IGX

Turdacious wrote:

BucketHead wrote:

Turdacious wrote:200+ years of jurisprudence, recent SC decisions especially, make it pretty clear what it means.

Ahh... yes, the oft-used-when-it-suits-your-opinion jurisprudence from Supreme Court. So I guess there's no more debate on abortion, then, either. Cases closed.

What the hell are you talking about? And if you think there aren't a lot of issues regarding abortion that aren't still open (despite Roe v. Wade), you haven't been paying much attention.

BucketHead wrote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I cannot fathom how anyone can say that this sentence makes everything crystal clear on who should be allowed to own what. It simply is vague as fuck and seems to be inexorably linked to a well regulated militia.

BucketHead wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote: shitting on the Bill of Rights

All of this thread, other threads, and any gun control discussion really, is simply about one fucking sentence scribed 200+ years ago:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I cannot fathom how anyone can say that this sentence makes everything crystal clear on who should be allowed to own what. It simply is vague as fuck and seems to be inexorably linked to a well regulated militia.

So to call debating or questioning this amendment "shitting on the Bill of Rights" is ludicrous.

And to think anyone questioning this as having an agenda to get rid of all firearms everywhere is even more ludicrous.

But if you ever peel your cap back with the black mack till your back crack, then that's just ludacris.

BucketHead wrote:

Pinky wrote:a determined attacker could massacre children with machetes purchased from Lowes.

For a smart individual you make silly arguments on this subject. No one doubts someone COULD massacre with knives, machetes, etc... but you have to be shitting me if you think it would happen even a fraction of the time it does now.

Suburban white "killers" are pussies down deep, at least that's what seems to come out of all these school shootings. Pussies wouldn't have the cajones to go into a school and kill people with knives.

Who here can remember the first time they had to finish off their hunted wild game by knife. My initial shot from a distance was easy, but it was down right hard to look into their eyes and feel their breath and finish it with a blade.

There is absolutely no difference between this and the military's use of drones, even airplanes. Detached killing is much easier to initially accomplish.

Beginning on April 6, 1994, and for the next hundred days, up to 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia using clubs and machetes, with as many as 10,000 killed each day.

But a detailed report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights - leaked to Le Monde - maps “the most serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law” committed within the DR Congo in 1993-2003: namely, charges that civilians were systematically attacked on a large scale. A summary on paragraph 512 reads:

“These attacks resulted in a very large number of victims, probably tens of thousands of members of the Hutu ethnic group, all nationalities combined. In the vast majority of cases reported, it was not a question of people killed unintentionally in the course of combat, but people targeted primarily by [Rwandan and allied] forces and executed in their hundreds, often with edged weapons. The majority of the victims were children, women, elderly people and the sick, who posed no threat to the attacking forces

nafod wrote:

BucketHead wrote:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I cannot fathom how anyone can say that this sentence makes everything crystal clear on who should be allowed to own what. It simply is vague as fuck and seems to be inexorably linked to a well regulated militia.

Actually, the SC recently ruled that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is to be interpreted as "blah, blah, blah-de-blah, blah"

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Once you start making book length posts it's time to take a breather so I'm taking a break from this subject for a few days. This is an interesting perspective from a mass shooting survivor.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sEYGcXSmpQ[/youtube]
P.S.
I her.

Turdacious wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Once you start making book length posts it's time to take a breather so I'm taking a break from this subject for a few days. This is an interesting perspective from a mass shooting survivor.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sEYGcXSmpQ[/youtube]
P.S.
I her.

Her father-- certified badass. Her mother-- pretty much the same. Cool vid.

DARTH wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

DrDonkeyLove wrote:Once you start making book length posts it's time to take a breather so I'm taking a break from this subject for a few days. This is an interesting perspective from a mass shooting survivor.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sEYGcXSmpQ[/youtube]
P.S.
I her.

Her father-- certified badass. Her mother-- pretty much the same. Cool vid.

And this is who the media should be talking to on tv, not some cunt celebraty from the city. She calls bullshit on most of the anti "Assult rifle" talk. Her point about the magazines are spot on, 5, 10 or 30 rounds it makes no diffeence if your killing the unarmed as to how often you have to do a mag change.

It makes all the difference in a firefight and that's why certian politicains and the HNIC want to limit your mag capacity. Puts you at a bigger disadvantage when facing a full auto/burst fire H&K 416 w/ 30 rd mags armed FEMA troopers with your bushmaster AR-15 when you have to chage every 10 rounds.

This is not about safety it's about control.

Batboy2/75 wrote:Virginia Tech shooter was armed with two pistols: one with a ten round capacity (Walther P22) and one with a 15 round capacity (Glock 19).

nafod wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Virginia Tech shooter was armed with two pistols: one with a ten round capacity (Walther P22) and one with a 15 round capacity (Glock 19).

Thanks for supporting the loopholes that allowed this nutcase to buy the weapons and kill all those people.

nafod wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:Virginia Tech shooter was armed with two pistols: one with a ten round capacity (Walther P22) and one with a 15 round capacity (Glock 19).

Thanks for supporting the loopholes that allowed this nutcase to buy the weapons and kill all those people.

ecalpal wrote:
Those pistols weren't banned.

nafod wrote:

ecalpal wrote:
Those pistols weren't banned.

They were to him since he was mentally ill, but he got them anyway. They fixed the hole after the fact.

nafod wrote:

ecalpal wrote:
Those pistols weren't banned.

They were to him since he was mentally ill, but he got them anyway. They fixed the hole after the fact.

ecalpal wrote:

nafod wrote:

ecalpal wrote:
Those pistols weren't banned.

They were to him since he was mentally ill, but he got them anyway. They fixed the hole after the fact.

I'm not really certain what you're trying to accomplish.

Are you playing devil's advocate... just for the sake of it?

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

When NBC News decided to broadcast parts of the package of video and pictures which Cho Seung Hui had chosen to send to it alone, the television network knew that it would be accused of failing to resist a scoop beyond its dreams, and of pursuing sensationalism and its own profit at the expense of national sensitivity and safety.

It was. Victims’ relatives abruptly cancelled television appearances in protest. The police, who saw the material before it was broadcast, later said they were sorry that people who were not used to such images were exposed to them. Others attacked NBC on the classic grounds that this would give Cho the oxygen of publicity (an awkward metaphor, given that he is dead), grant his wish for immortality and prompt copycats.

Yet NBC, which says it broadcast only after fierce internal debate, and tightly limited the choice and repetition of the material, was surely right to go ahead. People’s shock this week is understandable. But that has brought a tendency to exaggerate the distress or danger of the broadcast, and to dismiss the useful conclusions from seeing it — and even the reassurance it gives.

Watching just a few minutes of the rambling manifesto of paranoia answers the question the US has asked itself for three days: why did he do it? Cho was clearly mentally ill, not simply a troubled student in a bad patch, or someone who snapped under sudden strain; on its own, that is reassuring. Nothing was impulsive, from the purchase of the two guns in two months, to the obsessive assembly of pictures and speeches-to-camera in a digital collage. The paranoia, the sexual and religious metaphors, the flailing accusations at rich classmates and Jesus, the conviction that he had a cancer of the mind — these tell us that the quest to “understand what made him do it” is not going to take us far.

That answer might seem brusque. Yet the video shows how different Cho was from his classmates and from the population (despite the mild American accent which showed he had drawn something from the culture). He was not even much like Islamic suicide bombers, although his recording resembles their final messages, with the black terrorist garb and the weapons. But they spell out their jihadist cause with faux-military succinctness; his had the coherence of a bedroom stack of horror comics, ripped and pasted together. Virginia Tech, and his classmates, might also find it reassuring that his sentiments in the video were so well hidden behind his almost complete silence in daily life, even if they leaked into his literature classes, to general alarm. Nick Jeremiah, a graduate student, said of the video: “That’s got to be more than he’s spoken, ever. I thought, ‘Well, he does talk’.” As one university official pointed out, Cho’s room-mate had not felt cause to sound the alarm, nor five others living close by, however clearly the video shows his disturbance. But this also shows how hard it is to anticipate other cases, although many now seem to be itching to demand this feat of foresight of poetry teachers and counsellors.

The accusation that the NBC broadcasts may provoke copycat attacks — the most serious charge against the network — appears to rest on a notion of severe mental illness as contagious, common and predictable. True, someone who is severely disturbed might want to better Cho’s “record” — but that does not mean that if his video were kept off the airwaves that person would not find other provocation.

j-cubed wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

One question, WHY?

j-cubed wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote:

One question, WHY?