Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

" Its a little embarrassing that the only libertarian in the theater was James Holmes.
The others all obayed the anti-gun rule; very sad."

I'll bet that there would be a whole lot less guns sold if the anti-gun nuts would stop threatening to use the government to remove the right to own and use guns. By pushing the issue they actually drive the situation in the opposite direction from what they want.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Fortunately, all the silly blather about increased gun control that reliably follows the horrendous but rare incidence of mass slaughter, there is virtually no desire on the part of Democrats to make gun control a political issue.

Do you have a theory as to why?

Quote:

I'll bet that there would be a whole lot less guns sold if the anti-gun nuts would stop threatening to use the government to remove the right to own and use guns. By pushing the issue they actually drive the situation in the opposite direction from what they want.

Question is, why would you want a whole lot less guns??

A few thoughts...

Charles Krauthammer is calling for more lunatic control, which might actually accomplish something. Krauthammer was chief resident in psychiatry at Mass General, and presumably knows something about the situation. He claims that at least some of the people doing these mass killings would have been locked up in 1970 and that it's simply much harder to have people committed these days.

Gun control schemes have resulted in tens of millions of human deaths over the last century; a government plan to arm all the psychos in the world to the teeth and give them unlimited license to shoot people could not cause anywhere near as much damage:

http://able2know.org/topic/194364-1

Jack the Ripper never owned a gun; Elizabeth Borden never owned a gun; Genghis Khan never owned a gun nor did any of his employees...

The two D.C. area snipers (Malvo/Muhammed) who created a reign of terror for several weeks were using an M16 which most people would call an "assault rifle"; but the WAY they were using it, one shot and scoot, it could as easily have been a flintlock, it would have made no difference. George Washington could have made any of the shots they made with his second or third best rifle and flintlocks are not even regulated by any laws in most states.

Of the ideas involved in what you'd call an assault rifle, being semiautomatic is the least significant. The most major are light caliber (ease of carrying both the weapon and large quantities of ammo), detachable magazines, and rapid aimed follow-on shots i.e. recoil sufficiently low as to not produce the muzzle rise which you'd associate with military rifles prior to the AK or M16. That says that a 22-magnum lever-action rifle with detachable magazines would give you at least most of what the military views as an assault weapon.

The two most major reasons for the 2'nd amendment are, as Ice-T notes, to provide the people with a last line of defense against tyranny from their own government if worst ever should come straight down to worst as Paul Harvey notes happened in other nations, and as a final bulwark against any foreign invasion which might ever happen to get past the half million guys in US military uniforms.

That in fact is precisely what Isoroku Yamamoto told the Japanese military council was the reason they could not simply invade the continental United States ("there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass").

For instance, if obama saw himself sinking in the polls
and he uses the pretext of any available excuse,
maybe a natural disaster, or economic worries,
to put off elections indefinitely. I don't expect him to DO that.

If that happened, then what shud the citizens DO about it ?

Just forget about democracy ?

I thought this was a very nice thing for Bale to do...

There's another problem in that "gun free zones(tm)" are basically suicide pacts in an age such as ours. I don't picture an intelligent parent allowing a child to watch movies in a "gun free" theater, or attend a school like Virginia Tech.

If every twentieth person in that theater had a concealed carry pistol, somebody could have shot this guy in a leg and then jumped him as he fell or whatever, the body armor would not have saved him. In all such cases, one or two people might have died, but not dozens.

For instance, if obama saw himself sinking in the polls
and he uses the pretext of any available excuse,
maybe a natural disaster, or economic worries,
to put off elections indefinitely. I don't expect him to DO that.

If that happened, then what shud the citizens DO about it ?

Just forget about democracy ?

I don't picture it happening.

To do that, a president would almost have to be a god-like figure. FDR might could have gotten away with that in 42, but Bork Obunga is a sort of an anti-Roosevelt, FDR was universally loved and Bork as of right now is all but universally despised. Dems are bailing in increasing numbers and I'd rate it a 50% shot as of now that they go ape-**** at their convention, throw Bork under the bus and run Hilda or Stenny Hoyer in November.

The original concept of the Founders
was that it 'd IMPOSSIBLE because the citizens
were all armed to the teeth, with many private, local militia units
vastly outnumbering the US Army.

The first census in 1790 showed 4 million population. That's about half the population of NYC and works out at roughly one person per square mile.

Comparisons of now to then are so ridiculous that they can only be offered by the very stupid or the very desperate.

Where can you buy a bomb at a store near you?

What does population numbers had anything to do with it?

The government of UK did not change all that must either as the population went up with only the Royal family becoming complete figureheads.

tho I wonder how far into the future,
I will be physically able to support the weight of a gun, walking in the street )

I forgot how many UK citizens did they killed on buses and the tube?

In 1787 the main problem was scarcity. Now the problem is abundance.

Abundance? The British soldiers and the mercenaries soldiers station in the colonies was shock by the living standards of the common population compare to their.

After the revolution war many of these soldiers did not return to European.