Fatal shooting at Denver screening of The Dark Knight Rises

SmarterthanYou said:
I have all my rights, fellow man be damned. If they would like to remove one or two of them, they are certainly welcome to try.


LOL, because the marines certainly didn't teach me to defend myself with my hands and feet either. some of you idiots are so short sighted it's almost saddening.
Click to expand...

You were a US marine?LOL. With a crew cut? and a bruised face where a Royal Marine showed you who was boss. Piss off little man. Go hang your medals on someone with more sense.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I loathe idiots with reading comprehension issues that try to pretend they are intelligent.

the right to bear arms predates the constitution. the 2nd Amendment tells government that it shall not be infringed. to more directly answer your question, the right to bear arms came in to existence the second man found out how to make and use weapons.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid self loathing is something with which you will have to learn to live.
 
Lowaicue said:
You were a US marine?LOL. With a crew cut? and a bruised face where a Royal Marine showed you who was boss. Piss off little man. Go hang your medals on someone with more sense.
Click to expand...

I have been gone for six months or so from this board and you are still a fuckin idiot!
 
This is a very fascinating and educational article about the history of the NRA. I've read a lot of founding history including the Federalist Papers and the writings that are widely known as the anti-Federalist papers. So I never bought into this right to bear arms bullcrap. To me, having really steeped myself in that history at one point, it was beyond clear that because we had no standing army and militias were to be ready to be called upon to defend against any invasion (for instance, England or France at that time), and the qualifying paragraph about militias in the second amendment, that they were always talking about militias.

What I did not know is this really interesting history of the NRA. It ends up that this STY "YOU'LL HAVE TO KILL ME I'M A MAN KILL ME I'M A MAN KILL ME I'M A MAN" disease arose very recently in our history.

Anyway, anyone who believes the founders envisioned the wholesale slaughter of our children and every nutball with a machine gun, is an idiot. This conversation here will never end. On this board I mean. It's pointless. All it does is serve as a showcase for a bunch of highly insecure males to prop up their flailing manhood by publically fantasizing about the government coming to get their guns and how they're going to make their stand. They will be vaporized just like every other loonball who got the same idea in their heads have been. It's a joke and so are they.

Hopefully in the real world beyond this fantasy playground, we can one day have a sane conversation about guns.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore?currentPage=all
 
Last edited:
Darla said:
This is a very fascinating and educational article about the history of the NRA. I've read a lot of founding history including the Federalist Papers and the writings that are widely known as the anti-Federalist papers. So I never bought into this right to bear arms bullcrap. To me, having really steeped myself in that history at one point, it was beyond clear that because we had no standing army and militias were to be ready to be called upon to defend against any invasion (for instance, England or France at that time), and the qualifying paragraph about militias in the second amendment, that they were always talking about militias.

What I did not know is this really interesting history of the NRA. It ends up that this STY "YOU'LL HAVE TO KILL ME I'M A MAN KILL ME I'M A MAN KILL ME I'M A MAN" disease arose very recently in our history.

Anyway, anyone who believes the founders envisioned the wholesale slaughter of our children and every nutball with a machine gun, is an idiot. This conversation here will never end. On this board I mean. It's pointless. All it does is serve as a showcase for a bunch of highly insecure males to prop up their flailing manhood by publically fantasizing about the government coming to get their guns and how they're going to make their stand. They will be vaporized just like every other loonball who got the same idea in their heads have been. It's a joke and so are they.

Hopefully in the real world beyond this fantasy playground, we can one day have a sane conversation about guns.
Click to expand...

Well said. I'm done.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you're a moron darla. your bullshit doublespeak makes you a retard.
Click to expand...

I found this in Yahoo Answers and it pretty much sums up how sane people view the subject.


I am beyond sick and tired of neo-con vermin wrapping themselves in the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution when they literally do NOT understand it.

To all but the ignorant, deranged and agenda-driven, the Founders' intent with regard to the 2nd Amendment is pretty clear. They were referring specifically to a well-armed and well-regulated militia whose intent was to protect a fledgling country from the European powers of the era. They NEVER envisioned future technologies, let alone the rising up of demented gun lovers hell-bent on shooting anything that moves.

Perhaps more to the point, The Constitution was always intended to be a fluid document. Literally each and every primary author (Madison, Hamilton and Jay) and advocate (Jefferson and Franklin) has expressed this in writing at some point along the way. Our Founding Fathers had enough vision to foresee a time when technology would change, even as the world-at-large changed. The document was thus designed to be amended, re-worked, shaped and molded to fit with the current times. It was NEVER intended to be carved in stone and held aloft by demagogues promoting their evil-minded pro-gun agenda. That is a total abomination.
Click to expand...

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120721030237AAkbeaI
 
Last edited:
Bijou said:
In other words, gun lust is a man-made thing. Not an 'inalienable' right.

How about blacks? When did they become whole human beings - before or after it was written down?

If they were whole all along (obviously), did their 'rights' just kick in - or did laws have to be changed first?
Click to expand...

doesn't this argument actually contradict your position?.......if blacks did not have rights before the law was changed, then it would not have been wrong to enslave them......your error is to confuse the existence of rights with the act of the state to preserve them.....
 
Darla said:
This is a very fascinating and educational article about the history of the NRA. I've read a lot of founding history including the Federalist Papers and the writings that are widely known as the anti-Federalist papers. So I never bought into this right to bear arms bullcrap. To me, having really steeped myself in that history at one point, it was beyond clear that because we had no standing army and militias were to be ready to be called upon to defend against any invasion (for instance, England or France at that time), and the qualifying paragraph about militias in the second amendment, that they were always talking about militias.

What I did not know is this really interesting history of the NRA. It ends up that this STY "YOU'LL HAVE TO KILL ME I'M A MAN KILL ME I'M A MAN KILL ME I'M A MAN" disease arose very recently in our history.

Anyway, anyone who believes the founders envisioned the wholesale slaughter of our children and every nutball with a machine gun, is an idiot. This conversation here will never end. On this board I mean. It's pointless. All it does is serve as a showcase for a bunch of highly insecure males to prop up their flailing manhood by publically fantasizing about the government coming to get their guns and how they're going to make their stand. They will be vaporized just like every other loonball who got the same idea in their heads have been. It's a joke and so are they.

Hopefully in the real world beyond this fantasy playground, we can one day have a sane conversation about guns.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore?currentPage=all
Click to expand...

Good article. I like the way the author treated the gun lesson and the instructor.
 
Interesting...

That’s because forty per cent of the guns purchased in the United States are bought from private sellers at gun shows, or through other private exchanges, such as classified ads, which fall under what is known as the “gun-show loophole” and are thus unregulated.
 
Howey said:
Interesting...

That’s because forty per cent of the guns purchased in the United States are bought from private sellers at gun shows, or through other private exchanges, such as classified ads, which fall under what is known as the “gun-show loophole” and are thus unregulated.
Click to expand...

Again, the "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. There is no loophole.

As for the lack of background checks, do you really want the people you have described as irresponsible or worse, having access to background check information? At the very least it would mean giving your full name, driver's licence number and social security number to a stranger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top