Mass Shooting at Colo. Movie Theater, 14 People Dead

  • Thread starter Thread starter MugenOne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
People need to remember, passing additional laws will not stop people bent on breaking the law.
I believe in the right to bear arms, including military arms. However, your particular argument against gun control rings false to me. In the abortion debate, many claim that there is no reason to outlaw abortion clinics because people will procure abortion outside the law. As if easy legal access does not facilitate and promote ease of committing abominable crimes. Easy legal access in acquiring guns DOES facilitate and promote ease of committing abominable crimes. James Holmes probably would not know how to procure this equipment if it were illegal. However, with the argument against gun control, you can fight bad guys with guns if you have good guys with guns. In the abortion debate, on the other hand, you can’t fight abortion with more abortion.
 
Yeah. Nothing like imposing politeness at the point of a gun. “You’d better be polite to my wife and kids or I’ll shoot you dead!” Sorry, Scott, I don’t operate that way. But, if threatening folks into respecting you is appropriate behavior to you…
The conversational dynamic changes when you know that you may have to back up your words and your actions with your life. Its not about threatening anyone. Its about knowing that I can respond in kind if I am threatened, and the other end of the conversation knowing the same thing. The very definition of a bully is someone who mistreats others because the others have no means of fighting back.
 
The conversational dynamic changes when you know that you may have to back up your words and your actions with your life. Its not about threatening anyone. Its about knowing that I can respond in kind if I am threatened, and the other end of the conversation knowing the same thing. The very definition of a bully is someone who mistreats others because the others have no means of fighting back.
And isn’t that also a Heinlein quote?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_This_Horizon
 
I believe in the right to bear arms, including military arms. However, your particular argument against gun control rings false to me. In the abortion debate, many claim that there is no reason to outlaw abortion clinics because people will procure abortion outside the law. As if easy legal access does not facilitate and promote ease of committing abominable crimes. Easy legal access in acquiring guns DOES facilitate and promote ease of committing abominable crimes. James Holmes probably would not know how to procure this equipment if it were illegal. However, with the argument against gun control, you can fight bad guys with guns if you have good guys with guns. In the abortion debate, on the other hand, you can’t fight abortion with more abortion.
The point is, this guy was already breaking the law. What difference would it make to him to break more laws?

Using your example. People now are not breaking the law by procuring an abortion. Make abortion illegal, and it suddenly becomes a crime. Law abiding people would think twice before procuring an illegal abortion.
 
:rotfl:

Who doesn’t love a good Newfie joke? If Newfies could read, they would enjoy them too. 👍
Unfortunately, it was totally serious on the British side. Newfoundland was greatly in debt, and it was basically a British colony governed by a Governor due to previous problems with local government. Britain wanted Newfoundland to seek independence or unite with Canada, with the caveat of course being that Canada would take on Newfoundland’s debt.
The War of 1812 (1812-1815) was between the Americans and the British and pretty much ended in a stalemate. It was settled by the Treaty of Ghent in 1815 with no clear winner though Americans claim it as a victory because the British left once and for all.
Ah, American propaganda.

How is it that a war that started when America wanted to take over and annex British North America gets called a stalemate when America utterly failed to achieve it’s objective at all? It doesn’t, it was a win for British North America because they didn’t get taken over.

Macleans magazine has written about how the US likes to pretend it won. It’s an ego issue I’d assume, they can’t admit that they ever lost something.
The rest of what you posted is so dumb that I won’t even waste my time on it. :rolleyes:
Well, that’s a mature answer.
Let’s stick to the topic at hand. My point was that Mr. curlycool89 had his wars mixed up.
I assume this is the internet equivalent of “shut up, stop proving me wrong”.

Both Rich and I have proved that you are wrong (and heck, Rich is an American) and that by any objective standard America lost. Badly. Heck, America’s “claim to fame” on 1812 was their national anthem, which was from a battle that occurred after the signing of the treaty, and technically speaking didn’t happen in that war at all.
What on earth does firearms being part of a culture have to do with “compensation” or “masculity”?
It’s why you utterly insist on keeping the guns. Taking a gun away from a man is seen as emasculating him, Scott even said it takes away his freedom. Obviously that can’t be true because freedom is a state not dependent on material goods, so you must be thinking of guns as giving you something you didn’t have without it; a psychological condition since it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever philosophically.
 
Unfortunately, it was totally serious on the British side. Newfoundland was greatly in debt, and it was basically a British colony governed by a Governor due to previous problems with local government. Britain wanted Newfoundland to seek independence or unite with Canada, with the caveat of course being that Canada would take on Newfoundland’s debt.

Ah, American propaganda.

How is it that a war that started when America wanted to take over and annex British North America gets called a stalemate when America utterly failed to achieve it’s objective at all? It doesn’t, it was a win for British North America because they didn’t get taken over.

Macleans magazine has written about how the US likes to pretend it won. It’s an ego issue I’d assume, they can’t admit that they ever lost something.

Well, that’s a mature answer.

I assume this is the internet equivalent of “shut up, stop proving me wrong”.

Both Rich and I have proved that you are wrong (and heck, Rich is an American) and that by any objective standard America lost. Badly. Heck, America’s “claim to fame” on 1812 was their national anthem, which was from a battle that occurred after the signing of the treaty, and technically speaking didn’t happen in that war at all.

It’s why you utterly insist on keeping the guns. Taking a gun away from a man is seen as emasculating him, Scott even said it takes away his freedom. Obviously that can’t be true because freedom is a state not dependent on material goods, so you must be thinking of guns as giving you something you didn’t have without it; a psychological condition since it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever philosophically.
Actually, Great Britain forcing US citizens to serve in their navy is what started the war. Also, if you’re going to quote United States history ( you notice I didn’t say American history because I know that upsets some Canadians) you should try to get it right. Our national anthem is based on the battle of Fort Mc Henry that occurred during the Chesapeake invasion which is when Washington D.C. was burned. You are confusing it with the battle of New Orleans which was indeed after the treaty was signed.
 
We are free and independent BECAUSE we are allowed to possess firearms.

Do you think criminals are going to care about gun restrictions?
Your Second Amendment also mentions a well-regulated militia, meaning gun control
 
Your Second Amendment also mentions a well-regulated militia, meaning gun control
No, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with gun control. In 2008, the US Supreme court made a ruling:
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
 
My there sure are a lot of Canadians trying to get our guns on this thread. I SMELL AN INVASION!!! 😛
 
Yes I am an American citizen. And yes, I voted no.The gunman already broke the law simply by bringing the weapons into the theater. Do you think more laws would have stopped him???
Taking a weapon into the theater is against the law. So even if they wanted to walk in armed, if they were law abiding citizens, they would have locked their weapon in the car. I know I do, when faced with I sign that labels a location a gun free zone ( also known as a victim zone.)

People need to remember, passing additional laws will not stop people bent on breaking the law.
Do you think more laws would have stopped him???
Of course yes. Laws that would take the guns out of society would have stopped him. Your position makes me feel that you would take the House of Representatives out of business for you would need no laws at all for anything at all. Why? Because, if people break all laws, you should have no more laws. That is a false argument.
they would have locked their weapon in the car
What are the guns locked in the car for ?
gun free zone
Thanks for the information. I did not that existed. So, if there are places where the 2nd amendment does not apply, then, the whole USA could be a gun free zone. Sure, all this messy murder would not have happened.
People need to remember, passing additional laws will not stop people bent on breaking the law.
Again the argument of scraping the H of Representatives.
 
The point is, this guy was already breaking the law. What difference would it make to him to break more laws?

Using your example. People now are not breaking the law by procuring an abortion. Make abortion illegal, and it suddenly becomes a crime. Law abiding people would think twice before procuring an illegal abortion.
What difference would it make to him to break more laws?
If there were no guns around, he would not break the law, even though he wished to break the law so much.
 
We are free and independent BECAUSE we are allowed to possess firearms.

Do you think criminals are going to care about gun restrictions?
Before there were guns, there were free people too. Or did freedom start with gunpowder in the Middle Ages ?
 
Created to kill? Maybe. Created to kill people? Not necessarily.

If you don’t want one, don’t buy.

I don’t necessarily feel I MUST have one. I just feel safer having one.
If I had to talk to you I would feel safer bearing a machine-gun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top