Members V Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Getting back on topic here.... The Dark Knight Rises...... fuggin' sucked. An anti-Occupy propaganda film is what it really was, not an awesome conclusion to this Batman trilogy. I'm out for the weekend, chumps! Um. More like pro-occupy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 So if the government starts taking away peoples right to free speech and imprisoning us for speaking out, you'd be ok with this as well? I don't worship the costitution but I respect why it was made. Think of how this country came to be. Then think of the current state of things in the world. America has a lot of violence but are we like Rwanda or Syria or Palestine? Gun crime is horrible, but we don't have it nearly as bad. Go talk to families in the middle east that have had their children killed or maimed in front of them because they don't want to side with the radicals. Terrible {censored} happens everywhere. It happens in this country. No matter if it's because someone has a gun or a knife or bare fists. {censored}ed up people will do {censored} regardless. If someone is going to shoot someone, they might take longer to get the courage to kill someone with a knife or with their hands, but sooner or later they will test those waters. lol. just lol. this is like when people said you had to support dog {censored}ing and brother on brother marriage next if you supported gay rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members driverhasabomb Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 lol. just lol.this is like when people said you had to support dog {censored}ing and brother on brother marriage next if you supported gay rights. Just curious, what would you like to see happen in the country as far as gun control? Total ban? Ban anything that can accept large cap mags? No ban but make it much tougher to buy guns/ammo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 lol. just lol.this is like when people said you had to support dog {censored}ing and brother on brother marriage next if you supported gay rights. Dude, you have issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Most knife violence is fairly intimate, like 2 drunk guys fighting over a girl. Some totally innocent victim being killed by knife, like in a movie theater is pretty rare. Of the 1800 victims out there, I bet most of them knew each other, in some way. Actually a lot of murders more times than not deal with the victim knowing the murderer to some extent. That is fairly common regardless what was used as the murder weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Just curious, what would you like to see happen in the country as far as gun control? Total ban? Ban anything that can accept large cap mags? No ban but make it much tougher to buy guns/ammo? Total ban, ideally, unless you can prove you need the weapon for hunting to eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Dude, you have issues. You have problems with logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Aristotle Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Um. More like pro-occupy. yeah, no. Bane (representing the shadow leader of Occupy) marching on Wall Street, shooting up the NYSE, then taking down the corporation (Wayne Enterprises), and handing control over to the "people". The point of this being a people's revolution is then driven further home in the scene where Cat Woman laments "this home belonged to someone", to which her friend (an occupier) replies "and now it belongs to the people" The kafkaesque courts where the elites are brought already guilty in for sentencing in 'the court of public opinion'. Bruce Wayne (the entrepreneur - the only one who gave save civil society as we know it from absolute destruction and chaos) finding his way out of the prison by forgoing any safety nets or help from the other inmates, relying only on his own skill and determination - and a healthy fear of failing/dying - to rise out of despair. Totally a metaphor for how to succeed in a capitalist system. I'm not sure we both saw the same movie. Now I'm for reals out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IRG Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Dude, you have issues. I think we all do. We're arguing about guns and gun control on a guitar effects forum! We'll make such an impact with our words of wisdom here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 9520575 Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Everybody shut up the, movie, is about, to start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 THis is always the reason used when anyone talks about the 2nd amendment. "If you take our guns away, next is speech." No it's not, so stop it. We're talking about 1 issue here, not the whole constitution. The 1700s were a lot different than 2012. Maybe we need to adjust accordingly, that is all. Freedom of speech is not the right to bear arms, different topics, let's not intertwine them here. There was some debate at the time over what the first amendment should be - some felt it should actually be what is now called the second amendment - in large part because it is the one amendment that gives "teeth" to the others. IOW, the second amendment was put into place for a few reasons, but one of the big ones was to give the population a means of last resort that they could use to defend all of their rights against a tyrannical government that was set on eliminating them. Check your history - King George III wanted to remove the guns from the colonies. That was a definite contributing factor in the minds of the Framers insofar as the need for the second amendment. The first thing a despotic regime tries to do (if it hasn't been done already) is to remove firearms from private ownership. Tyranny is much easier to impose if the population has no means of resistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members driverhasabomb Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Total ban, ideally, unless you can prove you need the weapon for hunting to eat. But the person would have to prove a legitimate need for sustenance hunting? I can't imagine that would be more than a few hundred people in our entire country. Would somewhere like Alaska, where guns are often used for protection against wildlife, be exempt from the ban? What do you think about countries like Japan where someone can own a shotgun or rifle if they are licensed but unless you have license you can't even touch a gun? Is there anything else currently available to civilians you think should be entirely banned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted July 21, 2012 Share Posted July 21, 2012 Most knife violence is fairly intimate, like 2 drunk guys fighting over a girl. Some totally innocent victim being killed by knife, like in a movie theater is pretty rare. Of the 1800 victims out there, I bet most of them knew each other, in some way. That's true of the vast majority of homicides, regardless of the method the killer used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mhuxtable Posted July 21, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Total ban, ideally, unless you can prove you need the weapon for hunting to eat. And what would you do about the criminals with guns breaking into houses knowing that everyone is unarmed? Just tell the public to suck it up and call 911 as fast as you can? I'm not meaning this to be sarcastic....honestly interested in how you'd solve that issue. And then what about tyranny? Guns are part of how we founded this nation in the first place...we fought back against a tyrannical government....how do you propose with fight back if our leaders become overly oppressive and sickly tyrannical? Edit: Doh! Phil beat me to it...post 311 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IRG Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 There was some debate at the time over what the first amendment should be - some felt it should actually be what is now called the second amendment - in large part because it is the one amendment that gives "teeth" to the others. IOW, the second amendment was put into place for a few reasons, but one of the big ones was to give the population a means of last resort that they could use to defend all of their rights against a tyrannical government that was set on eliminating them. Check your history - King George wanted to remove the guns from the colonies. That was a definite contributing factor in the minds of the Framers insofar as the need for the second amendment. The first thing a despotic regime tries to do (if it hasn't been done already) is to remove firearms from private ownership. Tyranny is much easier to impose if the population has no means of resistance. I won't argue that, although the well regulated militia apparently means different things to different people. But the framers clearly wanted the people to be able to arm themselves to form a militia so that King George and others couldn't occupy them again. Makes perfect sense. Back in 1700. But the English are our allies now, and our own military is so advanced now in ways the framers could never imagine. Could the general populace rise up against our own military now? I would guess not. But is there even a need to I suppose is a better question. Society is much more complicated now, we're nearly 400 million people in the same space, versus what a few million back then? Things change, they always will, do we want to continue reading a simplistic but well intentioned 2nd amendment, or do we want to address the fact that things need to change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 You have problems with logic. Logically the world would be a safer place if humans could follow the laws of peace. Logically guns are absurd in a world of peace. Logically, both statements I just made are a {censored}ing pipe dream because a guy just went into a theater and killed people and I have no logic because I would like to be able to protect myself against lunatics if they try to come into my home. Hmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IRG Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 That's true of the vast majority of homicides, regardless of the method the killer used. I need some real data from a reliable source before I believe this point blank. The majority of this big media shootings that get coverage, are not like that. But I'm sure there are a lot of homicides that don't get a ton of coverage are done by relatives, friends, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hangwire Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 and what about when the king of england starts poking his nose around goddammit!?!?!?! how about instead of outlying your stances you talk about needs and work together to explore a mutually positive solution this generation is so {censored}ing selfish they are useless, and those in change pour slop into that feeding troff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members mhuxtable Posted July 21, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 I need some real data from a reliable source before I believe this point blank. The majority of this big media shootings that get coverage, are not like that. But I'm sure there are a lot of homicides that don't get a ton of coverage are done by relatives, friends, etc. Dude, is all you trust the "bug media"? If you think that's the entire spectrum of what really goes on I feel sorry for you....they are entertainment just like everything else on tv and they're gonna put on what gets viewers watching and looking at advertisements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 But the person would have to prove a legitimate need for sustenance hunting? I can't imagine that would be more than a few hundred people in our entire country. Would somewhere like Alaska, where guns are often used for protection against wildlife, be exempt from the ban? What do you think about countries like Japan where someone can own a shotgun or rifle if they are licensed but unless you have license you can't even touch a gun?Is there anything else currently available to civilians you think should be entirely banned? Right. I don't think most people would need them from hunting but it's possible someone might so they should be allowed to use them for that purpose. I suppose if there were a local reason for an exemption of the ban like dangerous wildlife I would have that region apply for an exemption from the federal ban. And no, I don't have anything else in particular that I think the public should be banned from using. I don't have a problem with non-lethal weapons and I am usually more in favor of regulating drugs than banning them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ispunk Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Forget your gun bans. Not gonna happen in America-ever. What we need to do is address people like this guy that have obvious psychological problems. This was no surprise to his parents. That tells me lots of people knew of this guy's problems but laws prevent dealing with these people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 Logically the world would be a safer place if humans could follow the laws of peace. Logically guns are absurd in a world of peace. Logically, both statements I just made are a {censored}ing pipe dream because a guy just went into a theater and killed people and I have no logic because I would like to be able to protect myself against lunatics if they try to come into my home. Hmmmm... You have problems with logic because you consistently misapply evidence from one situation to try and prove another where it's not relevant. Guns are not the same as freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lotlizard Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 After reading the description of his level of planning and the armor he was wearing, I believe this guy was trying to imitate the actions of the shooter in Rage (I believe it is still available on Netflix). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members crohny Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 You have problems with logic because you consistently misapply evidence from one situation to try and prove another where it's not relevant. Guns are not the same as freedom of speech. I already explained why I used that example. Also to say that I don't have a reason to defend myself with a gun isn't a right I deserve is pretty irrational. You live in a dream world man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members V Posted July 21, 2012 Members Share Posted July 21, 2012 And what would you do about the criminals with guns breaking into houses knowing that everyone is unarmed? Just tell the public to suck it up and call 911 as fast as you can?I'm not meaning this to be sarcastic....honestly interested in how you'd solve that issue.And then what about tyranny? Guns are part of how we founded this nation in the first place...we fought back against a tyrannical government....how do you propose with fight back if our leaders become overly oppressive and sickly tyrannical?Edit: Doh! Phil beat me to it...post 311 The kind of guns you can own are not going to help you vs large scale military action so you're already defenseless against the government. But as I said, I think you are only making a bad situation worse if armed people come into your home and you are also armed. Then you have a firefight brewing instead of a robbery. Non-lethal weapons could also be an option or, perhaps, better security systems that would prevent the person from getting in in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.