you make something illegal doesn't mean it will automatically stop.

Who said I think all of societies problems will automatically stop by making something illegal?... We have to start from somwhere... Society weather people believe it or not relies on Law & Order, Well lets see....its almost as if people who are extremely pro gun believe laws are useless in general and the world is in constant anarchy...Im from east ny brooklyn and i live in one of the zones closest to the highest murder rates of the city and im still anti-gun, the streets are relatively safe with a majority of the population unarmed.... Yes you have gun related crime here & there but since guns to the masses are virtually illegal (i believe those that have businesses are allowed to have them) if a crime is committed and the offender is caught thats another offense, the justice system can use to convict them. I wonder what happens in a state like texas if a "law-abiding" gun owner where to decide to hold up a bank, or go on a shooting rampage, prosecutors wouldn't be able to convict them for illegal possession of a firearm.

Anyone who uses the argument of self defence and deterrent for the use of guns needs their bumps feeling in my honest opinion, as sorry, but anyone who thinks murder (please note I said murder and not killing) of ANY kind is justified is so wrong they should apply for the Darwin Awards

I don't know what you mean by bumps but that pro-gun excuse just paves the way for a snowballing effect of newer more destructive weapons being created and potentially falling into the wrong hands...

Second if the latest shooter happened to be pulled over with guns in his trunk on the way to the shooting (let's say he was dressed normally) he would have cried that they were his moms guns and no one would want to charge the poor autistic boy who didn't know any better. In other words the gun laws we have are rarely prosecuted. Liberals scream for more gun regualtions/laws but in the same breath refuse to lock up people (ex the line stop locking up the black youth) for existing gun law violations.

Uh I hope you do know that blacks in the U.S. are the most locked up group of any race... Now im not saying that every1 who is black in the prison system deserves to be there but where do you get that liberals don't believe in justice? I think you just wrote that bigoted line because you somehow believe a majority of gun law violators are black....

[Dartban214]

Originally Posted by crazelunatic Who said I think all of societies problems will automatically stop by making something illegal?... We have to start from somwhere... Society weather people believe it or not relies on Law & Order, Well lets see....its almost as if people who are extremely pro gun believe laws are useless in general and the world is in constant anarchy...Im from east ny brooklyn and i live in one of the zones closest to the highest murder rates of the city and im still anti-gun, the streets are relatively safe with a majority of the population unarmed.... Yes you have gun related crime here & there but since guns to the masses are virtually illegal (i believe those that have businesses are allowed to have them) if a crime is committed and the offender is caught thats another offense, the justice system can use to convict them. I wonder what happens in a state like texas if a "law-abiding" gun owner where to decide to hold up a bank, or go on a shooting rampage, prosecutors wouldn't be able to convict them for illegal possession of a firearm.

No but they would be able to convict them upon murder. And if (IF) we decided our government should pull their heads out of their ***** and pull that old death sentance out again it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

I live in Colorado(Remember the Theater Shooting?) there hasn't been a shooting like that in a LONG time. Gun related crimes here(or close to where I am) is close to none. Colorado allowes "assault" rifles, pistols, etc. as long as not automatic.

I agree law and order are needed. But there is a point in where there is TO much control by the government. That is what we need to find. not the part of where they have uncontrolable power. or where there is anarchy.

My question is why does one get the death penalty if one kills a federal agent but not if another citizen? If you want to know about why I say this look up the Federal Death Penalty act.

IF one has killed wouldn't you think he should be punished by death? you may say he's innocent until proven guilty. If he is 100% guilty than do not hold him. They do this ALL the time. I've even heard of them releasing them. Murder is murder simple and plain. No first degree Third degree. If this person killed another he is given the title murderer plain and simple. And once he becomes a murderer there is no reason to hold him within your society.


OH and here is a little helpful hint for everyone saying the weapon used in this shooting was and is an assault rifle:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

An assault rifle is a select-fire (either fully automatic or burst capable) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine.

the weapon was a Semi-Automatic rifle. Semi-Automatic rifles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm
[QUOTE]Although automatic weapons and selective fire firearms do the same tasks, semi-automatic firearms do not automatically fire an additional round until the trigger is released and re-pressed by the person firing the weapon.[/QUOTE]

[crazelunatic]

No but they would be able to convict them upon murder. And if (IF) we decided our government should pull their heads out of their ***** and pull that old death sentance out again it wouldn't be as much of a problem.

I too believe in the death penalty and im a democrat but it shouldn't be used if some1 commits a single murder thats my feelings on that....

I live in Colorado(Remember the Theater Shooting?) there hasn't been a shooting like that in a LONG time. Gun related crimes here(or close to where I am) is close to none. Colorado allowes "assault" rifles, pistols, etc. as long as not automatic.

Im almost 100% certain that the perpetrator of that crime obtained the firearms used in the theater shooting legally.

I agree law and order are needed. But there is a point in where there is TO much control by the government. That is what we need to find. not the part of where they have uncontrolable power. or where there is anarchy.

I don't believe that the govt are saints but lets be honest here.... Do pro 2nd amendment rights people really belive just because they possess a firearm they have power over an overreaching govt? Are you willing to kill a local/state/fed agent when they come knocking on your door to reposses anything? And lets say you are..... Do you think you would get the govt off your back? If the govt wants to they can dramatically enforce the laws they have in place, you know you live in a "free country" when the govt "takes privacy laws seriously" and "restrains" itself from prosecuting offenders (of any crime). What im getting @ basically is that the govt ties its own hands in enforcing certain laws with privacy laws.

[Dartban214]

I too believe in the death penalty and im a democrat but it shouldn't be used if some1 commits a single murder thats my feelings on that....

So if someone murdered lets say your wife? Your mother? Your Daughter? Son? Whichever you wouldn't want him dead? You may have your opinion LOL not saying you cant but the chances of someone being able to control their anger/change is very slim when it comes to this. and changing after a murder? even slimmer

Im almost 100% certain that the perpetrator of that crime obtained the firearms used in the theater shooting legally.

I wouldn't say 100% certain. There are black markets ALL OVER. And he didn't just use firearms. There were many other weapons he possessed that were NOT legal.

EX:
Tear Gas
Explosive Devices such as home made BOMBS

(If you say he did not use both of those
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting


Now there ARE weapons that he may have obtained legally but I do not know for 100% fact that to be true and I HIGHLY doubt that since he had tear gas.(Home made explosive devices are easy to make if you know what your doing)

I don't believe that the govt are saints but lets be honest here.... Do pro 2nd amendment rights people really belive just because they possess a firearm they have power over an overreaching govt? Are you willing to kill a local/state/fed agent when they come knocking on your door to reposses anything? And lets say you are..... Do you think you would get the govt off your back? If the govt wants to they can dramatically enforce the laws they have in place, you know you live in a "free country" when the govt "takes privacy laws seriously" and "restrains" itself from prosecuting offenders (of any crime). What im getting @ basically is that the govt ties its own hands in enforcing certain laws with privacy laws.

Ah now you are seeing where I am going.

That is where it comes to be necessary. To protect those rights. I for one wouldn't shoot anyone(no need). They are doing their jobs and I know I did wrong by owing others and not returning the money.

Yet here are things which the government can not do though and I would support 100% for self defence(be it with fist or weapon).

3rd Amendment: If you look at our Constitution they are not allowed to force us to "quartered" (allowed to live in) without the owners consent.

Ex: if a Fed barged in your home (Kicked door down would be an option) told you that the get to live in your house would you let them and if you didn't you'd get shot? LMAO I wouldn't let them.


4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

This here is for privacy. Basically what all you want hmm? Well this here was placed so that if the a Fed had a problem with you or your loved ones and didn't have a cause supported by the law he would have no way to get into your house. But what if the government in whole wanted to get in? how would the law stop them? they control the law dont they? So how was this stopped?

5th amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

But yet still they can pay people off. (get people to say "HE DID IT") In which there is not a law preventing the government from doing this is there? So how does one protect himself from this? Of course! they gave a backup plan.

Second Amendment:

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

this is how we're ment to defend ourselves. A well regulated militia. A army of citizens wanting to be free.

Of course this has failed many times in the past. You may say "Oh the civil war was to free the blacks" There was a tad more to it. Don't get me wrong, I agree owning another human being is wrong. But what exactly was the union doing? Were they not trying to protect their livelyhood? For many MANY years cotton was a great export for the US and was highly profitable. Some came to rely on slaves to work the feilds for this. NOTICE THIS many people say that the slaves were only black but that is false. There was a great varety within this group. INCLUDING white people.

Now why keep it so that we may keep and bear arms?(own and use).

With a government strong enough to cripple them wouldn't it be easy to just say no more? This gives a fighting chance.

The british probably learned from this the most(no offense guys haha) Because we owned weapons within the revolution we had a chance to become free. If we had not they would have stopped this LONG ago. now don't get me wrong we are not truly free any longer. that has perished long ago. We still have the freedom as we choose but because of all the regulations the place upon US the people wouldn't that imply we are not truly free? Agreed we do need regulations for things such as murder but things that are seen by one group as wrong is completely in violation of constitution.

You may have your opinion. I will respect such and I salute you. If you want the government to control your life. To say what your going to do for the rest of it. Be my guest. As for me I will stand up for what I believe in against all odds.


I will warn all of those who want me to give my guns up peacefully, I will not. I will not let the government take my right of defence. I will not give them my right to stand up for what I beleive. There may be a "peacefull" way to stand up. But when one of these rights are taken like free speech what are you going to do when the government says no I ask you. Not all things can be solved with peace. There is a saying I like from Teddy Rosevelt: "Speak softly and carry a big stick".

I agree 100% with you though. Chances of you winning against government. Slim to none. But it's a battle worth fighting for.

[Bigbones87]

Originally Posted by crazelunatic I too believe in the death penalty and im a democrat but it shouldn't be used if some1 commits a single murder thats my feelings on that....

And what if that single murder was your kid or wife. I'm sorry, and you can call me some hillbilly redneck, but if you do anything to hurt my wife or kid...there won't be a need for the death penalty if I can get ahold of the f*cker because me and "the judge" are gonna take care of it. If I don't get ahold of the bastard before the long arm of the law, I would most certainly want the death penalty for him, even if he only killed 1 person since it happened to be my son. I damn sure don't think the man deserves a bed and 3 square meals a day after killing my innocent son. Do you?

Originally Posted by crazelunatic I Im almost 100% certain that the perpetrator of that crime obtained the firearms used in the theater shooting legally.

So what if he did obtain the guns legally. Would there have been less death if he had obtained them illegally? I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. Thugs and gangsters get these weapons illegally all the time, and it doesn't stop them from killing. Here is where you say that if guns were illegal it would be a lot harder to get ahold of them for these mass shootings. Well, I say, drugs have been illegal for a really long time, yet there is still a huge epidemic of them. Don't think the war on drugs will ever be over, just like this war on guns. Once again, where there is a will, there is a way. Fine ban guns, and then we can start worrying about people getting on a bus with pipe bombs strapped to their chest. The shooters almost always kill themself or get killed by someone else anyway. What do they have to loose? You can't go banning things because one bad person misuses them. I mean, everyone's fight is that a guns purpose is for killing. So what? Ban guns, and the crazies will start using something else if they can't obtain a gun. Won't be long, and we will be banning something else, or making more restrictions and regulations because crazy people did something wrong with it. Officer:" is that a chainsaw you got in the back there?" . Citizen:"yes, sir. I am on my way to cut some trees." . Officer:" you got a permit for that?" ....

[crazelunatic]

So if someone murdered lets say your wife? Your mother? Your Daughter? Son? Whichever you wouldn't want him dead? You may have your opinion LOL not saying you cant but the chances of someone being able to control their anger/change is very slim when it comes to this. and changing after a murder? even slimmer

Your right about me losing my mind but what if your wife or son was accused of killing some1 and they were being put to death... I say the chances of botching a prosecution against a serial killer/mass murderer is lower than some1 who has committed a 1 time crime. There have been people who have been exonerated for murders they did not commit.

So what if he did obtain the guns legally. Would there have been less death if he had obtained them illegally? I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. Thugs and gangsters get these weapons illegally all the time, and it doesn't stop them from killing. Here is where you say that if guns were illegal it would be a lot harder to get ahold of them for these mass shootings. Well, I say, drugs have been illegal for a really long time, yet there is still a huge epidemic of them. Don't think the war on drugs will ever be over, just like this war on guns. Once again, where there is a will, there is a way. Fine ban guns, and then we can start worrying about people getting on a bus with pipe bombs strapped to their chest. The shooters almost always kill themself or get killed by someone else anyway. What do they have to loose? You can't go banning things because one bad person misuses them. I mean, everyone's fight is that a guns purpose is for killing. So what? Ban guns, and the crazies will start using something else if they can't obtain a gun. Won't be long, and we will be banning something else, or making more restrictions and regulations because crazy people did something wrong with it. Officer:" is that a chainsaw you got in the back there?" . Citizen:"yes, sir. I am on my way to cut some trees." . Officer:" you got a permit for that?" ....

Ok perhaps in a life/death situation weather or not the guns are legal/illegal doesnt matter but i say this because the death penalty has not been reinstated. You have to wonder too how many people have illegal guns and never use them to commit a crime (other than just possession of a weapon)? In fact some1 in these mass murders could be a hero if they were to use an illegal gun, should they get jailtime for that?
I agree too that banning everything that is misused is retarded and impractical but the proper charges are brought against the individual rather than making a bomb legal and the govt saying "well he/she constructed a bomb he/she has a right to have it so we can't charge him/her with anything...(again assuming the death penalty is out of play or the individual is apprehended b4 their plan is executed)

[varaques]

all though I'm not a fan of guns i feel as soon as they ban all guns the government is gonna turn on us