Mass Shooting at CO Dark Knight Rises Premiere

[MDphinfan02]

Take away the guns criminals will use knives then ban knives criminals will use sticks.... no one is saying denver is a ccw state yet the movie theater has a no gun policy... criminals/crazies/terrorists target unarmed citizens

[MDphinfan02]

All the second amendment arguing aside of you want to stop this kinda behavior and these horrible events they needs to publicly torture ppl i mean hardcore torture so the next crazy guy goes crazy in the privacy of his own home....thats a solution

[Spesh]

All the second amendment arguing aside of you want to stop this kinda behavior and these horrible events they needs to publicly torture ppl i mean hardcore torture so the next crazy guy goes crazy in the privacy of his own home....thats a solution

Because thats worked so well for the governments in the Middle East. They've never had any problems with civil rights movements.

So, gist of your argument: Go go weapons that can kill in high numbers because its hopeless to stop people from hurting others, go go public torture because its not hopeless to stop people from hurting others. Gotcha.

[MDphinfan02]

Because thats worked so well for the governments in the Middle East. They've never had any problems with civil rights movements.

So, gist of your argument: Go go weapons that can kill in high numbers because its hopeless to stop people from hurting others, go go public torture because its not hopeless to stop people from hurting others. Gotcha.

No we will put him in a prison cell for 30 yrs and feed him and let him play bball and send letters and read books cause thats the society we live in... gotcha and yes ppl are gonna go crazy and hurt others thats the world we live in now sorry but criminals dont follow laws... but when one does something like this lets hurt all the law abiding citizens out there who exercise their rights... we can argue all day bub but its a waste of time (but when we are neighbors and **** hits the fan and law enforcement cannot protect you and we have to protect ourselves and our families il let you borrow some my toys)

[CedarPhin]

Crazy people aren't going to be intimidated by public executions or anything. Rational people might be, but crazy people aren't going to be, because well, they're crazy.

---------- Post added at 03:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------

No we will put him in a prison cell for 30 yrs and feed him and let him play bball and send letters and read books cause thats the society we live in... gotcha and yes ppl are gonna go crazy and hurt others thats the world we live in now sorry but criminals dont follow laws... but when one does something like this lets hurt all the law abiding citizens out there who exercise their rights... we can argue all day bub but its a waste of time (but when we are neighbors and **** hits the fan and law enforcement cannot protect you and we have to protect ourselves and our families il let you borrow some my toys)

Do you fear a day when the black helicopters will come and you'll be accused of "knowing too much"?

[Spesh]

No we will put him in a prison cell for 30 yrs and feed him and let him play bball and send letters and read books cause thats the society we live in... gotcha and yes ppl are gonna go crazy and hurt others thats the world we live in now sorry but criminals dont follow laws... but when one does something like this lets hurt all the law abiding citizens out there who exercise their rights... we can argue all day bub but its a waste of time (but when we are neighbors and **** hits the fan and law enforcement cannot protect you and we have to protect ourselves and our families il let you borrow some my toys)

Will i have to be publically tortured first before i can play with your toys?

And yes, actually, we do live in a society in which criminals go to jail and those we can be rehabilitated are given a second chance, not that this psycho will get that chance. Depressing we cant just throw them in a lake and wait to see if they float or not to see if their guilty like the good 'ole days, amirite?

So, just to be clear:
Constitutional rights for large guns: awesome. Constitutional rights for those accused of crimes: bad. Go United State of America Constitution when it involves kickass guns and bling, Boo United States of America Consitution when it involves those who commit crimes!

And im sure we could argue all day, i would imagine you have alot of free time hiding in your underground bunker waiting for the fall of America and democracy.

[Valandui]

Probably not the right thread for this heavy a discussion, so ill keep this post brief and tinged with humor.

We, as citizens, are allowed to drink beer and use tobacco but it is illegal to smoke weed(HOLD ON ROB! I never said its a good or bad thing just thats its illegal, please dont blow me up with paragraphs and youtube!). There are easily ways to regulate weapons. Its not like we can have biological weapons laying around our household. Why? Because they would be a danger to everyone around us. Sounds like the logic behind banning assualt rifles to me. As you acknowledged, automatic weapons are for war. I would add that automatic weapons are for criminal actions as well. Neither of which we want on American soil.
Ban weapons that have no logical reason for use of personal protection or hunting. Ban magazines(ammo holder, not sports illustrated) that carry an absurd number of rounds(the weapon used in the Gifford shooting had a 33 bullet magazine, if i recall correctly).

The world isnt black and white. Its not "if you ban one, you have to ban them all". We have the ability to regulate what people buy in this country. Hell, we already do in many areas, weapons included.

As for the 2nd amendment, didnt the Supreme Court rule in 2008 that it meant individuals had the rights outside of militia use? District of Columbia v. Heller? Even then it took until 2010 to clean up that interpretation. So, technically if not in practice, weve only had that right for a few years now.

I respectfully disagree. The second amendment was intended to protect citizens from the government becoming too oppressive. It was combined with the fact that we had no standing army that this was a very effective policy. It's not quite as effective when you take into account that we have by far the strongest military in the world now, but it wasn't just for hunting or personal protection. Having said that, those are very legitimate purposes for gun ownership. Another thing to take into account is the fact that the dude broke numerous gun laws when he did this. He's a criminal. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. If he was that intent on doing this, he would have found a way no matter how many gun laws you threw in his way.

[Spesh]

I respectfully disagree. The second amendment was intended to protect citizens from the government becoming too oppressive. It was combined with the fact that we had no standing army that this was a very effective policy. It's not quite as effective when you take into account that we have by far the strongest military in the world now, but it wasn't just for hunting or personal protection. Having said that, those are very legitimate purposes for gun ownership. Another thing to take into account is the fact that the dude broke numerous gun laws when he did this. He's a criminal. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. If he was that intent on doing this, he would have found a way no matter how many gun laws you threw in his way.

Not totally certain which part you disagree with. If you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling, the '08 and '10 rulings were considered landmark rulings in many ways. Admittedly, im not certain of every single ruling in the history of America concerning gun rights, but from '08 onward its been considered "official" that the right to bear arms is not limited to militia use.

Now if you disagree about the intention behind the second ammendment, well, im not really sure what to say to that. I didnt say my personal opinion on that, but ill say it now that i agree more with Locke's suggestion that it was misinterpreted. That being said, the Supreme Court ruled on it. The situation is what it is and its not something i feel strongly enough about to fight the system over. Ill respectfully disagree with it while still differing to their judgement on the matter. Also, our laws are interpreted based on our currently society. The founding fathers simply couldnt imagine what our nation has become(and its to their credit they created a system that allows us to adapt and adjust the constitution based on our current lifestyle). Even the current interpretation of "the right to bear arms" will probably change 50 years from now.

Now, and i believe this is what you were addressing, for my stance on the ban of assualt rifles: i do believe they should be banned. Im not suggesting that all weapons should be taken away, but assualt rifles have no use to those not trying to injury citizens of this country. There are weapons adequate for our protection and weapons adequate for use of hunting allowed, by law, already. I believe you can outlaw assualt rifles while still allowing hunting rifles. I simply dont consider that big of a obstacle(other then people being upset). If you need 33 bullets to kill an animal you are hunting, either you plain suck at hunting or you are hunting something your not suppose to...like people.
Again, i dont think all weapons should be outlawed. They have legitimate reasons for existing and law abiding citizens with no interest in commiting crimes have real reasons for owning them. I also dont believe cars should be outlawed. As im currently drinking a beer, i sure as hell dont believe booze should be outlawed. Yet, i agree that if you are driving drunk you should be arrested. There is direction and degrees. I agree with the direction of banning overly dangerous weapons, but i dont agree with the degree of completely banning all weapons.

As for the criminal aspect, i dont believe anyone has disagreed in any thread about this subject that criminals are still going to commit crimes if they have their mind set on it. This particular case involved someone who is apparently deranged and was determined to hurt people. That being said, if he had a bow and arrow 70 plus people wouldnt be injured or dead at the moment.
I once knew a guy who was determined to drive home one night after drinking heavily. A friend took his keys, pointing out he was in no condition, but the guy was absolutely determined to drive home. He fought my friend, wrestled with him, even tried running to his car after reaquiring his keys with my friend holding onto his leg. As you might imagine, he drove himself straight into a tree(notice how i said "knew" and not know). Now, ive had many other occasions in which a drunk persons keys are taken and they go to sleep or sober up. Thats one reason why i support a ban on assualt rifles. Sure, if someone someone is determined to commit crimes they will, but sometimes the difficulty in which it takes to acquire the resources is enough to dissuade people. Id rather make it that much harder to commit crime in a (sometimes vain) hope that it will convince people not to even try.

[Dolfan3773]

Sad sad news...people are ****ed up. Thoughts and prayers go out to all those in CO

[NY8123]

The last thing I will say about gun control, constitutional rights etc...at one time in history people viewed the freedom of speech as a bigger problem than anything else in the world.