Batman Massacre

[Erie Warrior]

otherwise I'm gonna go Hannibal Lecter on your ass

You'd eat a stranger's ass? Gross.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

otherwise I'm gonna go Hannibal Lecter on your ass

You'd eat a stranger's ass? Gross.

Jesus........

That backfired on poor ol' DU.

And did you know we have a FMB 2.0? I thought the first version was enough.

[Rat_Tail]

Once again the cat barks at the dog.

Are you retarded?

I have to ask because that's a retard's question.

I'll explain it like you're an 8 year old;

Yes I use it for defense, at my old job I had to travel to areas of town that were not safe, so I got a CCW permit. Since my new job doesn't involve that, I don't carry daily anymore. I still have it for home defense.

Do I want to use a gun on another human? No. Am I afraid to use it on another human who breaks into my home or threatens my life? No.

I have 11 firearms, all locked up in a 500lbs safe, except for my pistol I keep on the nightstand.

Are there a lot of home break-ins in Galloway?

[motherscratcher]

Isn't there some middle ground? I'm not, and I never have been, a strong proponent of gun control. I don't want to take away CDT's handguns, or a hunter's rifles. But why is it unreasonable to want to at least TRY to make it difficult for fucking lunatics to acquire military assault rifles and 6000 rounds of ammo?

[motherscratcher]

otherwise I'm gonna go Hannibal Lecter on your ass

You'd eat a stranger's ass? Gross.

Jesus........

That backfired on poor ol' DU.

And did you know we have a FMB 2.0? I thought the first version was enough.

Do you think version 2.0 will be less of an asshole?

[Larvell Blanks]

Once again the cat barks at the dog.

Are you retarded?

I have to ask because that's a retard's question.

I'll explain it like you're an 8 year old;

Yes I use it for defense, at my old job I had to travel to areas of town that were not safe, so I got a CCW permit. Since my new job doesn't involve that, I don't carry daily anymore. I still have it for home defense.

Do I want to use a gun on another human? No. Am I afraid to use it on another human who breaks into my home or threatens my life? No.

I have 11 firearms, all locked up in a 500lbs safe, except for my pistol I keep on the nightstand.

Are there a lot of home break-ins in Galloway?

Sorry Wally, you and the Bever must find it hard to believe that people lock their doors and windows at night.

Living in a "bad" area isn't a pre requisite to arm yourself. Bad things happen to people in all walks of life. If CDT or anyone else is a step ahead so be it.


Do I need a license to have The Gimp in my basement should anyone make the mistake of entering my home? Forget firepower, someone is gonna pay dearly, for a while if they make that mistake

[Ziner]

Are there a lot of home break-ins in Galloway?

I can tell you there aren't a lot of homicidal maniacs shooting up theaters in the nice part of Aurora, what's your point.

Taking guns away is completely reactionary. Much like the abortion debate it is pointless because just as Roe v. Wade isn't getting over turned, guns are not getting taken from people, they just aren't

You want to take away "assault weapons"? Good for you, I know multiple people with the same AR-15 that they have because they enjoy shooting and have yet to go on a rampage. If you can figure out how to prevent one from getting in a psycho's hand with no prior indication that he is a nut job with out taking away these guns from the other 99.999% who just enjoy shooting them, go for it.

The discussion of even banning assault weapons under the pretense that with out these weapons mass killings would be avoided is worthless. If this dickweed couldn't get a gun, he could do plenty of damage by driving a Uhaul full of fertilizer in to a crowd.

Crazy people do crazy things, they find ways. Just because we take off our shoes in the security line at the airport doesn't mean we are any more safe.

[peeker643]

Are there a lot of home break-ins in Galloway?

I can tell you there aren't a lot of homicidal maniacs shooting up theaters in the nice part of Aurora, what's your point.

Taking guns away is completely reactionary. Much like the abortion debate it is pointless because just as Roe v. Wade isn't getting over turned, guns are not getting taken from people, they just aren't

You want to take away "assault weapons"? Good for you, I know multiple people with the same AR-15 that they have because they enjoy shooting and have yet to go on a rampage. If you can figure out how to prevent one from getting in a psycho's hand with no prior indication that he is a nut job with out taking away these guns from the other 99.999% who just enjoy shooting them, go for it.

The discussion of even banning assault weapons under the pretense that with out these weapons mass killings would be avoided is worthless. If this dickweed couldn't get a gun, he could do plenty of damage by driving a Uhaul full of fertilizer in to a crowd.

Crazy people do crazy things, they find ways. Just because we take off our shoes in the security line at the airport doesn't mean we are any more safe.

AR-15 is a semi-automatic as far as I know. It's not a fully automatic weapon.

That means nothing in terms of those who died or were injured at the maniac's hands, but it's an important distinction in terms of weapons.

[Orenthal]

Freedom is a bitch.

[Spin]

[Ziner]

AR-15 is a semi-automatic as far as I know. It's not a fully automatic weapon.

That means nothing in terms of those who died or were injured at the maniac's hands, but it's an important distinction in terms of weapons.

but still considered an assault weapon, no? I dunno, I just hear big mouths talking about banning this and other like weapons so the damage would be lessened, as if someone couldn't bomb the place if they wanted to kill 12 and wound 58.

[British_Pharaoh]

Freedom is a bitch.

Hahaha really??? You really think America enjoys freedom?


And you believe the second amendment is a plausible example to use to demonstrate this?

Especially since those who do bear arms in the United States actually do so in transgression of the Second Amendment since it clearly states that your right to bear and keep arms will not be infringed upon so long as the security of the nation requires a militia force (which it doesn't)

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

Oh, and King George isn't an issue anymore.

But, Americans will continue to hide behind outdated and ambiguous laws so long as they can make their dicks bigger by having a loaded firearm in their house.

[peeker643]

AR-15 is a semi-automatic as far as I know. It's not a fully automatic weapon.

That means nothing in terms of those who died or were injured at the maniac's hands, but it's an important distinction in terms of weapons.

but still considered an assault weapon, no? I dunno, I just hear big mouths talking about banning this and other like weapons so the damage would be lessened, as if someone couldn't bomb the place if they wanted to kill 12 and wound 58.

Again, if you ask most people they'd consider that gun an assault rifle. And maybe for all intents and purposes it is. But an assault rifle, by definition, requires the weapon to have selective firing capability and the AR-15 (unless he modified it) doesn't have automatic capacity.

You won't find any in the hunting woods or on most gun ranges though and I'm not sure, other than for civilians who compete or participate in tactical training and competitions, why you'd need/want one.

[gotribe31]

Freedom is a bitch.

Hahaha really??? You really think America enjoys freedom?


And you believe the second amendment is a plausible example to use to demonstrate this?

Especially since those who do bear arms in the United States actually do so in transgression of the Second Amendment since it clearly states that your right to bear and keep arms will not be infringed upon so long as the security of the nation requires a militia force (which it doesn't)

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

Oh, and King George isn't an issue anymore.

But, Americans will continue to hide behind outdated and ambiguous laws so long as they can make their dicks bigger by having a loaded firearm in their house.

.

Hmmm...lets see, do I go with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constituition, or some random British guy's? You couldn't possibly be more wrong about the interpretation, either.

Also, there are more home invasions with the homeowner present in the UK than anywhere else in the world, which are a whole different kind of dangerous. Get your own house in order before you come knocking on ours. And keep your VAT on that side of the pond, thanks very much.

[gotribe31]

AR-15 is a semi-automatic as far as I know. It's not a fully automatic weapon.

That means nothing in terms of those who died or were injured at the maniac's hands, but it's an important distinction in terms of weapons.

but still considered an assault weapon, no? I dunno, I just hear big mouths talking about banning this and other like weapons so the damage would be lessened, as if someone couldn't bomb the place if they wanted to kill 12 and wound 58.

Again, if you ask most people they'd consider that gun an assault rifle. And maybe for all intents and purposes it is. But an assault rifle, by definition, requires the weapon to have selective firing capability and the AR-15 (unless he modified it) doesn't have automatic capacity.

You won't find any in the hunting woods or on most gun ranges though and I'm not sure, other than for civilians who compete or participate in tactical training and competitions, why you'd need/want one.

I think the issue is that the term "assault rifle" means whatever the current law says it means. Some politicians want any weapon that fires more than one shot without reloading to be considered an "assault weapon." Some cap it at a 10-round magazine. Some think it's only a weapon that can go full auto.

[Ziner]

blah blah blah http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html blah blah blah

[peeker643]

So, and not being a smart ass (yet), the fact I don't have to reload my S&W 442 between shots maks it an assault weapon in some politician's eyes? Or are you speaking solely of rifles and long guns or gas-fed magazines?

I hear ya though. I should have said as far as weapons-specific definitions (and not politicians, etc), that an assault rifle needs to have automatic capacity.

AR-15 is a semi-automatic as far as I know. It's not a fully automatic weapon.

That means nothing in terms of those who died or were injured at the maniac's hands, but it's an important distinction in terms of weapons.

but still considered an assault weapon, no? I dunno, I just hear big mouths talking about banning this and other like weapons so the damage would be lessened, as if someone couldn't bomb the place if they wanted to kill 12 and wound 58.

Again, if you ask most people they'd consider that gun an assault rifle. And maybe for all intents and purposes it is. But an assault rifle, by definition, requires the weapon to have selective firing capability and the AR-15 (unless he modified it) doesn't have automatic capacity.

You won't find any in the hunting woods or on most gun ranges though and I'm not sure, other than for civilians who compete or participate in tactical training and competitions, why you'd need/want one.

I think the issue is that the term "assault rifle" means whatever the current law says it means. Some politicians want any weapon that fires more than one shot without reloading to be considered an "assault weapon." Some cap it at a 10-round magazine. Some think it's only a weapon that can go full auto.

[Ziner]

I was using assault weapon as the political definition, I dont really know what is considered what, so that is where I wasn't following you. When these weapons are discussed generally a AR-15 is described as the type of gun that would be banned should a assault weapon bill be enacted. So I just assumed it was one, I am not really "in" to guns. I have a 12 gauge, 20 gauge, .22 and a 9mm that I dont generally do a lot with and I didn't buy. I don't even have rounds for my 9mm because I am not overly comfortable with it. I bet I could throw it really hard at an intruder though.

[gotribe31]

Yes, it does. That's just how stupid some people are. Double-barreled shotgun? Assault weapon. .22 pistol? Assault weapon. It's one reason Obama and Hillary conspired to prohibit the importation of old M1 rilfes from Korea...they were considered to have "high capacity detachable" mags. It's insane.

So, and not being a smart ass (yet), the fact I don't have to reload my S&W 442 between shots maks it an assault weapon in some politician's eyes? Or are you speaking solely of rifles and long guns or gas-fed magazines?

I hear ya though. I should have said as far as weapons-specific definitions (and not politicians, etc), that an assault rifle needs to have automatic capacity.

AR-15 is a semi-automatic as far as I know. It's not a fully automatic weapon.

That means nothing in terms of those who died or were injured at the maniac's hands, but it's an important distinction in terms of weapons.

but still considered an assault weapon, no? I dunno, I just hear big mouths talking about banning this and other like weapons so the damage would be lessened, as if someone couldn't bomb the place if they wanted to kill 12 and wound 58.

Again, if you ask most people they'd consider that gun an assault rifle. And maybe for all intents and purposes it is. But an assault rifle, by definition, requires the weapon to have selective firing capability and the AR-15 (unless he modified it) doesn't have automatic capacity.

You won't find any in the hunting woods or on most gun ranges though and I'm not sure, other than for civilians who compete or participate in tactical training and competitions, why you'd need/want one.

I think the issue is that the term "assault rifle" means whatever the current law says it means. Some politicians want any weapon that fires more than one shot without reloading to be considered an "assault weapon." Some cap it at a 10-round magazine. Some think it's only a weapon that can go full auto.

[FUDU]

But, Americans will continue to hide behind outdated and ambiguous laws so long as they can make their dicks bigger by having a loaded firearm in their house.

Brit, would you rather have us hide behind our barns, trees & bushes? Remember how that worked out last time...

[danwismar]

But, Americans will continue to hide behind outdated and ambiguous laws so long as they can make their dicks bigger by having a loaded firearm in their house.

This as opposed to the more enlightened anti-gun policies that have made Britain the peaceful haven that it is...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... a-U-S.html

In the U.S., overall crime, violent crime, and gun crime are all trending down in recent years. Statistics I see are saying that while overall crime in UK is down slightly, gun violence is a lot higher than it was 10 years ago...despite (because of?) gun control laws. What I have also read is that there is a sharp increase in home robberies committed while the owners are at home...because in general, robbers have no fear of being confronted by an armed homeowner.

Unintended consequences are a bitch.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... y-day.html

More media-fed myths about guns and gun violence here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ ... verbruggen

The bloviating Mayor Bloomberg makes the case against his own argument for more gun-control laws when he says "34 people are killed in this country every day, and the majority of those crimes are committed with guns obtained illegally"

Right...because criminals don't follow gun-control laws...any more than James Holmes observed Colorado's rather strict laws against murder...or the theater's no-gun policies.

Also making the case against gun control laws (in addition to the UK) is Chicago, which has some of the nation's strictest anti-gun laws, and where we have an Aurora, CO every month, but since it's mostly blacks killing blacks, it doesn't lead the evening news. 50 people shot in Chicago in one weekend recently.

[motherscratcher]

Dan, are you saying that in Chicago a man walks into a public place and opens fire randomly, wounding 50 strangers, and it went unreported because they are black?

[gotribe31]

Dan, are you saying that in Chicago a man walks into a public place and opens fire randomly, wounding 50 strangers, and it went unreported because they are black?

Don't mean to put words in his mouth, but I think he's referring to the total number of shootings in a given weekend, not a single mass shooting event. If that's the case, he's right; just a couple of months ago there were 50 shootings in Chicago, resulting in 10 deaths. It was reported on, but definetly not headline news around the country:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/1 ... 62604.html

And it happens pretty often. Chicago, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, has had more homides since 2001 than US deaths in Afghanistan. And it's not even close.

[motherscratcher]

Well ok then. So let's not pretend that a bunch of shootings in Chicago, most likely between shooters and victims who are known to each other, is somehow comparable to what happened in CO. And that the shootings didn't make national headlines due to race.

[Ziner]

It has less to do with race (the coverage) and more to do with commonality. People get shot all the time in Chicago. Its 95% of the time in the south or west side. Have a person shot in Wrigleyville and it is headline news in Chicago. Very similar to Iraq and Afghanistan, how many times have 10+ people been killed in a day? Very little coverage.

This is a story because:

1. the dude is fucking nuts, not angry at an ex-wife or in a gang
2. it happened in anytown USA
3. provides an opportunity for talking heads to discuss gun laws

and finally

4. it was unexpected.

[gotribe31]

Well ok then. So let's not pretend that a bunch of shootings in Chicago, most likely between shooters and victims who are known to each other, is somehow comparable to what happened in CO. And that the shootings didn't make national headlines due to race.

Agreed.

[Cerebral_DownTime]

The point of the 2nd Amendment is not just about the right to self protection. It's the Amendment that gives us the right to protect all the others.

The founding fathers gave us the right to bears arms against a government that became tyrannical. Think about how radical that was then........ and still is.

AND BTW...... Go fuck yourself. Foreigners' opinions on what OUR rights should be? Fuck that noise.

[gotribe31]

The point of the 2nd Amendment is not just about the right to self protection. It's the Amendment that gives us the right to protect all the others.

The founding fathers gave us the right to bears arms against a government that became tyrannical. Think about how radical that was then........ and still is.

AND BTW...... Go fuck yourself. Foreigners' opinions on what OUR rights should be? Fuck that noise.

There are times when I think you were dropped on your head when you were little. This is not one of those times. Agree 100%.

[danwismar]

Well ok then. So let's not pretend that a bunch of shootings in Chicago, most likely between shooters and victims who are known to each other, is somehow comparable to what happened in CO. And that the shootings didn't make national headlines due to race.

Agreed.

Of course, Al read me right...and showed with a link that it was reported in fact...

but here's the thing...if I get you moscratch, the 50 people shot in Chicago in one weekend aren't remotely comparable to the 70-some shot by one guy in Colorado...because why? Because some of the victims may have possibly been acquainted with their assailants? This somehow makes them less shot...or less dead? Or less worthy of our attention or compassion and concern?

As others have pointed out, the Chicago shootings weren't sensationalized because, tragically, they are commonplace, and resulted from the sum total of multiple shootings...therefore less newsworthy...again, making them still no less shot or no less dead. The same thing happens every day, not just in Chicago of course.

And we are kidding ourselves if we suggest that race is/was not a component of their newsworthiness. Some 95% of black shooting victims are shot by fellow blacks...and blacks make up the large majority of shooting victims. We saw how newsworthy it was when a guy named Zimmerman shoots and kills a black kid in Florida. When the vast majority of any given week's shooting victims in Chicago (or any other inner city) are blacks shot by blacks...crickets...at least in terms of hand-wringing by national media figures, and attention from race hustlers like Jesse J. and Sharpton.

If you count rival gangs shooting randomly at each other as your evidence that these urban shootings are "most likely people who are known to each other", I would say...except when they're not...and except when they are completely innocent bystanders like moviegoers in Aurora...which happens all the time.

Yes, mass killings are different animals, but thankfully, they are also rare. The other stuff is a weekly and monthly occurrence, and my point was that it is no less tragic, but it is much less reported on, and the death toll is much greater in any given month or year.

I don't own a gun, BTW..never have.

[motherscratcher]

Of course lives are lives Dan. And dont start acting righteous because we dont shed individual tears for every person to die in tragic circumstances, whether it be from a gun, a knife, starvation, or slipping and falling in the shower.

People are calling this a tragedy because that's what it is. It's a fucking tragedy. People aren't reporting in Cleveland every shooting that occurs on the south side of Chicago, not because they are black (like you keep implying) nor because their lives are worth less than the guy who died diving in front of his girlfriend in that theater. It's because like you said, it's commonplace. And not just in Chicago.

This is a story because of the scale. And that's the only reason why. The scale, the tragedy of it, and the incredible story of it.

Do you honestly think that if some lunatic African American walked into Madea Takes Manhattan in Chicago, opens up with an AK, and shoots 70 people, that the worldwide media would greet that story with a collective "meh, it's only black people."? Because that's insane. And it's complete and utter bullshit.

[gotribe31]

"Abraham Lincoln once said, 'if you are a racist, I will attack you with the North.'"

----------Michael Scott, Regional Manager, Dunder Mifflin Paper Inc.

[pup]

Had a gunmen walked into a theater in Chicago and gunned down 70 blacks with assault weapons, I am pretty sure the coverage would be the same.

[danwismar]

Do you honestly think that if some lunatic African American walked into Madea Takes Manhattan in Chicago, opens up with an AK, and shoots 70 people, that the worldwide media would greet that story with a collective "meh, it's only black people."? Because that's insane. And it's complete and utter bullshit.

Of course I don't, and I never said it or implied it. We were talking about different media treatment of various incidents of gun violence. Don't put words in my mouth and counter arguments I never made, thanks.

[danwismar]

1) Aurora was a tragedy involving gun violence.

2) In this country, we have incidents of gun violence that are equally tragic, and far greater in terms of actual count of dead and wounded people ("scale"), every single week, playing out on the streets of our major cities.

3) As a society, and in our media, we react to #1 and #2 in very different ways.

4) They are not comparable only if we decline to compare them.

[leadpipe]

1) Aurora was a tragedy involving gun violence.

2) In this country, we have incidents of gun violence that are equally tragic, and far greater in terms of actual count of dead and wounded people ("scale"), every single week, playing out on the streets of our major cities.

3) As a society, and in our media, we react to #1 and #2 in very different ways.

4) They are not comparable only if we decline to compare them.

Isn't the simple difference between your numbers 1 & 2 "truly innocent victims"

Because if you subtract the deaths from gun violence from major cities that were a result of being in "the game" or the commission of another crime, you reduce them quite a bit.

Personally, I don't give a shit about a guy that got shot trying to rob his dealer. An innocent teenager in a movie theater....that bugs me a little more.

We react to them in different ways because they are different.

[FUDU]

Why doesn't it surprise me that some asshole had their 5 month old at that showing of the movie?

Nothing to do with anything other than why the fuck would you do that?

Kid a big Dark Knight fan?

You know what? Not fair.

I don't know what shifts those parents work or anything else. Maybe they're new in town and the baby quietly attends and that way they aren't leaving the child with someone they don't know.

Presumptuous.

It might sound presumptuous, but it doesn't mean you're wrong. I know you're trying not to judge through a trying situation like this, but the solution is rather easy.

If you can't find a sitter for your 5 month old (or 5 year old) then don't go to the movie, especially at midnight.

[motherscratcher]

Why doesn't it surprise me that some asshole had their 5 month old at that showing of the movie?

Nothing to do with anything other than why the fuck would you do that?

Kid a big Dark Knight fan?

You know what? Not fair.

I don't know what shifts those parents work or anything else. Maybe they're new in town and the baby quietly attends and that way they aren't leaving the child with someone they don't know.

Presumptuous.

It might sound presumptuous, but it doesn't mean you're wrong. I know you're trying not to judge through a trying situation like this, but the solution is rather easy.

If you can't find a sitter for your 5 month old (or 5 year old) then don't go to the movie, especially at midnight.

Yes. I can't for the life of me understand what a 5 month old was doing in a movie theater at midnight. It's just strange. I've been to one movie since my kid was born. Car 2. It sucked.

[leadpipe]

Why doesn't it surprise me that some asshole had their 5 month old at that showing of the movie?

Nothing to do with anything other than why the fuck would you do that?

Kid a big Dark Knight fan?

You know what? Not fair.

I don't know what shifts those parents work or anything else. Maybe they're new in town and the baby quietly attends and that way they aren't leaving the child with someone they don't know.

Presumptuous.

It might sound presumptuous, but it doesn't mean you're wrong. I know you're trying not to judge through a trying situation like this, but the solution is rather easy.

If you can't find a sitter for your 5 month old (or 5 year old) then don't go to the movie, especially at midnight.

Yes. I can't for the life of me understand what a 5 month old was doing in a movie theater at midnight. It's just strange. I've been to one movie since my kid was born. Car 2. It sucked.

Not to mention the guy using work and the "family time" excuse.

Fine, you work odd hours. You wanna have some family time with your 5 month old? How bout doing something HE gives a shit about. Not sure how many infants want to see The Dark Knight.

Just like those who take their kids to Vegas. Wanna take your kids to Vegas? Great. Just don't act like it's a family vacation. That vacation is for you, not your kid.

Not one good reason for a 5 month old to be in that theater.
Not. A. One.

[Fire Marshall Bill 2.0]

Ya know, the Virginia Tech psycho killed 33 people with handguns...

You could more easily carry 4 - 9 mm with 30 rd magazines than an AR-15 or an AK and shoot with two hands....

Just sayin

In any event, since it was raining, I went out and bought an AR-15 today....now I have one

[Fire Marshall Bill 2.0]

Why doesn't it surprise me that some asshole had their 5 month old at that showing of the movie?

Nothing to do with anything other than why the fuck would you do that?

Kid a big Dark Knight fan?

You know what? Not fair.

I don't know what shifts those parents work or anything else. Maybe they're new in town and the baby quietly attends and that way they aren't leaving the child with someone they don't know.

Presumptuous.

It might sound presumptuous, but it doesn't mean you're wrong. I know you're trying not to judge through a trying situation like this, but the solution is rather easy.

If you can't find a sitter for your 5 month old (or 5 year old) then don't go to the movie, especially at midnight.

Yes. I can't for the life of me understand what a 5 month old was doing in a movie theater at midnight. It's just strange. I've been to one movie since my kid was born. Car 2. It sucked.

Not to mention the guy using work and the "family time" excuse.

Fine, you work odd hours. You wanna have some family time with your 5 month old? How bout doing something HE gives a shit about. Not sure how many infants want to see The Dark Knight.

Just like those who take their kids to Vegas. Wanna take your kids to Vegas? Great. Just don't act like it's a family vacation. That vacation is for you, not your kid.

Not one good reason for a 5 month old to be in that theater.
Not. A. One.

Knowing the baby would be aleep at midnight is valid...not saying its right but, that kid is not being influenced when sleeping

IMO taking the 6 yr old was worse

[Orenthal]

Freedom is a bitch.

Yeah, that is about how much I read. Go fuck yourself and your average speed cameras.

[Rat_Tail]

Do you honestly think that if some lunatic African American walked into Madea Takes Manhattan in Chicago, opens up with an AK, and shoots 70 people, that the worldwide media would greet that story with a collective "meh, it's only black people."? Because that's insane. And it's complete and utter bullshit.

Are you insinuating that only black people see Tyler Perry movies? You racist you.

[Fire Marshall Bill 2.0]

Freedom is a bitch.

Hahaha really??? You really think America enjoys freedom?


And you believe the second amendment is a plausible example to use to demonstrate this?

Especially since those who do bear arms in the United States actually do so in transgression of the Second Amendment since it clearly states that your right to bear and keep arms will not be infringed upon so long as the security of the nation requires a militia force (which it doesn't)

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

Oh, and King George isn't an issue anymore.

But, Americans will continue to hide behind outdated and ambiguous laws so long as they can make their dicks bigger by having a loaded firearm in their house.

Dear pile of steaming Limey dogshit,

We don't give a rats ass what you think.

Go fuck yourself and take your fish & chips with you

Sincerely,

America

[peeker643]

Just Sayin'...

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

http://bit.ly/O2i0EM

[gotribe31]

Just Sayin'...

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store

http://bit.ly/O2i0EM

Yup. And then you get crap like this from Chuck Schumer:
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/s ... ol-measure

Trying to backdoor a law prohibiting the ownership or transfer of "high capacity" magazines. What is high capacity you ask? More than 10 rounds. 10 rounds! And the scumbag tried to hide it in a Cybersecurity bill.

[Triple-S]

I was reading an article on fox 8 about the recent shootings, and came across this in the comments section:

Bob Norton34 minutes ago
Spread the word people THIS IS 9/11 ALL OVER AGAIN. His eyes are blue not brown!
Reply 0


Bob Norton35 minutes ago
This guy isn't even the real Holmes. Look at the eye color. The older pictures his eyes are brown, these pictures they are blue. THIS IS A BIG COVER UP PEOPLE WAKE UP!

http://fox8.com/2012/07/27/report-theat ... s-amnesia/

There's no way this guy is real. No fucking way. It's a CDT troll account. There's no way someone could be this completely utterly dumb.