Two journalists shot dead live on air

Discussion in 'Pandora's Box' started by Bluntzilla420, Aug 26, 2015.

  1. Lol we already have "gun control". Silly goose.

     
  2. if someone wants to kill someone with a gun they are going to get one whether it's against the law or not.


    Isn't it weird how his reasoning for disliking the woman and news team was that she made "racist comments" but no one is making this out to be racially motivated? Sure he was a disgruntled employee but if a white guy had done the same thing to 2 black reporters the whole country would be shitting their pants over racism the same way they did with Dylan roof.
     
  3. That go-pro footage is creepy, almost video game-esque. And yes it appears to be racially driven. If this didn't happen on live tv it wouldn't be getting nearly as much attention imo.
     
  4. We already have plenty of "gun control" laws.. And they're working splendidly [​IMG]


    The problem is that it is so HARD a CCW permit that most people are unarmed. Which means that if you're a bad guy, the chances are that you'll be able to do whatever you want (especially in one of those ultra-safe "gun free zones") to whomever you want, until the cops finally put down their doughnuts, and drag their fat asses to the scene, are pretty good.
    Why is there NO CRIME at gun shows??


    There are only two ways to go about gun "control" Either disarm EVERYONE (Except active military) or arm EVERYONE. This half-in liberal bullshit is why wackos feel like they can go shoot up a school or theater or anything else with wanton abandon. There is no one there to oppose them until cops (WITH GUNS!!! duh) show up to stop them. When seconds count my friend ;)


    If you're scared of guns, fine. Dont get one. But DO NOT TELL ME I CANNOT PROTECT MYSELF AND MY FAMILY.
    The Second Amendment is about as clear as it gets.... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.


    <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >The Second Amendment was NOT written to enshrine every American with the right to own a gun for hunting, sport or self-defense from violent crime. These un-enumerated rights are merely incidental benefits of what the framers of the constitution originally meant. Pure and simple, the Second Amendment was intended for one thing and one thing only: power. The framers wanted citizens to have the literal firepower to rein-in their politicians and unelected bureaucrats. Our founding fathers were revolutionaries. Extremists. Radicals. Insurgents. Guerrillas . . .

    They wanted private citizens to be better armed than the armed forces of the government. AND they gave citizens other tools to express themselves or rein in an unpopular government.

    It is times like these, when the government we elected passes laws that empowers them to confiscate our property (new taxes) and violate our liberty (forcing citizens to buy medical insurance), gun owners need to remember that firearms are the last civic weapon drawn in dissent.

    In 1787, Thomas Jefferson, our third President, wrote to Colonel William S. Smith (referring to Shays' Rebellion, a revolt of Massachusetts farmers against high taxation and debtor prisons):

    "God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion . . . And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

    Jefferson echoed these sentiments more concisely in letter to his friends James Madison and Abigail Adams

    "I like a little rebellion now and then."

    Consider how President Lincoln intellectually wrestled with the use of the Second Amendment as he confronted the seven states that declared their independence from the U.S. in the weeks prior to his first inauguration.

    "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise… their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it."

    However, Lincoln reasoned, secession was not justified because there was not “a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied [citizens of the breakaway states].” Therefore, “there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority.”

    If only…

    Gun control proponents like to scare people by saying that American streets would become the Wild West if everyone had handguns. I think that's silly. But I'm glad that America hasn't devolved into countries like Somalia or Afghanistan, where well-armed warlords and militias administer their own brand of tyranny, unchecked by impotent governments.

    So what does the Second Amendment mean for us today? In 2008, the Supreme Court clarified that the language in the constitution regarding the formation of a “well regulated Militia” does not detract from “the right of the people,” meaning individuals, as used throughout the rest of the Constitution, “to keep and bear Arms.” Furthermore, the court ruled that self-defense from common crime is intrinsic in the notion of individual self-defense from tyranny.

    IN the run-up to new civilian disarmament legislation, no doubt the media and political commentators will portray law-abiding gun owners as right-wing extremists. As the battle to protect the Second Amendment is joined, they will accuse gun rights advocates of fostering-if not organizing-anti-government violence.

    This assessment is wrong. But there's no denying the average American's extreme dissatisfaction with the government that holds power over him or her. And it's not entirely inappropriate to see the gun rights movement's rallies as the initial rumblings of a revolutionary spirit which, once upon a time, lead to armed revolt.

    The threat, the possibility, of such a popular, and yes, armed uprising has the government deeply worried. As it should. Why else would Vice President Joe Biden threaten to use an Executive Order to achieve the scope and scale of disarmament the Administration could not achieve through the legislative process?

    Might there come a day when it is appropriate for the American people to rise up in arms against their government? Perhaps. If ever we are collectively denied our rights to express our political views and to vote. If the legal systems of our government collapses. Until such a time might come, keep your guns holstered. For now, open your mouths and punch your ballots.

    [First published in 2010. Modified for current times.]
    </blockquote>

     
  5. What's the problem with making it harder if not impossible for mentally ill persons to purchase a firearm? And before you jump on me for being anti-gun I gurantee I own more then most. We have a mental health issue in the United states that we need to do something about. How we do that I don't know but I also don't believe purchasing firearms should be as easy as purchasing tomatoes.
     
  6. Well lucky for you thats not even fucking remotely close to being true.




     
  7. maybe you should cut back on the whole naive kid act. Its boring and uninspired. I expect that on facebook pages run by sheltered suburban soccer moms.
     
  8. Considering a majority of psychopathic people are highly functional in society this would not work in the slightest.
     
  9. Death penalty cost more than keeping someone alive in prison??? Lmao bullets cost anywere from 4 cents a piece and up. That seems pretty cheap to me compared to housing, feeding and taking care of medical needs.

    Seen a couple vids now, still haven't seen the POV one from the shooter.

    I agree with reporters arming themselves but it wouldn't have made a difference in this case. They weren't paying attention to him, he already had his gun out, he had the advantage before they even knew what was happening.

    At least dude blew his brains and did the right thing there.
     
  10. #50 Twistedd, Aug 27, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 27, 2015
    These people aren't even dead for 12 hours before people chime in with that gun control bullshit. Using emotion and exploiting the deaths of others to strip away rights is something a tyrant would do.









     
  11. People being armed is not going to directly stop crazy people. You may be able to stop them in the act. These people are often fucking mentally unstable and end up killing themselves anyway. I highly doubt that even if every person had a gun that these incidences would decrease. It seems that self preservation is not high on the list for a lot of these guys. Our culture, mental health system, and so many other issues have made these issues commonplace, not gun laws.

    Can you stop straw manning and implying that people who want stronger background checks want to prohibit guns because that's a false notion. If you aren't a fucking mental case then it shouldn't be a big deal to wait a day or two for a background check. It seems there are other aspects of life like cars where you have to jump through more hoops to legally drive than legally own a firearm. This idea that making a stronger background check system is going to stop people from buying guns is silly. I believe we should allow more concealed carry well simultaneously diverting funds from an organization like the NSA to make a stronger background check system. I know criminals will avoid this and of course it won't stop everything, but why make it easier for mental people to have access to firearms. I would rather a guy like the Lafayette shooter have to go to illegal sources than just be handed a gun over the counter.

    Part of the reason a couple weeks ago the Lafayette shooter got a gun was because an FBI agent called the wrong district and didn't find out the guy was committed by others to a mental hospital. I think that mental hospitals in this country should inform the government of people who have been committed against their will and been found by professionals to be mentally unstable and create a database which can be checked against for background checks. These people shouldn't be eligible to buy a gun until they are cleared by a professional They shouldn't have to report people who come on their own volition however because that might decrease a persons motivation to seek help. I think if we took even a tiny percent of the budget of an organization like the NSA and put it towards background checks that the system would be much more effective. The way it's currently set up, it has very little teeth so we should either end it or put more resources into it to actually make it effective. I love how every pro gun person tries to pretend that guns are a seperate almost divine right that can't be interfered with on any level. Let's compare the first and second amendment shall we.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    "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."

    Now I'm not an English major or anything but it seems that the first amendment, similarly to the 2nd, implies that no laws should prohibit or limit people's free speech rights. The second amendments say the government can't make laws which prohibit or limit people's rights to own a gun and form a well regulated militia. My question for you is why is it accepted that there are basic limits on free speech like I can't directly threaten people, share top secret gov information that could actually hurt real people, or yell fire in a crowded theater (incite panic), yet it's not accepted that there could be basic limits like strong background checks on guns? It seems hypocritical to accept reasonable limits on free speech and not limits on gun ownership unless you don't believe people should be punished for yelling fire in a crowded theater.
     
  12. There are already strong background checks for getting a gun. You said it yourself that stronger background checks are silly and won't stop anything so why push for stonger ones? It takes at least 5 months for you to get a pistol permit in nys but people in my city get shot every night.

    Regulations don't work so I'll never understand the out cry to enforce more. What regulations would you like to see implemented that you think would actually do something to stop the "problem"? Not just you native anyone who feels like that I'd like to hear some actual solutions that will stop criminals from obtaining guns and not just bog down a law abiding citizen trying to get one.

    Like someone else said laws are put in place by wizards, only people like you and me will follow them. The more laws there are in the way of owning a gun just mean more laws the criminals are going to willingly break.

    I agree that something should be done but just throwing more laws at the it doesn't seem like a viable solution. I don't know what to do about it but I don't pretend like I do either.
     
  13. Should people committed to an institution be prohibited from buying a gun legally? Sounds like a great idea, but remember that stopping them from getting a gun legally does not stop them from getting a gun at all. Just like drugs, if you want them, there are more than enough ways to get them illegally. And I go back to my original argument that while these gun control laws sound good, and make feel-good headlines, they do nothing but make it harder for everyone else (And discourage purchases) to get a gun. In day to day life you NEED a car, so you're more willing to jump through more hoops. You dont NEED a gun everyday, and if its a hassle to get one legally, why bother... Until the day you do need it.


    <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >The Second Amendment was NOT written to enshrine every American with the
    right to own a gun for hunting, sport or self-defense from violent
    crime. These un-enumerated rights are merely incidental benefits of what
    the framers of the constitution originally meant. Pure and simple, the
    Second Amendment was intended for one thing and one thing only: power.
    The framers wanted citizens to have the literal firepower to rein-in
    their politicians and unelected bureaucrats. Our founding fathers were
    revolutionaries. Extremists. Radicals. Insurgents. Guerrillas . . .

    They
    wanted private citizens to be better armed than the armed forces of the
    government. AND they gave citizens other tools to express themselves or
    rein in an unpopular government.</blockquote>



    One of this countries first gun laws was a ban on automatic weapons (Machine guns) as a result of the bloodshed caused by prohibition. It was a slippery slope that should have never passed. Obviously I dont believe that your average citizen should have a nuke or ICBM, but outlawing weapons that the government can use against us goes against the very spirit of the second amendment. Since that law passed many more laws have been passed limiting our right to protect ourselves (CCW laws a prime example). By definition criminals dont follow the law, so how do gun laws stop criminals??
    [​IMG]


    Hypothetical:
    All gun laws are reversed. 75% of the population is armed. Are you going to try to rob someone, or randomly shoot into a crowd, knowing the chances are pretty good that you will encounter strong opposition?
    I highly doubt it. These people go on these shooting sprees knowing full well that there will be ZERO opposition until the police arrive (WITH GUNS). At that point they either they kill themselves, or the cops kill them. My question is why wait for the cops to arrive? I'll tell you why. Because you're unarmed and helpless. Had the majority of the population been armed, the spree would have probably not occurred in the first place. And if it does, less people would be killed because more of them would be able to defend themselves, instead of cowering and waiting for someone to show up with a gun to stop a mad man.


    I stand by my statement that buying a gun should be as easy as buying
    groceries. And the right to carry it should be no different than
    carrying a bag.
     
  14. Unfortunately this is standard practice for politicians anywhere at any time in history (Hitler and the Reichstag fire, 9/11/01 and the Patriot Act, etc.)


    My senator, Chuckie Schumer, has been doing the "more gun control" for decades. The easiest time to pass these laws is following a shooting tragedy.

     
  15. Yea the NYC laws are way over the top...
    <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >Posted on 9/23/2013, 12:42:08 PM by SeekAndFind



    It's deja vu again: A Wisconsin woman visiting the 9/11 Memorial
    yesterday was arrested after a security guard screening her bag spotted a
    gun in the purse.
    Ursula Jerry, 41, had a .380-caliber
    semi-automatic Kel-Tec gun in her purse. The Wall Street Journal
    reports, "The weapon had two rounds in the magazine-none were in the
    chamber, the official said." Jerry also told cops, "I travel with this
    from home on Amtrak to New York City. I don't mean harm to anyone."
    Jerry
    has a permit for the gun in Wisconsin, but not NYC. Responsible gun
    owners would know that New York City is really horrible and requires a
    NYC gun permit, which means out-of-towners are out of luck.
    The
    Post is critical, "Jerry isn't the first hick from the sticks to treat
    the WTC - and the city in general - site like an Old West saloon." A
    woman from Tennessee was arrested in 2011 for trying to check her gun at
    the 9/11 Memorial while folks from Georgia and Indiana have tried to
    bring guns to the Empire State Building. And a man from North Carolina
    was arrested for leaving his gun in a hotel lobby chair, because he
    didn't want to bring it to the 9/11 Memorial.</blockquote>



    And can we PLEASEE STOP with the "semi-automatic" BULLSHIT????


    Unless its a fucking black powder musket, or a pump/lever action long gun, ALL GUNS are semi-auto... All the way back to the first Smith & Wesson 6-shooter


     
  16. He has been doing his shameless push for civilian disarmament (gun control) on a national level since being a US rep, in a safe Commie district in NYC.


    But then when he became a US senator (10 yrs. ago?) he had to calm it down a bit because now he represents half of NYS, and the rural areas are all pro-gun.

    But there is always an endless supply of "useful idiots" out there who push for more gun laws anyway.


    This country is so fucked in so many ways, including this one.

     
  17. Pretty much once you're 20 minutes from NYC, you're in the country. And country folks like their guns :)
    My parents got in an argument and the cops got involved.. They confiscated all his hunting rifles.. Funny thing is he thought they were going to give them back.
    [​IMG]


    I was like - "You realize you're in NYS, right??"
     
  18. #58 Mid man, Aug 27, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 27, 2015
    Purchasing firearms isn't a easy as purchasing tomatoes.. Have you ever bought a gun before?
     
  19. Lol.. Anybody trying to rationalize this is silly. It has nothing to do with gun control, gangs, drugs or any of that bullshit. This was an angry dude who would of done something else, had he not had a gun.
     
  20. What?

    You don't have to fill out a 4473 and have your background checked by the BATF and FBI prior to purchasing tomatoes?

    Lucky fuckers.

    Lol
     

Share This Page