• 12 dead, 59 wounded after shooting at Colorado movie theater
    1,032 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sr.;36886342]Dead victims, with a little bit of information of each [url]http://graphics.latimes.com/towergraphic-aurora-dark-knight-victims/[/url][/QUOTE] I was reading through that and this one particularly got to me. [quote]Rebecca Wingo had two daughters, ages 4 and 6. She worked at a medical company in Aurora, friends said, and had gone to see the new Batman movie with Marcus Weaver, 41. As the bullets flew in the theater, Weaver said he tried to protect her as best he could. “… When I lifted her up, she was unconscious,” Weaver said. “She may have already passed.” According to her Facebook page, Wingo was born in Quinlan, Tex. and spent 11 years working for the United States Air Force. She most recently worked as an intake specialist at Schryver Medical in Denver. Wingo’s family is from California, Weaver said, and she had planned to fly out for a wedding this fall. Her mother identified her body Friday.[/quote] The last part specifically. I can't imagine how horrible it must have been to have to go and identify a body and find out it was your daughter.
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;36878324]I wouldn't mind extra checks like a polygraph test asking if they have ever felt suicidal or wanting to murder people.[/QUOTE] cause polygraph tests are a source of legitimate information that can be held up in court right? oh wait no [editline]22nd July 2012[/editline] Also apparently the media is just hyping stupid shit that isn't even true. He didn't have a bulletproof vest it was just some nylon vest, and a plastic riot helmet.
[QUOTE=AnalAnnihilator;36850953]This is a horrible situation, but you have to wonder what's the motive behind the shooter.[/QUOTE] He studied neuroscience but also went to church.. Clearly a very confused individual.
[QUOTE=jaykray;36884837][url]http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht[/url] A well written piece about gun control by Jason Alexander (George Constanza)[/QUOTE] I thought the point of the 2nd amendment was so the citizens could protect themselves from an unjust government.
[QUOTE=Glitch360;36879570]The victims: [img]http://i.imgur.com/Z51jr.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Do we have a picture of the SSgt yet? It upsets me that he doesn't have a picture when everyone else does, and I want to fix it.
[QUOTE=Audio-Surfer;36886959]I thought the point of the 2nd amendment was so the citizens could protect themselves from an unjust government.[/QUOTE]There were a multitude of reasons for the second amendment.
Just to let everyone know - You can raise money too for the victims. If I could do it, you can too. This is a short time-stamp log of how my day went down on the twentieth. Reminder, I was in Ft. Collins, CO, for a competition and 7/20 was our last competition day 7-19-12 2300: Bed. 7-20-12 0500: Wake up for breakfast 0600: Breakfast - Learned about shooting 0600-0700: Researching the shooting, pooling all media sources, piecing together the facts 0715: Meeting with team - Decided we are going to do something 0730: Met with competition staff about the idea 0745: Met with logistics manager about supplies 0830: Skip SWAT demo (which was huge) to set-up 0900: Making signs 1000: Go into Ft. Collins - talk to local stores 1100: Get clearance from Sports Authority 1200: Supplies arrive. (tables, tent, chairs, water) 1215 - 1900: Panhandling in traffic for donations (1930 - 2200: Closing ceremony for competition) 2210: Set-up again for collection 2300: Done collecting. In a matter of hours we were able to set-up and start collecting. It was so easy to do. Get a team of 5 (or more) together and go collect something. I am from Minnesota and collected for Colorado. We only collected for maybe 8 hours that day and managed to pull $5.8k without collecting checks (due to logistics of who to make it out to). Nothing is more rewarding then to count how much you have collected for someone else that you have zero connections with. [I]Just do it.[/I]
[QUOTE=jaykray;36884837][url]http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht[/url] A well written piece about gun control by Jason Alexander (George Constanza)[/QUOTE] Gun control is not the answer.
[QUOTE=Audio-Surfer;36886959]I thought the point of the 2nd amendment was so the citizens could protect themselves from an unjust government.[/QUOTE] Apparently that's only for people who are in militias. Which would mean everyone who isn't in one (or isn't part of any other armed organization like the Police or Military) has been technically breaking the law for over 200 years. Still, the way it's actually phrased is vague: "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." It really sounds like two separate sentences but they accidentally added a comma instead of a period. If they added an "In" to the beginning of the sentence it'd make sense, but as it is now it sounds like "A Militia is necessary for a secure and free state, and people have the right to bear arms". Do those people NEED to be in a Militia? It could really be interpreted several ways, which was the whole point of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights anyways. The founding fathers meant for the BOR to be flexible and subject to interpretation. So anyone else could come to a different conclusion than mine and it would still be equally valid.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;36887436]Apparently that's only for people who are in militias. Which would mean everyone who isn't in one (or isn't part of any other armed organization like the Police or Military) has been technically breaking the law for over 200 years. Still, the way it's actually phrased is vague: "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." It really sounds like two separate sentences but they accidentally added a comma instead of a period. If they added an "In" to the beginning of the sentence it'd make sense, but as it is now it sounds like "A Militia is necessary for a secure and free state, and people have the right to bear arms". Do those people NEED to be in a Militia? It could really be interpreted several ways, which was the whole point of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights anyways. The founding fathers meant for the BOR to be flexible and subject to interpretation. So anyone else could come to a different conclusion than mine and it would still be equally valid.[/QUOTE] In my state, every man over the age of 18 is part of the militia whether they like it or not. That basically means that if you are old enough to buy a gun, you're part of the militia. So in the state of Virginia, your argument is an invalid one.
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;36887376]Gun control is not the answer.[/QUOTE] The issue is not the gun control in this. The issue is the man. Everytime there is a shooting someone always brings up how proper gun control could have prevented it.
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;36887587]In my state, every man over the age of 18 is part of the militia whether they like it or not. That basically means that if you are old enough to buy a gun, you're part of the militia. So in the state of Virginia, your argument is an invalid one.[/QUOTE] You only just read my first paragraph and ignored the rest, did you?
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;36887617]You only just read my first paragraph and ignored the rest, did you?[/QUOTE] No, I read it all. And allow me to correct myself my posting the direct quote: [quote=Virginia Militia under Virginia Code § 44-1]"The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of this Commonwealth and all other able-bodied persons resident in this Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are at least sixteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than fifty-five years of age. The militia shall be divided into four classes, the National Guard, which includes the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard, the Virginia State Defense Force, the naval militia, and the unorganized militia."[/quote] I was mistaken. [u]All[/u] able bodied civilians are part of the militia once they are aged 16.
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;36887680]No, I read it all. And allow me to correct myself my posting the direct quote:[/QUOTE] You still didn't get my point. I wasn't saying "You should only have to be in a militia if you want the right to bear arms", I was saying that the second amendment is vague enough that it COULD be interpreted that way (and that's how Jason Alexander had interpreted it), but it also could be interpreted differently, which is exactly how the founding fathers wanted it (it's called flexibility, which the founding fathers believed was necessary for a free country). You DON'T have to be in a militia to bear arms, because that's how the current administration and the current supreme court interprets the second amendment.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;36887760]You still didn't get my point. I wasn't saying "You should only have to be in a militia if you want the right to bear arms", I was saying that the second amendment is vague enough that it COULD be interpreted that way (and that's how Jason Alexander had interpreted it), but it also could be interpreted differently, which is exactly how the founding fathers wanted it (it's called flexibility, which the founding fathers believed was necessary for a free country). You DON'T have to be in a militia to bear arms, because that's how the current administration and the current supreme court interprets the second amendment.[/QUOTE] Oh. My mistake then. Yes, it could be interpreted that way, but in the event that it is, Virginians are safe as long as they are between the ages of 16 and 55. :v:
About the 2nd Amendment, all it takes is studying the context to understand the meaning. Short version: Post Revolutionary War many former colonies, now free, did NOT want to immediately put themselves under control of a central power again(ie Federal government). The Bill of Rights was written so Federalists could show the former colonialists that individual rights and states rights would be guaranteed for all time in the new country(USA). The 2nd Amendment is what enables individuals and states to defend themselves against attempted tyranny by the feds. Bottomline, if the writers of the Constitution meant that no civilians were allowed to have arms, they would have written "No civilians have the right to bear arms" or something similar. They did not write such a thing. They, in fact, wrote the opposite. They noted that a well regulated militia is needed to secure a free state. They were giving the reason [i]why[/i] civilians needed the right to have guns, they were not limiting that right but explaining it. The Federalists were saying they understood the danger of a central power seizing control and they wanted the people to always have a way to fight back.
[QUOTE=Xenomoose;36887436]Apparently that's only for people who are in militias. Which would mean everyone who isn't in one (or isn't part of any other armed organization like the Police or Military) has been technically breaking the law for over 200 years. Still, the way it's actually phrased is vague: "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." It really sounds like two separate sentences but they accidentally added a comma instead of a period. If they added an "In" to the beginning of the sentence it'd make sense, but as it is now it sounds like "A Militia is necessary for a secure and free state, and people have the right to bear arms". Do those people NEED to be in a Militia? It could really be interpreted several ways, which was the whole point of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights anyways. The founding fathers meant for the BOR to be flexible and subject to interpretation. So anyone else could come to a different conclusion than mine and it would still be equally valid.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]One year after the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, Congress passed a law defining the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were to be members of the militia. Furthermore, every citizen was to be armed. The Act stated: "Every citizen . . . [shall] provide himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints . . . ." (- . Militia Act of 1792, printed in John F. Callan, The Military Laws of the United States (Baltimore: John Murphy & Co., 1858): 65. ) The Militia Act of 1792 made no provision for any type of select militia such as the National Guard. Thereafter, Title 10 Section 311 of the United States Code defines precisely who is in the militia. It includes the National Guard, but it is NOT exclusive to the National Guard. [1] [URL="http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+153+0++() AND ((10) ADJ USC)%3ACITE AND (USC w%2F10 (311))%3ACITE"]http://law2.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+153+0++() AND ((10) ADJ USC)%3ACITE AND (USC w%2F10 (311))%3ACITE [/URL] See also: [2] [URL]http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html[/URL] "311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are-- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia." also U.S.C.A. title 32 sect. 101 (as amended Sep. 29, 1988) [relating to the establishment of the National Guard] See also: See 32 U.S.C. 109(c): "In addition to its National Guard, if any, a State or Territory, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, or the District of Columbia may, as provided by its laws, organize and maintain defense forces. A defense force established under this section may be used within the jurisdiction concerned, as its chief executive (or commanding general in the case of the District of Columbia) considers necessary, but it may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ridge;36879285]Westboro is heading to Aurora tomorrow to picket the memorial service. I'm joining about 1,400 other people who will blockade them away from the services.[/QUOTE] Why do I have a feeling there will be fists flying. [editline]23rd July 2012[/editline] Thus not saying they don't deserve getting the shit kicked out of them, but last time I checked they have some powerful connections and their entire family is educated lawyers so harming them would be a death trap, which is why nobody has done anything to them yet. [editline]23rd July 2012[/editline] On the other hand, it'll be hard to control 1,400 people in such an emotional moment.
^Which is precisely why I decided to skip the memorial.
[quote]Friday was Alex Sullivan’s 27th birthday, and he apparently died a hero. Based on his wounds, friends said, Sullivan shielded those around him from the bullets. "He was on the end and he stood up to cover the girls," said Shelly Fradkin, whose son grew up with and was best friends with Sullivan. She said his love for Batman and other stars shaped his character. “His heart was ready to be that real life superhero.”[/quote] This is amazing, R.I.P Alex, you died a hero.
I'd like nothing more than for some of them to get their teeth kicked in at one of their goddamn hate rallies... They make things hard for good, civilized Christians like myself. And no, wishing harm on someone isn't very "good" or "civilized" or "Christian", but it's how I feel about the whole thing... These people deserve to bury their loved ones with some peace and dignity.
The Westboro nuts are so bad, that even the KKK said that they were going to distance themselves from WBC, because they are a bunch of "Hatemongers". If this is coming from the KKK, you know that those nuts need to be put in their place.
WBC are a bunch of scum bags
[QUOTE=Kartoffel;36890627]The Westboro nuts are so bad, that even the KKK said that they were going to distance themselves from WBC, because they are a bunch of "Hatemongers". If this is coming from the KKK, you know that those nuts need to be put in their place.[/QUOTE] KKK don't really rally anymore, they're just a club that likes to be with white people but don't mind being with different races in their personal lives. Well that's what I've seen
Here's a video that a friend made for AJ. Figured I might as well share it here. [video=youtube;_vVd0KS8Ewg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vVd0KS8Ewg[/video]
[QUOTE=zzzZZZZ;36864068]Prison rape is a serious issue, and a big problem of the American correctional system. But my only, only point, was that that punishment would more befit the crime than a death sentence. For the precise reason that being confined to that is being confined to one of the worst punishments this country has to offer, be it a sponsored part of the justice system or otherwise. In other news, my friend who was missing came up on the list. 18 years old. R.I.P. man.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;2bosouX_d8Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bosouX_d8Y[/video] I'm so sorry man. :smith:
Whenever I hear about shootings like this, I'm always reminded of this video about the role the media plays in perpetuating spree killings: [video=youtube;l8rMYyegT5Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rMYyegT5Y[/video] How many of those things have been true for the news coverage of this tragedy?
[QUOTE=Camundongo;36891747]Whenever I hear about shootings like this, I'm always reminded of this video about the role the media plays in perpetuating spree killings: [video=youtube;l8rMYyegT5Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rMYyegT5Y[/video] How many of those things have been true for the news coverage of this tragedy?[/QUOTE] Spot on in every respect.
[QUOTE=areolop;36887611]The issue is not the gun control in this. The issue is the man. Everytime there is a shooting someone always brings up how proper gun control could have prevented it.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't say prevent, however stop someone from owning a military grade firearms would have reduced the impact. It makes no sense why someone is allowed to own that shit, it is not even usable for anything but hurting other people (maybe the shotgun for hunting). I hunt myself, I have a 20g Shotgun and a 22' rifle, if I wanted to I could defend myself with this, I do not need a gun that can fire off 30+ rounds, makes no sense why I would need one (zombie invasion? WWIII?). I support owning guns for a purpose, I do not support owning stupid powerful guns.
[QUOTE=Chevron;36893750]I wouldn't say prevent, however stop someone from owning a military grade firearms would have reduced the impact. It makes no sense why someone is allowed to own that shit, it is not even usable for anything but hurting other people (maybe the shotgun for hunting). I hunt myself, I have a 20g Shotgun and a 22' rifle, if I wanted to I could defend myself with this, I do not need a gun that can fire off 30+ rounds, makes no sense why I would need one (zombie invasion? WWIII?). I support owning guns for a purpose, I do not support owning stupid powerful guns.[/QUOTE] The problem is Colorado with that but, no one can justify owning an assault rifle. There are, like you said, no good reasons to own it. I know where I live you have to go to through an extensive background and questionnaire on what and why your buying that firearm.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.