Goner Message Board
 | Forums | Register | Reply | Search | Statistics | Manual |
Goner Message Board / ???? / 2 Killed 8 Injured Shooting Outside Empire State Building
Posted: Aug 24, 2012 1:23 pm
 
"Kelly said that some of those injured in the incident may have been hit by police bullets, adding that the injured are expected to survive."
Ha-Ha-Ha-Heeee-Heee!!!! Wasn't Spiderman supposed prevent this from happening?
Posted: Aug 26, 2012 12:04 am
 
theres no evidence that the gunman fired even a single shot other than when he killed his co worker. the mainstream media paints it as yet another mass murder, but in this case the reality is the cops acted with dangerous disregard for the welfare of innocent bystanders. the shooter and his victim had a long history of animosity towards one another, this was a targeted murder not a mass shooting spree.
Posted: Aug 26, 2012 10:52 am
 
just more proof against that whole "if everyone was armed, there would be no shootings" bullshit theory...fucking "trained" officers shoot innocent bystanders...just imagine what a street filled with fat slob wannabe cops in Oakley sunglasses would do if they were all "strapped" and a shooting occurred.
Posted: Aug 26, 2012 3:54 pm
 
hopefully they would all shoot each other. most states, including my own, allow concealed carry legally now, and guess what? nothing has changed. just more proof against "if everyone was armed, they would be shooting the mailman and little kids trick or treating" bullshit theory. tens of fucking thousands of law abiding citizens carrying weapons, so far the only incident i have heard was of someone shooting a couple morons who had been robbing small businesses with a shotgun. no innocent bystanders shot.

all you have to do is look at areas and countries that have passed strict gun control legislation, criminals still have guns, and violent crime increases overall. more rapes, more robberies. seems criminals like the idea of law abiding unarmed victims, but i guess that is common sense. murder rate stays the same.
Posted: Aug 26, 2012 3:57 pm
 
also, i dont know how you would interpret the constitution saying we the people have the right to keep and bear arms. that says law abiding citizens have the right to carry guns, at least i am pretty sure the framers werent talking about the furry things hanging off a grizzlys torso when they said "bear arms"...
Posted: Aug 26, 2012 4:45 pm
 
Sorry, I just don't get the "it is more dangerous to ban large capacity magazines and assault weapons than it is to fill them with ammo and fire them into crowds of people" line of thinking. None of those law abiding Wisconsin citizens are carrying assault weapons on them. Let them carry a pistol, although I dont think it helps anything. I don't think a bunch of other guns in the NYC scenario would have made for a better outcome.

its called a "well regulated militia" according to the Bill of Rights...lets regulate that shit.
Posted: Aug 26, 2012 6:44 pm
 
fair enough. gotta draw a line somewhere, obviously keep and bear arms didnt mean everyone should have their own nukes or whatever. also, assault weapons are legal and may be carried in wisconsin, and no permit is required to buy or sell one.
Posted: Aug 27, 2012 12:08 am
 
Chicago's strict gun control laws seem to be working well.
Posted: Aug 27, 2012 9:30 am
 
If only every bystander had been armed to protect themselves from the cops protecting the bystanders.
Posted: Aug 27, 2012 12:05 pm
 
"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"

The 2nd Amendment is a clause, not two separate statements. The right to keep & bear arms clearly linked to a volunteer army, not automatic assault hand carried weapons for those who "need the protection".

remember, handguns were not yet invented when the Bill of Rights was ratified. The root of our success and industrialization, Colt's assembly line, is a particularly American thing. Guns 'r Us!
Posted: Aug 27, 2012 1:04 pm
 
The Genie is out of the bottle. Ban the high volume clips and assault set-ups, learn to live with the rest... it's the country's legacy and an active legacy at that.
Posted: Aug 27, 2012 3:31 pm
 
The 2nd Amendment is a clause, not two separate statements. The right to keep & bear arms clearly linked to a volunteer army, not automatic assault hand carried weapons for those who "need the protection".

that volunteer army was the american people, who for a time were required to keep a gun and ammunition in their possession. no they did not have hand guns, the law required them to keep and bear the exact same military rifles used in the revolutionary war.
Posted: Aug 27, 2012 6:48 pm
 
Madison, as a member of the Second Congress, and Washington, as the first President, had supported the Militia Acts of 1792, which gave each able-bodied white male of fighting age six months to "provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball."

Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.


this law was in effect until the early 1900s. it makes it clear what the framers had in mind with the second amendment, the fact that it would be bolstered by this act requiring every able bodied male to own a military grade gun and ammunition.
Posted: Aug 27, 2012 8:12 pm
 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/car-fleeing-police-kills-man- dog-early-morning-walk-new-jersey-article-1.1145487

driving fast kills people. most people could simply leave earlier, cars should not be able to drive over 10 mph, that would give victims more of a chance to get out of the way. either that or ban them altogether. far more people die from car accidents than gun violence in this country, and there is no constitutional right to own a car, especially one that can travel at highly dangerous speeds of over 10 mph.
Posted: Aug 27, 2012 8:20 pm
 
Guns don't kill people I Do!
Posted: Aug 27, 2012 9:56 pm
 
driving fast kills people. most people could simply leave earlier, cars should not be able to drive over 10 mph, that would give victims more of a chance to get out of the way. either that or ban them altogether. far more people die from car accidents than gun violence in this country, and there is no constitutional right to own a car, especially one that can travel at highly dangerous speeds of over 10 mph.

specious argument.

Cars have a primary function besides sometimes being used in killing people. I suppose in a "perfect storm" situation, a car could kill masses of people at once, but I'm pretty sure it isn't statistically high occurrence. Also, are the majority of driving deaths premeditated? Or accidents? Can you kill many people that are 100, 200 yards away from you with a car without actually having to get near them?

High Capacity magazines however, have NO other purpose but to allow a firearm to shoot many many bullets at once and without reloading. Assault rifles allow you to shoot with more accuracy from farther away. Kill more, kill faster, kill from further away. No sporting value...just for killin' people. (I am assuming you were talking about High Capacity/bigger/more powerful guns with your speed/car analogy)

And like you said, cars are a privilege, not a right...

The two are not comparable.
Top
Your Reply Click this icon to move up to the quoted message
 

 
Only registered users are allowed to post here. Please, enter your username/password details upon posting a message, or register first.

 
  Goner Message Board Powered by PHP Forum Software miniBB ®