At least 10 killed after shooting during 'Dark Knight' screening in Colorado
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Did I say anything regarding being Anti-Gun? I've used firearms plenty in the past, and they have their uses.... I was never a person who held the position that all firearms should be banned without question..... but I'm a person who believes they shouldn't just be handed out like candy to whoever asks for them, regardless of their criminal background or education in properly operating a firearm in a safe fashion.
I was asking what the point was to that cartoon... which wasn't funny, but pretty dumb and insensitive to the victims of 9/11, while also trying to use that tragedy in a political manner towards something completely unrelated.
Guess you still can't read.... look back at my posts in this thread.... I no longer give a crap what they do because I already know they won't do a damn thing and I know this stuff is just going to keep happening.
The US in general is an armed society.... are you saying they're a polite society, let alone a safe society?
For a polite & safe society, they sure do have their fair share of mass shootings and gun related violence.
Um.... ok? :?
What do manners have to do with anything when you can just shove a gun in someone's face to prove you're a big man?
For someone who writes books, you sure like to take things out of context in order to mean something else..... either that or you have problems reading.
What I was referring to is that all these arguments for & against firearms/right to own firearms/safer society with or without firearms, are all the same arguments that have been brought up every single time these situations occur.... and while you and others nit pick over the meanings of this or that, or what a society should & shouldn't do to prevent these things from happening again, nothing is ever really done, nothing changes, nothing ever improves, they keep happening and thus, these debates on gun laws (especially when relating to the US) go nowhere except in circles.
I already got the "Reasoning" behind all these arguments several threads ago, several years ago, several mass shootings ago.
The true nitwits are people like you who think beating this dead horse over and over again with the same arguments, stats & reports are ever going to accomplish anything, which they won't because nothing will ever change.
The US isn't going to Change and neither is Canada when it comes to their stances on firearms.
A mass shooting occurs in the US and people start to stockpile more firearms so they feel safer.
A mass shooting occurs in Canada and people want further restrictions on firearms so they feel safer.
.... in the end, they still occur.
One side feels safer with more guns around them.... the other side feels safer with less guns around them.
It's as simple as that.... you can try and fancy up your arguments and try and justify your position as being more right (regardless of what your stance may be) but in the end, it's all about you thinking you're safer with either having more guns or having less guns.
You may think you're doing something constructive & useful for society and that you have the right position that everybody should follow, but in reality, you're just killing time & accomplishing nothing.
Whether I'm completely for or completely against possession of firearms to the general public, or if I'm somewhere in the middle..... It doesn't matter what my position is, because trying to explain or argue my position as being right is a futile exercise, since nothing will ever change.
That's not a bash at any society, any side, or any country, it's just the reality of the situation. No government/political party in either the US or Canada are ever going to touch their current gun laws or rights with a 20 foot pole because no matter which way they decide to go, they'll only end up shooting themselves in the foot (pun intended).... so they just avoid the debate and leave things just as they currently are.
It's the safest action to take in politics.... ie: Do Nothing, because no matter what they decide to do, they'll only get burned & eventually toss out of office.
That's my only point.
Last edited:
Yes, as if any founding fathers anticipated the kind of weapons seen today. But if one plays the absolutist ideology in relation to the Constitution then one should be ok with others possessing Tomahawk cruise missiles too.
Wow man, we just came back from Kamp Kumbaya and we feel so mellow, the darkness has left our souls and everything is so far out after singing some songs and holding hands.....
.... Might have something to do with the three hits of acid each of us took, but life feels so much better now.
Model's Tweet About Colorado Massacre Sparks Outrage Airdate : 7/26/2012
Tricia Evans is a glamour model who caused a firestorm by cracking a joke about the Batman movie massacre.
"Offensive," "tasteless," "vile," and those are just the milder insults aimed at Evans.
So, is she apologetic?
"I actually do not regret it," Evans told INSIDE EDITION.
Here's what got Evans into all the trouble.
Right after 12 people were slaughtered at the midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises, she posted a tweet which instantly went viral.
The tweet said, "I heard the new Batman movie was really to die for." And then she tweeted, "Too soon?"
"So that was the joke that was heard around the world," she said to INSIDE EDITION.
The response was furious.
The women on The View were outraged.
Whoopi Goldberg said, "Too soon? Yeah, it is."
Sherri Shepherd said, "You're not even a comic."
"Just keep doing what you do, taking your trousers off for photographers. Show your boobs," said Joy Behar.
One blogger responded, "You're disgusting."
And another said, "Cheap jokes based on another's tragedy. How sad."
Evans said, "I admit that the joke was tasteless. I didn't mean it with any malicious intent."
Evans told INSIDE EDITION she does want to make an apology of sorts.
"I apologize to anyone I may have hurt. I stand by my freedom of speech. I stand behind my freedom to express myself," she said.
Evans isn't the only one under fire for insensitivity in the aftermath of the movie theater massacre.
Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto, referring to the three heroes who lost their lives shielding their girlfriends, tweeted, "I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice."
One outraged reader wrote, "It just boggles the mind someone would say this."
Taranto later called his comment "ill-considered."
And leave it to Madonna to inject herself into the Aurora controversy. She's being slammed for using prop guns during a concert in Scotland, just hours after the massacre.
One critic called her "crass and insensitive." Much the same as the accusations being leveled against Evans.
News - Model's Tweet About Colorado Massacre Sparks Outrage - InsideEdition.com
Tricia Evans is a glamour model who caused a firestorm by cracking a joke about the Batman movie massacre.
"Offensive," "tasteless," "vile," and those are just the milder insults aimed at Evans.
So, is she apologetic?
"I actually do not regret it," Evans told INSIDE EDITION.
Here's what got Evans into all the trouble.
Right after 12 people were slaughtered at the midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises, she posted a tweet which instantly went viral.
The tweet said, "I heard the new Batman movie was really to die for." And then she tweeted, "Too soon?"
"So that was the joke that was heard around the world," she said to INSIDE EDITION.
The response was furious.
The women on The View were outraged.
Whoopi Goldberg said, "Too soon? Yeah, it is."
Sherri Shepherd said, "You're not even a comic."
"Just keep doing what you do, taking your trousers off for photographers. Show your boobs," said Joy Behar.
One blogger responded, "You're disgusting."
And another said, "Cheap jokes based on another's tragedy. How sad."
Evans said, "I admit that the joke was tasteless. I didn't mean it with any malicious intent."
Evans told INSIDE EDITION she does want to make an apology of sorts.
"I apologize to anyone I may have hurt. I stand by my freedom of speech. I stand behind my freedom to express myself," she said.
Evans isn't the only one under fire for insensitivity in the aftermath of the movie theater massacre.
Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto, referring to the three heroes who lost their lives shielding their girlfriends, tweeted, "I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice."
One outraged reader wrote, "It just boggles the mind someone would say this."
Taranto later called his comment "ill-considered."
And leave it to Madonna to inject herself into the Aurora controversy. She's being slammed for using prop guns during a concert in Scotland, just hours after the massacre.
One critic called her "crass and insensitive." Much the same as the accusations being leveled against Evans.
News - Model's Tweet About Colorado Massacre Sparks Outrage - InsideEdition.com
Free Speech is all well and good, but it should be garnished with some common sense. Cracking a "joke" like that, so soon after so many people were murdered, is just bad taste.
It's probably a good thing she's a model. She can rely on her looks. If she was required to rely on her tact and class, she'd be sunk.
via 4chan and other skeptical places
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread864460/pg2
In other news, now Sideshow Bob claims amnesia.
EXCLUSIVE:
Wut? Who. When?
Hot off the press from the CBC:
Guns used in Colorado theatre shooting legal in Canada - Canada - CBC News
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH Ya don't say.
Whatcha call media getting all the mileage they can.
Guns used in Colorado theatre shooting legal in Canada - Canada - CBC News
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH Ya don't say.
Whatcha call media getting all the mileage they can.
via 4chan and other skeptical places
James Holmes: Methinks These Are Pictures of Two Different People, page 2
How sad does your life have to be to make this a conspiracy theory?
Aye Carumba!
Expect lots more, guy won't see the inside of a court room until March from the last thing I read about it. Gotta fill up that air time!
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.
are you saying that I have fat fur covered arms?
True enough.
I would not support the removal of laws against cruise missiles merely because they don't seem to apply well to pocket knives.
I would appreciate if you don't place my hunting rifle in the same classification as a cruise missile or a pocket knife. I don't.
At the time muskets and cannon were the most advanced weapons of the time... true?
What about Freedom of Speech? Freedom of the Press? etc. Should we revisit those. I am sure they didn't anticipate advances in media technology.
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.
There are 3 seperate points in that sentence.....commas don't mean anything anymore?
There are 3 seperate points in that sentence.....commas don't mean anything anymore?
Why on earth would any rational person give air time to a bad joke from someone who doesn't matter? What does that have to do with ANYthing? Don't get me wrong, I'd tell anyone on here cracking that joke that they're being a moron, but, I wouldn't go hunt down statements by people to get offended about. That smacks of an attempt to feel righteous.
And btw, conspiracy theorists are feraking morons if different lighting, a dye job, and a different facial expression is all it takes to throw them off someone's identity. How on earth 'they' managed to make a dummy double with the same Adam's apple, same jaw line, same ears, same eyelids, same bridge of the nose... yet get the nostrils wrong....would be the real story.
And btw, conspiracy theorists are feraking morons if different lighting, a dye job, and a different facial expression is all it takes to throw them off someone's identity. How on earth 'they' managed to make a dummy double with the same Adam's apple, same jaw line, same ears, same eyelids, same bridge of the nose... yet get the nostrils wrong....would be the real story.
Actually, it can be argued that a right to own weapons exists in Canda, since our Constitution states:
Given Canada's common law practice of taking from British common law, and the fact that such a right was understood as existing under the common law right of self defense, one could probably make such an argument in Canada. It would be interesting to see a section 26 challenge by that Uzi owner in the other thread...
Given Canada's common law practice of taking from British common law, and the fact that such a right was understood as existing under the common law right of self defense, one could probably make such an argument in Canada. It would be interesting to see a section 26 challenge by that Uzi owner in the other thread...