Shooting At Aurora, Colorado Movie Theater (1 Viewer)

[GDogg]

I don't think you read what I wrote. Where did I say anything about illegal vs. legal? Read MOP's question. He speaks to the ability to buy a gun. If you take away that ability, then you cannot shoot someone.

What you wrote above is not taking away that ability. Understand?

Ah so we've moved on to fairly tales. Okay cool. I want to fly and fart $100 bills. How do you propose to take away the ability of people to buy guns.

I'll hang up and listen.

Huh? I didn't ask the question. I have no idea how you'd do that. He asked why you would take away the ability to buy guns. The answer is because people can't shoot someone with one if they can't buy them.

Just read what is written and stop being an ###. And, if you struggle this much with reading comp, don't get snarky when you don't understand what's written.

Got it... so you have no answers then. There are ZERO realistic scenarios where guns will not be READILY available in the US... ever. Period.

I don't care what laws you pass. It ain't happening. Ever.

What's your deal?I'm not trying to solve a crisis here. He asked why you'd take away the ability to buy guns. The answer is to stop people from shooting other people. That's it. You're reading into #### that isn't there and you do it over and over again. I never said it was possible and I never said it was realistic. I gave the reason of why you'd do it.

I have no idea how to get rid of all the guns. But, I do know I'd rather live in a world without every day citizens having them.

And you would be in the minority. Why do you blame the guns? It is not the guns that are killing people, it is the person behind them. So quit saying if you remove guns that solves the problems guess what it does not.

Cool. I don't mind being in the minority. I don't see a reason for you or me or anyone else whose job isn't military or law enforcement personnel to have a gun. Why do you need one?I'm not blaming the guns. I blame crazy people. I don't see the point of guns.

And, where did I say it solves the problem? Seriously, do you read what you respond to before you post?

The only thing banning guns (and getting rid of all of them) would do is prevent or reduce the amount of people from shooting other people. Unless, of course, you are like tim and make them yourself. It wouldn't stop murder. It wouldn't stop mass losses of life. All of this would happen. But, if there were no guns, fewer people would get shot. Pretty simple.

 

[GDogg]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

I'm not taking his bait anymore.

Sometimes you have to try and educate the stupid.

Exactly. I'm trying, but [icon] and the other ####### are making it tough.

Sadly you cannot grasp the simple fact that if something is illegal, it will still be available. There is nothing you can do to stop that. Period.

Sadly, you cannot grasp the simple concept that making something illegal wasn't the subject of the question or my answer. The question and my answer to it were far more focused than that. It goes to ability. Read the question and then read the answer.

 

[FavreCo]

Still can't beleive the exit doors don't set off an alarm. Even a silent one.

 

[netnalp]

Why when these events happen do folks immediately call for the ban of weapons/guns? Why should people who can legally buy them suddenly not be able to buy them?

We have a ban on drugs and I can get drugs almost anywhere anytime. Why would people assume that if these guns are illegal that the terrorist attacks would stop?

Because you can't shoot someone with a gun if you can't buy one?

Right. There are 300 Million guns on US Soil.... about 200 Million registered to the general public.

1) What do you think happens when suddenly they're illegal? What is a realistic scenario in your mind? Seriously.

2) Let's say guns are illegal tomorrow. How hard do you think it would be for someone like this kid to obtain one?

We can start with that.

Start even TALKING about making guns illegal and ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ will be everywhere.

There are just so many guns and access so wide it is useless to try to stop it.I do think it serves the concerns of both Pro and Anti gun people if AR and handgun owners were required to demonstrate competency with using a gun. Test accuracy and the ability to select the right target.

That way Pro gun people aren't prevented their rights. And Anti gun people feel safer that those owning the weapon have competency to use it.

Neither side wants someone who is incompetent wielding a firearm.

 

[FavreCo]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

I'm not taking his bait anymore.

Sometimes you have to try and educate the stupid.

Exactly. I'm trying, but [icon] and the other ####### are making it tough.

Sadly you cannot grasp the simple fact that if something is illegal, it will still be available. There is nothing you can do to stop that. Period.

Sadly, you cannot grasp the simple concept that making something illegal wasn't the subject of the question or my answer. The question and my answer to it were far more focused than that. It goes to ability. Read the question and then read the answer.

Won't make a difference. If someone wants to kill, they will get the gun. We have weak punishment.

 

[timschochet]

I do think it serves the concerns of both Pro and Anti gun people if AR and handgun owners were required to demonstrate competency with using a gun. Test accuracy and the ability to select the right target.That way Pro gun people aren't prevented their rights. And Anti gun people feel safer that those owning the weapon have competency to use it. Neither side wants someone who is incompetent wielding a firearm.

You're talking about a huge new government bureacracy. A DMV for guns. Again- if it could be proven that this would make a difference, I would be willing to go along with it. But if it has no impact, why are we burdening millions of law-abiding people with more regulations?

 

[GDogg]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

Yes, I'm serious. How would you buy illegal drugs if you were not able to buy illegal drugs?

Impossible as you can see with drugs. Somehow you think guns would be different? C'mon. Wake up.

Cool. But, if you cannot buy drugs (of any kind), do you see how you wouldn't be able to buy drugs of any kind? If not, you might be at [icon]'s level of intelligence.Did you read the question I responded to? If not, take a peak. Otherwise, you are jumping into something you didn't follow and clearly don't understand.

Simply, that is impossible. Even if you made it an instant death sentence to own a gun, people would own guns.

I'm sure it is impossible. But, that's the reason why you'd take away the ability (make it "impossible") for people to buy guns. I'm not saying you can do it. I just gave the reason why someone would do it.

 

[Rayderr]

A lot of you are arguing against a straw man. There's really no point in discussing whether guns should be illegal, since that is an impossibility. What I want to know is whether certain proposed restrictions on gun ownership (please see my post #669) might reduce the probability of events like this morning. Can anyone answer this question?

No it would not reduce the likelihood. People don't say "Man, I would love to kill a bunch of people, but only if my gun could hold 10 more bullets."

In the case of the limitation on rounds, the idea is not that the killer would be discouraged, but that he would do less damage before being apprehended.

He MIGHT do less damage. Absolutely no guarantee that it would make a difference. And we're still not treating the heart of the issue.

You're correct, there is no guarantee. Still, if I could be convinced that it could at least lower the odds, I'd be in favor of trying it out.

Go back to the Loughner thread where I pointed out that almost all for your serial shooters you mentioned using high capacity magazines also managed to reload several times. The likelihood of someone tackling the shooter during a reload is very, very rare. Loughner wasn't really stopped because he was reloading, he was stopped because the idiot dropped the magazine he was trying to reload. He also had people relatively close to him unlike in this case where the person had everyone in front of him and several feet of clear space.

 

[Zeff]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

I'm not taking his bait anymore.

Sometimes you have to try and educate the stupid.

Exactly. I'm trying, but [icon] and the other ####### are making it tough.

Sadly you cannot grasp the simple fact that if something is illegal, it will still be available. There is nothing you can do to stop that. Period.

What does that have to do with what he's grasping or not? Can you not grasp that if something is unavailable, it won't be available?

 

[OldBill]

A lot of you are arguing against a straw man. There's really no point in discussing whether guns should be illegal, since that is an impossibility. What I want to know is whether certain proposed restrictions on gun ownership (please see my post #669) might reduce the probability of events like this morning. Can anyone answer this question?

No it would not reduce the likelihood. People don't say "Man, I would love to kill a bunch of people, but only if my gun could hold 10 more bullets."

In the case of the limitation on rounds, the idea is not that the killer would be discouraged, but that he would do less damage before being apprehended.

He MIGHT do less damage. Absolutely no guarantee that it would make a difference. And we're still not treating the heart of the issue.

You're correct, there is no guarantee. Still, if I could be convinced that it could at least lower the odds, I'd be in favor of trying it out.

I don't know how to convince you, me or anyone that banning assault weapons would reduce the chances that incidents like this will take place. I do believe, and think you could convince people that the damage done could be significantly lessened. Would the fact that it would be more difficult to create a "spectacle" type of incident deter these nut-jobs? Perhaps. If the shooting in Colorado had been "Man kills 2, injures 2 others in theater shooting" would the 24 Hour News Channels be all over the story 24/7 like they are now? Probably not. And because of that, perhaps the amount of attention these nut jobs get get for these shootings, would be lessened, and thus the chances of them happening would go down.

 

[FavreCo]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

I'm not taking his bait anymore.

Sometimes you have to try and educate the stupid.

Exactly. I'm trying, but [icon] and the other ####### are making it tough.

Sadly you cannot grasp the simple fact that if something is illegal, it will still be available. There is nothing you can do to stop that. Period.

What does that have to do with what he's grasping or not? Can you not grasp that if something is unavailable, it won't be available?

That's a fantasy unless you show the world your plan of how to make it unavailable.

 

[Blind Tiger]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

Yes, I'm serious. How would you buy illegal drugs if you were not able to buy illegal drugs?

Impossible as you can see with drugs. Somehow you think guns would be different? C'mon. Wake up.

Cool. But, if you cannot buy drugs (of any kind), do you see how you wouldn't be able to buy drugs of any kind? If not, you might be at [icon]'s level of intelligence.Did you read the question I responded to? If not, take a peak. Otherwise, you are jumping into something you didn't follow and clearly don't understand.

I can't say for sure, but I'm willing to bet that if someone is crazy enough to want to kill several people for some insane reason then they won't have a problem stealing a gun.

 

[GDogg]

A lot of you are arguing against a straw man. There's really no point in discussing whether guns should be illegal, since that is an impossibility. What I want to know is whether certain proposed restrictions on gun ownership (please see my post #669) might reduce the probability of events like this morning. Can anyone answer this question?

Sure. I don't think it would*.This dude didn't do this because he had four guns. He just bought those in the last four months. His apartment appears to have been rigged with explosives.

He did this because he's a raging psychopath. If he didn't have any access to guns whatsoever and they did not exist, he'd have used a bomb or started a fire without any way to escape the theater or etc., etc. The method would have simply changed.

*That is, unless, of course, he just loved the fantasy of blazing away with guns in a crowded theater. Then, it would reduce the probability, but that's based on the subjective motive of the killer. I'm operating under the assumption that he just wanted to kill a bunch of people.

See, I'm just not positive this is the case. As you say, we're dealing with a raging psychopath. It seems to me, (at least intuitively) that the more difficult we make the task for him, the less likely it is that he will actually do it (or the more likely that he will be apprehended in the task.) The problem with assault weapons is that they make it so incredibly easy for these nuts to do maximum damage.

Sure. The more difficult you make something, the less likely it is that it will happen. But, if there was a restriction on guns or a restriction on owning guns even more or whatever you do with guns, I don't think something like this would be stopped. I think limiting guns and restricting them wouldn't be enough of a deterrent. And, as others in this thread have pointed (some toward me in a discussion that had nothing to do with what I was saying), guns, of all types, are going to be available through back, illegal channels. If he wanted to use guns, no amount of gun control could prevent it. And, if it got to the point that it did make it too difficult to use guns, I think a guy who was already into bomb-making and chemicals would simply go that route and find some dramatic way to set them off, horrifically.

 

[timschochet]

A lot of you are arguing against a straw man. There's really no point in discussing whether guns should be illegal, since that is an impossibility. What I want to know is whether certain proposed restrictions on gun ownership (please see my post #669) might reduce the probability of events like this morning. Can anyone answer this question?

No it would not reduce the likelihood. People don't say "Man, I would love to kill a bunch of people, but only if my gun could hold 10 more bullets."

In the case of the limitation on rounds, the idea is not that the killer would be discouraged, but that he would do less damage before being apprehended.

He MIGHT do less damage. Absolutely no guarantee that it would make a difference. And we're still not treating the heart of the issue.

You're correct, there is no guarantee. Still, if I could be convinced that it could at least lower the odds, I'd be in favor of trying it out.

Go back to the Loughner thread where I pointed out that almost all for your serial shooters you mentioned using high capacity magazines also managed to reload several times. The likelihood of someone tackling the shooter during a reload is very, very rare. Loughner wasn't really stopped because he was reloading, he was stopped because the idiot dropped the magazine he was trying to reload. He also had people relatively close to him unlike in this case where the person had everyone in front of him and several feet of clear space.

And as I replied at the time, if Loughner had had only ten bullets to fire before he dropped the magazine, that would have been less people dead. However, one incident is not a good argument for anything.

 

[FavreCo]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

Yes, I'm serious. How would you buy illegal drugs if you were not able to buy illegal drugs?

Impossible as you can see with drugs. Somehow you think guns would be different? C'mon. Wake up.

Cool. But, if you cannot buy drugs (of any kind), do you see how you wouldn't be able to buy drugs of any kind? If not, you might be at [icon]'s level of intelligence.Did you read the question I responded to? If not, take a peak. Otherwise, you are jumping into something you didn't follow and clearly don't understand.

I can't say for sure, but I'm willing to bet that if someone is crazy enough to want to kill several people for some insane reason then they won't have a problem stealing a gun.

Wait. They are magically unavailable.

 

[GDogg]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

I'm not taking his bait anymore.

Sometimes you have to try and educate the stupid.

Exactly. I'm trying, but [icon] and the other ####### are making it tough.

Sadly you cannot grasp the simple fact that if something is illegal, it will still be available. There is nothing you can do to stop that. Period.

What does that have to do with what he's grasping or not? Can you not grasp that if something is unavailable, it won't be available?

That's a fantasy unless you show the world your plan of how to make it unavailable.

The question was a fantasy. You, [icon] and green room (?) are arguing something completely different.

 

[FavreCo]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

I'm not taking his bait anymore.

Sometimes you have to try and educate the stupid.

Exactly. I'm trying, but [icon] and the other ####### are making it tough.

Sadly you cannot grasp the simple fact that if something is illegal, it will still be available. There is nothing you can do to stop that. Period.

What does that have to do with what he's grasping or not? Can you not grasp that if something is unavailable, it won't be available?

That's a fantasy unless you show the world your plan of how to make it unavailable.

The question was a fantasy. You, [icon] and green room (?) are arguing something completely different.

Gotcha. Then, 'who cares what you are talking about'.

 

[timschochet]

Really wasn't trying to play devil's advocate here. I honestly don't know the answers to the questions I raised on gun restrictions. Gun owning types seem extremely adamant that these restrictions wouldn't make a lick of difference, and it's not like I have any evidence to refute this. But on the other hand, they don't seem to have evidence to prove their point either.

 

[GDogg]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

I'm not taking his bait anymore.

Sometimes you have to try and educate the stupid.

Exactly. I'm trying, but [icon] and the other ####### are making it tough.

Sadly you cannot grasp the simple fact that if something is illegal, it will still be available. There is nothing you can do to stop that. Period.

Sadly, you cannot grasp the simple concept that making something illegal wasn't the subject of the question or my answer. The question and my answer to it were far more focused than that. It goes to ability. Read the question and then read the answer.

Won't make a difference. If someone wants to kill, they will get the gun. We have weak punishment.

Damn, this is frustrating. Who the hell said it would make a difference? The guy asked why you would take away the ability to buy guns. The reason you would do that is to stop people from shooting each other. That's the reason. Even if it didn't work, that's the reason why you would do that. You are trying to stop people from shooting each other. This is really simple stuff, dude.He did not ask "how would you prevent people from acquiring guns and shooting them at other people?" If he did, then you (and icon and greenroom) have an argument.

 

[GDogg]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

I'm not taking his bait anymore.

Sometimes you have to try and educate the stupid.

Exactly. I'm trying, but [icon] and the other ####### are making it tough.

Sadly you cannot grasp the simple fact that if something is illegal, it will still be available. There is nothing you can do to stop that. Period.

What does that have to do with what he's grasping or not? Can you not grasp that if something is unavailable, it won't be available?

 

[gsmayes]

I love gun nuts. So, since strict gun control won't eliminate gun violence 100%, we shouldn't have strict gun control? No, it has only reduced gun violence in pretty much every western industrialized nation that has it.

 

[timschochet]

I love gun nuts. So, since strict gun control won't eliminate gun violence 100%, we shouldn't have strict gun control? No, it has only reduced gun violence in pretty much every western industrialized nation that has it.

Are you sure about this?

 

[GDogg]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

Yes, I'm serious. How would you buy illegal drugs if you were not able to buy illegal drugs?

Impossible as you can see with drugs. Somehow you think guns would be different? C'mon. Wake up.

Cool. But, if you cannot buy drugs (of any kind), do you see how you wouldn't be able to buy drugs of any kind? If not, you might be at [icon]'s level of intelligence.Did you read the question I responded to? If not, take a peak. Otherwise, you are jumping into something you didn't follow and clearly don't understand.

I can't say for sure, but I'm willing to bet that if someone is crazy enough to want to kill several people for some insane reason then they won't have a problem stealing a gun.

Wait. They are magically unavailable.

You realize it wasn't my question, right?

 

[GDogg]

How would they do that if they are not able to buy guns?

Are ya serious? That is one fascinatingly naive post. Check the illegal drugs supply.if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns.

I'm not taking his bait anymore.

Sometimes you have to try and educate the stupid.

Exactly. I'm trying, but [icon] and the other ####### are making it tough.

Sadly you cannot grasp the simple fact that if something is illegal, it will still be available. There is nothing you can do to stop that. Period.

What does that have to do with what he's grasping or not? Can you not grasp that if something is unavailable, it won't be available?

That's a fantasy unless you show the world your plan of how to make it unavailable.

The question was a fantasy. You, [icon] and green room (?) are arguing something completely different.

Gotcha. Then, 'who cares what you are talking about'.

You, clearly. But, you couldn't figure out how to follow the question and responses to get it at the very beginning. :shortbus:

 

[comfortably numb]

Really wasn't trying to play devil's advocate here. I honestly don't know the answers to the questions I raised on gun restrictions. Gun owning types seem extremely adamant that these restrictions wouldn't make a lick of difference, and it's not like I have any evidence to refute this. But on the other hand, they don't seem to have evidence to prove their point either.

im sure im in the minority here, but i dont see why civilians need to own semi automatic anything. some of the weapons people can buy is just absurd. i also dont see why us civilians need to have cars that drive 100 mph.just cause technology makes these things available doesnt mean we shold have it available.

 

[FavreCo]

Not a fan of Newt but he just spelled it out. You want to stop this ####, you deal with these people swiftly. He's talking about killing them quickly.

 

[ffldrew]

Not a fan of Newt but he just spelled it out. You want to stop this ####, you deal with these people swiftly. He's talking about killing them quickly.

Won't make a dimes difference to the next guy who decides to snap.

 

[Widbil83]

Jesse Jackson and Newt Gingrich are on CNN right now and Jackson says we should ban guns.

Newt: "How is gun control in your hometown of Chicago working out Jesse?"

 

[FavreCo]

name='GDogg'

Yeah my mistake to follow such a stupid thought process.

Can you not grasp that if something is unavailable, it won't be available? <-- your ridiculous statement.

 

[GDogg]

Not a fan of Newt but he just spelled it out. You want to stop this ####, you deal with these people swiftly. He's talking about killing them quickly.

Won't make a dimes difference to the next guy who decides to snap.

Right. Don't most of them kill themselves before they are apprehended anyway?

 

[FavreCo]

Jesse Jackson and Newt Gingrich are on CNN right now and Jackson says we should ban guns. Newt: "How is gun control in your hometown of Chicago working out Jesse?"

Newt tore his ### apart.

 

[identikit]

Jesse Jackson and Newt Gingrich are on CNN right now and Jackson says we should ban guns. Newt: "How is gun control in your hometown of Chicago working out Jesse?"

 

[StrikeS2k]

I love gun nuts. So, since strict gun control won't eliminate gun violence 100%, we shouldn't have strict gun control? No, it has only reduced gun violence in pretty much every western industrialized nation that has it.

Do you enjoy making stuff up or are you just flat out lieing for no reason?

 

[Fennis]

Jesse Jackson and Newt Gingrich are on CNN right now and Jackson says we should ban guns. Newt: "How is gun control in your hometown of Chicago working out Jesse?"

I wish people understood how to use the emoticon better

 

[StrikeS2k]

I love gun nuts. So, since strict gun control won't eliminate gun violence 100%, we shouldn't have strict gun control? No, it has only reduced gun violence in pretty much every western industrialized nation that has it.

Are you sure about this?

I sure hope not since it's blatantly untrue.

 

[FavreCo]

Not a fan of Newt but he just spelled it out. You want to stop this ####, you deal with these people swiftly. He's talking about killing them quickly.

Won't make a dimes difference to the next guy who decides to snap.

Right. Don't most of them kill themselves before they are apprehended anyway?

No it won't, nothing will stop that including a ban on guns but that POS won't be around anymore.

 

[Fennis]

Jesse Jackson and Newt Gingrich are on CNN right now and Jackson says we should ban guns. Newt: "How is gun control in your hometown of Chicago working out Jesse?"

see post 735

 

[GDogg]

name='GDogg'

Yeah my mistake to follow such a stupid thought process.

Can you not grasp that if something is unavailable, it won't be available? <-- your ridiculous statement.

You might find it ridiculous, but it is extremely simple. And yet, you were somehow baffled by it. Stupid? I think one of us might be stupid, but it isn't me. Your inability to comprehend the words on the screen was pretty impressive.

 

[FatMax]

And as I replied at the time, if Loughner had had only ten bullets to fire before he dropped the magazine, that would have been less people dead. However, one incident is not a good argument for anything.

You know what else would have reduced the number of casualties? A few people in the audience with legal, registered concealed weapons of their own.

 

[netnalp]

Not a fan of Newt but he just spelled it out. You want to stop this ####, you deal with these people swiftly. He's talking about killing them quickly.

Won't make a dimes difference to the next guy who decides to snap.

Yeah live or dead, this guy isn't going to hurt anyone else. And the next nutcase won't care.

 

[Fennis]

And as I replied at the time, if Loughner had had only ten bullets to fire before he dropped the magazine, that would have been less people dead. However, one incident is not a good argument for anything.

You know what else would have reduced the number of casualties? A few people in the audience with legal, registered concealed weapons of their own.

apparently that didn't work either.

 

[Widbil83]

Jesse Jackson and Newt Gingrich are on CNN right now and Jackson says we should ban guns. Newt: "How is gun control in your hometown of Chicago working out Jesse?"

I wish people understood how to use the emoticon better

I wish you would stop posting.

 

[FavreCo]

name='GDogg'

Yeah my mistake to follow such a stupid thought process.

Can you not grasp that if something is unavailable, it won't be available? <-- your ridiculous statement.

You might find it ridiculous, but it is extremely simple. And yet, you were somehow baffled by it. Stupid? I think one of us might be stupid, but it isn't me. Your inability to comprehend the words on the screen was pretty impressive.

It's stupid because you brought up a far from simple, totally impossible task.

 

[Fennis]

Jesse Jackson and Newt Gingrich are on CNN right now and Jackson says we should ban guns. Newt: "How is gun control in your hometown of Chicago working out Jesse?"

I wish people understood how to use the emoticon better

I wish you would stop posting.

I'm willing to consider it, once you learn proper use of emoticons.

 

[Widbil83]

Jesse Jackson and Newt Gingrich are on CNN right now and Jackson says we should ban guns. Newt: "How is gun control in your hometown of Chicago working out Jesse?"

Newt tore his ### apart.

It was pretty sad. Also Jesse Jackson looks like a walking cadaver.

 

[TheGrimReaper]

Not a fan of Newt but he just spelled it out. You want to stop this ####, you deal with these people swiftly. He's talking about killing them quickly.

But that's what they want............they (the perp(s) )want "blue suicide".......they want to be gunned down....they have already made their mind(s) up ....they know the consequences of their actions...most likely, they will take their own life before a pd unit gets the chance to finish them off. Newt, as usual, doesnt know his head from his back 9........

 

[FavreCo]

Jesse Jackson and Newt Gingrich are on CNN right now and Jackson says we should ban guns. Newt: "How is gun control in your hometown of Chicago working out Jesse?"

Newt tore his ### apart.

It was pretty sad. Also Jesse Jackson looks like a walking cadaver.

THat's what too much plastic surgery on your face looks like when it starts rotting.

 

[GDogg]

And as I replied at the time, if Loughner had had only ten bullets to fire before he dropped the magazine, that would have been less people dead. However, one incident is not a good argument for anything.

You know what else would have reduced the number of casualties? A few people in the audience with legal, registered concealed weapons of their own.

I doubt it. You would expect every day Joe's with guns who don't go through training exercises in real life emergencies to be able to take out a shooter in a smoke filled, dark theater with people running around like crazy with shots coming from all angles? If anything, I think there would have been more losses of life as the shooters start shooting at each other because they can't tell who the suspect is anymore.

 

[identikit]

Not a fan of Newt but he just spelled it out. You want to stop this ####, you deal with these people swiftly. He's talking about killing them quickly.

But that's what they want............they (the perp(s) )want "blue suicide".......they want to be gunned down....they have already made their mind(s) up ....they know the consequences of their actions...most likely, they will take their own life before a pd unit gets the chance to finish them off. Newt, as usual, doesnt know his head from his back 9........

This guy didn't, apparently.

 

[Fennis]

Jesse Jackson and Newt Gingrich are on CNN right now and Jackson says we should ban guns. Newt: "How is gun control in your hometown of Chicago working out Jesse?"

Newt tore his ### apart.

It was pretty sad. Also Jesse Jackson looks like a walking cadaver.

THat's what too much plastic surgery on your face looks like when it starts rotting.