Colorado: Think it Through!

[taichiliberal]

Great Progressive Leaders throughout the ages have thrived when their citizens were unarmed.

Get your head out of Limbaugh's (or whatever right wingnut punditry you use to support your ass backwards beliefs) fat ass and THINK IT THROUGH!

Guys like you had NO PROBLEM with the Patriot Act, which essentially can put you or I on a NSA watch list and denied commericial airline travel because of a couple of internet searches using certain key phrases. Yet some clown can load up with thousands of rounds of ammo, various para-military equipment and not raise an eyebrow. Something ain't right there, bunky.

 

[thanatos144]

Well, here we go again. Another nut job in Colorado goes on a planned killing spree with a personal arsenal he easily and legally obtained. Pro-gun control and NRA pundits once again fill the internet, radio, television and print media with the old argument: just how many guns are necessary to obtain total personal protection?

The one aspect of all this has always fascinated me: The idea of allowing any law abiding citizen to qualify and carry a concealed weapon anywhere and everywhere in the U.S.A.

You already had some local ex-politician suggest that if you had a few people strapped via a CWP (concealed weapon permit) in that theatre, this tragedy may have had fewer lives lost.

Now let's think that one through: the perpetraitor comes into a dark theatre lit only by the big screen, hurls smoke bombs and then opens fire with a semi-automatic. Panic ensues....people screaming, hiding, running, choking. Now let's add to the mix some CWP citizen brandishing his/her weapon while trying to get a bead on the perpetraitor for a clear shot. Maybe they get jumped and beaten by panicked patrons thinking this person is in league with the killer...maybe the CWP person fires off a few rounds and accidently hits people trying to flee...or maybe the CWP person actually hits and kills the perpetraitor, only to be shot by the police who show up at the scene with very little description, or they get beaten to near death by panicked patrons who literally don't know which end is up.

Bottom line: yes, across the country you've had some incidences where a CWP has stopped a crime....that's a rarity and a specific set of circumstances. Having a population strapped 24/7 like the Old West would NOT have bode well at Columbine, or Virginia Tech...and damned near got the hero of the Arizona shooting killed!

Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy.

Just think it through folks.

Let's translate this shall we? It says " hi I am a freedom hating progressive who thinks everyone who wants liberty is just selfish and to stupid to handle such responsibility. Now that some madman murdered several people like a scumbag I am going to use the dead as a prop to show everyone they are to stupid to handle freedom."

Let me answer you by saying **** you you little prick . The only one to stupid to handle freedom is ignorant asswipes like you who readily surender thiers

 

[Ariux]

It's very true that if someone in the audience had a gun, the casualty list could have been much smaller. But, I wouldn't advocate mass gun ownership to stop the rare nut going on a killing spree. Guns protect thousands of people every day, and prevent the need to report something in the paper the next day.

Banning guns would either be ineffective (ala illegal marijuana) or would cause someone like Holmes to use other means, which could possibly be much more deadly (ala Tim McVeigh).

But, it's fine with me if I have to defend myself from a Trayvon with a baseball bat. That might be a little more cathartic than to simply pop him in the chest with a pistol. (As per the Trayvon rule, you have to kill him, flush the turd down the toilet, and not call the police.) The trouble is, little old ladies couldn't splatter a Trayvon with a baseball bat. They need a gun.

 

[taichiliberal]

Now let's think that one through: the perpetraitor comes into a dark theatre lit only by the big screen, hurls smoke bombs and then opens fire with a semi-automatic. Panic ensues....people screaming, hiding, running, choking. Now let's add to the mix some CWP citizen brandishing his/her weapon while trying to get a bead on the perpetraitor for a clear shot. Maybe they get jumped and beaten by panicked patrons thinking this person is in league with the killer...maybe the CWP person fires off a few rounds and accidently hits people trying to flee...or maybe the CWP person actually hits and kills the perpetraitor, only to be shot by the police who show up at the scene with very little description, or they get beaten to near death by panicked patrons who literally don't know which end is up.

There is a major flaw with this argument. While citizens packing heat at the location may not have proven particularly beneficial in this particular instance, you are explicitly outlining several details of this incident that make it unique to gun violence in general. You're proving that you're actually committing fallacy of accident. If the majority of violent gun crimes took place in dark movie theaters and involved smoke bombs, your point could have more merit. But of course, that's not the case.

I didn't say my scenario was a blue print for all such cases involving CWP and I defy you to point out were I did so exactly. I merely pointed out that the pro-CWP mentality WOULD NOT WORK in this case....as some people have alluded that it would.

Bottom line: yes, across the country you've had some incidences where a CWP has stopped a crime....that's a rarity and a specific set of circumstances.

I'll indulge you for a moment that it is indeed a rarity and under specific circumstances. We need to still put together the cause and effect. I would imagine that the commission or attempted commission of violent gun crimes against CCW permitted individuals who happen to be carrying at the time of a given incident is a relative rarity itself. The statistic that would be of relevance here, then, would be specifically narrow the scope to those instances, and identify the proportion of those instances where a person subsequently defended themselves successfully thanks to having their weapon on their person at the time.

Tell you what, do a google search with the following words "accidental shootings concealed carry", and you'll see that your supposition and conjecture just doesn't hold water in reality.

Having a population strapped 24/7 like the Old West would NOT have bode well at Columbine, or Virginia Tech.

You need to support this assertion.

Think it through: A bunch of armed teachers (with no training for situations like these) running to stop a roaming gunman (or roaming gunmen), among panicked students running all over the place to hide. Go back and read the chronology of each event; the perpetraitors did NOT walk into a class room, start shooting students and totally ignore the (potential CWP) teacher. Logical deduction based on FACTS indicate CWP would result in more chaos and deaths in these cases.

 

[taichiliberal]

IMHO, that wasn't the problem...the problem was that this guy was LEGALLY able to stock up on weapons and ammo and para-military equipment(was it 6 or 60 rounds of ammo bought off the internet) WITHOUT setting off any red flags. Hell, you and I use certain words in a google search and we appear on an NSA hot sheet!

But like I said, having a slew of people walking around strapped 24/7 isn't the solution.

I agree with your point about him being able to purchase all the ammo he did and the body armor off the net but how do you deal with that as soon as someone mentions trying regulate the web all hell breaks loose and that is seen as unacceptable.

The same people who think that gun control will regulate guns are the same people who think that drug control won't work in regulating marijuana use.

No they dont'.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, here we go again. Another nut job in Colorado goes on a planned killing spree with a personal arsenal he easily and legally obtained. Pro-gun control and NRA pundits once again fill the internet, radio, television and print media with the old argument: just how many guns are necessary to obtain total personal protection?

The one aspect of all this has always fascinated me: The idea of allowing any law abiding citizen to qualify and carry a concealed weapon anywhere and everywhere in the U.S.A.

You already had some local ex-politician suggest that if you had a few people strapped via a CWP (concealed weapon permit) in that theatre, this tragedy may have had fewer lives lost.

Now let's think that one through: the perpetraitor comes into a dark theatre lit only by the big screen, hurls smoke bombs and then opens fire with a semi-automatic. Panic ensues....people screaming, hiding, running, choking. Now let's add to the mix some CWP citizen brandishing his/her weapon while trying to get a bead on the perpetraitor for a clear shot. Maybe they get jumped and beaten by panicked patrons thinking this person is in league with the killer...maybe the CWP person fires off a few rounds and accidently hits people trying to flee...or maybe the CWP person actually hits and kills the perpetraitor, only to be shot by the police who show up at the scene with very little description, or they get beaten to near death by panicked patrons who literally don't know which end is up.

Bottom line: yes, across the country you've had some incidences where a CWP has stopped a crime....that's a rarity and a specific set of circumstances. Having a population strapped 24/7 like the Old West would NOT have bode well at Columbine, or Virginia Tech...and damned near got the hero of the Arizona shooting killed!

Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy.

Just think it through folks.

Yes, it’s incumbent upon every CCW holder to know when and when not to use his firearm. The Colorado shooting would be such an incident where an armed civilian response might likely have made things worse.

 

[taichiliberal]

Well, here we go again. Another nut job in Colorado goes on a planned killing spree with a personal arsenal he easily and legally obtained. Pro-gun control and NRA pundits once again fill the internet, radio, television and print media with the old argument: just how many guns are necessary to obtain total personal protection?

The one aspect of all this has always fascinated me: The idea of allowing any law abiding citizen to qualify and carry a concealed weapon anywhere and everywhere in the U.S.A.

You already had some local ex-politician suggest that if you had a few people strapped via a CWP (concealed weapon permit) in that theatre, this tragedy may have had fewer lives lost.

Now let's think that one through: the perpetraitor comes into a dark theatre lit only by the big screen, hurls smoke bombs and then opens fire with a semi-automatic. Panic ensues....people screaming, hiding, running, choking. Now let's add to the mix some CWP citizen brandishing his/her weapon while trying to get a bead on the perpetraitor for a clear shot. Maybe they get jumped and beaten by panicked patrons thinking this person is in league with the killer...maybe the CWP person fires off a few rounds and accidently hits people trying to flee...or maybe the CWP person actually hits and kills the perpetraitor, only to be shot by the police who show up at the scene with very little description, or they get beaten to near death by panicked patrons who literally don't know which end is up.

Bottom line: yes, across the country you've had some incidences where a CWP has stopped a crime....that's a rarity and a specific set of circumstances. Having a population strapped 24/7 like the Old West would NOT have bode well at Columbine, or Virginia Tech...and damned near got the hero of the Arizona shooting killed!

Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy.

Just think it through folks.

Let's translate this shall we? It says " hi I am a freedom hating progressive who thinks everyone who wants liberty is just selfish and to stupid to handle such responsibility. Now that some madman murdered several people like a scumbag I am going to use the dead as a prop to show everyone they are to stupid to handle freedom."

Let me answer you by saying **** you you little prick . The only one to stupid to handle freedom is ignorant asswipes like you who readily surender thiers

You're not too bright, are ya bunky? Maybe you missed this part of my OP, "...Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy."

Now take a deep breath, wipe the spittle from your screen and read the OP again....carefully and comprehensively. If you STILL don't get it, then get an adult to explain it to you. Carry on.

 

[taichiliberal]

Well, here we go again. Another nut job in Colorado goes on a planned killing spree with a personal arsenal he easily and legally obtained. Pro-gun control and NRA pundits once again fill the internet, radio, television and print media with the old argument: just how many guns are necessary to obtain total personal protection?

The one aspect of all this has always fascinated me: The idea of allowing any law abiding citizen to qualify and carry a concealed weapon anywhere and everywhere in the U.S.A.

You already had some local ex-politician suggest that if you had a few people strapped via a CWP (concealed weapon permit) in that theatre, this tragedy may have had fewer lives lost.

Now let's think that one through: the perpetraitor comes into a dark theatre lit only by the big screen, hurls smoke bombs and then opens fire with a semi-automatic. Panic ensues....people screaming, hiding, running, choking. Now let's add to the mix some CWP citizen brandishing his/her weapon while trying to get a bead on the perpetraitor for a clear shot. Maybe they get jumped and beaten by panicked patrons thinking this person is in league with the killer...maybe the CWP person fires off a few rounds and accidently hits people trying to flee...or maybe the CWP person actually hits and kills the perpetraitor, only to be shot by the police who show up at the scene with very little description, or they get beaten to near death by panicked patrons who literally don't know which end is up.

Bottom line: yes, across the country you've had some incidences where a CWP has stopped a crime....that's a rarity and a specific set of circumstances. Having a population strapped 24/7 like the Old West would NOT have bode well at Columbine, or Virginia Tech...and damned near got the hero of the Arizona shooting killed!

Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy.

Just think it through folks.

Yes, it’s incumbent upon every CCW holder to know when and when not to use his firearm. The Colorado shooting would be such an incident where an armed civilian response might likely have made things worse.

Once more for the cheap seats: Now let's think that one through: the perpetraitor comes into a dark theatre lit only by the big screen, hurls smoke bombs and then opens fire with a semi-automatic. Panic ensues....people screaming, hiding, running, choking. Now let's add to the mix some CWP citizen brandishing his/her weapon while trying to get a bead on the perpetraitor for a clear shot. Maybe they get jumped and beaten by panicked patrons thinking this person is in league with the killer...maybe the CWP person fires off a few rounds and accidently hits people trying to flee...or maybe the CWP person actually hits and kills the perpetraitor, only to be shot by the police who show up at the scene with very little description, or they get beaten to near death by panicked patrons who literally don't know which end is up.

 

[thanatos144]

Well, here we go again. Another nut job in Colorado goes on a planned killing spree with a personal arsenal he easily and legally obtained. Pro-gun control and NRA pundits once again fill the internet, radio, television and print media with the old argument: just how many guns are necessary to obtain total personal protection?

The one aspect of all this has always fascinated me: The idea of allowing any law abiding citizen to qualify and carry a concealed weapon anywhere and everywhere in the U.S.A.

You already had some local ex-politician suggest that if you had a few people strapped via a CWP (concealed weapon permit) in that theatre, this tragedy may have had fewer lives lost.

Now let's think that one through: the perpetraitor comes into a dark theatre lit only by the big screen, hurls smoke bombs and then opens fire with a semi-automatic. Panic ensues....people screaming, hiding, running, choking. Now let's add to the mix some CWP citizen brandishing his/her weapon while trying to get a bead on the perpetraitor for a clear shot. Maybe they get jumped and beaten by panicked patrons thinking this person is in league with the killer...maybe the CWP person fires off a few rounds and accidently hits people trying to flee...or maybe the CWP person actually hits and kills the perpetraitor, only to be shot by the police who show up at the scene with very little description, or they get beaten to near death by panicked patrons who literally don't know which end is up.

Bottom line: yes, across the country you've had some incidences where a CWP has stopped a crime....that's a rarity and a specific set of circumstances. Having a population strapped 24/7 like the Old West would NOT have bode well at Columbine, or Virginia Tech...and damned near got the hero of the Arizona shooting killed!

Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy.

Just think it through folks.

Let's translate this shall we? It says " hi I am a freedom hating progressive who thinks everyone who wants liberty is just selfish and to stupid to handle such responsibility. Now that some madman murdered several people like a scumbag I am going to use the dead as a prop to show everyone they are to stupid to handle freedom."

Let me answer you by saying **** you you little prick . The only one to stupid to handle freedom is ignorant asswipes like you who readily surender thiers

You're not too bright, are ya bunky? Maybe you missed this part of my OP, "...Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy."

Now take a deep breath, wipe the spittle from your screen and read the OP again....carefully and comprehensively. If you STILL don't get it, then get an adult to explain it to you. Carry on.

I read it spanky and my translation was dead on. If you don't want people to expose you for the ignorant little facist prick you are don't post facist bullshit.

 

[LAfrique]

Well, here we go again. Another nut job in Colorado goes on a planned killing spree with a personal arsenal he easily and legally obtained. Pro-gun control and NRA pundits once again fill the internet, radio, television and print media with the old argument: just how many guns are necessary to obtain total personal protection?

The one aspect of all this has always fascinated me: The idea of allowing any law abiding citizen to qualify and carry a concealed weapon anywhere and everywhere in the U.S.A.

You already had some local ex-politician suggest that if you had a few people strapped via a CWP (concealed weapon permit) in that theatre, this tragedy may have had fewer lives lost.

Now let's think that one through: the perpetraitor comes into a dark theatre lit only by the big screen, hurls smoke bombs and then opens fire with a semi-automatic. Panic ensues....people screaming, hiding, running, choking. Now let's add to the mix some CWP citizen brandishing his/her weapon while trying to get a bead on the perpetraitor for a clear shot. Maybe they get jumped and beaten by panicked patrons thinking this person is in league with the killer...maybe the CWP person fires off a few rounds and accidently hits people trying to flee...or maybe the CWP person actually hits and kills the perpetraitor, only to be shot by the police who show up at the scene with very little description, or they get beaten to near death by panicked patrons who literally don't know which end is up.

Bottom line: yes, across the country you've had some incidences where a CWP has stopped a crime....that's a rarity and a specific set of circumstances. Having a population strapped 24/7 like the Old West would NOT have bode well at Columbine, or Virginia Tech...and damned near got the hero of the Arizona shooting killed!

Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy.

Just think it through folks.

How did James Holmes get 6,000 rounds of ammos without raising suspicion or setting alarm, when my mails are scanned daily by government and I cannot even go into courthouse in Texas without being asked to take off my belt or my shoes?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Great Progressive Leaders throughout the ages have thrived when their citizens were unarmed.

Get your head out of Limbaugh's (or whatever right wingnut punditry you use to support your ass backwards beliefs) fat ass and THINK IT THROUGH!

Guys like you had NO PROBLEM with the Patriot Act, which essentially can put you or I on a NSA watch list and denied commericial airline travel because of a couple of internet searches using certain key phrases. Yet some clown can load up with thousands of rounds of ammo, various para-military equipment and not raise an eyebrow. Something ain't right there, bunky.

Excuse me?

Where the **** do you get off trying to think for me or imagine what I had a problem with? You're swamped trying to think for yourself (you didn't think that! someone else thought that for you!)

If you're making overseas calls to a cave in Pashtun maybe you should be on a no-fly list. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Peach]

op makes sense so of course, the rw's will ignore that in favor of silly nonsense like, "we should outlaw cars since cares kill people".

My question is, why must ANY person be able to buy tear gas canisters and assault weapons? Hunting? Self defense?

how is tear gas used for self defense? If there's a bad guy outside your door, do you just throw the tear gas outside at him?

Problem is, we've let the gun lobby own us.

No one is trying to take anyone's gun away from them. I also own guns. BUT, say one word about gun shows being a criminal's supermarket or, as I said, assault weapons and tear gas, and you get the ghost of Charlton Heston screeching at congress.

And, as we've seen, rw's really really really REALLY want to believe that President Obama is after their guns and their bibles. Its horseshit of course and they know that but ole lushbo, whose fat ass just barely fits into the hip pocket of the NRA started a great little Chicken Little scare and made the gun makers damn happy. Then of course, lil glenny beck got into the act and gun sales went through the roof.

Sad and sappy but the R's are just hoping, waiting, wishing for a Dem so say something really radical - like - maybe gun shows shouldn't be able to sell to any felon who walks into the tent.

kHate to think what froot loops like Alan West would use that for. For my part, I'm sick of watching these rw liars step over the dead bodies of children to pimp for the next election.

One point: is it confirmed that he purchased the gas canisters, or were they home made?

Some of the the bombs were modified fireworks explosives, his apartment evidenced quite a lot of work on his part alone. No firearm threat, it was a BOMB in & of itself.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Yes, it’s incumbent upon every CCW holder to know when and when not to use his firearm. The Colorado shooting would be such an incident where an armed civilian response might likely have made things worse.

Worse than laying on the floor and getting executed ?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Now let's think that one through

That would be a first for you.

 

[Big Fitz]

Great Progressive Leaders throughout the ages have thrived when their citizens were unarmed.

Get your head out of Limbaugh's (or whatever right wingnut punditry you use to support your ass backwards beliefs) fat ass and THINK IT THROUGH!

Guys like you had NO PROBLEM with the Patriot Act, which essentially can put you or I on a NSA watch list and denied commericial airline travel because of a couple of internet searches using certain key phrases. Yet some clown can load up with thousands of rounds of ammo, various para-military equipment and not raise an eyebrow. Something ain't right there, bunky.

Excuse me?

Where the **** do you get off trying to think for me or imagine what I had a problem with? You're swamped trying to think for yourself (you didn't think that! someone else thought that for you!)

If you're making overseas calls to a cave in Pashtun maybe you should be on a no-fly list. Why is that so hard to understand?

You're probably right. Someone else did think for him. It's hard enough for him to read the talking points or pass them on through type.

 

[taichiliberal]

Let's translate this shall we? It says " hi I am a freedom hating progressive who thinks everyone who wants liberty is just selfish and to stupid to handle such responsibility. Now that some madman murdered several people like a scumbag I am going to use the dead as a prop to show everyone they are to stupid to handle freedom."

Let me answer you by saying **** you you little prick . The only one to stupid to handle freedom is ignorant asswipes like you who readily surender thiers

You're not too bright, are ya bunky? Maybe you missed this part of my OP, "...Does this mean we take away everyone's guns? Nope. Does this mean we severely limit weapons to a select few? Nope. But this does mean that we have to take some simple steps to make sure that any joker without a rap sheet can load up for WW3 or some sick Turner Diary fantasy."

Now take a deep breath, wipe the spittle from your screen and read the OP again....carefully and comprehensively. If you STILL don't get it, then get an adult to explain it to you. Carry on.

I read it spanky and my translation was dead on. If you don't want people to expose you for the ignorant little facist prick you are don't post facist bullshit.

Thanatos is not too bright, is he folks? I mean I state in no uncertain terms I'm not about taking away his widdle gun, or making gun ownership an elitist thing. And yet, because I point out that thinking a CWP guy at the Colorado theatre would have saved the day is absurd, and that there needs to be some adjustment to our security system when any yahoo can load up for the next Civil War with 6K ammo and an assault rifle (with armor, gas canisters, etc.) from the 'net and no one blinks an eye, Thanatos becomes unglued.

Get a grip, Thanatos...learn to read and get your head out of the NRA's and Limbaugh's collective asses.

 

[taichiliberal]

Great Progressive Leaders throughout the ages have thrived when their citizens were unarmed.

Get your head out of Limbaugh's (or whatever right wingnut punditry you use to support your ass backwards beliefs) fat ass and THINK IT THROUGH!

Guys like you had NO PROBLEM with the Patriot Act, which essentially can put you or I on a NSA watch list and denied commericial airline travel because of a couple of internet searches using certain key phrases. Yet some clown can load up with thousands of rounds of ammo, various para-military equipment and not raise an eyebrow. Something ain't right there, bunky.

Excuse me?

Where the **** do you get off trying to think for me or imagine what I had a problem with? You're swamped trying to think for yourself (you didn't think that! someone else thought that for you!)

If you're making overseas calls to a cave in Pashtun maybe you should be on a no-fly list. Why is that so hard to understand?

You're boring everyone with this dodge and blatant stupidity of yours, Frankie.

Yeah, you sound as dumb as Limbaugh or Levine or Crowley or God knows what other neocon/teabagger/libertary wack job out there who's too ******* dumb and proud to recognize when they're being used by gun manufacturers and their street pimp the NRA.

So if I make a call to Pashtun to relatives or friends, then it's okay to be put on a no fly list but if I buy enough guns, ammo and armor and the like off the internet to start a small war no one should bat an eye? And that makes sense to you? Gee, if the next guy does the same but is brown skinned and of a different religion, I'll wager a weeks pay you'd change your tune right quick.

Grow the **** up and think it through, Frankie.

 

[taichiliberal]

Yes, it’s incumbent upon every CCW holder to know when and when not to use his firearm. The Colorado shooting would be such an incident where an armed civilian response might likely have made things worse.

Worse than laying on the floor and getting executed ?

Yeah, like MORE people getting shot accidently while fleeing, or the CWP shooter getting beaten to death by people thinking he's in on the massacre or accidently getting shot by the cops who don't know who is who.

 

[taichiliberal]

Get your head out of Limbaugh's (or whatever right wingnut punditry you use to support your ass backwards beliefs) fat ass and THINK IT THROUGH!

Guys like you had NO PROBLEM with the Patriot Act, which essentially can put you or I on a NSA watch list and denied commericial airline travel because of a couple of internet searches using certain key phrases. Yet some clown can load up with thousands of rounds of ammo, various para-military equipment and not raise an eyebrow. Something ain't right there, bunky.

Excuse me?

Where the **** do you get off trying to think for me or imagine what I had a problem with? You're swamped trying to think for yourself (you didn't think that! someone else thought that for you!)

If you're making overseas calls to a cave in Pashtun maybe you should be on a no-fly list. Why is that so hard to understand?

You're probably right. Someone else did think for him. It's hard enough for him to read the talking points or pass them on through type.

Tweedle dumb comforting Tweedle dumber...how cute. The chronology of the posts shows how I lay waste to both these idiots, and their lame retorts.

 

[taichiliberal]

It's very true that if someone in the audience had a gun, the casualty list could have been much smaller. But, I wouldn't advocate mass gun ownership to stop the rare nut going on a killing spree. Guns protect thousands of people every day, and prevent the need to report something in the paper the next day.

Banning guns would either be ineffective (ala illegal marijuana) or would cause someone like Holmes to use other means, which could possibly be much more deadly (ala Tim McVeigh).

But, it's fine with me if I have to defend myself from a Trayvon with a baseball bat. That might be a little more cathartic than to simply pop him in the chest with a pistol. (As per the Trayvon rule, you have to kill him, flush the turd down the toilet, and not call the police.) The trouble is, little old ladies couldn't splatter a Trayvon with a baseball bat. They need a gun.

Folks, please note that Ariux is just another dumb little David Duke wanna be that turns any and every post into an platform to spew his racial hatred regarding another topic. Note that he has NOTHING to say about the FACT that the prepetraitor in Columbine was as white guy just like him.

The OP says nothing about banning guns, but questions the regulations and security of our country that allows people to load up like this guy did.

I'm putting Ariux back on IA....I suggest others do the same and let the little bigoted dope flail in vain.