• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gun attack at Batman film premiere in Denver [W:120]

Status
Not open for further replies.
Two party politics pushes people and issues towards compromise and the center. A rogue party cannot simply flap around in the fringe with a couple percent and actually get people into congress to spout extremist crap. The US 2 party system also prevents a wave of "do it in the street" by offering these two flavors: economic authoritarianism or social authoritarianism; in this way, someone must pick one or the other and our cart doesn't fly off its wheels.

I'd prefer a more diverse, multiparty system, but let's not ignore the why and whatfor of the US 2 party system.

To a degree, yes, but it doesn't change the fact that the entire election system, as it stands now and has stood for more than a century, is entirely designed around populism and voter ignorance.
 
Why do you not want to honor the innocent dead?

Why do you want to play ostrich and ignore the reality that in a society which allows hundreds of million of guns there will be "collateral damage" of innocent people which forces you to fantasize about gang raping a person to death as a suitable punishment?

I have said repeatedly that I feel the Second Amendment and gun ownership does more good than it does harm. But to pretend that there is not a dark side to owning guns and a society which has them in the numbers we do is simply playing ostrich and ignoring reality.

You and I differ on one main thing Turtle - I DO NOT believe guns are an absolute pure good. They can be a very negative and destructive force. That does not make me anti gun any more than accepting the tens of thousands killed on the highways each year makes me ANTI CAR.

But such distinctions are beyond the thought of an extremist.

Society allows us to buy cars, and thus far vehicles have been far more deadly. Should we ban cars? Maybe we should just ban cars that can drive fast? Or maybe just maybe we can accept the fact that the world will never be perfect.
Just as it is illegal to drive 200mph there are illegal things you can do with a gun too. The thing is, banning guns will not stop things like this. Crazed psychos will find a way to be crazed psychos. If I were a crazed psycho I would be all for gun control. Then I could be assured no moral citizen would be armed to stop me. Furthermore, if I were one of the victims, advocating gun control would not be an honor. It would be a disgrace.
 
Last edited:
Society allows us to buy cars, and thus far vehicles have been far more deadly. Should we ban cars? Maybe we should just ban cars that can drive fast? Or maybe just maybe we can accept the fact that the world will never be perfect.
Just as it is illegal to drive 200mph there are illegal things you can do with a gun too. The thing is, banning guns will not stop things like this. Crazed psychos will find a way to be crazed psychos. If I were a crazed psycho I would be all for gun control. Then I could be assured no moral citizen would be armed to stop me.

I know of nobody who is talking of banning cars or firearms. The law puts restrictions on both however and limits what you can buy and use. That is not the same as a ban.
 
I know of nobody who is talking of banning cars or firearms. The law puts restrictions on both however and limits what you can buy and use. That is not the same as a ban.

But you ignore a key FACT. Driving is, and always was, a state issued PRIVILEGE. The right to keep AND BEAR arms is a constitutionally protected RIGHT of the people IN ALL STATES. I am sick and tired of the same MORONS, that assert that a simple voter ID law is an "unfair, discriminatory burden", calling for super expensive CCW PERMITS for the right to keep and bear arms. If you want firearms training, offer it, if you want tests and IDs then offer them BUT, at no more cost than for the right to vote. We must recognize the KEY, and basic, differences between constitutional rights and state issued privileges.
 
Last edited:
I know of nobody who is talking of banning cars or firearms. The law puts restrictions on both however and limits what you can buy and use. That is not the same as a ban.

Would you assert that a fee of $240 for the right to vote is not an effective ban to many? A ban need not be absolute, if you make something hard enough, less people can afford the class, pass the test or pay the fee. As long as the EXACT same requirements exist for the right to vote as for the right to bear arms, I am all for it.
 
Freedom wasn't a "right" for most of history by that logic. Just because a right was infringed upon doesn't mean it wasn't a right.
Actually, that's one of the few "rights" that wasn't hypocritcal. It was never considered a right but rather a priveledge. One had to be male, over 21, a property owner, a few other politically incorrect standards, etc.
It was never codified as a right though until later amendments to the U.S.C.


I oppose all ineffectual laws that do more to inhibit the legal exercising of rights than they do to prevent crime. Voter ID laws are just such a thing. They purport to eliminate a nearly mythical problem with something that serves to make it harder for law abiding citizens to vote.
Except voter fraud isn't mythical, it's been a known since voting existed in this country. Hell, last couple of elections there were precints that recorded more votes than registered voters.


That's such an absurd belief, given the fact that most people's votes don't even matter. Most irresponsible votes do absolutely nothing. Whereas irresponsible gun ownership kills people.
Um, I've never been killed by an irresponsible use of gun, my vote has been negated as have others due to voter fraud. Not everyone will suffer a negligent firearm act, statistically most of us never will, but we all suffer when a clown gets elected.



Then you really do not want a democracy, because when you get right down to it democracy is government of the idiots, by the idiots, for the idiots.
You're right, I don't want a Democracy, I want to preserve the Democratic Republic that the U.S. was founded upon.
 
Why do you not want to honor the innocent dead?

Why do you want to play ostrich and ignore the reality that in a society which allows hundreds of million of guns there will be "collateral damage" of innocent people which forces you to fantasize about gang raping a person to death as a suitable punishment?

I have said repeatedly that I feel the Second Amendment and gun ownership does more good than it does harm. But to pretend that there is not a dark side to owning guns and a society which has them in the numbers we do is simply playing ostrich and ignoring reality.

You and I differ on one main thing Turtle - I DO NOT believe guns are an absolute pure good. They can be a very negative and destructive force. That does not make me anti gun any more than accepting the tens of thousands killed on the highways each year makes me ANTI CAR.

But such distinctions are beyond the thought of an extremist.
I enjoy this post because it was the cinema's policy not to allow patrons to defend themselves.

Where was the crimina's Type-1 Federal Firearms License to own, posses, carry and use explosives and destructive devices?
 
Last edited:
Hmmm, how many guns did Timothy McVeigh and the unabomber use? I don't seem to recall.
 
Actually, that's one of the few "rights" that wasn't hypocritcal. It was never considered a right but rather a priveledge. One had to be male, over 21, a property owner, a few other politically incorrect standards, etc.
It was never codified as a right though until later amendments to the U.S.C.


So you believe that rights are granted by the government?


Except voter fraud isn't mythical, it's been a known since voting existed in this country. Hell, last couple of elections there were precints that recorded more votes than registered voters.

And voter ID's won't stop voter fraud. It'll stop a mythical problem rather than a real one.


Um, I've never been killed by an irresponsible use of gun, my vote has been negated as have others due to voter fraud. Not everyone will suffer a negligent firearm act, statistically most of us never will, but we all suffer when a clown gets elected.

So the only thing that matter is if it happens to you?!?!!?



You're right, I don't want a Democracy, I want to preserve the Democratic Republic that the U.S. was founded upon.

It's still a democracy, just a representative one. As such, it is still a government of the idiots, by the idiots, for the idiots.
 
But you ignore a key FACT. Driving is, and always was, a state issued PRIVILEGE. The right to keep AND BEAR arms is a constitutionally protected RIGHT of the people IN ALL STATES. I am sick and tired of the same MORONS, that assert that a simple voter ID law is an "unfair, discriminatory burden", calling for super expensive CCW PERMITS for the right to keep and bear arms. If you want firearms training, offer it, if you want tests and IDs then offer them BUT, at no more cost than for the right to vote. We must recognize the KEY, and basic, differences between constitutional rights and state issued privileges.

Yes, owning a firearm is a right. Nobody is disputing that. Owning any firearm you want is not a right as the government can and does place limits on how you exercise that right.
 
I enjoy this post because it was the cinema's policy not to allow patrons to defend themselves.

Where was the crimina's Type-1 Federal Firearms License to own, posses, carry and use explosives and destructive devices?

Your comments had nothing at all to do with mine that you used to precede yours.

Aren't you on record as saying that such restrictions mean nothing to you anyways and you would have violated the rights of the theater owner and brought your gun in regardless of the restrictions?

1650
I would have carried into this cinema despite the policy.

So much for respect of others rights.
 
Last edited:
So you believe that rights are granted by the government?
Nope, but philosophers and the founders were pretty clear on that. If one wants to get into the argument that other rights led to the foundation of universal sufferage that's perfectly fine for another topic, but representation was always considered something for people with something invested in the game. IOW something to lose.




And voter ID's won't stop voter fraud. It'll stop a mythical problem rather than a real one.
Voter ID laws won't stop all types of fraud, but it can get rid of some of the identification based fraud. It won't fix machine tampering, buying votes, busing, etc. but it could prevent Mr. Snuggles from casting a vote.




So the only thing that matter is if it happens to you?!?!!?
Not my point, I was admittedly being a bit of a smartass for rhetorical purposes. What I'm saying is that a fundamental right to be armed has less of a downside and a shorter scope than that of the created right of voting. Not saying that voting should be restricted for most purposes mind you, but at least be who you're supposed to be, prove it, and have some simple understanding of who you're voting for rather than pushing a letter next to a name.





It's still a democracy, just a representative one. As such, it is still a government of the idiots, by the idiots, for the idiots.
We vote for that representation yes, but structurally we do not follow the democracy model.
 
How many times and in how many different places is the right to keep and bear arms discussed in the US Constitution?

How many times and in how many different places is the right to vote discussed in the US Constitution?
 
So much for respect of others rights.
It's true, I have absolutely no respect for private entities who are subject to Public Accommodation laws which try to disarm me. I have always and will continue to carry within privately owned locations where they don't want me to, because just occasionally some nut job thinks he's the Joker and shoots up the place.

And yes I have been 'caught' before. They tell me of their rule, I apologize and claim I didn't see the sign, and I leave. No big deal. I'm pretty good at carrying concealed so this hasn't happened for a while.
 
Nope, but philosophers and the founders were pretty clear on that. If one wants to get into the argument that other rights led to the foundation of universal sufferage that's perfectly fine for another topic, but representation was always considered something for people with something invested in the game. IOW something to lose.

The only part that has any bearing on our discussion has been put in bold. The fact that rights were infringed upon in the past doesn't mean they weren't rights. History does not provide any argument that allows for voter IDs today, when we recognize voting as a right and have alleviated the infringements upon that right that were supported by the foudners.

If you agree that the government does not grant rights, then the right to vote has existed since the coutnry was founded, regardless of the founders' ability to recognize it or not. Their infringment of that right does not provide a valid argument to support our infringement of it.



Voter ID laws won't stop all types of fraud, but it can get rid of some of the identification based fraud.

The identification-based fraud is pretty much the mythical problem I speak of. It's so minimal as to be practically mythical.

It won't fix machine tampering, buying votes, busing, etc. but it could prevent Mr. Snuggles from casting a vote.

that's what I said. It won't stop the real problem, but it does address the mythical one.




Not my point, I was admittedly being a bit of a smartass for rhetorical purposes.

I know. And I responded in kind.

What I'm saying is that a fundamental right to be armed has less of a downside and a shorter scope than that of the created right of voting.

Ah, so I take it you can use a logically valid and non-hypocritical argument justify your choice to designate the rights you wish to infringe as "created" ones, while designating those that you do not want infringed as "fundamental".

Hint: Citing the founding father's chocie to infringe upon voting rights =/= logically valid.

Not saying that voting should be restricted for most purposes mind you, but at least be who you're supposed to be, prove it, and have some simple understanding of who you're voting for rather than pushing a letter next to a name.

Why? Because you said so?





We vote for that representation yes, but structurally we do not follow the democracy model.

It's a democracy, it's just not a pure democracy. It's a representative democracy. It still follows the most basic democratic model of one citizen, one vote. that model is one that assures that the elections are decided by idiots.
 
The only part that has any bearing on our discussion has been put in bold. The fact that rights were infringed upon in the past doesn't mean they weren't rights. History does not provide any argument that allows for voter IDs today, when we recognize voting as a right and have alleviated the infringements upon that right that were supported by the foudners.

If you agree that the government does not grant rights, then the right to vote has existed since the coutnry was founded, regardless of the founders' ability to recognize it or not. Their infringment of that right does not provide a valid argument to support our infringement of it.
I have to present ID to buy a gun, that's the second codified right. Voting was considered a priveledge under law until the 1920s. I have a right to assemble but have to present an ID to enter an adult establishment, and either way if I falsify information I've committed a crime. Now, if you wanted to argue that the right to redress if grievances, right to assemble, right to pursuit of happiness or freedom of expression all pave the way for voting to be assumed a right by all means we can discuss it further. Realistically though voting was codified later as a right than all others. The second doesn't actually do any more than reinforce the right to keep and bear BTW, it exists regardless but the vote was restricted. What I'm getting at is that it is fine to support the second AND voter ID laws. I have to maintain my rights, even those specifically stated in the U.S.C. so I don't feel for anyone who doesn't follow due dilligence in maintaining theirs.




The identification-based fraud is pretty much the mythical problem I speak of. It's so minimal as to be practically mythical.
It's not mythical at all.



that's what I said. It won't stop the real problem, but it does address the mythical one.
It's not mythical, they had people crossing the Wisconsin borders just this year to vote out of district against Scott Walker.






I know. And I responded in kind.
Fair enough.
Ah, so I take it you can use a logically valid and non-hypocritical argument justify your choice to designate the rights you wish to infringe as "created" ones, while designating those that you do not want infringed as "fundamental".

Hint: Citing the founding father's chocie to infringe upon voting rights =/= logically valid.
Actually Tuck, I'm getting at the nature of the rights. Voting rights had to be created even though they could have been assumed to exist based upon other principles. Like I said, if enough people vote for an idiot though we all suffer, not just people who happen to be in the wrong place when misuse happens. And, the less stringently we fight stupid votes and fraud the more of it will exist. BTW, gun control is something that depends upon prior restraint, or the assumption that the tool itself needs to be removed. Voter ID laws simply say "prove you are Mr. Calvin B. Johnson, esquire".


Why? Because you said so?
Sure, why not. Do you really think stupid and uninformed people should just vote party line and cancel you out?







It's a democracy, it's just not a pure democracy. It's a representative democracy. It still follows the most basic democratic model of one citizen, one vote. that model is one that assures that the elections are decided by idiots.
The only part that resembles democracy is the actual election. After that the only voice you have is the person you elect.
 
It's true, I have absolutely no respect for private entities who are subject to Public Accommodation laws which try to disarm me. I have always and will continue to carry within privately owned locations where they don't want me to, because just occasionally some nut job thinks he's the Joker and shoots up the place.

And yes I have been 'caught' before. They tell me of their rule, I apologize and claim I didn't see the sign, and I leave. No big deal. I'm pretty good at carrying concealed so this hasn't happened for a while.

And for all these years I have been told that it is the left that does not respect private property rights. :shock:
 
Hmmm, how many guns did Timothy McVeigh and the unabomber use? I don't seem to recall.

They weren't muslims either. So they fly under a lot of people's "terrorism radar."
 
It's true, I have absolutely no respect for private entities who are subject to Public Accommodation laws which try to disarm me. I have always and will continue to carry within privately owned locations where they don't want me to, because just occasionally some nut job thinks he's the Joker and shoots up the place.

And yes I have been 'caught' before. They tell me of their rule, I apologize and claim I didn't see the sign, and I leave. No big deal. I'm pretty good at carrying concealed so this hasn't happened for a while.

I think that private property should be able to ban whatever they want to. Including guns.

It wouldn't have made a difference here, but if it's your property, you should be able to ban guns, cigarettes...hell, red t-shirts. I know there's a ban in my house against anything with a Miami Dolphins logo on it.
 
I know there's a ban in my house against anything with a Miami Dolphins logo on it.

How can anyone hate the Phins? It's been so long since we won anything important, well... I didn't think anyone who suffered at the hands of the phins could still be alive. Beside, Marino gimped around for like 8 years as a totally ineffective grampa-with-a-bad-hip quarterback. That was a HORRIBLE curse. We've suffered a lot. And we suck. We have sucked for years and years and years. I don't think even Jets fans have a right to hate us at this point. Heck, I don't think the Patriots can even see us anymore, let alone hate us. What's your problem?
 
I have to present ID to buy a gun, that's the second codified right.

Are you OK with you right to bear arms being subjected to that test?

Voting was considered a priveledge under law until the 1920s.

So? Freedom was considered a privilege until 1865. The founders got **** wrong. :shrug: The appeal to authority/tradition argument you are making is still irrelevant to our discussion. Repeating it yet again hasn't changed that.





It's not mythical at all.

It is certainly mythical because it is being overblown by people who wish to do nothing more than legally suppress the votes of those who are more inclined to vote against their party.

I mean, you can't really be naive enough to believe these tards who are calling for voter ID's are actually interested in stoppping that which they gleefully take part in when it benefits them.


It's not mythical, they had people crossing the Wisconsin borders just this year to vote out of district against Scott Walker.

And how did that work out for them?





Actually Tuck, I'm getting at the nature of the rights. Voting rights had to be created even though they could have been assumed to exist based upon other principles. Like I said, if enough people vote for an idiot though we all suffer, not just people who happen to be in the wrong place when misuse happens. And, the less stringently we fight stupid votes and fraud the more of it will exist. BTW, gun control is something that depends upon prior restraint, or the assumption that the tool itself needs to be removed. Voter ID laws simply say "prove you are Mr. Calvin B. Johnson, esquire".

SO are you saying you cannot use a logically valid and non-hypocritical argument justify your choice to designate the rights you wish to infringe as "created" ones, while designating those that you do not want infringed as "fundamental"?

Because nothing you have written above does that.



Sure, why not. Do you really think stupid and uninformed people should just vote party line and cancel you out?

Question: What difference is there between a stupid uninformed voter who just votes party line and a stupid informed voter who just votes party line?

Answer: Sweet **** all.

The difference in my opinion is that I really do want to scrap our current system because I think it's ****ed.




The only part that resembles democracy is the actual election.

Yep. That's the democracy part of our Representative Democracy.

After that the only voice you have is the person you elect.

Yep. That's the representative part of our Representative Democracy.
 
How can anyone hate the Phins? It's been so long since we won anything important, well... I didn't think anyone who suffered at the hands of the phins could still be alive. Beside, Marino gimped around for like 8 years as a totally ineffective grampa-with-a-bad-hip quarterback. That was a HORRIBLE curse. We've suffered a lot. And we suck. We have sucked for years and years and years. I don't think even Jets fans have a right to hate us at this point. Heck, I don't think the Patriots can even see us anymore, let alone hate us. What's your problem?

I was born and raised near Buffalo. My parents live about a mile from the Ralph. I learned a lot about rollerblades in the parking lot there. Bills until death!
 
Interesting experiment today. one of my employees got emotional this morning about the shooting and went on a rant about better gun laws. I briefly explained they are a waste of time but she countered with a strange claim: that a baseball bat was good enough for self defense. I dropped it so she could get back to work. Around lunch I stopped at c-store to get ice.....and a shiny new water pistol. (job is residential remodeling)

After lunch I gave her an extension pole, walked about ten paces away and told her to try and hit me with it. She was perplexed until I showed her the water gun. She then said "that isn't fair" so I said I was uncomfortable with using a real gun for the experiment. I then explained that from that moment until the end of the day, if she could even touch me with the pole (extends to 12 feet long) before I could hit her with water she would get a paid day off tomorrow.

She made a single attempt about an hour later and she ended up swinging blind because of the water hitting her face. She threw the pole down and stomped off. She did admit the point was made but she is so upset because she feels helpless. I think this is how many people feel and their emotions trump reason.
 
Back to the original topic. I am relieved that this was probably not the action of a politically partisan offender. The OP and some other hacks were champing at the bit to score points by attempting to politicize the issue.

We are a deeply divided nation. There are fewer things then that would drive the wedge further.

Sorry I'm late answering your post.

You make a good point .

In my opinion doesn't make a difference if the political party is left , right or any other , if a mistake is being made it's still a mistake.
To think different would be like me saying I am an Independent ,therefore I never ****up.:peace
 
You could not rightfully carry a gun in the movie theater.

That is the ultimate restriction, is it not? And what was the result?

To buy a gun you must pass a background check.
After Virginia tech a lot of people question just how hard these background checks go , but the background checks stayed the same, after Arizona some people again questioned the background checks
After the Denver shootings once again people are questioning these background checks.

Meanwhile the NRA makes another speech while politicians plead sympathy and wished this hadn't happened.
Maybe with stricter background checks it won't happen again.

Maybe if a politician had the balls to pass a law without fear of hurting some big organizations feelings this might be prevented in the future.:peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom