Batman shooting in Colorado - Page 3

hail2skins · #31 07-20-2012, 04:04 PM

Ok, let's keep this civil and on topic.

Keino · #32 07-20-2012, 04:05 PM

I missed the part in the Bill of Rights that said the 2nd Amendment was unlimited. Surely if limitations can be placed on the right of free speech and the right of assembly (1st Amendment), then it is reasonable to place limitations on the right to bear arms.

Just as one cannot legally yell fire in a crowded theater, one should not be able to obtain assault weapons of this nature unless they are in the military and are using them in connection with military service. Nobody is trying to take your guns away.

RedskinsDave · #33 07-20-2012, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cal_junior

The point which you're missing (shocker) is that in both cases people died needlessly. It makes perfect sense that reasonable people want to find a way to prevent such occurrences in the future. Nobody (at least in this forum) wants to strip you of your Constitutional rights, but as technology changes so must the laws of the land.

(And just out of curiosity, are you able to discuss any subject at hR without mentioning your wife? We get it, Dave. She's important. You have an important wife with an important job. Congrats. Let's move on.)

I was just making it clear what you felt free to call her. If you have an issue with that I would suggest not calling her an "effing idiot". It's pretty simple really. I've never claimed we was important or brilliant. You have a real hard time with words.

cal_junior · #34 07-20-2012, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

I was just making it clear what you felt free to call her. If you have an issue with that I would suggest not calling her an "effing idiot". It's pretty simple really. I've never claimed we was important or brilliant. You have a real hard time with words.

When you answered the ad for hR moderator, did it say: "Looking for somone who will antagonize posters and ignore specific instructions from the site owner?" Because if so you're doing a bang-up job.

(And for record: I never called your wife any such thing.)

RedskinsDave · #35 07-20-2012, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cal_junior

When you answered the ad for hR moderator, did it say: "Looking for somone who will antagonize posters and ignore specific instructions from the site owner?" Because if so you're doing a bang-up job.

(And for record: I never called your wife any such thing.)

You did. I would cut and paste it here for all to see but it contains language we don't allow here. I modified it in my recent posts. Is your memory as bad as your reading comprehension?

AustinSkin · #36 07-20-2012, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cal_junior

The point which you're missing (shocker) is that in both cases people died needlessly. It makes perfect sense that reasonable people want to find a way to prevent such occurrences in the future. Nobody (at least in this forum) wants to strip you of your Constitutional rights, but as technology changes so must the laws of the land.

Here's the point I wrestle with. The 2nd amendment was written in 1791. The only firearms of the day were black powder muskets and one shot pistols. Shoot, reload, shoot. The framers of the Constitution had no concept of AR-15s, AK 47s, Oozies and the like. The Colt revolver wasn't invent until 1836. The Gatling gun was patented in 1861.

Assault rifles were intended to be military anti-personnel weapons. How is it possible for these weapons to be owned by the civilian population for non-military use?

I suppose I wouldn't mind if the only place you could shoot these weapons was at a target range or gun club, but only if the assault rifle (WMD) doesn't leave the premises.

I would have no problem if anyone caught with an assault rifle in their possession (on their person, in their car, etc.) should have their weapons confiscated and be put up on charges.

SkinsKY · #37 07-20-2012, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by akhhorus

The shooter's apartment was boobytrapped with incendiary and chemical devices.

If that's the case, the issue is about crazy only and not guns. Gun control will not stop crazy.

cal_junior · #38 07-20-2012, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

You did. I would cut and paste it here for all to see but it contains language we don't allow here. I modified it in my recent posts. Is your memory as bad as your reading comprehension?

You are 13. That's the only explanation for this. You and I both know that message was a hypothetical written from somebody else's perspective. So one of two things are happening here 1. You don't understand the concept of hypothetical or 2. You're trying to make me look bad publicly in the most intellectually disingenuous way I can imagine. (Based on your reputation I think most people know the answer.)

And if you elect to copy and paste anything from our PMs, please include what my actual opinion of your wife was - that being that based on my only knowledge of her (her employer) I'd guess she's a pretty bright woman.

RedskinsDave · #39 07-20-2012, 05:16 PM

You're a schmuck. You claimed I said my wife was brilliant and that made it okay for you to call her an effin idiot. When I asked you to show me where I said such a thing, you backtracked. Anyone who reads your arguments here would be familiar with that type of back and forth.

cal_junior · #40 07-20-2012, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

You're a schmuck.

Both civil and on topic. Well done.

Emmanouel8 · #41 07-20-2012, 06:42 PM

[quote=BIGREDSKINSFAN1963;1448174]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emmanouel8

Tragedy.

As far as taking a 3 month old to a movie, have one and you'll understand. Although I can't say I have, i can understand.

/QUOTE]

i have had 2 3 month old kids in my my 49 years,and i never ever considered taking either to a movie theatre for a midnight showing ever! taking a kid that young to the movies is just flat out stupid! and as for a movie like this,i'd never let a kid under the age of 13 into a movie like this,especially when i know the theatre will be filled to capacity.i'd take my child myself before i'd let him off to see a movie that was this violent and popular!

Neither would I (as far as the 3 month old, not sure I'd waste my time trying keep a 13 year old away from the movie ), BUT I can see why a certain sector of the population would take a 3 month old to get out of the house and watch a movie that late.

cal_junior · #42 07-20-2012, 09:06 PM

[quote=Emmanouel8;1448192]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BIGREDSKINSFAN1963

Neither would I (as far as the 3 month old, not sure I'd waste my time trying keep a 13 year old away from the movie ), BUT I can see why a certain sector of the population would take a 3 month old to get out of the house and watch a movie that late.

I have a 3-month old right now. I can see taking a kid that age to a late movie, just not to a hugely hyped premiere where you probably have to wait in line for tickets and every seat in the house is filled. I'd only do a movie that was 1/3 filled and make sure it was a situation where I didn't mind walking out if he started crying.

justinskins · #43 07-20-2012, 10:38 PM

What a terrible event.

flave1969 · #44 07-21-2012, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkinsKY

If that's the case, the issue is about crazy only and not guns. Gun control will not stop crazy.

Maybe not but if all the guy could get his hands on was a revolver he may not have been able to widen the tragedy.

I know I come from a place were guns are not commonplace so my understanding is limited.

But can someone explain too me why it is unreasonable to control the type of weapons and the amount you can own as a citizen?

I tend to think that if the guys who wrote the constitution knew what kind of weapons were to come, they may have put more definite language in there.

SkinsKY · #45 07-21-2012, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flave1969

Maybe not but if all the guy could get his hands on was a revolver he may not have been able to widen the tragedy.

I know I come from a place were guns are not commonplace so my understanding is limited.

But can someone explain too me why it is unreasonable to control the type of weapons and the amount you can own as a citizen?

I tend to think that if the guys who wrote the constitution knew what kind of weapons were to come, they may have put more definite language in there.

Perhaps, but my point is more that if guns weren't available, he could have turned to other means. His apartment was rigged for explosives. He could have planted a bomb to go off in the theater instead. Once someone is crazy, like this guy is, what's legal to do doesn't really matter at that point. I think he would have found a way to pull off something devastating regardless of the law. Taking away guns doesn't fix crazy or someone hellbent on killing people.

My stance on guns, and you can tell a number of us differ, is based more on wanting to keep the government out of my life as much as possible. There could very well be utility in limiting guns, but I'm not sure and I don't want to invite Uncle Sam to limit my freedom because someone else is a moron.

As for the founding fathers, I have no idea what they would have said. There was no way they could have possibly known what kind of weapons we would have, but I don't believe it would have been much different. But all we can do is guess.