Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Aurora shooting

Posted 2 years ago on July 20, 2012, 12:29 p.m. EST by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Can anyone at all justify the lack of gun control regulations in the states? The Second Amendment does not mean you can start your own army, yet people still get all up in arms, as it were, about any hint that there might some day be a regulation put in place that (a) requires that guns be registered everywhere and/or (b) limits the kind of weaponry an individual is allowed to purchase. If we reach a point where the government is coming and taking our weapons away, all the weapons you amass will not save you. If we reach a point where the people are arming against the government, ditto. Our government is the one that strafes cities with robots, remember? If you want things to change, then get involved and become one of the decision makers. The powerful are powerful because they worked at it and there was no one stopping them and not enough support for those who opposed them.

128 Comments

128 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

What about the shooting that has been going on in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries for the past decade? One crazy person who kills a dozen people is a terrible crime. But we as a people kill hundreds of thousands and proudly support those who carry out those horrendous crimes. There is no comparison in the violence committed. Is it because we really don't think a foreigner is worth much, not even considered as a human being? Because that is what our actions say, and our actions speak loudly and arrogantly. A dozen Americans killed is a heinous crime, a hundred thousand foreigners is just business as usual.

[-] 0 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

The farther removed a person is from a death the less it actually means to them. A sad reality about human nature. In a few weeks this shooting too will be a faint memory in peoples' mind.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

It's all bad. Some however can be at least restrained. Humans are probably not going to succeed as a species anyway, rendering all of this moot.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

The core of all of this -
gun violence & international war have the same thing at the core - exactly one thing
MONEY IN POLITICS
the gun makers & nra & alec & war profiteers
get the money out !
stop the special interests from bribing congress !

[-] 1 points by lkindr (58) 2 years ago

Bensdad, do you have a few minutes to discuss your concern at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1O6Fdmy-Cz9cfkaUBLx8cHezJP956ykwdBDFXttddd3w/edit ? We can post it here when we're done, if you like.

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Guns and the rights the Patriot Act took should have been package.

All evangelical antiabortionists should be required to adopt one child and provide a trust fund for it

Guns should be required to be designed for a 30% probability of failure.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the Iranians have a right to defend themselves

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Having read through all of the posts on this thread to this point I can say that there are several people that I would be comfortable being around, knowing that they own and might be carrying a gun. Scan it again for yourself with this in mind.

What do those that you are comfortable with have in common? Those that you aren't comfortable with? I thought so.

Are you more, or less likely to go to a theater soon?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

More importantly might be why do you feel comfortable with them? And why uncomfortable with others? I would not be comfortable with anyone carrying an assault rifle in civilian society. One can miss when firing a handgun; pretty hard to miss with a spray of bullets. Plus, I would have to wonder what the purpose would be for an individual having an assault rifle anywhere near me. I don't even call people ugly names :)

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I assumed that they would ask the "why" question. If they can see what is held in common by both groups, they have nearly answered the why question.

If I scream loud enough will you feel comfortable with me?

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I'm pretty hard of hearing, so maybe :)

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

My wife says I am hard of understanding (;-)

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

:>) -- too true of most of us; hard of listening. The good news about these forums -- what the hell is the plural of forum, fora? -- is I have a chance to read people's opposite views and the thinking behind it, not just talking points. It makes me at least consider my own viewpoints in light of another perspective, and that is always a good thing, as far as I'm concerned.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Yeah, I think it is fora, although hardly anybody ever says it. I agree on the viewpoints. I usually try to take some of the sting out with a little humor or restate the other party's position with a twist or extend it to absurdity. Almost any position becomes funny at some point. But the reality is, that the underlying issues are very serious.

[-] 0 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

It is serious; and this is the first time in my lifetime that all of these subjects are open for discussion. I knew when the internet came on the scene that dramatic changes were bound to happen. And so very much has. We can speak about the hitherto unspeakable thought that our country makes serious mistakes and has some serious problems without being called a traitor. Oh, and to bring a little lightness to the conversation is a good thing, because I find it virtually impossible to be angry when I'm smiling :)

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Mine too and I am much older than you. I was on the Arpanet in the early 80's which was the parent of the Internet. The fact that I could collaborate with people around the world even then, was mind boggling. They were mostly scientists and military people but I could see where it could go. And sure enough, it went.

The cancer has spread to every system in this country. It's going to take gene therapy to fix it, I think we have to change who we are. Cosmetic surgery isn't going to get it.

[-] 0 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

If you are "much" older than I, you're gettin' up there! Have you read The Power of Now and A New Earth? Eckhard Tolle explains a lot about who we are, and how we can change how we respond to the world around us. It is remarkable how changing how we respond to the world changes the way the world responds to us. I worked for a law firm, so we had internet very early on, too. I didn't remember it being called Arpanet, but I sure remember what a difference it made in my world.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Nope, I am 0 for two.

The Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET) was the world's first operational packet switching network and the core network of a set that came to compose the global Internet. The ARPANET came out of our frustration that there were only a limited number of large, powerful research computers in the country, and that many research investigators, who should have access to them, were geographically separated from them. It started in 1969, but I wasn't really involved until the late 1970's.

I will look for those books.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks for the info. Were you directly involved in its development, or just a beneficiary of it in its early stages?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Mostly a beneficiary. I managed a group which pioneered the cloud, and some of the UNIX advances.

I did pioneer the sending of data over the phone lines from Florida to California in about 1962-3, with part of it over an RF link. I don't know if the ARPA guys were aware of it, but it was in some defense related company publications.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

A pioneer; did you envision all that it has become?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

No way. I was lucky in my careers to be involved with interesting things and interesting people. Pioneers are the one's with the arrows in their chests.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

But the NRA will say we absolutely must guarantee that this will happen again. It is our right to have this happen again, and we could never give up our rights, except the one about search and seizure and habeas corpus and some of those. But never the tools to kill people efficiently.

Envision this happening at an NRA convention in a theater filled with people with guns. Remember the room full of mouse (set) traps and throwing a ping pong ball in the middle. Explain to me again how nobody gets hurt?

Can there be a perfect solution? Can there be some incremental improvement? Must rationality be prohibited from the discussion?

[-] 1 points by DanielBarton (1345) 2 years ago

First of all you do have the right to for a militia.

To gun control look at Chicago tightest gun control in the Midwest and it is having a full on gang war that citizens are calling for the national guard to break it up.

Then you could look at it from this perspective what if someone had a gun and shot him before he took the second shot.

This isn't an issue of gun control this is an issue of why does someone do this. The person could have easily made a bomb from a laptop and microwave and killed just as many people.

This isnt an issue to debate this isn't an issue at all so dont used the fallen as a poster child in a cause they may not of agreed upon

[-] 1 points by shooz (17968) 2 years ago

guns don't kill people, even people with loaded guns don't.

It's those darn parents that can't afford baby sitters.

How much more off the rails can O'Reilly be and still get air time?

http://www.newshounds.us/bill_o_reilly_suggests_parents_at_fault_for_kids_deaths_in_aurora_co_massacre_07212012

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Actually, one of the folks commenting here said the same thing. "If they can't afford a babysitter, they shouldn't go to the movies." Another argument style I don't understand: blame the victim(s). Someone referred to Chicago, with its strict regulations, but failed to mention that every single state surrounding Illinois has hardly any restrictions. So, Chicago will have to start patrolling state borders for imports, I guess.
I had no idea this was such a hot topic, having never been around people who identify so much with guns.

[-] 2 points by shooz (17968) 2 years ago

You would be surprised how many FLAKESnews fans there are, and how loyal they are to it's particular propaganda.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I try to watch them just to keep up with what they're saying, but I find I can't stand it for more than a few minutes unless a commercial comes on. I watch some of MSNBC, but certain of their pundits are almost as extreme; I find the idea of instlling fear and loathing of the other guy as unappealing, no matter who uses the tactic.

[-] 1 points by shooz (17968) 2 years ago

I don't watch TV news at all, I find stuff on the net, and talk to people that actually do watch that crap.

Fear and or loathing?

It's been an effective political tactic for some time now.

It doesn't help when the actions taken really are loathsome.

[-] 1 points by Clancy (42) 2 years ago

Imagine how many more people he could have killed by using molotov cocktails. He would have burned the whole theatre down if he had. Killing way more people. So would you then want to make liquor illegal to? You're whole idea of a national gun registry and holding manufacturers responsible for crimes would never happen. That's because the Americans who still want to keep America and hold on to our rights will never stand for it.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Much less risk to his own personal safety than a molotov cocktail. Harder to safely drive around with them in his vehicle. Gas mask doesn't protect from flames. I think there is a name for an argument that says, "It was awful, but since it could be worse, why worry about it?"

[-] 1 points by Clancy (42) 2 years ago

It really would not be harder to safely drive around with. He could have just assembled them there, carry out the attack and then leave. I never said not to worry about it either. I'm saying that because their is a crazed shooting doesn't mean everyone should start becoming anti gun zealots.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I thought molotov cocktails were made of gasoline or kerosine, not alcohol. Pretty risky liquids to be carrying around, assembled or not. I really do not know yet what harm is done by having people licensed to buy a gun from anyone, anywhere; said license could include permission to sell the weapon to another licensed user. If there is no problem with gun ownership, why is there a problem with restrictions? Not bans (well, maybe of gas canisters and assault rifles and their enlarged magazines), but limits. Geez; we have to demonstrate a certain amount of knowledge and capability to drive a car, which is only potentially dangerous. A gun is intended to be lethal, and hardly ever used without that intent, unless practicing to make that intent reality.

[-] 0 points by Clancy (42) 2 years ago

So basically you're saying that the only reason people buy guns is to use them in a violent manner?

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Assault rifles and greater, pretty much. However, a young man informed me that that's not the case; it's fun shooting stuff up, like old cars and stuff. But, basically, the purpose of a gun is to destroy something, and destruction is usually violent on one level or another. Of course, they could sell guns that don't kill for the funsters -- then if they accidentally shoot a person while spraying 1000 non-lethal projectiles at a target, less harm done.

[-] 1 points by Clancy (42) 2 years ago

Aurora incident aside do you believe at violent criminals legally obtain their weapons.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I think most criminals get guns illegally.

What is your point.

[-] 1 points by Clancy (42) 2 years ago

That is exactly my point. Strict gun control does not stop illegal gun dealings.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 1 year ago

You can drive a truck through the loopholes in our gun control laws. They ain't strict at all.

Arrest the criminals who sell to criminals. Life in prison. see how quick we cut that avenue off!

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I really do not know, but the situation is ripe for making money: I go to a gun show and buy up a bunch of weapons; I can then legally sell those guns to a criminal for more than I paid but less than a stolen or illegal gun. Quick -- crowd funding needed.

[-] 1 points by Clancy (42) 2 years ago

Okay never mind then. I thought you were another anti gun zealot bleeding heart liberal.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Oh, dear. If you can't lick 'em, shoot 'em. :)

[-] 1 points by Clancy (42) 2 years ago

Awesome!

[-] 1 points by ImARandomGuy (1) 2 years ago

I have it on good authority that Eric Latranyi from Free Republic likes to strangle kittens.

[-] 1 points by Mowat (164) 2 years ago

Hollywood has stripped people out of human values. They brainwash the society with all kinds of dirt you can imagine.

• Violence • Perversion • Anger • Foul language • Arrogance • Hatred towards religions and values

This is what is causing all those ugly and insane killings.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

One aspect of entertainment has always been to appeal to both sides of our nature -- there are as many productions that teach us, that have spiritual messages, and that promote ideals of good behavior. Forums (fora?) like this allow both aspects to be seen, as well. Instigating hatred, promoting fear, blaming everything but our selves, when we know the only thing any of us can really change is our own attitude. I've seen more venom and vitriol and viciousness here than anywhere else. Perhaps we are not going to survive as a species.

[-] 1 points by Shule (1696) 2 years ago

When a nation's Presidents review kill lists on Tuesdays, what else should one then expect from the nation's citizenry.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2763) 2 years ago

Gun control can be BOTH good and bad depending on the context. At low rates of existing violence, gun control can prevent the few escalations by removing the weapons. At high rates of existing violence and leaky control of guns, so-called gun control can lure people into a false sense of security to cause greater casualties so the wider availability of guns can actually curb escalations or limit the damages because we have MORE good people in our world than evil ones after all. It is unfortunately very hard to change from an armed-to-the-teeth society to a peaceable one. The U.S. is currently armed to the teeth but most gun owners are perfectly fine and responsible citizens with their guns although in ANY large group there will be a few outliers from time to time.

We should address any societal origin of the inclinations to gun violence (glorification, bullying, oppression, isolation, poverty, drug abuse, lack of economic opportunities, lack of access to mental intervention professionals, etc.), even though we know fully well that mentally competent adults are individually responsible for their own behaviors and entitled to their freedom. We must not forget that freedom has a lesser known side: preserving other people's rights by curbing one's own "freedom" and obeying authorities that we had erected ourselves through a legitimate process. We should live within the cocoon that we wove ourselves until we have completed our metamorphosis. At which time we must chew through the cocoon to reach the flowers, sunlight, and the sky, regardless of how fine and valuable the silk that our cocoon was made of.

Attempted linkage of the Aurora theater shooter to Occupy movement without any definitive evidence is NOT conducive to meaningful civil discourse. I can tell you with 100% confidence that any investigation will uncover that ALL crimes on Earth will be definitively linked to earthlings.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 2 years ago

As far as I'm concerned we should make an effort to uphold the first part of the Second Amendment ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state") rather than doing away with the second ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"), and that would solve a lot of our firearms issues.

What I'd like to see us do is set up a basic 3.5-month training program over the summer following the senior year of high school providing the basic skills required to make someone an asset rather than a liability in the event of an invasion (however unlikely) or natural disaster (far more likely on a local or regional level). I'm thinking of having everyone learn basic CPR and EMT training, basic physical fitness training, exposure to disaster-like scenarios in order to teach people to keep their heads when things go to pieces, and of course firearms sense. How to shoot a gun, how to shoot a target with reasonable accuracy, how to defend yourself with a firearm (or hand-to-hand) without accidentally ventilating your walls or your neighbor or the bystanders down the street (something that got touched on in a firearms thread elsewhere), and so on. Successful completion of the program would lead to the issuance of a conceal-and-carry permit valid for one or two handguns as well as a possession license for long guns (shotguns, hunting rifles, etc.)

I wouldn't change the rules about background checks and waiting periods prior to obtaining a gun, nor the requirement that people register and keep track of their firearms, and I would make it seriously illegal to pull a firearm while legally intoxicated, or to draw within 100 feet of an establishment selling or serving intoxicating liquors, a school or daycare, most other property on which concealed carry is currently a violation of federal law (with exceptions for situations in which the life or personal property of an innocent is in danger), or any property declared by its owner to be a firearm-free zone. Furthermore, I'd continue the practice of attaching significantly elevated penalties to crimes in which firearms were displayed or used, and possibly increase such penalties in certain cases.

The whole point of what I described above is to find a rational solution to the firearms problem that most people can accept. I want to see us embrace a culture in which responsible firearm ownership is allowed and encouraged, but use of firearms for negligent or criminal purposes is treated as a serious breach of the people's trust and discouraged (and punished) accordingly. By providing basically universal training and making permit availability contingent on completion of such training, this plan would encourage most of the population to earn the right to use a firearm while at the same time cracking down on people who misuse guns or have no clue what they're doing.

[-] 1 points by grapes (2763) 2 years ago

Firearms are made to kill and maim but they can also serve as a deterrent. They just "digitize" aggression. We need to maximize the conditions leading to the digitization of aggression to low levels. If firearms were truly bad for safety, we would not see security people brandishing weapons. A well regulated militia is essential for a free state so vigorous training and instilling discipline in the populace are desirable. The world is imploding through globalization so there will be more of this digitization in the future.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Clancy (42) 2 years ago

First off we do not yet know whether all the guns were legally bought. He had a Remington 12 gauge an AR-15 a glock 40. Cal and another handgun which was not specified.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The problem is society failures not gun control.

I don't own a gun but I know about 20 people that do. They have never shot anyone or even tempted to or joked about it. I live in Nebraska.

We've had a shooting here and the problem was society failure. Giving minors access to a gun... parenting fail... the kid was constantly made fun of at school... society fail.... abused by parents... parenting fail and society fail.

People becoming psycho often stems from traumatic childhood events and have nothing to do with gun control.

The guy also made explosives. He could have used knives like the hijackers on 9/11... they killed way more people sadly.

Should we ban knives?

DUI murders are up too... should we ban alcohol again?

I can't say I support the sale of fully auto assault rifles... but a ban on guns in general is a bad idea. If prohibition has taught me one thing it's that it doesn't work. It didn't work on alcohol... and the war on drugs is a failure and allowed for the flourishing of gangs as well as abuse of the law to imprison black people and a waste of over a trillion dollars in tax payer money.

[-] 3 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

So, putting guns without limits in the hands of all those failures doesn't seem too smart. No one is getting rid of guns; they are only looking to regulate access. When everyone is as reasonable and logical as your friends are, then guns would not even be considered necessary. Until they are, regulations are in order. It's a lot harder to kill someone with a knife, and you can't take out 50 people with a knife. That's just a silly comparison.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You can't kill 50 people with a knife?

Knives and strangulation are a favorite among serial killers who have killed large numbers of people.

I'm cool with regulation on guns... but I'm not cool with a gun ban. I had a friend who actually saved himself from getting robbed and beaten in front of his family.

I know people who have been safer due to their gun ownership. He didn't even shoot the guy either. He fired a round into the ground and scared the guy away and called the police. Like I said, it's a society issue.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I was remiss: you can't kill 12 people at once with a knife. Hardly any mass attacks involve knives. Knives are usually up close and personal, which of course guns can be from way far away.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Some one trained in close combat fighting with a knife surely can. Give him a short sword and 50 will go down. The problem is people, not the tools they use to kill with. The vast majority of people who have taken training are not sociopathic killers.

I believe that like the military, a psych test should be administrated by the citizenry before anyone has access to a gun. Those who lack empathy and compassion should be excluded from any licensing.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I don't really support fully automatic military weapons... simply because they are made to kill people.

as for a ban on guns in general... I can't support that.

If prohibition has taught me one thing... it's that the alcohol ban did not work... and that the war on drugs is failing and has cost over 1 trillion tax payer dollars. The last thing we need is a war on guns. That's just my opinion on the issue.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

I have not been talking about a ban on guns -- I'm talking about a ban on assault weapons, and some simple regulations on who buys guns, just like we have regulations on who drives a car, and under what circumstances they drive a car, because it can be deadly. A gun has only one purpose, and that is to kill something. I fail to see what is lost by regulations.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

it depends on what the regulations are.

This guy for instance would have passed regulations. He had no criminal background. Sometimes tragedies happen. No assault rifle and he still goes in there. It's a sad situation.

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

How many people have been killed by a "mass murderer" meaning going into a place where there are a lot of people and trying to kill all of them compared to individual killings?

I think the stats are higher for the "individual killings" then the "mass murder" killings wouldn't you think.

So, it is not a "silly comparison" as you say. The only reason this made national news is because of how many people were killed at one time.

How many people are killed over a years time - be it with a handgun, knife, or any other means to take someones life.

You don't hear the news media making a big deal about that do you?'

[-] 3 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

Maybe the goal is 100, and then even more. (How about multiple psychopathic gun tooters acting in unison.) They trying damned hard and it does seem the causality count has increased over time as they pack in even more fire power each time out...

Come Together NOW

Hmmm. Do we understand why, or is it just a fluke?

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

Anyone for a bazooka?

I also heard that some well trained people in the martial arts consider their hands as extremely lethal weapons at close range. Following Trevor's logical palisade, we should also ban humans.

So, what is point Trevor, since we can't ban anything, everything is legal?

You talk very generally, and, frankly it lacks coherence to some point I would guess your trying make. Whatever that is.

I'm for giving most people the benefit of doubt and allow some trust, but Trevor we have define a line, how far do want to go. The words about everything is ultimately dangerous so how can we ban anything dangerous without banning everything even with a remote possibility of being dangerous is pure SMOKE.

The real discussion is: Where are the LINES. We ALL have boundaries! Let's see if we have rational grounding we ALL can agree to.

Come Together NOW



MY OPINION:

By the way, on the national stage, we've been here before, nothing will change. The democrats have been knocked very hard from the GOP battle cry of 2nd Amendment Rights. We aren't stupid. The is not the right time to wade in that battle. Nada.

The GOP will get their way, and as they wish, nothing will change. We will see more massacres in the foreseeable future. Eventually, years from now, we will at least see a new assault rifle ban (we did it before & it helped), and the ability to have automatic heavily clipped guns that are designed to shower we the people with bullets. Just not NOW>

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

you can't own a bazooka. we were talking about a ban on guns in general.... which would include a ban on rifles used for hunting. That I do not support.

I'm just saying it's a dumb idea to ban guns in general. Prohibition doesn't work especially for a large market like guns. Same reason why alcohol prohibition failed. A lot of people thought they should be able to have it.

Ban assault rifles... the guy still goes in there with shot guns and hand guns. Tragedies happen and it's sad.

Tragedies happen. Overreacting to something like this is not necessary. Sadly psychos exist. Murder is already super illegal.

Also if you want to bring up the GOP... how do you feel about TSA pat downs to prevent tragedy? Or invading privacy with the patriot act in the name to prevent tragedy? Or bombing the shit out of foreign countries and killing innocent people to prevent tragedy?

Banning asbestos and banning guns are not related. Banning poisonous ingredients in food is not the same as banning marijuana.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by captcha42 (54) 2 years ago
  • restrict gun ownership
  • use fear so people support the loss of their rights.
  • promote fear in corporate journalism
  • advocate safety over constitutional rights
  • take habeus corpus away
  • ignore govt's loss of loyalty and service to it's citizens.
  • create homeland security. decrease privacy rights. increase ease of surveillence and militarize police forces
  • convert our Department of Defense into a Department of Offense. start preemptive unfunded wars greatly indebting nation.
  • allow corruption and money to purchase puppet govt
  • allow corporations to control healthcare, denying care for the sake of higher profits. (up to 400 people a day die without care)
  • dumb down the population. promote superficial, shallow, "bumper sticker" thought. ignorant people are easy to manipulate
  • support replacing "free press" with corporate journalism. replace news with distractions. sensationalized trials, gay marriage, fear evoking stories, facist promoting stories, etc.
[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Is this a menu or a package?

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Good post.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

And 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the right to sell any gun to anyone without a record. We gotta close the gun show loophole. And prosecute any manufacturer and/or dealer who knowingly sells guns illegally.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Do you know anything about buying a gun? For if you did you wouldn't make statements that show you know nothing about guns or gun registration..

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Sure I do. Do you? Do you think it's ok to sell guns without a record, registration, as is done with the gun show loophole.?

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

It's typical for people to responde - more gun control. Well the fact of the matter is you could put all the regulation in place you want and if a person who is on a mission to kill someone they will do it regardless.

There have been documented incidents where law abiding citizens carrying guns have thwarted killers in resteraunts and public places, and if they didn't have their weapon with them there would have been more casualties.

So stop saying "gun control" is the answer - it's not. Crazy people do crazy things. Not all people who own guns are not radical killers.

How about we take all IPods away from people because of the number of deaths caused by people texting while driving and those aren't deliberate deaths?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

How about instead of gun access to anyone... like the military we should give psych eval tests. Those who are found to be sociopathic... lacking empathy and compassion, do not get licensed to carry. Because it is this fringe that commits the mass killings.

[-] 1 points by john23 (-272) 2 years ago

If a couple people would have been packing in this instance it may have turned out much different.

In any event, i'm not sure i agree with assault rifles being aloud for public use. Hunting rifles, shotguns, handguns etc. i can see. People have a right to protect their property and livelihoods ...but a gun that can take out mass amounts of people in short periods of time....seems there should be some restrictions for it.

[-] 1 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

We're not saying take them away. Why does everyone think that regulation means removal. And yes, this guy may have figured out a way to do what he did if there were regulations, but it would have been more difficult and even suspicious if it weren't so easy. Ipod use and cell phone use while operating a motor vehicle is being regulated for the very reason you mention. Not outlawed -- no one is talking about outlawing anything.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

We already have enough regulation - we don't need more. What's happening today is indicitive of what todays society is about.

There are lots of violent people out there and they have little or no regard for laws or in most cases other people.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"Ipods"? thats just ridiculous.

[-] 0 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

No it isn't people have killed other people because of being stupid texting with their IPODS while driving and they were charged with a "criminal offense". People die because people are continually killing people regardless of the circumstances.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Huh? You're not makin sense.

Support sensible gun control. Vote out republicans

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

Not even 24 hrs into it, the sheep are already making it a political issue.

This nation is fully indoctrinated.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Oh so you don't support gun control?

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

^point proven.

The forum's villiage idiot, and leading troll, can't keep his head under a rock for too long...

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Thats not nice. If you don't support gun control just say it. I expect that since you are clearly a partisan republican.

But calling me names is just disrespectful. Betrays your inability to argue any substance.

[-] -1 points by destructo (-26) 2 years ago

It's not the GUNS you kneejerk Leftist Dipshit!!

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

No it's not the guns, it's those who buy them then use them in a manner such as this.

Simplified ideology is claiming that more guns are the answer, yet how does that equate, when it isn't the guns in the first place? It doesn't.

It just equates to bigger and better guns, more rounds of ammunition being dispersed in a shorter period of time by potentially more people.

It's been said if there had been people with guns in the theater this tragedy would have been lessened...discounting the panic factor, the gas factor the element of surprise factor...

I understand that when presented with a scenario one likes to think that one would have a cool mind, be able to quickly assess the situation, select and correctly identify the necessary element to remove and act accordingly.

It's BS. It presumes no emotion, no fear, no instinctive reactions, it's simply BS.

Odds are IF there had been (and it's possible there were) armed citizens within the theater, there would have been a larger tragedy than the already huge one that has occurred.

It's much harder for one with a conscience to shoot (note it is shoot, not kill) a person than it is for one with none.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

"It's much harder for one with a conscience to shoot (note it is shoot, not kill) a person than it is for one with none."

You're a freakin idiot.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

LOL, who managed to get you to respond. Statistically that indicates that the IQ of the responder is much lower. You can look it up.

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 2 years ago

So I respond to a comment that says someone who would attempt to save lives would have a harder time pulling the trigger than the criminal, to tell you that idiotic shit like that is uncalled for, and I have a lower IQ? Thats funny.

Perhaps you would just be too much of a coward to do anything, and that is why you see things like that. Look it up. I hope if something like that ever happens around you, no one needs to realy on you.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

I've shot a man, can you say the same? NO it is not easy, YES there is hesitation.

Would I do it again? Only if there is no other way.

You are a rude person, I replied with humor to your insult and you continue to be rude.

I will now discontinue with you.

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

it's the bullets? Or the right wing ideology?

name calling=weak arguments

[-] -1 points by destructo (-26) 2 years ago

Trying to dispute that fact is just willfully ignorant,another name,oh well.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

maybe it's the nasty, angry, intolerance that right wingers suffer from.?

[-] -1 points by destructo (-26) 2 years ago

Maybe you should just STFU and except the truth and the facts and learn something from it instead of repeatedly demonstrating your childish ignorance.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

LMFAO.

Guess I hit some nerves of truth there huh?

right wing wacko boy.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by Magnatron (-2) from Littleton, CO 2 years ago

Guns can be bad when used by bad people against good people. The last thing that we need is to prevent good people from being able to protect themselves. The tragedy in Aurora was compounded by the fact that not one person at that movie was equipped to shoot back and save lives. If we expect to hold corporations accountable, then we must not infringe on the people's rights to arm and protect ourselves from tyranny or from individual criminals.

[-] 3 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

"corporations accountable"? how is that related to arming ourselves?

[Removed]

[-] 3 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

Oh, right; imagine what the theater would have been like if everyone were armed! Hundreds of people in a panic, all with guns. Good people panic; good people fear; good people make mistakes. The shooters like this young man would not be deterred -- but more people would die.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

over 300 people murdered in chicago, no legal guns there.

[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

They are legal NOW in Chicago. They just changed the law not long ago with over whelming GOP support. Murder rate went up. See a correlation Salta?

Come Together NOW

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

maybe we should close the gun show loophole. track all gun sales.
prosecute manufacturers and dealers when they knowingly sell to criminals.

Whatta you think republican boy?

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 2 years ago

there's always gasoline and matches

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

and knives. and shanks. and expllosives. and antifreeze in food...

murderers will always find a way. They're insane.

The hijackers on 9/11 didn't have guns.

[-] -1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Well gasoline should also be illegal. That'll speed up the electric car industry.

Matches are ok. How am I gonna light up my weed.?

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Ask Obama about it and maybe he'll crack down on a medical supply near you... lol

speaking of Colorado - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/medical-marijuana_n_1498694.html

This is why I always liked the Green Party!

[-] 0 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

I am disappointed in Obamas crack down but it isn't that big a deal to me. I know he (and dems) will be better in the end.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34872) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

What I am totally disappointed about in this whole fucking mess - is the people in office that want to help or support the people ( or say that they do ) - of all of the politicians in office only Bernie Sanders has stood up and chastised anyone for failing the public and he tore into the senate well and true. Oh Obummer made a couple of complaints but never stood up and told it like it is.

The government has not called on the public to speak up or to take part in the process and help end the BS. No one from office has called out to the public.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You are right. Dems should be encourageing the protests that are required to get the progressive solutions we need.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34872) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

They should be leading campaigns for all of the changes needed - OSTA end of corpoRAT personhood money out of politics end fossil fuel subsidies end outsourcing prosecute economic criminals rework trade agreements to be fair to domestic business living wage for all workers universal healthcare no more new pollution tech power plants stronger EPA etc etc etc

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

If only. maybe the people have to do it. I guess we can't wait for someone else to do it for us.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34872) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Perhaps this will be the subject of my next open letter to government.

This is also why I advocate for people to get involved with any action item that comes their way.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Ok. I could support that.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34872) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I know that I can count on you to get involved.

More and more people are starting to get the message.

We have only just begun to fight.

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Yes!

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34872) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I also advocate that everyone should be writing to government and copying their letters out to the public on social media.

Communications are essential.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by JackPulliam3rd (205) 2 years ago

i'm just glad you don't own a gun

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

You sure?

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Gun shows already require forms to be filled out when selling firearms - so what's the point in your comment. How does that stop a insane killer?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

We can't stop every insane killer. But gun shows allow non registration private sales and that needs to controlled. We can prevent some murders but not all.

Any murder avoided is worth it. Homest gun owners shouldn't mind.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Well, I have been to quite a few gun shows and purchased several firearms and each time I was required to fill out a federal firearms form - be it a handgun or rifle.

So, the laws are there -

I would also like to add that this perp also purchased the guns he used legally.

[-] 2 points by Phanya2011 (908) from Tucson, AZ 2 years ago

"Fast and Furious" -- as maligned as it has been -- was not successful because the buyer(s) did indeed purchase guns in bulk legally, with all the paperwork; then they "walked" the guns outside and sold them to people who could not buy them legally. We could not arrest them for having or selling the guns because they were not breaking any laws. They were private sellers, who do not have to follow the paperwork laws. I'm guessing that a law abiding citizens such as yourself probably doesn't even think about what you can do legally that is morally wrong.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Just because you bought guns and filled out a form doesn't mean there aren't private sales at gun shows without the forms.

It ain't all about you. And you ain't the measure. Is that some kinda joke?

The laws ain't there regardless of your experience.

I don't know where he got his guns. But more control will save lives. It will be worth it.

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

The private sales you talk about are "individuals" who are selling to other individuals - which by the way they have a "right" to do.

Now, if a person sells a gun to a felon and that person gets arrested in the comission of a crime, that individual who sold the gun to the felon will also be arrested.

He got his guns from Pro Bass World. If you have followed the news you will learn that he is a "everyday individual" with no criminal past.

So, how do you stop someone like that regardless of the controls you put on gun ownership?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (34872) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You don't - like you said if someone has it in their head that they are gonna kill - they will find the means to do it.

[-] 2 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

Can't stop everyone. more controls will save lives.

how does that private dealer go to jail if there is no record.?

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

More control doesn't save lives - it's not the gun that kills the individual. If a gun is placed on a night stand will it kill someone?

I don't think so. If the gun is in the hands of an individual intent on killing someone by pointing the gun at someone and pulling the trigger will the gun kill somone - absolutely.

So, you see there has to be "interaction" with the use of the gun in order for it to do damage.

Now there are millions of Americans out there who own firearms. If these people were on a killing spree then I would say something needs to be done about more control.

But when you have one psyco out of millions of people who own handguns where is the "logic" in saying that "we need more control".

Control has nothing to do about it - it's all about "insanity" - would you consider this person "sane" who went on the shooting spree?

Do you consider millions of Americans out there who own handguns "insane" and are going to go out on a "shooting spree"?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Yeah it will, usually a child or a parent or grand parent. In fact there are a number of large scale "experiments" that have been going on for decades. Have we responded to the results? We don't seem to be able to learn from others or even from ourselves on a wide variety of issues. We seem to think we are a different species and nothing is relevant if it suggests anything different than what we have already concluded. As a society we may be unique, but is it a good unique?

[-] 1 points by VQkag2 (16478) 2 years ago

More reasonable gun control WILL save lives.

Support reasonable gun control. Vote out republicans

[-] -1 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

As an add on I also had to show my permit - If I didn't have one, then a call would be made for a background check.

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

the 2nd amendment.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 2 years ago

LoL, yeah we all go to the movies packing heat. You can have that in your world Magna, but, if I want to be entertained by the wild wild west, I'll just stay home and watch it on my big screen. Hell, they can pipe it live form the local theatre. Magna, did you ever think we can't have shoot-outs if no one has a gun. Ya think?

You think they should allow guns on air liners again? How about knifes?

Your calling for escalation is poor judgement. Gun control is a proven winner. Do you know how many murders occurred in UK, per capita? How about USA?

Now do you have that light bulb in your head going off? It's so simple, guns, if available, get used by everyone, criminals, idiots, well meaning thugs, paranoid schizos, angry buffoons, nice gentleman, kind ladies, and cowards.

Come Together NOW

[-] -2 points by SteveKJR (-497) 2 years ago

Just goes to show how violent our younger genration is.