Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@FOUND SOUL,

FOUND SOUL wrote:

OH MAN, here I was thinking there may be an up-date or sumthink....

There was a minor update. But it came at the end of a page, and was quickly buried and forgotten.

I'd thought about repeating it, but hadn't bothered to yet. Here it is:

Oralloy wrote:

Just heard on the news that the movie shooter guy had been a regular patient of a psychiatrist.

The psychiatrist specializes in schizophrenia (although not exclusively, so that may not be the reason he was her patient).

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Tis ok, I bet loads of people are excited about the Olympics, just not me Smile

Thank you for that, appreciated.

So someone didn't do their job right, couldn't determine the seriousness of his mental illness and make suggestions.

Go figure.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

The requirement to licence must be unconstitutional because the permission then derives from the authorities and not from the Constitution. Such permission could be granted even if the 2nd, didn't exist. As it is here.

Also the authorities know who have guns with licensing.

The right to "bear arms" is an illusion. Someone who is refused a licence is thus not a full American. The 2nd. is redundant de facto.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Watch my fellow serfs at the Olympic opening ceremony.

You've got a bad case of assertivitis oralloy.
But one expects that of gun toters.
Guns do make some people feel artificially powerful.

I have never, since the age of 8,
felt that, if u mean feeling arrogant.
When u carry guns all the time, u forget about it
after a while, turning your attention to the events of the day.
U carry your guns as u carry your wallet or your watch.
My demeanor has never been affected by carrying guns
(I remember when I was 13 in the schoolyard, when first
I got the courage to ask the most beautiful girl in my class for a date:
I was terrified [Approach-Avoidance Reaction], so afraid of embarrassment
that the muscles in my throat were partially closing;
my gun did not help at all -- gave me no confidence what-so-ever)
nor have I ever seen any person affected by audacity (so far as I remember)
during quite a few decades of direct experience with personal armament.
I know that the guy next to me might be armed better than me.
"An armed society is a polite society."

Quote:

You're thinking like a serf. A free American does not carry a gun because they feel some sort of "need".

A free American carries a gun because they choose to do it.

spendius wrote:

It's a need alright.

That 's a good point!
Humen need oxygen, water, food and guns.

David

0 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

The requirement to licence must be unconstitutional because
the permission then derives from the authorities and not from the Constitution.

The Constitution constitutes government in America, as water constitutes ice.
It is very presumptuous for any agency of government
to fake and pretend that it has authority to grant or withhold
what each citizen already HAS from the Constitution itself,
or to limit it (such that felon Martha Stewart cannot legally walk
to the corner for a loaf of bread, with a defensive gun on her).
Only by an amendment of the Supreme Law of the Land,
can Constitutional Rights legitimately be limited.
"the authorities" betray their trust and violate their oath,
if thay seek to curtail or subvert anyone's Constitutional Rights.

spendius wrote:

Such permission could be granted even if the 2nd, didn't exist. As it is here.

Yes; as if the Police mailed me a license to stay home from Church, on Sundays
or sent me a license to read the NY Times.

spendius wrote:

Also the authorities know who have guns with licensing.

That is unhealthy and dangerous to personal freedom.
Presumably, government woud USE that information
before it suspended the Constitution and declared
any indefinite moratorium on elections.

spendius wrote:

The right to "bear arms" is an illusion.
Someone who is refused a licence is thus not a full American.

The US Supreme Court has made the point
that the Constitution DEFENDS and protects the pre-existing right to bear arms;
US v. CRUIKSHANK 92 US 542 (1875)
it did NOT grant that right, which is a Natural Right, anteceding the Constitution,
the same as the Constitution did not create the Moon nor did it grant us the stars,
nor the warmth of summer.

spendius wrote:

The 2nd. is redundant de facto.

When I was in practice as a trial attorney,
I found value in asserting arguments in multifarious varieties
of different ways to courts or to juries.

Incidentally, Spendius,
if u thought that I had "condescended" [your Post: # 5,058,046] to u in my post,
then I regret my ineptitude in expressing courtesy.

David

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

No. The treaty as yet remains a proposal.

Which treaty? The one that will ban guns in the US? or the one that you have no idea what is in it?

If it's the first one then you are playing word games in denying you said anything about such a treaty. If it's the second one then you statement is clearly a non sequitur since it has nothing to do with a treaty banning guns in the US.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

You know very well than I can.

I notice you claim you can while at the same time you don't produce any such news report.

I know you will continue not posting a credible news source.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

There is no evidence that the assault weapons ban violates the US Constitution. The fact that it was in place and never successfully challenged as a violation of the 2nd amendment is rather telling, don't you think?

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
No. The treaty as yet remains a proposal.

Which treaty? The one that will ban guns in the US? or the one that you have no idea what is in it?

If it's the first one then you are playing word games in denying you said anything about such a treaty. If it's the second one then you statement is clearly a non sequitur since it has nothing to do with a treaty banning guns in the US.

As yet I have not seen its contents. I remain suspicious.

And no. No non sequitur. I was quite correct to point out that it is only a proposed treaty.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
You know very well than I can.

I notice you claim you can while at the same time you don't produce any such news report.

I'm pretty sure I posted three news reports, each covering a different phase of Obama's attempt to rape our Constitution.

However, I'll admit that I did not go back to double check that they are still in my post.

parados wrote:

I know you will continue not posting a credible news source.

If you don't find ABC news and TheHill.com credible, it is likely that any source that you do find credible, is not one I'd ever go near.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

What proposed treaty?
If you have no idea of the contents then it is certainly a non sequitur since the treaty could be about declaring kitties being adorable. The only way it is NOT a non sequitur is if you are claiming the treaty will ban guns.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Your posts show no such attempt by Obama. You need to show that the assault rifle ban was unconstitutional. Until you do that, you are simply making unsubstantiated assertions.

1 Reply

@parados,

I don't know why people are feeding this troll. A pro-gun who is delusional, now that is a scary mix.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

There is no evidence that the assault weapons ban violates the US Constitution.

Yes there is.

I'm tempted to leave it at that, since you've clearly made an outrageously false statement without having any idea what you are talking about.

But, it's a good opportunity for me to repeat myself. And in this case, I'm inclined to do so.

So here is the insurmountable case that assault weapons bans violate the Constitution:

First, an assault weapon is just a gun with certain harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip and a flash suppressor.

And second, when the government passes laws that impact one of our rights, it has to pass muster with certain standards of review (rational basis review, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny).

As the government has no reason whatsoever to ban harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip, such a ban would not even pass muster with the most lax of those three standards (and the courts will likely chose one of the more demanding standards).

parados wrote:

The fact that it was in place and never successfully challenged as a violation of the 2nd amendment is rather telling, don't you think?

No. That was from a period when the Supreme Court was freely allowing the Second Amendment to be wantonly violated.

More telling is the fact that no one has even attempted to argue against the overwhelming case that assault weapons bans violate the Constitution.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

What proposed treaty?

The one they are working on at the UN.

parados wrote:

If you have no idea of the contents then it is certainly a non sequitur since the treaty could be about declaring kitties being adorable. The only way it is NOT a non sequitur is if you are claiming the treaty will ban guns.

Since my claim was that it remains only a proposal, and since the treaty remains only a proposal, there is no non sequitur.

Pretty unlikely that it involves kitties.

1 Reply

@Atom Blitzer,

Atom Blitzer wrote:

I don't know why people are feeding this troll. A pro-gun who is delusional, now that is a scary mix.

That's the least of it, he also wants to nuke Italy and exterminate the Palestinians.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Your posts show no such attempt by Obama.

Yes they do.

parados wrote:

You need to show that the assault rifle ban was unconstitutional.

I've done that repeatedly.

parados wrote:

Until you do that, you are simply making unsubstantiated assertions.

Nope. Not one thing I've said is unsubstantiated.

0 Replies

@Atom Blitzer,

Atom Blitzer wrote:

I don't know why people are feeding this troll.

Pointing out solid facts and backing them with reputable links is not trolling.

Atom Blitzer wrote:

A pro-gun who is delusional, now that is a scary mix.

I notice how you've not managed to show a single fact that I'm wrong about.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

he also wants to nuke Italy and exterminate the Palestinians.

Liar.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

First, an assault weapon is just a gun with certain harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip and a flash suppressor.

Harmless parts, but the gun as a whole becomes lethal. Fallacy of composition.

You're an idiot.

1 Reply

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know