At least 10 killed after shooting during 'Dark Knight' screening in Colorado

[Colpy]

OK let's look at reality. Instead of the usual nonsense spouted by the gun obsessed.

Your second point first. There really is no hard evidence whatsoever that possession of firearms lowers the crime rate. In fact it probably has no affect at all given the fact that if a criminal is at all worried about facing a firearm while committing a crime he will simply resort to using a firearm himself or seek a softer target. He is certainly not going to give up crime; he is after all, a criminal.
Colorado is an open carry state with very limited restrictions of firearm ownership. If the pro-gun policies in that state could not prevent what happened in Aurora then they are not going to prevent crime anywhere.

Now for your first point. Yes, you can put the genie back in the bottle. All that has to be done is to have a nation-wide method of insuring the following:
1. All gun prospective gun owners must acquire a license to own firearms. This license should require that the prospective owner knows the proper way to use a firearm. It should also require a background check to insure that the prospective owner does not present a danger to society.
2. No one should be allowed to buy and stockpile thousands of rounds of ammunition as did the nut case in Aurora.
3. The second amendment says nothing about the type of arms that should be allowed. Therefore heavy restrictions should be placed on firearms that are not to be used for sport or recreation

It is interesting to note that this has already been done in some parts of the US.. The highest rates of gun ownership in the US are in states with the slackest gun laws.

The problem is easily solvable, but probably not before there have been numerous repeat incidents like that of Aurora.

I did not say gun ownership lowered the crime rate, I said guns were used for defense more that a million times a year. There is no evidence than gun carry raises crime rates, thus, in a free country, carry should be allowed.

Colorado may be an open carry state, the theatre did not allow carry. Why do you think these guys hit schools, universities, and gun free theatres?

1. One does not require a license to exercise a right. Any such law would meet with massive resistance and noncompliance, as licensing and registration laws have in Canada, where the right is not taken nearly as seriously as it is in the states. Better start building prisons, and call out the National Guard.

2. What's the difference??? He only fired at most 200 rounds, probably much less. Did 5800 rounds of unfired ammo do any damage? I own many different calibers, and I probably have 6,000 rounds, much of it .22 rimfire....so what??.

3. Wrong. The Second Amendment clearly outlines the purpose of the right as militia service, and before you go there, the militia is the entire body of the people. Therefore the right extends specifically to millitary-type weapons. The Second Amendment has NOTHING to do with duck hunting. See the SCOTUS case of Miller, 1939 .....in which the Court ruled

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

in other words, the ONLY weapons protected are military type weapons.

Oh, and I especially love this!!

It is interesting to note that this has already been done in some parts of the US.. The highest rates of gun ownership in the US are in states with the slackest gun laws.

Well DUH! lol

Highest firearms ownership is in Wyoming Scores a miniscule FOUR POINTS out of a possible 100 on the Brady rating scale for states. Murder rate: 1.4 per 100,000 (2010) (45th out of 50 states, and a lower murder rate than Canada)

How about Vermont, about the freest state in the USA when it comes to gun laws?? (after Wyoming) Vermont scores SIX POINTS out of a possible 100 on the Brady scale for rating state laws. Murder rate in 2010??? 1.1 per 100,000. That is about 40% LESS than Canada's murder rate. It is 49th out of 50 on the state murder scale.

Try telling those guys, you know, the ones with the completely unrestricted "assault rifles" and the handguns on their hips, that they need to be licensed and controlled.

Good luck!

Interesting stuff.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/stategunlaws/scorecard/NH

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state

 

[Praxius]

Another mass shooting in the US.... what a surprise.

And yet another thread obviously turns into yet another gun debate which will go around and around and around in circles.... going nowhere.

Just like all the others, nothing will change.... people will talk.... people will say "Oh poor them, my heart goes out to their families" and all the same crap over and over again.... then people will move on with their lives until the next time it happens.

and repeat

Nobody's going to do anything about these kinds of situations, they will keep on happening, and people will continue to blame this or blame that, yet end up doing nothing.

I no longer give two sh*ts anymore.... if people in the US want this stuff to keep on happening, fine.... I don't care and I don't have sympathy anymore.

When the same thing continually repeats over and over again & people keep expecting a different outcome every time, which doesn't happen.... that's the definition of insanity.....

So if they won't do anything about these things, if they want to just keep believing these things are an isolated incident and just punish the offender and be done with it.... fine.... but don't expect any sympathy from me when it happens again, because it will.

Let them blow each other's brains out.... I honestly don't give a flying f*ck anymore honestly.

Call me heartless, but there comes a time when things like this happen so often you just come to expect it and know it's never going to change until they kill themselves all off or tumble into total anarchy.

Moving on.... nothing to see here.

 

[B00Mer]

This is all that matters... nothing else thank you.. If I want to carry a gun that bad, I'll return to Texas.. for now while in Canada I just keep it under the pillow. ;-)

 

[Cabbagesandking]

I doubt whether there is so much unadulterated nonsense spouted about any topic in any society as there is in the defense of the "Right" to murder innocents. There is no "Right" to "bear arms," and the upholding of the "Right" by American Courts reflects only the politicization of the American judicial system and the power of the money behind the propaganda.

A militia in Common Law - a concept that disappeared in other civilised nations centuries ago - has the obligation to bear arms only in the defense of the country and at no other time other than at the musterings for training by regular troops. There is no "Right" to carry arms in the concept of a militia.

And that is what your Constitution says but your authorities are too much indebted to the armaments money (as they are to oil money in another context) to try to remain this barbaric practise from your land.

What selecting a couple of very unrepresentative states and citing their murder rates has to do with this, I don't know. But, obviously, they are the talking points of the NRA and well learned by gun crazies. Real analysis of statistics shows a greater gun crime and homicide rate where guns are readily available. And I will not provide a link for that. It has been pointed out for decades and there is no one other than the gullible and those who try to justify their own perverted amusements who maintain it.

Anyone who has the armaments that have been boasted of should seek psychiatric help.

 

[TenPenny]

People in the US have the right to carry guns.

People in the US get shot and die.

That's what happens, they don't want to change, so why should we care? That's what the people want.

 

[Colpy]

I doubt whether there is so much unadulterated nonsense spouted about any topic in any society as there is in the defense of the "Right" to murder innocents. There is no "Right" to "bear arms," and the upholding of the "Right" by American Courts reflects only the politicization of the American judicial system and the power of the money behind the propaganda.

A militia in Common Law - a concept that disappeared in other civilised nations centuries ago - has the obligation to bear arms only in the defense of the country and at no other time other than at the musterings for training by regular troops. There is no "Right" to carry arms in the concept of a militia.

And that is what your Constitution says but your authorities are too much indebted to the armaments money (as they are to oil money in another context) to try to remain this barbaric practise from your land.

What selecting a couple of very unrepresentative states and citing their murder rates has to do with this, I don't know. But, obviously, they are the talking points of the NRA and well learned by gun crazies. Real analysis of statistics shows a greater gun crime and homicide rate where guns are readily available. And I will not provide a link for that. It has been pointed out for decades and there is no one other than the gullible and those who try to justify their own perverted amusements who maintain it.

Anyone who has the armaments that have been boasted of should seek psychiatric help.

Sigh

You need to take a class in reading comprehension.

The declarative statement in the Second Amendment is ".........the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". (my emphasis) The initial "militia" phrase gives the reason, but it in no way modifies the declarative phrase.

As well, the US Code defines the militia as:

-STATUTE- (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes

Oh, and I love this!! "the upholding of the "Right" by American Courts reflects only the politicization of the American judicial system".
And I suppose the Congress easing gun laws all over the states merely reflects the "politicization" of THAT body.
LOL It is called DEMOCRACY. It is the will of the people.

If you want tough gun control, exercise your democratic rights, and work to have the supreme law of the nation amended. That is the ONLY legitimate course in the USA. It requires a resolution passed by a 2/3 vote in the House of Representatives and a 2/3 vote in Congress, thereafter ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Go for it.

Good Luck.

You'll need it.



Oh, and it would be nice if you had some clue about the subject before you started spouting off about "unadulterated nonsense".

 

[Cabbagesandking]

It would be nicer, colby, if you read what I wrote and worked on your cognitive skills. Your 'argument' is trivial. Militia means what I said it means and its function is what I said it is. Its historical purpose is also what I wrote and that is to muster when the country is threatened under the control of the National Authority.

Nowhere is there any permission, even in your Constitution, for citizens to carry Arms for any other purpose or at any other time. It is your national sickness and money induced ignorance that leads to any other interpretation.

So, you see, I do know what I am talking about. I just have a little mjore about me than to be persuaded by the zealots of the NRA or the paid advertising of monied interests

 

[lone wolf]

Apparently the folk in 1776 didn't consult with you. Someone else here claimed their definition of a word was the be all and end all for that word too. Do you wear a sailor suit?

 

[Goober]

I doubt whether there is so much unadulterated nonsense spouted about any topic in any society as there is in the defense of the "Right" to murder innocents. There is no "Right" to "bear arms," and the upholding of the "Right" by American Courts reflects only the politicization of the American judicial system and the power of the money behind the propaganda.

A militia in Common Law - a concept that disappeared in other civilised nations centuries ago - has the obligation to bear arms only in the defense of the country and at no other time other than at the musterings for training by regular troops. There is no "Right" to carry arms in the concept of a militia.

And that is what your Constitution says but your authorities are too much indebted to the armaments money (as they are to oil money in another context) to try to remain this barbaric practise from your land.

What selecting a couple of very unrepresentative states and citing their murder rates has to do with this, I don't know. But, obviously, they are the talking points of the NRA and well learned by gun crazies. Real analysis of statistics shows a greater gun crime and homicide rate where guns are readily available. And I will not provide a link for that. It has been pointed out for decades and there is no one other than the gullible and those who try to justify their own perverted amusements who maintain it.

Anyone who has the armaments that have been boasted of should seek psychiatric help.

I think ah smells me an ideologue- Oh yes I do think so. Many on this Forum learn from others even when having differing opinions- it is clear that you are not that kind. The learning type.But then you are old and due to pass sometime.

 

[lone wolf]

I think ah smells me an ideologue- Oh yes I do think so. Many on this Forum learn from others even when having differing opinions- it is clear that you are not that kind. The learning type.But then you are old and due to pass sometime.

Pass what????

 

[Goober]

Pass what????

Well for now it is utter BS. But in time that will pass as well.

 

[Walter]

Apparently the folk in 1776 didn't consult with you. Someone else here claimed their definition of a word was the be all and end all for that word too. Do you wear a sailor suit?

Told ya he was SJP.

 

[Just the Facts]

OK let's look at reality. Instead of the usual nonsense spouted by the gun obsessed.

Your second point first. There really is no hard evidence whatsoever that possession of firearms lowers the crime rate. In fact it probably has no affect at all given the fact that if a criminal is at all worried about facing a firearm while committing a crime he will simply resort to using a firearm himself or seek a softer target.

Oh so close, but I'm sorry, the answer was "there is hard evidence that possession of firearms lowers the crime rate, and a criminal faced with a firearm while commiting a crime will run like a scared rabbit".

Thanks for playing though.

Blazing Cat Fur: Good man to have at a BBQ...

Could have used that guy in the theatre, methinks.

 

[Goober]

Told ya he was SJP.

No he is not- CK makes spelling and grammar errors- SJP- was word perfect walking. Just ask those that knew him here and the other Forum.

 

[Colpy]

It would be nicer, colby, if you read what I wrote and worked on your cognitive skills. Your 'argument' is trivial. Militia means what I said it means and its function is what I said it is. Its historical purpose is also what I wrote and that is to muster when the country is threatened under the control of the National Authority.

Nowhere is there any permission, even in your Constitution, for citizens to carry Arms for any other purpose or at any other time. It is your national sickness and money induced ignorance that leads to any other interpretation.

So, you see, I do know what I am talking about. I just have a little mjore about me than to be persuaded by the zealots of the NRA or the paid advertising of monied interests

First of all, it is COLPY not COLBY.

Militia is defined in the US Code, not by YOU. And it makes no difference anyway, to anyone capable of reading the English language....the declarative phrase lays out the right. EXACTLY what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand?????

It is not my constitution, unless the USA annexed New Brunswick without my knowledge. Oh, and the Amendment says ...to keep AND BEAR arms, that means to have AND CARRY guns.

Tell you what, get an English tutor, learn to speak the language, then maybe we can have a serious discussion.

 

[Goober]

First of all, it is COLPY not COLBY.

Militia is defined in the US Code, not by YOU. And it makes no difference anyway, to anyone capable of reading the English language....the declarative phrase lays out the right. EXACTLY what part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don't you understand?????

It is not my constitution, unless the USA annexed New Brunswick without my knowledge. Oh, and the Amendment says ...to keep AND BEAR arms, that means to have AND CARRY guns.

Tell you what, get an English tutor, learn to speak the language, then maybe we can have a serious discussion.

Well that settles that issue. Now it is my opinion that we will see events not only in the US but other western countries as well. Lots of Nutcases out there, way out there.

 

[skookumchuck]

It would be nicer, colby, if you read what I wrote and worked on your cognitive skills. Your 'argument' is trivial. Militia means what I said it means and its function is what I said it is. Its historical purpose is also what I wrote and that is to muster when the country is threatened under the control of the National Authority.

Nowhere is there any permission, even in your Constitution, for citizens to carry Arms for any other purpose or at any other time. It is your national sickness and money induced ignorance that leads to any other interpretation.

So, you see, I do know what I am talking about. I just have a little mjore about me than to be persuaded by the zealots of the NRA or the paid advertising of monied interests

Will you kindly tell us of how you go out and lecture various street gangsters and organized crime about the evils of gun use? They really need your knowledge and wisdom.
Interesting that you use words like "gun crazies" and "zealots", Freudian perhaps?

 

[Cabbagesandking]

This really shows who is in the Right over this. Such anger is only aroused in guilty minds. For the one who talked of learning something, I suggest that you absorb my message and add to your store of learning. There would be plenty of room.

For Colby, with a P, the Right to "Keep and Bear Arms" means exactly what I said it does and is still an archaic Common Law concept that has been long disposed of in less frightened countries. That is, it means to keep them at home and bear them when the country needs them.

IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT CITIZENS CAN RUN AROUND PLAYING COPS AND ROBBERS.

It is all rather simple.The idea of a National militia is something that goes back far more than 1000 years: it began as an Anglo Saxon obligation. There has never been the slightest difficulty in determining the meaning.

The American Constitution says what I say it says and the Founders clearly meant it to mean that. Because some people make money from mayhem and others, still in their childhood, mentally, choose to put a different construction on it, makes no difference. It alters nothing. How on Earth anyone can be dumb enough to imagine that the 'Founders' contemplated a populace ready to kill them whenever it did not like their governance is beyond human understanding (which is all that I am equipped with).

 

[Goober]

This really shows who is in the Right over this. Such anger is only aroused in guilty minds. For the one who talked of learning something, I suggest that you absorb my message and add to your store of learning. There would be plenty of room.

For Colby, with a P, the Right to "Keep and Bear Arms" means exactly what I said it does and is still an archaic Common Law concept that has been long disposed of in less frightened countries. That is, it means to keep them at home and bear them when the country needs them.

IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT CITIZENS CAN RUN AROUND PLAYING COPS AND ROBBERS.

It is all rather simple.The idea of a National militia is something that goes back far more than 1000 years: it began as an Anglo Saxon obligation. There has never been the slightest difficulty in determining the meaning.

The American Constitution says what I say it says and the Founders clearly meant it to mean that. Because some people make money from mayhem and others, still in their childhood, mentally, choose to put a different construction on it, makes no difference. It alters nothing. How on Earth anyone can be dumb enough to imagine that the 'Founders' contemplated a populace ready to kill them whenever it did not like their governance is beyond human understanding (which is all that I am equipped with).

Best read it again - It is clear- You just do not like it- you try to place your own spin on the intent- well the intent is also clear- Do have dress whites for that sailor suit?

 

[lone wolf]

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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
____________________________________________________________________________________

Maybe you'll want to read the highlighted in 1776 context, then in terms of today. Hint: It's the one republican militias use to justify themselves