• 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!

Reports: 4 shot, hostages taken in Binghamton, NY

WillRockwell said:
Isn't this why we have the second amendment, to guarantee that citizens have the right to overthrow the government when they decide it's time for a revolution? So this guy decided it was time...and his rights to own weapons and use them at his discretion are in the constitution.....what's the big deal?
Click to expand...

Are you saying this about any specific FACTS that have came out of this yet? Or are you just making assumptions, acting on emotion and stereotypes, and leaping to conclussions to try and rail against your token issue of choice like the others in this thread?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Bit of cleanup done due to the hiccup there. Duplicate posts removed
 
stevenb said:
This is a fun anti-gun argument.

Simple, this person's rights ended as soon as he started violating other citizen's of this country's rights.
Click to expand...
I don't see that it's so simple. If you exercise your constitutional right to overthrow the government with your constitutionally protected weapon, obviously you will intrude on some other citizen. That citizen may be a federal law enforcement officer or it may be a civilian who is unfortunately in the line of fire. Are those citizens not casualties of war?
 
Goobieman said:
Another brilliant illustration as to how you clearly (and willfully) just don't get it.
Click to expand...

I get it fine. What you don't get is that if citizens have the constitutional right to bear arms and overthrow the government, you may not agree with the time and place that they decide to do it.
 
WillRockwell said:
I don't see that it's so simple. If you exercise your constitutional right to overthrow the government with your constitutionally protected weapon, obviously you will intrude on some other citizen. That citizen may be a federal law enforcement officer or it may be a civilian who is unfortunately in the line of fire. Are those citizens not casualties of war?
Click to expand...

WillRockwell said:
I get it fine. What you don't get is that if citizens have the constitutional right to bear arms and overthrow the government, you may not agree with the time and place that they decide to do it.
Click to expand...

This is seriously the worst line of argument imaginable.

In the hypothetical world where a group of people DID try to overthrow the government, the government would certainly consider them criminals/murderers as well.
 
Take your hyper partisan idiotic rambling somewhere else, will you? Seriously, it'd be one thing if you were talking about ANY facts of this case but you're not. You're making idiotic assumptions on zero facts save for your own asinine stereotypes and emotional fueled garbage.

Come on Will. Back your **** up. Show me some fact saying this had ANYTHING to do with over throwing the government or are you just blowing this out of your hyper partisan blowhole?
 
Zyphlin said:
Take your hyper partisan idiotic rambling somewhere else, will you? Seriously, it'd be one thing if you were talking about ANY facts of this case but you're not. You're making idiotic assumptions on zero facts save for your own asinine stereotypes and emotional fueled garbage.

Come on Will. Back your **** up. Show me some fact saying this had ANYTHING to do with over throwing the government or are you just blowing this out of your hyper partisan blowhole?
Click to expand...

There have been plenty of similar cases where the government believed he was engaged in revolution. Timothy McVeigh was one. Was he wrong? Was he ahead of his time? Was he exercising his constitutional right? How many gunmen must decide to incite revolution before you consider that revolution to be legitimate?
 
Then if you want to start a new thread about it, do so. Stop derailing this one about a hypothetical situation that may or may not have anything to do with this unless you have some facts to back it up. Last I checked, this wasn't about McVeigh
 
Zyphlin said:
Then if you want to start a new thread about it, do so. Stop derailing this one about a hypothetical situation that may or may not have anything to do with this unless you have some facts to back it up. Last I checked, this wasn't about McVeigh
Click to expand...

No, it's about guys making a personal decision to take a firearm and kill as many innocent people as possible. And somehow, all of you are able to distance that behavior from your own strongly held beliefs that ownership of firearms is not only a privelage, it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. My point is that if you insist every American has the right to own whatever guns he wants, then you shouldn't be surprised by the surge in violence we have seen as the economy worsens and gun owners get more desperate. You have sown this harvest, now take responsibility for it.
 
....sooo, no facts. Talking out your ass. Typical hyper partisan rantings. Got called on it. Now back peddling. Still no facts to back up your idoitic claims.

Good, got that sorted out. Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss some part of the news story. Good to see I didn't, you were just talking out of your ass for the better portion of all your posts in this thread.

So anyone else have any actual news on this? Any indications that being laid off somehow contributed? What's the news with the two guys taken away in cuffs?
 
WillRockwell said:
No, it's about guys making a personal decision to take a firearm and kill as many innocent people as possible. And somehow, all of you are able to distance that behavior from your own strongly held beliefs that ownership of firearms is not only a privelage, it is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. My point is that if you insist every American has the right to own whatever guns he wants, then you shouldn't be surprised by the surge in violence we have seen as the economy worsens and gun owners get more desperate. You have sown this harvest, now take responsibility for it.
Click to expand...

Wow.. cause if he didn't have a gun he would think to himself... "Well hell, not much I can do without my trusty firearm.. I might as well pack it in for the night."

WRONG, he'd take his car, and a knife, drive into a crowd and start cutting people.. killing 17 people with a car and a knife... like the guy in Japan did.
 
WillRockwell said:
I don't see that it's so simple. If you exercise your constitutional right to overthrow the government with your constitutionally protected weapon, obviously you will intrude on some other citizen. That citizen may be a federal law enforcement officer or it may be a civilian who is unfortunately in the line of fire. Are those citizens not casualties of war?
Click to expand...

This is terrorism not self protection from a tyrannical government.
 
creativedreams said:
This is terrorism not self protection from a tyrannical government.
Click to expand...

We don't know WHAT this is. Don't get sucked into Will's obvious attempt to bait and derail with his trolling ways. No facts have came out yet that this has anything to do with political motivation or attempting to use force and fear to push a political agenda of some kind. Could it be a terrorist act? Sure. It could just as easily simply be a criminal act.
 
stevenb said:
Reach into my backpack, draw my firearm, place a round center mass, reset and be ready to fire again.


Oh wait, this is New York, they don't want people to be able to defend themselves... My bad.
Click to expand...

Hey I at least carry a pistol for protection, in addition to my pocket knife as a last resort.
 
Adkisson must be feeling proud of himself. Looks like he has possibly inspired others to follow his lead.

Citizens our following our National motto on conflict resolution so a downturned economy will naturally produce the same results our "esteemed" electors have set the precedent upon. Gun nuts love this crap man...they love to see these attacks because every single time it happens the first or second thing out of their mouths is to get all orgasmic about guns as a solution. Irony or self-fulfilled prophecy?

Oh sure, some indignant and dishonest soap box rants will accuse me of saying they love innocent people getting shot. But that is not what I am saying. What I am pointing out is all the dead innocent people don't even register on their radar. They don't see needless deaths. All they see is another campaign slogan for more guns. Congratulations.
 
WillRockwell said:
I don't see that it's so simple. If you exercise your constitutional right to overthrow the government with your constitutionally protected weapon, obviously you will intrude on some other citizen. That citizen may be a federal law enforcement officer or it may be a civilian who is unfortunately in the line of fire. Are those citizens not casualties of war?
Click to expand...

This is more foolish partisan hackery. Please show how any of the people he killed were representative of him trying to overthrow the government. And try to make sense when you answer this question.
 
Zyphlin said:
Really? Why?

Did the shooter have his face exposed or not? Did he come in demanding that the place give them their money, or did he come in immedietely taking hostages and seeming to have an alterior motive or a message to send? How did the shots that killed people come to be? I can go on and on.
Click to expand...


How is this related to my commentary? people passed judgment on the burger king guy. Here 14 people let themselves get shot, not only was no one armed, but words like "cower" and "hid" are the words used here. it dismays me to know end that we teach ourselves to be meek when the wolf comes for the slaughter....

Like the VT tech thing, we have neutered the people and prepared them for the slaughter......



Kind of makes me not want to make any real judgement in any way till I know at least a smidgen of actual FACTS about this case first other than saying I feel for those within and pray that they those still alive get out alright and those who are wounded fight through.
Click to expand...



Yes you are so wonderful you want to think of the poor people first. you already said that. Are you suggesting I don't?
 
bhkad said:
Reports: 4 shot, hostages taken in Binghamton, NY
4 mins ago



Reports: 4 shot, hostages taken in Binghamton, NY
Click to expand...

wow, they say 13 people have been killed

I didn't read all the posts but it seems that you advocate the large spreading of guns in order to stop killers like this one

Fine, it is true that if someone had a gun he could have killed this guy

But on the other hand, more guns = statistically more risks that someone who gets a meltdown uses a gun, don't you agree?

Someone who wants to kill people will always be able to find a gun, even if they're banned, or he could also use other weapons (knifes...). But I think that in many cases, maybe such as this one, the killer didn't think a lot, he didn't prepare the killing: he lost his job, grabbed his gun and started killing people
 
bub said:
wow, they say 13 people have been killed

I didn't read all the posts but it seems that you advocate the large spreading of guns in order to stop killers like this one

Fine, it is true that if someone had a gun he could have killed this guy

But on the other hand, more guns = statistically more risks that someone who gets a meltdown uses a gun, don't you agree?

Someone who wants to kill people will always be able to find a gun, even if they're banned, or he could also use other weapons (knifes...). But I think that in many cases, maybe such as this one, the killer didn't think a lot, he didn't prepare the killing: he lost his job, grabbed his gun and started killing people
Click to expand...




So let me understand you correctly. There are kill crazy madmen out there who will always be able to find a gun, but you are advocating removing the guns from the non kill crazy madmen in order to stop the kill crazy madmen from doing what they do.



is that right? o_O


Oh and he backed his car up to the door to prevent people from escaping, this shows prior planning my friend.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So let me understand you correctly. There are kill crazy madmen out there who will always be able to find a gun, but you are advocating removing the guns from the non kill crazy madmen in order to stop the kill crazy madmen from doing what they do.



is that right? o_O


Oh and he backed his car up to the door to prevent people from escaping, this shows prior planning my friend.
Click to expand...

I'll try to be more clear: I think that there are 2 kinds of killers

- the psychopath/maddest ones, who are determined to kill people and take a lot of time to prepare it (like the guy who took 6 months to armor his bulldozer with steel and concrete)

- the ones who become mad because they were fired/found out that their wife has sex with someone else...and start killing on the spot. They do it not because they are determined to kill people randomly, but because they have a meltdown

For the first ones, banning guns is useless because they have a lot of time and will be able to find one anyway. And if they don't use a gun it will be a knife, because they are determined to kill

For the second ones, maybe it could be usefull to ban guns, because if they don't find one on the spot (if they don't own one) I don't think they'll start killing people, because they're not really determined to do so.

...but that's just my hypothesis...
 
bub said:
I'll try to be more clear: I think that there are 2 kinds of killers

- the psychopath/maddest ones, who are determined to kill people and take a lot of time to prepare it (like the guy who took 6 months to armor his bulldozer with steel and concrete)

- the ones who become mad because they were fired/found out that their wife has sex with someone else...and start killing on the spot. They do it not because they are determined to kill people randomly, but because they have a meltdown

For the first ones, banning guns is useless because they have a lot of time and will be able to find one anyway. And if they don't use a gun it will be a knife, because they are determined to kill


For the second ones, maybe it could be usefull to ban guns, because if they don't find one on the spot (if they don't own one) I don't think they'll start killing people, because they're not really determined to do so.

...but that's just my hypothesis...
Click to expand...


Do you have and numbers for this hypothesis?
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
This is more foolish partisan hackery. Please show how any of the people he killed were representative of him trying to overthrow the government. And try to make sense when you answer this question.
Click to expand...

Why not try to reply with a little courtesy....Captain? No, this Vietnamese shooter was not trying to overthrow the government, he apparently felt disrespected.
The point is that no excuse justifies the shooting of innocent people. Yet if his excuse had been that he was trying to "liberate America from Socialism" he would have received sympathy from the 2nd Amendment crowd. Likewise, one could ask how and why a Vietnamese immagrant could aquire or need an arsenal of weapons. On that point he already has your sympathy and your support. And that is a problem.
 
WillRockwell said:
Why not try to reply with a little courtesy....Captain? No, this Vietnamese shooter was not trying to overthrow the government, he apparently felt disrespected.
The point is that no excuse justifies the shooting of innocent people. Yet if his excuse had been that he was trying to "liberate America from Socialism" he would have received sympathy from the 2nd Amendment crowd. Likewise, one could ask how and why a Vietnamese immagrant could aquire or need an arsenal of weapons. On that point he already has your sympathy and your support. And that is a problem.
Click to expand...



Just when one thinks you can't say anything dumber.



And yeah, we need to keep guns out of the hands of Asians.... :roll:


2 pistols is not "an Arsenal"
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom