• 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.
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

It doesn't apply here but sometimes these social shootings have political motivations underscored by the far right such as the Adkins church shooting or the attempted assassination on Giffords.
 
You seem reluctant to accept the inescapable fact as long as people are alive, there are going to be murders. Sometimes one or two victims and sometimes many more. It doesn't mean we do not seek ways to prevent them but it does mean realizing **** happens.

I do realize **** happens , but even so ,one need not supply the ****. for **** to happen.:peace
 
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.
That is a very good experiament I think I am gona steal it. :)
 
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.


Wow, you should her...:roll:
 
Are you OK with you right to bear arms being subjected to that test?
I actually have no problem with that, what I have a problem with is the idea of registration after the fact. It's the law of the land that felons and those involuntarily committed to mental health institutions may not own weapons and the only way to enforce that is an ID requirement. If the law changed to allow those individuals to possess then that debate can be renewed.



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.
No, the founders own writings admitted they were hypocritical about what rights applied to whom. They knew slavery was wrong and admitted as much, however they made it clear that voting wasn't a right. Agree or disagree that is the history.







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.
Here's the difference, only criminals engage in fraud, the ID requirement is to make sure fewer of them do so. This does not pertain to the right to keep and bear, in which criminals and citizens in good standing engage, yet I have to prove who I am to engage in my second amendment rights, whereas people are arguing that a priveledge converted to a right does not hold the same scrutiny.

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.
Actually, stopping fraud is stopping fraud, doesn't matter which side is engaging/not engaging.




And how did that work out for them?
It didn't work THAT time. If an election comes down to less than 1k votes it could make a difference.







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"?
I'm saying it's an apples to elephants comparison. My right to keep and bear has existed throughout our history, the right to vote not so much. Yet the newer right is expected to carry less scrutiny? You cannot see my point here? Less people suffer misuse of a weapon than a fraudulent election, not trying to be callous but that is a fact.

Because nothing you have written above does that.
Sure it does if you follow the logic.




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.
I can't stand either, but is not an uninformed vote just as dangerous as an idiot with a gun? If I as a citizen held a gun to your head and demanded 45% of your income is it not just as bad to elect someone to effect policy to do the same?

The difference in my opinion is that I really do want to scrap our current system because I think it's ****ed.
I disagree, the "two party system" is, not the fundamentals behind the republic.






Yep. That's the democracy part of our Representative Democracy.
Democracy is direct vote on law, the only part we held over was direct vote of those who make it, and with prior restrictions upon even their authority.......at least when they play by the rules and don't make **** up as they go along.



Yep. That's the representative part of our Representative Democracy.
Same response as prior.
 
I do realize **** happens , but even so ,one need not supply the ****. for **** to happen.:peace

I wasn't suggesting you give guns to people planning social terrorist attacks.
 
I just wonder what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for the left to understand?

They want to make you register every gun.

They want to make you be limited on how many you can buy, and how much ammo you can buy.

They want to limit the size of the weapons you are able to own.

They want to limit the type of weapon you can own.

They want to limit the action of the weapons you own.

They want to limit the type of stock on the weapon you own.

They want to make it illegal for you to silence the weapon you own.

Oh well, so much for "shall not be infringed."

Uhhh, forgot one do not sell guns to nut jobs whoops I guess the gun industry missed that..

Don't get me started on the **** average people have to go through to get a drivers licence , to stand outside a restuarant and smoke .ect ect.:peace
 
I just wonder what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for the left to understand?

They want to make you register every gun.

They want to make you be limited on how many you can buy, and how much ammo you can buy.

They want to limit the size of the weapons you are able to own.

They want to limit the type of weapon you can own.

They want to limit the action of the weapons you own.

They want to limit the type of stock on the weapon you own.

They want to make it illegal for you to silence the weapon you own.

Oh well, so much for "shall not be infringed."


Public safety trumps every right.

"probable cause" "emanate danger" "kiddie porn" in all these situations your rights come second to the states interest in public safety.

Assault weapons are weapons of war. Why can't you own an RPG? Or a tank?
 
I do realize **** happens , but even so ,one need not supply the ****. for **** to happen.:peace
You know, I dont need a gun to take care of business and defend myself, but it sure makes things easier. There is this little thing called the Constitution, and the 2nd amendment. Besides whats more humane, being beat to death or shot?
 
Last edited:
Public safety trumps every right.

"probable cause" "emanate danger" "kiddie porn" in all these situations your rights come second to the states interest in public safety.

Assault weapons are weapons of war. Why can't you own an RPG? Or a tank?
I can, problem is courts dont follow the Constitution, in fact they "leaglly" violate it all the time.
 
I wasn't suggesting you give guns to people planning social terrorist attacks.

Flint,Columbine, Virginia Tech, Arizona, Denver funny they keep getting guns.:peace
 
Anybody saying that shooting him would make things worse is speculating even more.

Well, when you consider the fact that the killer had 70 targets and that any person who would have had a gun has one target in a dark theater with tear gas in the air, the so-called "speculation" starts to disappear. Things like these happen very quickly and there is also a lot of confusion on top of that. There was a marine in the audience who had no idea what was going on. Everyone fancies themselves as a hero, but the reality is that people panic in highly stressful situations like these no matter how much they would like to pretend that they would be macho. It's incredibly easy to be a tough guy on a message board where you are discussing the thing from afar and you have a tremendous amount of distance from it.

There are plenty of situations where a trained person with a gun would be able to diffuse a situation without hurting or possibly killing others. In my opinion, a dark theater filled with tear gas isn't one of them.
 
Last edited:
Flint,Columbine, Virginia Tech, Arizona, Denver funny they keep getting guns.:peace

Like I said, you could take away all guns tomorrow and people would still be killing each other. Or did your history textbooks say murders only began with Winchester?
 
Well, when you consider the fact that the killer had 70 targets and that any person who would have had a gun has one target in a dark theater with tear gas in the air, the so-called "speculation" starts to disappear. Things like these happen very quickly and there is also a lot of confusion on top of that. There was a marine in the audience who had no idea what was going on. Everyone fancies themselves as a hero, but the reality is that people panic in highly stressful situations like these no matter how much they would like to pretend that they would be macho. It's incredibly easy to be a tough guy on a message board where you are discussing the thing from afar and you have a tremendous amount of distance from it.
That situation was iffy all around, the assailant had the advantage. I think a few armed theater goers could have swung either way, but being that none of us were there it's impossible to say one way or another what would have helped/hurt. I personally would have preferred to have been armed in that situation but that's definitely an individual preference.

Hope you've been good man.
 
Last edited:
They got him drugged up pretty bad and I really don't blame them.

Saw a story earlier where three boyfriends saved their girlfriend's lives but placing their bodies between the shooter and the girlfriends. The whole thing effing sucks.
I'd still check that kid for "soap bombs" before every appearance. He went the gamut from full out assault to chemical deployment to booby trapping. No clue what he's fully capable of.
 
Are you OK with you right to bear arms being subjected to that test?



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 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.




And how did that work out for them?







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.





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.






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



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

Tucker, First of all let me say I have always supported the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms , hell I even support the right to carry a concealed weapon.

What I do not support is the background checks that make it easy for some nut to buy a gun or guns and a lot of ammunition.

I have a question.
Say you are in a gun dealers shop, now you see this gun dealer selling guns and a lot of ammunition to a person you know is deranged , you have heard this person say he was going to kill everybody he could in his neighborhood, and he lived down the street from you , would you let the sale go through for 2 glocks and an automatic rifle with a lot of ammunition?:peace
 
Last edited:
Tucker, First of all let me say I have always supported the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms , hell I even support the right to carry a concealed weapon.

What I do not support is the background checks that make it easy for some nut to buy a gun or guns and a lot of ammunition.

I have a question.
Say you are in a gun dealers shop, now you see this gun dealer selling a gun to a person you know is deranged , you have heard this person say he was going to kill everybody he could in his neighborhood, and he lived down the street from you , would you let the sale go through for 2 glocks and an automatic with a lot of ammuntion?:peace
If it makes you feel any better, just about every legitimate gun dealer would kick out anyone who showed any signs of being a danger to others. I've known many gun dealers here and they take gun safety VERY seriously.
 
Like I said, you could take away all guns tomorrow and people would still be killing each other. Or did your history textbooks say murders only began with Winchester?

Like I said sometimes less is better.

If an action like any I have mentioned can be avoided is it worth the hardship of waiting a little longer to get the gun you are buying.
Is it worth 12 innocent people's lives?:peace
 
If it makes you feel any better, just about every legitimate gun dealer would kick out anyone who showed any signs of being a danger to others. I've known many gun dealers here and they take gun safety VERY seriously.

That's good but you do know that the Virginia Tech shooter was stopped by the police for irradic behavior , that was before he bought the guns from a licenced gun dealer.:peace
 
That's good but you do know that the Virginia Tech shooter was stopped by the police for irradic behavior , that was before he bought the guns from a licenced gun dealer.:peace
Yeah, same with Laughner, both cases there were red flags not reported before they engaged in violence. The system is only as good as the record and reporting, if police think someone is a danger they MUST flag them, otherwise there are no further tools to go off of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom