37
   

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:16 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
So let me get this straight then oralloy.
A flash suppressor has no purpose at all?


Not exactly. It does something. It's just that that something doesn't make the gun more lethal.
And much more importantly, the government has no legitimate reason to ban flash suppressors.


oh.. so something that is merely cosmetic is functional.

You must live a lovely life in your world where contradictory things are really the same thing.


I live in a world where a ban on pistol grips and flash suppressors would not pass muster even under a standard as lax as rational basis review.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:17 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
It suffices that government has NO JURISDICTION
qua a citizen 's possession of defensive guns.


Would you not be better defended if an effective gun ban was in place.

You're going around in circles. The more guns there are the more defence is needed which requires more guns and thus more defence and more guns and so on and so on.

Do you own shares in a gun manufacturing company? Or a funeral operation?
Atom Blitzer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:17 pm
@BillRM,
Never did I say entirely disarm the civilians. If I did, point it out as to where I mentioned it.

I only suggest it must be highly regulated, in other words, a privilege.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:23 pm
@Atom Blitzer,
A privilege to be able to defend your life and your loves ones lives from a mad man?

You would prefer the only way I might be able to save my wife life is by doing what a number of unarmed men was force to do in that theater and shield her my body hoping that will be enough.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:28 pm
@spendius,
Quote:
It suffices that government has NO JURISDICTION
qua a citizen 's possession of defensive guns.
spendius wrote:
Would you not be better defended if an effective gun ban was in place.
Yes; we woud not.
In your mind, woud that ban be as "effective" as the ban on marijuana?????
How many Billions of $$$$ have we thrown at marijuana??



spendius wrote:
You're going around in circles. The more guns there are the more defence is needed
Is there evidence that "The more guns there are the more defence is needed" ??
I don 't believe that there is any such evidence.
When I add to MY gun collection, NO defense has been needed at all.

I 've seen my friends' gun collections grow, over time.
NO defense from those additional guns has been needed.
Q.E.D.: your hypothesis has been disproven.





David
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:29 pm
@Atom Blitzer,
Atom Blitzer wrote:
Prime example as to why civilians should not have military grade weapons.


Define civilian. Militiamen have the right to buy automatic rifles, grenades/grenade launchers, and bazookas. And they have the right to keep them in their own homes.



Atom Blitzer wrote:
Why don't you stick to playing video games?


Because I value freedom.
0 Replies
 
Atom Blitzer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:29 pm
@BillRM,
If it isn't considered as a privilege, then mad men like the one in Colorado will have access to such weapons.

Regulate it similarly to how they do it in the automotive world.

Tell me, in your fictional reality, how do you propose to keep guns away from crazy idiots?

Sometimes prevention is more safer and more effective. You are older than me, so I'd presume you'd know that, but it seems that you don't.
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:39 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
spendius wrote:
Would you not be better defended if an effective gun ban was in place.

Ditzhead Dave replied: Yes; we woud not.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:45 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Would you not be better defended if an effective gun ban was in place.


No.

Plus, such a ban would be illegal. Americans are free people. You don't get to disarm us.



spendius wrote:
Do you own shares in a gun manufacturing company?


There is no ulterior motive for the defense of freedom.

Americans refuse to give up our freedom because we like being free.



spendius wrote:
Or a funeral operation?


I take it you need to be reminded that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

(If you really cared about saving lives, you wouldn't be complaining about our freedom. You'd be trying to ban cars.)
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:47 pm
@Atom Blitzer,
Atom Blitzer wrote:
I only suggest it must be highly regulated, in other words, a privilege.


Americans are free people. You don't get to do that here.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:47 pm
@Atom Blitzer,
Atom Blitzer wrote:
Regulate it similarly to how they do it in the automotive world.


Cars are regulated more loosely than guns are. Your proposal would loosen gun regulations.
Atom Blitzer
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:50 pm
@oralloy,
Think again.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 03:56 pm
@Atom Blitzer,
Atom Blitzer wrote:
Think again.


Currently buying a new gun requires a federal background check.

You can buy a new car without any government involvement whatsoever.



Currently driving in public is simply a matter of getting a license and registration.

Some jurisdictions do not allow people to carry guns in public under any circumstances. (Granted, the Supreme Court is about to do something about that.)
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 05:14 pm
@Atom Blitzer,
Quote:
how do you propose to keep guns away from crazy idiots?


The answer to that is you can not keep weapons from crazy idiots.

A determined mad man will be able to be arm or for that matter anyone else that is willing to break any law that say otherwise can get weapons and always will be able to do so.

Laws do not have magical powers and off hand with a pocket full of cash I do not think I would have too must problem getting a firearm in nice "firearms free" England for example.

Read some of my other postings here of news stories of the problems UK law enforcement is now having with gangs being arm for example.

All you can do is make it safer for the madmen to do their killings by making more sure that average citizens will not be able to defend themselves.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  3  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 05:19 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
You don't get to disarm us.


Gee--you really are a tough guy aren't you? No matter how many innocents have to die or lie in hospital in a critical condition with their loved ones weeping and wailing.

That "no" sums you up mate. Do you really think you are in more danger if an effective gun ban was in place than if all Yanks were armed to the teeth? Really? Are you off your ******* rocker?

Your assertivitis is becoming silly.

Quote:
I take it you need to be reminded that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.


You're nuts pal.

Cars save more lives than they take and they are not specifically designed or operated to kill and maim and bereave people.
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 05:24 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
Currently buying a new gun requires a federal background check.


That's not in the 2nd. So it's unconstitutional. According to the 2nd everybody who wants a gun should be able to get one without requiring the authorisation of your petty-fogging lords and masters.

You're being toyed with like a fish on a line.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 05:38 pm
@spendius,
How are those arm gangs doing that are forcing British cops to patrol some areas of your country with sub-machine guns?

Taking away a few hundred thousands deactivated guns from collectors because a few had been return to working order is going to solve the problems perhaps?

The more your government tighten down the more profit will be make by smugglers per-firearm and the more will flood into your country.

Supply and demand is a wonder thing indeed.


oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 06:01 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
You don't get to disarm us.


Gee--you really are a tough guy aren't you? No matter how many innocents have to die or lie in hospital in a critical condition with their loved ones weeping and wailing.

That "no" sums you up mate.


It does not matter how much you dislike that you don't get to disarm us. You still don't get to disarm us.



spendius wrote:
Do you really think you are in more danger if an effective gun ban was in place than if all Yanks were armed to the teeth?


I think it is an irrelevant question. Americans are a free people. You don't get to disarm us.



spendius wrote:
Your assertivitis is becoming silly.


Not at all. You have no power to disarm us. You will never have any power to disarm us.

Americans will remain a free people, forever, and there isn't a thing you can do about it.



spendius wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
I take it you need to be reminded that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.


You're nuts pal.


Nope. I merely stick to the facts.



spendius wrote:
Cars save more lives than they take


Oh? How many lives are saved by the private ownership and/or use of cars?



spendius wrote:
and they are not specifically designed or operated to kill and maim and bereave people.


Irrelevant. Banning the private ownership and use of cars would save untold lives.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 06:04 pm
@spendius,
Oralloy wrote:
You don't get to disarm us.
spendius wrote:
Gee--you really are a tough guy aren't you?
No matter how many innocents [Thay were NEGLIGENTLY un-armed.] have to die or lie in hospital
in a critical condition with their loved ones weeping and wailing.

That "no" sums you up mate.
FOR THE RECORD:
I utterly refuse to compromize my Individual freedom of self defense
in any degree, however slight,
not for any fraction of a nanosecond.



spendius wrote:
Do you really think you are in more danger if an effective gun ban
There is NO SUCH THING as an "effective gun ban."
I 'd make them myself, if it came to that.
I already have a manual for home-made submachineguns from Paladin Press.
http://www.paladin-press.com/product/A_Do-It-Yourself_Submachine_Gun/Home_Workshop_Guns_and_Ammo



spendius wrote:
was in place than if all Yanks were armed to the teeth?
I advocate & exhort universal defensive armament,
with tactical training beginning in the earliest possible years in the public schools.



spendius wrote:
Really?
REALLY and absolutely! YES!





David
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 Jul, 2012 06:32 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

How are those arm gangs doing that are forcing British cops to patrol some areas of your country with sub-machine guns?


Provide a source for your ridiculous rants. That might work with a moron like Oralboy, who seems to think that if he imagines something it's true.

Some of us can construct basic sentences. Which parts of the UK are patrolled by police with sub-machine guns? Provide a credible source.

 

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 © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/22/2025 at 07:26:10