Whats going wrong with the world? More shootings

unsung

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jUIz4y ... r_embedded



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4Gv3PG ... r_embedded

unsung

unsung

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzcE0V5 ... r_embedded

blueandwhite

mikepegg44 wrote:

blueandwhite wrote:

I'm always confused by this response. If you provide a society with the means to commit a mass murder, it is almost certain that at some point somebody will carry through with it. The weapons we're now describing are used solely to inflict a maximum amount of damage on large numbers of people. Allowing any and every individual to purchase these tools is simply irresponsible. In fact if you follow this line of thinking, should rocket launchers and nuclear weapons then be available to those that could afford them? Where does one draw a line before you reach absurdity?

Selling weapons of mass destruction doesn't automatically mean they will be used to commit a crime, but it certainly opens up that possibility. Isn't that why the United States is so vehemently opposed to states like Iran or North Korea developing their nuclear weapons programs?

The absurdity of the argument is the one you have reached going all the way to Nuclear weapons. The clear and present danger test used for the 1st amendment is something I have said repeatedly would apply to the 2nd and most others in the bill of rights. If you can prove that selling nuclear weapons to private citizens presents a clear and present danger to society as a whole then they would be limited(shouldn't be too hard to do that)...that goes with all weapons...Jesus christ, I am not here to argue the specifics on what weapons should or shouldn't be allowed to be sold...my point through all of it is that the 2nd amendment, like all others, is something that should not be limited because of some fictional notion that guns are somehow inherently evil and will cause people to commit crimes using them...Like the 4th and the 1st both, a clear and present danger or probable cause can be an overriding factor allowing the Gov't to limit those rights...if you cannot show that you are not going to get a lot of sympathy from me...If you start limiting based on an idea that something bad might happen it can lead to a lot of shit that people hate...namely things like the Patriot Act, NDAA, violations of the 8th etc
I don't think the US gov't should stop NK or Iran from getting nuclear energy programs either. But I don't think the level of danger is the real reason behind not wanting them to have the weapons but that is a whole other ball game...

This is the problem that I have with the Second Amendment. The way it is read is so broad that in theory it should allow a person to possess any and all weaponry available. The argument is absurd. The clear and present danger test actually places a limit on the 1st Amendment yet good luck placing similar limits on the 2nd Amendment. I don't think there's a chance that it would be upheld by the Supreme Court. Any limits on firearms seem purely arbitrary. Even the right to defend one's self is subjective.

I'm sure there will be a day when Americans will have the right to possess fully automatic weapons, but I can't for the life of me understand the rationale for allowing it. I don't really trust most governments, but then again a government is made up of private citizens who I also don't place a lot of faith in either. I just find it baffling that people treat the second amendment as being so untouchable when society is willing to place restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly. When your 1st Amendment rights are trampled on everybody just sighs and goes about their lives. When people even bring up the 2nd Amendment the lobbyists and gun groups are out in full force crying foul. I just don't get it.

Then again, as long as you aren't bringing your weaponry into my back yard (Canada), it's not really a major issue for me.

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

...
Come on... you are smarter than that. You know witness accounts can vary... i.e., several people see the same event and several different accounts are retold. Especially in a chaotic atmosphere where you are scrambling for your life and not concentrating on recording details.
Let the forensics tell the tale.

cincybearcat

unsung wrote:

You would need both pictures taken from the same vertical angle to really compare This proves nothing either way.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

You should fix your quote... you make me look like the bad guy
(Pandora)


I'm not sure what happened to my jumble of quotes. To avoid the problem again, I just italicized your last words. I stand by what I have said and never intended to make my words yours.

There's a 'bad guy' in this discussion?

Is this because he called 'bullshit' to your claim that some of the the victims of the crime have publically empathized with the ruthless killer? Is it the term I used? If so, I must apologize for my crude mannerisms- in my circle of friends... it's commonly used and not deemed offensive. I am seriously not sure what else you would call such utterings the way they sit in my mind?

I'll apologize again, but, "No, seriously I saw it once on CNN in the afternoon sometime" doesn't legitimize your statements. Until proven, they remain outlandish.

Again, if I hear differently... I'll be on this forum, hat in hand, apologizing.

Until then, I think I'm going to leave your comments alone. For at least this topic, we are way too far apart to do anything but argue. We have done enough of that. Have a nice day.

norm

jeez unsung, you're usually a sane voice here even when i don't agree with you but you're going into tin foil hat territory...don't go there

cincybearcat

I wonder if the guy that went to the door was sneaking a friend in...terrible decision.

Kat

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You should fix your quote... you make me look like the bad guy
(Pandora)


I'm not sure what happened to my jumble of quotes. To avoid the problem again, I just italicized your last words. I stand by what I have said and never intended to make my words yours.

There's a 'bad guy' in this discussion?

Is this because he called 'bullshit' to your claim that some of the the victims of the crime have publically empathized with the ruthless killer? Is it the term I used? If so, I must apologize for my crude mannerisms- in my circle of friends... it's commonly used and not deemed offensive. I am seriously not sure what else you would call such utterings the way they sit in my mind?

I'll apologize again, but, "No, seriously I saw it once on CNN in the afternoon sometime" doesn't legitimize your statements. Until proven, they remain outlandish.

Again, if I hear differently... I'll be on this forum, hat in hand, apologizing.

Until then, I think I'm going to leave your comments alone. For at least this topic, we are way too far apart to do anything but argue. We have done enough of that. Have a nice day.

Be very VERY careful about putting words in someone's mouth by messing up their quoted text please. It's not difficult to fix it. I have fixed it on the previous post in question. Also, see the Posting Guidelines...especially about treating each other with respect. It's possible to debate politely.

mikepegg44

blueandwhite wrote:

This is the problem that I have with the Second Amendment. The way it is read is so broad that in theory it should allow a person to possess any and all weaponry available. The argument is absurd. The clear and present danger test actually places a limit on the 1st Amendment yet good luck placing similar limits on the 2nd Amendment. I don't think there's a chance that it would be upheld by the Supreme Court. Any limits on firearms seem purely arbitrary. Even the right to defend one's self is subjective.

Possibly, but the clear and present danger test would be applied to nuclear weapons. You could argue that each and every fire arm is a clear and present danger at all times, I would say that you would have a very difficult time proving that...

I'm sure there will be a day when Americans will have the right to possess fully automatic weapons, but I can't for the life of me understand the rationale for allowing it. I don't really trust most governments, but then again a government is made up of private citizens who I also don't place a lot of faith in either. I just find it baffling that people treat the second amendment as being so untouchable when society is willing to place restrictions on freedom of speech and assembly. When your 1st Amendment rights are trampled on everybody just sighs and goes about their lives. When people even bring up the 2nd Amendment the lobbyists and gun groups are out in full force crying foul. I just don't get it.

when the first amendment is trampled on people do get involved. There just isn't as large a national discussion because most people feel it shouldn't be limited for the most part. However, there is a large vocal portion of the country that believes the second amendment should be limited far greater than others, so you have a pretty passionate group discussing from both sides which gives the appearance that more people care about it...you might be right, some probably do care more about the 2nd, I am just not sure if I see it that way as a rule...

ComeToTX

AURORA, Colo. (Reuters) - The man accused of Friday's movie theater massacre in Colorado mailed a notebook "full of details about how he was going to kill people" to a University of Colorado psychiatrist before the attack, FoxNews.com reported on Wednesday.

The package allegedly from the suspected shooter, 24-year-old James Eagan Holmes, remained unopened in a mailroom for as long as a week before its discovery Monday, FoxNews.com reported, citing a law enforcement source.

JonnyPistachio

unsung wrote:

Clearly its two different people, look at the orange hair!

Now you're joking, right?
As Cincy said, there are many subtle differences that can happen between two different pictures -- Years apart, smiling, lighting, aging, shaved/not shaved...this is really digging into desperate conspiracy theory ground.

JonnyPistachio

Mass murderers often not mentally ill, but seeking revenge, experts say:

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07 ... s-say?lite

blueandwhite

cincybearcat wrote:

unsung wrote:

You would need both pictures taken from the same vertical angle to really compare This proves nothing either way.

I think this is probably taking the whole conspiracy theory a bit too far. Go to a mirror and make a very stern face. After that, grin as widely as you can. Tell me if your lips don't tighten and your nostrils don't flare slightly when you are smiling a really wide grin.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

ComeToTX wrote:

AURORA, Colo. (Reuters) - The man accused of Friday's movie theater massacre in Colorado mailed a notebook "full of details about how he was going to kill people" to a University of Colorado psychiatrist before the attack, FoxNews.com reported on Wednesday.

The package allegedly from the suspected shooter, 24-year-old James Eagan Holmes, remained unopened in a mailroom for as long as a week before its discovery Monday, FoxNews.com reported, citing a law enforcement source.

This is the shits.

unsung

norm wrote:

jeez unsung, you're usually a sane voice here even when i don't agree with you but you're going into tin foil hat territory...don't go there

Ha, well I question everything, especially "official" stories.

The gun picture and witness accounts just don't match what the cops are saying. There was more than one person involved IMO, and we aren't being told the truth.

g under p

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Pandora wrote:

We must be watching different things. I haven't seen any empathy from victims. Just shock, anger and sadness.

Yes. That's the second time you've just casually tossed that out there. And, for the second time I'm calling bullshit.

Pandora quote:
Swear to God... we all know what that means to me...
CNN Friday afternoon perhaps 3 to 4 pm eastern time...
and I do not appreciate being called a liar.

Very odd that people don't think it is possible for anyone to have empathy for the shooter,
as I said of those who do ... there's a heart.

And for those who have no compassion for those with mental
illness I will say the same thing but not in a way one might be proud.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Then don't stretch the truth to make your really weak case stronger. If this was actually true, this would actually be news- some grieving mother or father crying... and then adding: "It's just so senseless. My child was only 10. And... and... this poor, poor man who committed this act... I'm so relieved that this poor man surrendered really quickly once faced with a gun himself so that there wasn't one more death to the mix!"

If anyone can post anything that even remotely supports what you have said, of course, I'll eat my words.

And there you go again- using veiled methodology to hoist yourself up over other people as the champion with the great, big heart, while at the same time leaving it to inference that most of us are unenlightened buffoons... simply incapable of such noble depths of understanding and compassion when we really should.

We have compassion for mental illness. We have none for a sick, murderous, rampaging bastard who, at this point in time, doesn't even appear to be mentally ill: advanced university studies/ premeditation/ the crime site chosen to be the opening night of one of his favourite movie series/ the wherewithall to quickly surrender as soon as he's in any danger at all.

It's not like this Batman fan was shit out of luck getting his tickets and, being mentally ill, went back to his apartment to get whatever he had there to vent his frustration- incapable of dealing it. Nope, just a cool, calculating, sick freak. MmmmHmmmm.

I mentioned in one of my earlier posts that there's something to be said for timing. Speaking of Michael Moore, his B for C highlighted the NRA having displayed brutal timing in the past- holding rallies in the wake of senseless gun slaughters and deaths. I can't imagine these had been effective in swaying people to the notion that guns are cool. Likewise, it's probably not great timing to start trumpeting the cause for mentall illness. As I said before, let the wounds heal a bit and maybe people might have more of a stomach for material.

And, for that matter... let's make sure that were even talking about mental illness- you might be hurting the cause.

I agree, JH took the time to carefully plan this crime out for months, now it probably didn't go perfectly according to his plans but he did cause mayhem and a mass killing. Maybe down the road we will find out what set these plans into motion then committing the plans he drew up. I have NO EMPATHY for him and what he did here.

Peace

Cosmo

unsung wrote:

norm wrote:

jeez unsung, you're usually a sane voice here even when i don't agree with you but you're going into tin foil hat territory...don't go there

Ha, well I question everything, especially "official" stories.

The gun picture and witness accounts just don't match what the cops are saying. There was more than one person involved IMO, and we aren't being told the truth.

...
If he did call someone to let him in... that's easy enough to define. Dump his phone records, which, thanx to The Patriot Act, local authorities, such as Aurora P.D., can legally do. Find out who he called to let hime in.
...
Consider, other witnesses said that he either took a call and left the theater throught the side fire exit and returned through that same door. He may have either proped the door open or taped the latch to keep it from bolting to the door jamb.
Witnesses don't all recall and rely the same thing. It is part of the police work to gather all of the accounts and get the clearest picture that appears.

PJ_Soul

Yeah, just listening to a bit on the radio about how some are wondering what people would be talking about if James Holmes was Muslim or Black. Pretty interesting shit. I don't know about if it was a Black person or a Latino (maybe drug crime connections?), but I feel pretty positive that everything would be very different if he were a Muslim, i.e. everyone (starting with mainstream media) would be talking about terrorism, all other things being equal. But a white guy has had mental a break from reality, with no other motive likely (btw, there was a big assumption that the DC snipers were white and psycho at first). Long live racial profiling. :?