Socrates Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1342812056' post='2457327'] [url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18921492"]http://www.bbc.co.uk...canada-18921492[/url] America and their love of guns. "By their fruits they shall be known" [/quote] 1) This horrific slaughter has nothing do with love of guns, and everything to do with a warped, murderous mentality. Many millions of Americans have a love of guns, and own them, yet the overwhelming majority of these gun-loving Americans have never used their weapons to murder their fellow man. I have a father-in-law and an uncle who are both hardcore gun collectors, yet neither has murdered anyone. Your asinine statement is an insult to all American who love firearms and their constitutional freedoms. 2) If there had been more persons carrying firearms in the vicinity of this crime (and other similar slaughters), this massacre could have been stopped before such a high body count was reached. Such bloodbaths typically occur with a lone gunman (or few gunmen) firing into a large crowd of unarmed persons. But I suppose everything would be much better if only governments and the lawless are in possession of guns. But it's just like a leftist to exploit this tragic event to score political points. 3) Americans have enjoyed their constitutional right to bear arms for centuries, yet these kinds of senseless meaningless slaughters are much more prevalent in recent decades, with the prevalence of godless nihilism in our culture. But many of the same folks who want to use such horrific crimes to restrict gun rights are also those who are against the idea of teaching objective morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 [quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1342886270' post='2457571'] In all fairness, you did make a statement about reading the framers minds. He then posted specific writing, which would indicate their thoughts.[/quote] True, and the evidence is overwhelming that the framers in fact did believe in the right of the people to defend themselves with arms, rather than only having the right to use their arms under the command of the government, as statist "liberals" like to argue. [quote]But I don't think any of those statements were in the constitution, last time I read it.[/quote] The Constitution was not framed in a vacuum, Knowing the thoughts of the framers and the issues of the time is important to knowing how the Constitution should be read. Here's yet another Jefferson quote, just to leave the bleedin' hearts pistov (that's Russian for angry, Comrades): "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson As I pointed out, the right to self-defense is one of the most fundamental human rights, and exists independently of the second amendment. "This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - St. George Tucker (teacher of Thomas Jefferson, signer of the Declaration of Independence, Revolutionary War vet, and U.S. senator) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1342894831' post='2457599'] Your asinine statement is an insult to all American who love firearms and their constitutional freedoms. [/quote] If you are insulted by an insinuation that putting guns, unrestricted, in the hands of all whom want them, results in some crazies having guns and using them to kill people, then you must take the recent shooting as an insult to your own view. Evidence be damned, give everyone guns, YeeHaaa. [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1342894831' post='2457599'] If there had been more persons carrying firearms in the vicinity of this crime (and other similar slaughters), this massacre could have been stopped before such a high body count was reached. [/quote] I could imagine how much fun a gun totting "Hero" could have in a room full of people whom need to be defended and saved. [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1342894831' post='2457599'] But it's just like a leftist to exploit this tragic event to score political points. [/quote] There was a thread on this forum that I was already engaged in. This tragedy happened and was poignant to this thread. [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1342894831' post='2457599'] Americans have enjoyed their constitutional right to bear arms for centuries [/quote] Americans have enjoyed killing each other with guns for a long time, point taken. [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1342894831' post='2457599'] But many of the same folks who want to use such horrific crimes to restrict gun rights are also those who are against the idea of teaching objective morality. [/quote] What does gun ownership have to do with anyone's belief in morality? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 The sick s.o.b. thinks he is the joker, he copied the violence of the films. That being the case instead of just disarming law abiding citizens and blaming guns, blame the violence glorified in the movies he copied too and completely censor all violence in all movies, tv, cartoons, books etc. So this will not happen again. If sick leftists are going to use victims before they are even laid to rest to strip away the peoples second amendment rights why not strip the 1st as well? Speech is far more dangerous as it can lead people to mass murder just like their favorite movies stars play in the movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1342904919' post='2457635'] If you are insulted by an insinuation that putting guns, unrestricted, in the hands of all whom want them, results in some crazies having guns and using them to kill people, then you must take the recent shooting as an insult to your own view. Evidence be damned, give everyone guns, YeeHaaa.[/quote] Outlaw guns, and only outlaws will have guns. [quote]I could imagine how much fun a gun totting "Hero" could have in a room full of people whom need to be defended and saved.[/quote] No, a well-placed round could have stopped the killer short, and prevented dozens of further victims from being killed and wounded. But I suppose it's better to just allow a madman to just shoot up as many as he likes until the cops have time to arrive, rather than allow a civilian to defend and save other's lives. [quote]What does gun ownership have to do with anyone's belief in morality?[/quote] Absolutely nothing. The murder was the result of a lack of morality, not gun ownership. Morality (or lack thereof) is what separates this sick killer from the millions who own guns but never use them to murder. [quote]Americans have enjoyed killing each other with guns for a long time, point taken.[/quote] Human beings around the world have been killing each other since the time of Cain and Abel, long before guns, America, or the second Amendment. But as your posts here appear to be nothing more than mindless flamebait, I will not indulge you further. Good day, and God bless. Edited July 22, 2012 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 22, 2012 Share Posted July 22, 2012 (edited) [quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1342918977' post='2457691'] The sick s.o.b. thinks he is the joker, he copied the violence of the films. That being the case instead of just disarming law abiding citizens and blaming guns, blame the violence glorified in the movies he copied too and completely censor all violence in all movies, tv, cartoons, books etc. So this will not happen again. If sick leftists are going to use victims before they are even laid to rest to strip away the peoples second amendment rights why not strip the 1st as well? Speech is far more dangerous as it can lead people to mass murder just like their favorite movies stars play in the movies. [/quote] Imho, blaming the Batman movies for these senseless murders is just as stupid as blaming second amendment rights. Of course, idiotic ideologues will do both. The idea of personal responsibility for one's actions is not much in vogue these days. Edited July 22, 2012 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1342991287' post='2457913'] No, a well-placed round could have stopped the killer short, and prevented dozens of further victims from being killed and wounded. But I suppose it's better to just allow a madman to just shoot up as many as he likes until the cops have time to arrive, rather than allow a civilian to defend and save other's lives. [/quote] I don't think in this situation that having armed civilians would have helped. 1)It was a dark theater, and he was in all black 2) He threw gas canisters into the crowd, creating a situation of chaos and low visibility. I don't think adding more guns to the mix would have helped. I'm pointing this out merely in relation to this situation, not as a statement about shootings in general. Regardless, it was a terrible tragedy, prayers for all involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 He could be seen, according to those who were there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevil Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1342991287' post='2457913'] No, a well-placed round could have stopped the killer short, and prevented dozens of further victims from being killed and wounded. But I suppose it's better to just allow a madman to just shoot up as many as he likes until the cops have time to arrive, rather than allow a civilian to defend and save other's lives. [/quote] I would expect that a well trained, experienced police officer would not fire their gun in a crowded room, problem with civilians with guns is that they are not well trained, nor experienced in combat. They have a gun, this makes them dangerous to bystanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='stevil' timestamp='1343073584' post='2458180'] I would expect that a well trained, experienced police officer would not fire their gun in a crowded room, problem with civilians with guns is that they are not well trained, nor experienced in combat. They have a gun, this makes them dangerous to bystanders. [/quote] If there was an experienced police officer at the scene deadly force would have had to be an option since the assailant was well armed. I would rather expect, and rightfully so, if that police officer did not attempt to take down the assailant with any means at his disposal, which includes his weapon, the hell of the public's wrath would have rained down upon his head. I also doubt the assailant would not have been an easy and open target for the officer to take down, as his victims ran away from him rather than towards him. The same would have also been true had their been a armed citizen(s) in the crowd (who defacto should be experienced in the use of his weapon and gun safety. If he is going to own one in the first place.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anomaly Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Guns are regulated, but they aren't outlawed. The availability of guns only had some relativity to this tragedy. The guy was very bright and was committed to causing death and destruction. He was able to construct Improvised Explosive Devices and booby trap his apartment. I don't know if the gas cannisters he threw were home made, were tear gas, or were just smoke. He was certainly capable of constructing a number of IED's, pipe bombs, incindiary devices, or come up with lots of ways to kill a number of people. There have been people that drive into crowds as one nut job did a few years ago at a parade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappo Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 If a significant group of the people in that theatre were carrying concealed weapons, do you really think there'd be 70 injured civilians? Even if say... 3 people in the row near the door he used to enter the theatre were carrying side arms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
she_who_is_not Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court has approached this issue (sort of). I sense that what you are really asking is if the government can levy a tax on the exercise of an essential right. The short answer would be yes. For example, local governments can require permit fees for groups exercising their right to free assembly. State governments can levy sales tax on persons purchasing firearms. The Supreme Court has also held the government does have the ability to restrict individual rights in situations where there is the potential to lead to great harm. The most famous example of this would be Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr.'s statement in Schenk v. US, that shouting fire in a crowded theatre would not be a valid exercise of free speech. Here is where I think your comparison is flawed. Voting is an essential feature of our republican democracy. Poll taxes were levied to prevent certain groups from exercising a right that does not bear any inherent costs beyond taxpayer dollars to run polling facilities, tally votes, etc. Gun ownership is an extraneous right. There is an inherent cost associated with gun ownership: the cost of purchasing and maintaining the gun. Gun registration fees are just another cost of gun ownership. Alone, they will not prevent anyone from exercising their right to bear arms. Unless, that person has forfeited certain civil rights through felonious behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='she_who_is_not' timestamp='1343077007' post='2458218'] I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court has approached this issue (sort of). I sense that what you are really asking is if the government can levy a tax on the exercise of an essential right. The short answer would be yes. For example, local governments can require permit fees for groups exercising their right to free assembly. State governments can levy sales tax on persons purchasing firearms. The Supreme Court has also held the government does have the ability to restrict individual rights in situations where there is the potential to lead to great harm. The most famous example of this would be Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr.'s statement in Schenk v. US, that shouting fire in a crowded theatre would not be a valid exercise of free speech. Here is where I think your comparison is flawed. Voting is an essential feature of our republican democracy. Poll taxes were levied to prevent certain groups from exercising a right that does not bear any inherent costs beyond taxpayer dollars to run polling facilities, tally votes, etc. Gun ownership is an extraneous right. There is an inherent cost associated with gun ownership: the cost of purchasing and maintaining the gun. Gun registration fees are just another cost of gun ownership. Alone, they will not prevent anyone from exercising their right to bear arms. Unless, that person has forfeited certain civil rights through felonious behavior. [/quote] The Supreme Court also returned a man to the bonds of slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amppax Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 [quote name='she_who_is_not' timestamp='1343077007' post='2458218'] I'm pretty sure that the Supreme Court has approached this issue (sort of). I sense that what you are really asking is if the government can levy a tax on the exercise of an essential right. The short answer would be yes. For example, local governments can require permit fees for groups exercising their right to free assembly. State governments can levy sales tax on persons purchasing firearms. The Supreme Court has also held the government does have the ability to restrict individual rights in situations where there is the potential to lead to great harm. The most famous example of this would be Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr.'s statement in Schenk v. US, that shouting fire in a crowded theatre would not be a valid exercise of free speech. Here is where I think your comparison is flawed. Voting is an essential feature of our republican democracy. Poll taxes were levied to prevent certain groups from exercising a right that does not bear any inherent costs beyond taxpayer dollars to run polling facilities, tally votes, etc. Gun ownership is an extraneous right. There is an inherent cost associated with gun ownership: the cost of purchasing and maintaining the gun. Gun registration fees are just another cost of gun ownership. Alone, they will not prevent anyone from exercising their right to bear arms. Unless, that person has forfeited certain civil rights through felonious behavior. [/quote] LOL, on topic post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts