• 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.
TurtleDude said:
you just don't get it

you want to piss over the second amendment by suggesting the amendment is what killed those people

everyone else saw your intent
Click to expand...

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.
 
TurtleDude said:
he thinks the second amendment is limited to weapons designed for shooting tin cans or only two robbers at a time I suspect
Click to expand...

Thank you for yet again proving to the world that the only way you can pretend to engage in debate is to intentionally and dishonestly pervert the position of the other side.
 
haymarket said:
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.
Click to expand...

You want to ban certain kinds of guns and suggest that those who support the second amendment are responsible for innocents being murdered. I doubt any pro gun poster believes you are pro gun. You want to smear the second amendment and you think that "tactical" weapons are too extreme

give it up hay market, you support gun restrictions as much as you support Obama
 
haymarket said:
So by your leap of logic the status quo cannot be extreme? History tells a very different story. But why confuse you with facts when you would rather engage in political order following.

Yeah I know - only a racist calls other people racists. Only an extremist calls other people extremists. Only a .... whatever.... we get the idea.
Click to expand...

Keep your history in your pocket for another day and let's just keep CONTEXT for the moment. Calling current gun law "extreme" is pants-wetting sky-falling nonsense.


ps. Did you just call me a racist?
 
TurtleDude said:
its illegal to drive that fast

only morons would ban owing a car when there are places where you can legally drive 200 MPH
Click to expand...

I guess that makes me ANTI CAR. Only a moron - your own word - would not get the comparison.
 
ecofarm said:
Keep your history in your pocket for another day and let's just keep CONTEXT for the moment. Calling current gun law "extreme" is pants-wetting sky-falling nonsense.


ps. Did you just call me a racist?[/QUOTE]

Join the club-you will be one of many

later dude, smooth sailing
Click to expand...
 
ecofarm said:
Keep your history in your pocket for another day and let's just keep CONTEXT for the moment. Calling current gun law "extreme" is pants-wetting sky-falling nonsense.


ps. Did you just call me a racist?
Click to expand...

Actually it is reality. We live in a time when people like Turtle advocate the ability for citizens to have military level technology and walk around the streets fully armed with it.

By any comparison of the last century of America - that is the definition of extreme.

Did I call you a racist? Not at all. I was saying that it is a tactic of some to turn any accusation right back on the one who makes it. Racism is but one example that we see very often. You brought up the extremist example.
 
TurtleDude said:
You want to ban certain kinds of guns and suggest that those who support the second amendment are responsible for innocents being murdered. I doubt any pro gun poster believes you are pro gun. You want to smear the second amendment and you think that "tactical" weapons are too extreme

give it up hay market, you support gun restrictions as much as you support Obama
Click to expand...

You just want to be able to buy any erectile disfunction toy you can lay your hands on and could not give a **** if innocent children are mowed down in movie theaters.

Again ... to borrow your argument style.
 
haymarket said:
Actually it is reality. We live in a time when people like Turtle advocate the ability for citizens to have military level technology and walk around the streets fully armed with it.

By any comparison of the last century of America - that is the definition of extreme.

Did I call you a racist? Not at all. I was saying that it is a tactic of some to turn any accusation right back on the one who makes it. Racism is but one example that we see very often. You brought up the extremist example.
Click to expand...

No, you said the extremists have won, for now. Even if I agree with some change in gun regulations, characterizing the status-quo (remember, I mentioned that before) as extreme is nutbag-level analysis. You were not merely characterizing Turtle as extreme.

I'm not turning any accusation back on you. I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is to consider the status-quo extreme when the vast majority of people would only like minor changes.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
YOur own sources prove that Canada has a diverse population just as I claimed. And nothing you presented shows that I was wrong in stating that there are minorities in Japan.

You claimed cultural differences without offering any proof that the stuff mentioned either exists or is important as a factor.
Click to expand...

Racial minorities are less than 13% in Canada and 1.5% in Japan. I posted PLENTY of U.S. crime statistics to "prove" that VAST cultural/ethnic/racial differences exist. You are simply playing games. If you seriously doubt that crime is equally reported and police receive similar witness coopertaion in "the hood" then you don't read much. Look into these things for yourself. You are getting boring with your ENDLESS claims that nothing is ever shown or proved to YOUR personal satisfaction. It is YOUR turn to show that minorities in the U.S. do not account for a HUGE percentage of the crime and the prison population, as I have shown you the RESULTS using U.S. gov't provided statistics. You see U.S. crime is FAR higher compared to Japan and Canada, yet offer NO rational explanation for the difference, certainly not guns alone can account for it, and RECREATIONAL DRUGS are certainly a U.S. cultural issue, whether YOU choose to accept it or not. I offered back-up links for EVERY position, you simply poo poo them as "not sufficient", so please STFU until YOU can prove different.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
No, you said the extremists have won, for now. Even if I agree with some change in gun regulations, characterizing the status-quo (remember, I mentioned that before) as extreme is nutbag-level analysis.

I'm not turning any accusation back on you. I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is to consider the status-quo extreme when the vast majority of people would only like minor changes.
Click to expand...

To say that the right wing and gun culture has won on this issue is simple reality of American politics.

The status quo can be extreme as history tells us over and over and over. Was placing Japanese Americans in concentration camps extreme? I think most would say it was. But it was also the status quo for its time.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Vehicles are deadlier? :lol:
Click to expand...

Much harder to deploy.


AdamT said:
You just want to be able to buy any erectile disfunction toy you can lay your hands on and could not give a **** if innocent children are mowed down in movie theaters.

Again ... to borrow your argument style.
Click to expand...

The thought of being able to carry an AR15 into a movie theater, secure it in a rack at my hand, and then kick back? The thought of looking over and seeing Bob from the block over with his trick in the rack? Grandma with some nice engraved double barrel?

**** yeah. It would solve any struggle my body may have with erectile dysfunction. I would feel damn secure too.

You want proper regulation? Define some classes of arms. Define proficiency at the arm. There are many things you can reasonably do to regulate by not infringe upon the right of ownership or bearing.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Racial minorities are less than 13% in Canada and 1.5% in Japan. I posted PLENTY of U.S. crime statistics to "prove" that VAST cultural/ethnic/racial differences exist. You are simply playing games. If you seriously doubt that crime is equally reported and police receive similar witness coopertaion in "the hood" then you don't read much. Look into these things for yourself. You are getting boring with your ENDLESS claims that nothing is ever shown or proved to YOUR personal satisfaction. It is YOUR turn to show that minorities in the U.S. do not account for a HUGE percentage of the crime and the prison population, as I have shown you the RESULTS using U.S. gov't provided statistics. You see U.S. crime is FAR higher compared to Japan and Canada, yet offer NO rational explanation for the difference, certainly not guns alone can account for it, and RECREATIONAL DRUGS are certainly a U.S. cultural issue, whether YOU choose to accept it or not. I offered back-up links for EVERY position, you simply poo poo them as "not sufficient", so please STFU until YOU can prove different.
Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting that Canada and Japan have minority populations.

I do not understand why you expect me to go off on some rant about minorities in the USA and crime. What is that suppose to prove? Are you attempting to say that it is minorities who are to blame for crime and without them we would have the same rate as Japan? Is that your point?
 
haymarket said:
To say that the right wing and gun culture has won on this issue is simple reality of American politics.

The status quo can be extreme as history tells us over and over and over. Was placing Japanese Americans in concentration camps extreme? I think most would say it was. But it was also the status quo for its time.
Click to expand...

Again with the history. Let's just keep the context TODAY and not add different issues and a subjective interpretation to cloud the issue. At least you have given up the "I'm talking about Turtle being extreme" argument, as you CLEARLY referred to the status quo:


haymarket said:
I realize that the pendulum has swung wide to the far right on this issue. The extremists have won - for now. They even have their own subculture to nurture and sustain them in their ideology. If my nation is stolen from me by the radical right wing who would destroy it and pervert it I would consider moving just a few miles across the Detroit River to Canada.
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
So by your leap of logic the status quo cannot be extreme?
Click to expand...


So, one would assume that you want MASSIVE changes to gun law in order to reach what you would consider "middle ground". That's what defining the status-quo as extreme is all about - making your own extreme position out to be the middle ground. I know, I'm an extreme environmentalist.
 
Last edited:
Aberration said:
Much harder to deploy.




The thought of being able to carry an AR15 into a movie theater, secure it in a rack at my hand, and then kick back? The thought of looking over and seeing Bob from the block over with his trick in the rack? Grandma with some nice engraved double barrel?

**** yeah. It would solve any struggle my body may have with erectile dysfunction. I would feel damn secure too.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your honesty. Perhaps that is your idea of heaven but it is my idea of hell on earth. And people here say that the extremists are not winning on this issue. :roll:

Your post proves this clearly and without any doubt or ambiguity. Thank you.
 
ecofarm said:
Again with the history. Let's just keep the context TODAY and not add different issues and a subjective interpretation to cloud the issue. At least you have given up the "I'm talking about Turtle being extreme" argument, as you CLEARLY referred to the status quo:







So, one would assume that you want MASSIVE changes to gun law in order to reach what you would consider "middle ground".
Click to expand...

What I want is an honest and open national discussion so we as Americans can discuss how we can respect the rights of the Second Amendment and speak to the terrible horrors that the murder rate with guns scream at us in the headlines.

I do not propose to be the KING and wave my scepter and make law for the nation. I would hope that we as a people can do that together.

There is no such thing as a Constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court to have any firearm you want. That right does not exist. So what we argue about is what is acceptable in our society. That is a conversation we badly need to have.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
What I want is an honest and open national discussion so we as Americans can discuss how we can respect the rights of the Second Amendment and speak to the terrible horrors that the murder rate with guns scream at us in the headlines.
Click to expand...

It seems many people just want to scream headlines.

I do not propose to be the KING and wave my scepter and make law for the nation. I would hope that we as a people can do that together.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with anything? Some people would like us to decide to live by 11th century rules, that doesn't make wanting to any less nuts.

There is no such thing as a Constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court to have any firearm you want. That right does not exist.
Click to expand...

A desperate strawman that you cannot honestly expect to be engaged.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Thank you for your honesty. Perhaps that is your idea of heaven but it is my idea of hell on earth. And people here say that the extremists are not winning on this issue. :roll:

Your post proves this clearly and without any doubt or ambiguity. Thank you.
Click to expand...

haymarket said:
What I want is an honest and open national discussion so we as Americans can discuss how we can respect the rights of the Second Amendment and speak to the terrible horrors that the murder rate with guns scream at us in the headlines.

I do not propose to be the KING and wave my scepter and make law for the nation. I would hope that we as a people can do that together.

There is no such thing as a Constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court to have any firearm you want. That right does not exist. So what we argue about is what is acceptable in our society. That is a conversation we badly need to have.
Click to expand...

You don't want open and honest. I just gave you open and honest. You immediately disregarded it. I have been around large groups of armed people, and I have never felt unsafe. Why would anyone feel unsafe around someone in a theater? Would you feel safe if it was some police officer? Sure are a lot of ex-LEO who still stay proficient. What about ex-Military? What about the rancher who has one daily in his truck? What about the trucker who regularly has one in his cab?

If proficiency is the concern, then there are reasonable ways to deal with proficiency.

If you have just a down right objection to certain arms under certain conditions than you are the one not being honest and open, or willing to discuss a middle ground.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
Thank you for admitting that Canada and Japan have minority populations.

I do not understand why you expect me to go off on some rant about minorities in the USA and crime. What is that suppose to prove? Are you attempting to say that it is minorities who are to blame for crime and without them we would have the same rate as Japan? Is that your point?
Click to expand...

I am saying AGAIN that crazed serial/mass gun using muderers are NOTHING in terms of U.S. gun crime, and that any whacko gun control laws that you dream up will NOT put a dent in it. Yes, much higher crime exists in the U.S. due to its commission by minorities. Would U.S. crime drop to the level of Japan without these minoriies? I don't know how one could even begin to show that, perhaps you can show me that link.

I expect you to present YOUR solution instead of simply saying CONSTANTLY what is "not working". Banning guns for all law abiding theater patrons did not work, yet you see MORE restrictions as the answer. I maintain that had a few persons, perhaps 3% of those in the theater, been armed that this may not have been even attempted, much less accomplished. Even if someone secured (alarmed?) the side exit, this plan would not have worked. Many things can be done to prevent this specific type of crime, yet it is so rare as to be insignificant in terms of the total U.S. crime.

More people will be likely to be shot in Chicago next week that this Batman dude managed, yet NO presidential visit will result, no national TV marathon will result and no libtards will call for tougher Chicago gun laws, since Chicago already has the nation's touhgest gun laws.
 
Last edited:
Aberration said:
The thought of being able to carry an AR15 into a movie theater, secure it in a rack at my hand, and then kick back? The thought of looking over and seeing Bob from the block over with his trick in the rack? Grandma with some nice engraved double barrel?
Click to expand...

All the blue pills in the world wouldn't help you when the crazed-lookin' dude speaking in tongues sat down behind you and starting snapping shells into his sawed off street sweeper. :lol:
 
ecofarm said:
A desperate strawman that you cannot honestly expect to be engaged.
Click to expand...

Really? Do you disagree that there is no Constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court to have any firearm you want to have? Because that is crucial. That is central. That is the reality that frames the discussion that follows.

So give us your answer? Do you as a citizen have a Constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court to have any firearm you want to have?
 
haymarket said:
What I want is an honest and open national discussion so we as Americans can discuss how we can respect the rights of the Second Amendment and speak to the terrible horrors that the murder rate with guns scream at us in the headlines.

I do not propose to be the KING and wave my scepter and make law for the nation. I would hope that we as a people can do that together.

There is no such thing as a Constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court to have any firearm you want. That right does not exist. So what we argue about is what is acceptable in our society. That is a conversation we badly need to have.
Click to expand...

Again more rant yet NO proposed changes in ANYHTING. You want "discussion" yet offer none, simply babble about "hope and change", yet none is offered EVER. Clever tactic, yet very, very boring. Just what do you propose that WE DO to stop crazy Batman types that plan mass murder for MONTHS, have no jobs and are funded by the gov't?
 
from 78640

I am saying AGAIN that crazed serial/mass gun using muderers are NOTHING in terms of U.S. gun crime, and that any whacko gun control laws that you dream up will NOT put a dent in it. Yes, much higher crime exists in the U.S. due to its commission by minorities. Would U.S. crime drop to the level of Japan without these minoriies? I don't know how one could even begin to show that, perhaps you can show me that link.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. It is YOU who claim that the minorities in the USA are the problem. Not me. So feel free to present the data. You seem to want it both ways here as you blame minorities but yet back away from stating that without them we would equal the rate of Japan. So which is it?

I expect you to present YOUR solution instead of simply saying CONSTANTLY what is "not working". Banning guns for all law abiding theater patrons did not work, yet you see MORE restrictions as the answer. I maintian that had a few persons, perhaps 3% of those in the theater, been armed that this may not have been even attempted, much less accomplished. Even if someone secured (alarmed?) the side exit, this plan would not have worked. Many things can be done to prevent this specific type of crime, yet it is so rare as to be insignificant in terms of the total U.S. crime.
Click to expand...

Actually it works every day in every theater in America except that one in Colorado this weekend. That is a success rate that is well north of 99%.

More people will be likely to be shot in Chicago next week that this Batman dude managed, yet NO presidential visit will result, no national TV marathon will result and no libtards will call for tougher Chicago gun laws, since Chicago already has the nation's touhgest gun laws.
Click to expand...

And that is sad. So what do we do about that?
 
AdamT said:
All the blue pills in the world wouldn't help you when the crazed-lookin' dude speaking in tongues sat down behind you and starting snapping shells into his sawed off street sweeper. :lol:
Click to expand...

What are in the blue pills? Just watch the hands and muzzle. He points the muzzle towards anyone and it gets taken away.
 
haymarket said:
Really? Do you disagree that there is no Constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court to have any firearm you want to have? Because that is crucial. That is central. That is the reality that frames the discussion that follows.

So give us your answer? Do you as a citizen have a Constitutional right recognized by the Supreme Court to have any firearm you want to have?
Click to expand...

Why would the Supreme Court have to recognize anything? Our right is not derived from Supreme Court recognition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom