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

[SLM]

Oh dear, what is the problem? Do you not enjoy being talked down to?

So you want to take over from the Bear with your supercilious claptrap. You just cloud yours in more verbiage.

Absolutely not taking over anything from Bear, he has the evening shift.

How about trying to contribute to discussion instead of trying to show how "superior" you are to those who do.

That's excellent advice. You should try following it.

You try to find one argument that has been presented here that tops what I have posted about the American Constitution.

That's crying out for a blog.

And I happen to know more about the American Constitution than the great majority of Americans because, of the years I spent in studying various Constitutions (mostly Canadian) a considerable time was on the American.

That's just arrogant presumption.

I have also given the roots of this questionable paragraph. They are what I said they are.

Because I said so, wow, stellar discussion point. Let me try to think of a response equal in caliber. Oh yes, "No you're not". There, that discussion is over with.

Try to find reason for the perversion of those roots which is what has happened in the USA.

The Second Amendment does not give any unrestricted Right to carry guns. Only political calculations allow that.

What you are stating is an opinion, nothing more, nothing less. It is not earth shattering, will not save lives, it is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Learn a little humility and you may find others not quite so hostile towards you. Just a suggestion.

Before this turns nasty, I suggest that you try to participate in the discussion instead of sniping.

You first.

 

[Cabbagesandking]

Your last post, colpy, borders on the irrational. Nothing to answer there.

Yours, SLM, is just the snide sniping that I wrote of. Nothing there, either. What I posted was not opinion; it was fact. The only argument that could be made is that times have changed and the Right to bear has been expanded to a Right to carry.

Show me where that has happened if you are serious about starting to contribute.

 

[CDNBear]

Your last post, colpy, borders on the irrational. Nothing to answer there.

Translation, you can't refute it.

Yours, SLM, is just the snide sniping that I wrote of. Nothing there, either. What I posted was not opinion; it was fact. The only argument that could be made is that times have changed and the Right to bear has been expanded to a Right to carry.

Show me where that has happened if you are serious about starting to contribute.

:roll:

 

[lone wolf]

Times may have changed but the word is still the same and means the same. Water bearers carry water. Stretcher bearers carry stretchers. Bearing arms doesn't mean rolling up your sleeves.

 

[CDNBear]

Times may have changed but the word is still the same and means the same. Water bearers carry water. Stretcher bearers carry stretchers. Bearing arms doesn't mean rolling up your sleeves.

No, that would be baring arms.

There's a "," that separates the statements that have Cabbage all confused.

Funny how someone who claims to have studied the Constitution, never learned about that.

 

[SLM]

Translation, you can't refute it.

:roll:

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Goober]

Your last post, colpy, borders on the irrational. Nothing to answer there.

Yours, SLM, is just the snide sniping that I wrote of. Nothing there, either. What I posted was not opinion; it was fact. The only argument that could be made is that times have changed and the Right to bear has been expanded to a Right to carry.

Show me where that has happened if you are serious about starting to contribute.

No it has not been expanded- It has always been there - Again you are in error-

 

[CDNBear]

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/107964-least-10-killed-after-shooting-7.html#post1623261

+0

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/news/107964-least-10-killed-after-shooting-7.html#post1623148

+6

I think it's pretty obvious someone is bang on.

 

[EagleSmack]

Times may have changed but the word is still the same and means the same. Water bearers carry water. Stretcher bearers carry stretchers. Bearing arms doesn't mean rolling up your sleeves.

Cabbage? Would you like to comment?

Does a stretcher bearer "carry" a stretcher?

 

[CDNBear]

Cabbage? Would you like to comment?

Not directly, or honestly.

Does a stretcher bearer "carry" a stretcher?

Only during times of war.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Wellllllll.............

"Applying those restrictions leaves 19
NSPOF respondents (0.8 percent of
the sample), representing 1.5 million
defensive users. This estimate is directly
comparable to the well-known
estimate of Kleck and Gertz, shown in​

the last column of exhibit 7."

http://tscm.com/165476.pdf go to page nine. This is a 1994 US Department Of Justice study.

Please don't tell me the Clinton era US Department of Justice was "pro-gun". And defensive uses will only have gone UP, as this was before most states brought in right-to-carry laws.

We've discussed this data before. The big problem with it is that it makes no effort to determine what constitutes a threat. Someone with a gun in his house might believe that he averted a crime simply because the gun was there. Without a more detailed study almost all of the data is anecdotal.

No, you are wrong. The idea is that the unorganized militia can show up to a fight bearing their own personal weapons.

Right, so explain to me why US citizens are denied access to military style weaponry.

The USA is a relatively safe place to live, extremely safe if you stay out of the inner cities.

It looks to me as if theatres and high schools in middle class suburbs are none too safe either.

That is what it all comes down to......

All you are telling me from this graph is that Americans are so terrified of one another that they believe they must possess firearms to protect themselves. What a wonderful place to live.

 

[JamesBondo]

Not all. Some Americans are so terrified of one another that they must try to disarm the reasonable law abiding gun owners in a desperate attempt to achieve the impossible task of disarming criminals.

 

[Kreskin]

So American citizens have the RIGHT to arm themselves with anything?

 

[Colpy]

We've discussed this data before. The big problem with it is that it makes no effort to determine what constitutes a threat. Someone with a gun in his house might believe that he averted a crime simply because the gun was there. Without a more detailed study almost all of the data is anecdotal.

Right, so explain to me why US citizens are denied access to military style weaponry.



It looks to me as if theatres and high schools in middle class suburbs are none too safe either.



All you are telling me from this graph is that Americans are so terrified of one another that they believe they must possess firearms to protect themselves. What a wonderful place to live.

You need to read the study. Threat levels (or lack thereof) are factored in. It is valid.

As I already explained, it is personal weapons that are protected, and military style weapons, the general type of weapon every soldier would carry. PERSONAL weapons. See the US vs Miller. However, if you want to argue that Americans should be allowed to carry other weapons they can BEAR (carry), I don't have aproblem with that....

Yeah. You will notice nobody is allowed to carry guns in schools, universities, and theatres. Damn shame that, huh??

 

[Goober]

So American citizens have the RIGHT to arm themselves with anything?

Simple answer No

 

[Kreskin]

Simple answer No

How can that be, the right is infringed and it is arms not guns.

 

[gopher]

And then it will be gymnasiums, swimming pools, skating rinks, skate board parks, bingo halls, casinos, strip joints, restaurants etc. etc.

Costs for security are tax deductible and save companies tons of money in liability in the long run. This on top of making society much safer. Here in Gopherland, bingo halls, casinos, and strip joints are required to maintain security. Most of the other enterprises you mentioned are not but keep some level of safety by having video cameras, fire/emergency exits, metal detectors, or require inspection of carry-ons before entry is allowed.

 

[JLM]

Costs for security are tax deductible and save companies tons of money in liability in the long run. This on top of making society much safer. Here in Gopherland, bingo halls, casinos, and strip joints are required to maintain security. Most of the other enterprises you mentioned are not but keep some level of safety by having video cameras, fire/emergency exits, metal detectors, or require inspection of carry-ons before entry is allowed.

Good thinking, Goph- probably pay reduced insurance premiums too.

 

[JamesBondo]

How can that be, the right is infringed and it is arms not guns.

There are proportionality issues at play. That is why it is assinine to compare the right to bare firearms with owning nukes or tanks. Proportionality is also why knocking everyone back to bows and arrows just doesn't cut it.

 

[Colpy]

There are proportionality issues at play. That is why it is assinine to compare the right to bare firearms with owning nukes or tanks. Proportionality is also why knocking everyone back to bows and arrows just doesn't cut it.

Exactly....but it is "bear arms".

Besides, you can't bear a tank......

And you might be able to nuke a Bear, but you can't bear a nuke.