37
   

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

 
 
Joe Nation
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 09:22 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
The Founding Fathers decided that the entire US populace should keep military weaponry at home.
for the express purpose of having a well-regulated militia.

The two items cannot be separated.

Joe(one clause depends on the other)Nation
farmerman
 
  5  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 09:26 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
That argument would only have merit if there was actually an armed militia that you could point at for the right to apply to
your assertion would only be valid if you are talking about THE Militia. The Constitution only says "well armed militia"

During the US Revolution , it became obvious that "militis" were often the choice between winning, losing, or losing very badly.
Think COWPENS and how a "militia" turned the battle for the US.

The memory of REVOLUTIONARY militias is loaded with internally regulated but generally unaffiliated organizations.

farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 09:28 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Did any of the Founding Fathers oppose the people's right to carry arms for self defense when they go about in public?

I suspect not
DID any of the founding fathers ever consider the mass killing potential of guns with self contained ammo and multiple shell reserves? or did they ever consider that a statistically significant number of us would turn on each oter when such eapons were available?

I suspect not also.
McTag
 
  6  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 09:35 am
@Joe Nation,

Saw this, seems relevant

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/545504_465231863487797_933540432_n.jpg
BillRM
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 09:41 am
@farmerman,
Well technology changes over a few hundred years however as I had pointed out mass murders can and have been done with swords and cans of gasoline and explosives.

Go to whale oil instead of gasoline and all the above existed in the founders days.

Mass murders does not need firearms to do and in fact the most "successful" cases of mass murders to date have had nothing to do with firearms of any type modern or muzzle loaders.


OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 09:44 am
@oralloy,
MontereyJack wrote:
And I join mine with the sentiments of the Founding Fathers, who were believers in the Social Compact and civil society, who would have thought you were chaos-loving nutballs
oralloy wrote:
The Founding Fathers decided that the entire US populace
should keep military weaponry at home.
Yes.


Qua what arms the people have rights to keep and bear,
the US Supreme Court said in US v. MILLER 3O7 US 174 (1939) that they should be
"ordinary military equipment ... AYMETTE v. STATE 2 Hump. [21 Tenn] 154, 158."
The AYMETTE case, which the Supreme Court approvingly adopted declares:
"the arms, the right to keep which is secured,
are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare,
and that constitute ordinary military equipment.
If the citizens have these arms in their hands,
they are prepared in the best possible manner
to repel any encroachments on their rights." [emphasis added]





David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 09:53 am
@msolga,
msolga wrote:
Where does this "freedom hating" jargon come from from David & his ilk here? The NRA?


The term is intended as an equal opposing epithet to "gun nut".



msolga wrote:
But tell me, weren't those people at the cinema on Friday night also "freedom lovers", just out for an innocent evening's enjoyment?
Why should some disturbed person who legally bought arms & caused 12 deaths & such trauma impinge on them excercising their freedoms?


I fully expect that the law will severely punish the person who carried out the massacre.



msolga wrote:
What about the rights & freedoms those 12 students and their teacher who were murdered at Columbine High School?
Columbine High School massacre:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre


I realize that the Columbine shooters were not among the people who were being brutally bullied at that school, and were thus not "victims lashing out at their tormenters".

However, the very fact that such cruel bullying was happening unchecked at the school clearly indicates what an unhappy place it was. Perhaps that entire brutal climate influenced the shooters even though they were not directly victims of the brutality.



msolga wrote:
Today, to try and get my head around this "freedom hating" thing I Googled
freedom haters & gun control. This is one of the threads that I found.
It is called "Ammoland". Neutral


I thought for a moment you had found that great website that sells "police only" ammo to anyone who wants it, but that's a slightly different URL.



msolga wrote:
What sort of response is that?
Prayers for the families of the victims.
Anger at theatre bans that stopped "law abiding citizens from arming themselves".
Anger at the "deranged lunatic" who was able to perfectly legally acquire his weapons (& use them).
And mostly, anger at the "gun control vultures" who are trying to respond to this latest tragedy.

Is it just me, or do folk of this ilk seem weirdly & alarmingly out of touch with reality?


Their views look OK for the most part. This theater attack would be a difficult threat to arm against though.

Theater goers would have probably needed to be already holding full-length rifles in their hands (or readily available within arms reach) during the movie in order to penetrate his armor in time to stop him.

So far I have not been able to come up with a plausible way to make that work. I'm still mulling it over, but it may be a problem with no valid solution.



msolga wrote:
Why aren't they advocating responsible acquisition & use of guns?


They are.



msolga wrote:
(Given that an all out ban on guns appears to be unrealistic at this point in time ... if at all. Who knows?)


Will never ever be allowed to happen in the US.

We're about to have the Supreme Court start enforcing our right to carry guns in public, even in major cities.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 09:54 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Did any of the Founding Fathers oppose
the people's right to carry arms for self defense when they go about in public?

I suspect not
farmerman wrote:
DID any of the founding fathers ever consider the mass killing potential of guns with self contained ammo and multiple shell reserves? or did they ever consider that a statistically significant number of us would turn on each oter when such eapons were available?
I suspect not also.
The IMPORTANT thing
is that, as a condition of its existence,
thay deprived government of any jurisdiction of civilian possession of guns,
the same as government has no authority to make u go to Church,
if u don 't wanna.

Did the Founders foresee electric printing presses, radio, TV n the Internet??????
Does the First Amendment protect our rights to free speech LESS in High Definition TV,
or to freedom of the press with electric printing presses???? Tell us, farmer.


In HELLER, the USSC was explicit
in recognizing that modern communications
have as much Constitutional free speech protection
as thay did in 1791; the same principle applies to defensive gunnery.





David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 09:58 am
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Why not have some states with complete freedom to own any weaponry and others with complete bans.


Because it would violate the Constitution.



spendius wrote:
What do gun toters wear when it is 95 degrees in the shade? Obviously sunbathing is out because it would leave people unprotected. They must feel uncomfortable when playing games.


A small 9mm or .38?

A Seecamp .32 (or the Beretta version of the same theme)?
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 10:13 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
What helps maintain this particular mindset is complete ignorance of the outside world.


Nonsense. Support for freedom has nothing to do with knowledge, or lack thereof, of the outside world.



izzythepush wrote:
It's no different from all the lies and exaggerations about the NHS spouted by similar vested interests when Obama tried to introduce Universal Health Care.


Stating that we will never give up our freedom is neither a lie nor an exaggeration.



izzythepush wrote:
The most important freedom is freedom of thought, and a lot of them lost that freedom that a long time ago. They never even noticed when it slid silently out the back door.


Nope. Americans are still free to think whatever they want.



izzythepush wrote:
You can't argue with them, there is a kneejerk response each time, repeat the mantra, don't think. It's like talking to a cult member.


You will never convince a free person to willingly give up their freedom.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 10:30 am
@Joe Nation,
Joe Nation wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
The Founding Fathers decided that the entire US populace should keep military weaponry at home.


for the express purpose of having a well-regulated militia.

The two items cannot be separated.


Yes. The right to keep military weaponry in your home is directly tied to the militia.

I am a firm advocate for having the government set up the militia as the Constitution demands, so that the American people can begin stocking their homes with automatic rifles, grenades/grenade launchers, bazookas, and the like (would like to get Stinger missiles in the mix, but those are crew-served weapons so it might be difficult to justify).



Joe Nation wrote:
Joe(one clause depends on the other)Nation


Well, they don't directly depend on each other (each clause has its own independent meaning), but they go together quite well, with each clause protecting a vital pillar of our right to stockpile military weaponry.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 10:31 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
That argument would only have merit if there was actually an armed militia that you could point at for the right to apply to


your assertion would only be valid if you are talking about THE Militia.


I know. And I am.

It is high time the government set up a proper armed militia as the Constitution demands, so that the American people can begin storing military weaponry in their homes.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 10:31 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
Did any of the Founding Fathers oppose the people's right to carry arms for self defense when they go about in public?

I suspect not


DID any of the founding fathers ever consider the mass killing potential of guns with self contained ammo and multiple shell reserves? or did they ever consider that a statistically significant number of us would turn on each oter when such eapons were available?

I suspect not also.


Had they known of it, it is very unlikely that they would have repudiated our ancient right to carry guns in public for self defense.

In any case, the right still stands.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 10:45 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
Saw this, seems relevant

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/545504_465231863487797_933540432_n.jpg


The purpose of the Second Amendment is not to overthrow tyrants, but to prevent them from becoming tyrannical in the first place.

The Founding Fathers' intent was that the militia would be the primary enforcers of the government's will (as opposed to the government having a standing army enforce its orders).

Since the militia was composed of the entire populace, if the government told them to carry out a tyrannical order against the people, the militia would refuse to carry it out (as they would be carrying it out on themselves).


Also, blaming the Second Amendment for the fact that people commit murders is not logical. Every person killed with a gun would be just as dead if they were killed with a knife instead.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 10:48 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

Had they known of it, it is very unlikely that they would have repudiated our ancient right to carry guns in public for self defense.

In any case, the right still stands.
You hve no way to defend that assertion re: th FF. Madison was, in fact, against the idea of a Bill of Rights and argued the point to include changing conditions of state (and I can assume, technology).

This is one area where the Federalists discussions were quite appropo
Cycloptichorn
 
  4  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 10:58 am
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/batman-the-dark-knight-returns-weapon-of-the-enemy.jpg

Batman had first-hand experience of the violence a gun can cause at a theater. If only more could reject their inner fears and learn to rely upon less violent means.

Cycloptichorn
spendius
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 10:58 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
An that somehow reduced the fact that twenty times plus more are killed by a jumbo jet crash then at that movie theater and yet we care far less.


The numbers have nothing to do with it. The case of the shooters demonstrates that society harbours people who wish to kill other people they do not know. How many are below the threshold of actually doing it and have psychological states waiting to be triggered by a personal setback?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 11:01 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
violate our Natural Rights


What's natural about some words chiselled on a slab of marble?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 11:03 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
Had they known of it, it is very unlikely that they would have repudiated our ancient right to carry guns in public for self defense.

In any case, the right still stands.


You hve no way to defend that assertion re: th FF.


Well, I can't raise them from the dead and discuss it with them. But their views on protecting all our rights were pretty solid.



farmerman wrote:
Madison was, in fact, against the idea of a Bill of Rights and argued the point to include changing conditions of state (and I can assume, technology).

This is one area where the Federalists discussions were quite appropo


The people who opposed the Bill of Rights were not of a mindset that would oppose any of our rights. They were instead afraid that setting down a list of rights would inadvertently restrict or eliminate some of them, and felt that our rights would be better protected if there were no such list.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Jul, 2012 11:03 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
Because it would violate the Constitution.


I don't believe you.
 

Related Topics

Information About Denver, CO. Wanted - Discussion by Aldistar
Maryjane - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Car Services to Airport? - Discussion by Steve Spencer
Expressmens Union Denver, Colo - Question by deegeez
So, do you think this is demonic? - Discussion by ossobuco
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/24/2022 at 04:43:30