Cinamark is one of the theaters that has rules against concealed carry. Had someone other than the gunman been carrying this whole thing may have ended far less tragically.
A "Living Document"
- Thread starter Lerxst
- Start date
Cinamark is one of the theaters that has rules against concealed carry. Had someone other than the gunman been carrying this whole thing may have ended far less tragically.
I think that 'conservative' versus 'liberal' is a narrative that is being woven by the media but really the weavers of this narrative do not see themselves as belonging to either of these groups, they just play them off against each other whilst slowly moving the divided mass of people in the general direction that they want them to go in
The 'weavers' i'm talking about here are the military industrial complex
The US government is the biggest arms dealer in the world and is also using its own weaponry in conflicts across the globe....does that make them the biggest 'loser with a gun'?
What is this, the sopranos? Mob rule is mob rule. Back then the King was the only member of the mob, now in backwards Europe -- The government is.
America is the country the entire world laughs at and then we feel bad. Like we're the fuck ups. This post modernists rhetoric you preach is hardly worthwhile, just because you scream something a thousand times doesn't change its stance of validity. I'm usually not the "if its broke don't fix it" type of person -- infact all I do at my job is rid the workplace of unnecessary inefficiencies, when I ask someone why they are doing it this way "oh its the way we've always done it." So don't take my stance against changing the constitution as some backwoods virginian who just don't like black people or homoseckuals. The reason why I'm against changing the constittion is because perhaps by dumb luck, they stumbled a perfect document. Yes, of course there are a few blemishes, but overall the document is made to support freedom. Yea yea, I know all the anti-guns pro greenergy 14 year old infj psychics from Europe all like to talk about how great Europe is... You know, because 14 year olds know so much.
oh lawdddddddddddddddddddddddd
JUSTICE FOR TRAYVON!@###@$#!$#!@#!@#!!!!@@!@!#@!@@
of all things you didn't relate this to bankers???
When i say the 'military industrial complex' i mean an elite who have business interests in many areas for example weapons manufacturing, oil and banking which are all interwoven and all profit from war
An example would be the Rockefellers
I always have to wonder if "gun control" laws would ever really work. Anyone who's read the news, interviews or documentaries realizes that a lot of guns used in crimes were originally legally made and sold after their production.
Now, the people committing these crimes obviously aren't of sound enough mind to buy a gun legally, so they buy them illegally. These are guns the gun control laws allowed to legally be made and legally sold. Seems if people are going around shooting one another, the laws don't work.
Either the laws need to make it illegal to manufacture guns for civilian use, allowing only military and police to purchase them. Or the laws need to allow everyone to own a gun. Problem with option 1, is that we'd end up being controlled by the police force. Problem with option 2 is that we'd let every suicidally disturbed person go on occasional rampages when they felt like it.
If you want to take the huge purple elephant in the room and look at the Ohio shooting, you think it would have made a bit of difference if everyone in that theater had a gun? Someone sneaks into a dark, crowded place carrying an assault weapon and the even deadlier element of surprise. Unless everyone was staring at him the second he walked in, how much do you think the outcome would have changed?
The laws we have obviously didn't stop him form possessing those guns, but does that mean we let the entire country turn into the Wild West?
Going back to the original topic... did the Founding Fathers ever think a situation like this would even come up? Did they realize what assault rifles, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, etc were? Do you think they pictured a society where everyone was carrying around weapons that could kill everyone on a city block in under 1 minute when they were still using flintlock pistols and muskets? You think, perhaps, that is what Madison and Jefferson were referring to by the meanings of words changing and the advances of man?
Now, the people committing these crimes obviously aren't of sound enough mind to buy a gun legally, so they buy them illegally. These are guns the gun control laws allowed to legally be made and legally sold. Seems if people are going around shooting one another, the laws don't work.
Either the laws need to make it illegal to manufacture guns for civilian use, allowing only military and police to purchase them. Or the laws need to allow everyone to own a gun. Problem with option 1, is that we'd end up being controlled by the police force. Problem with option 2 is that we'd let every suicidally disturbed person go on occasional rampages when they felt like it.
If you want to take the huge purple elephant in the room and look at the Ohio shooting, you think it would have made a bit of difference if everyone in that theater had a gun? Someone sneaks into a dark, crowded place carrying an assault weapon and the even deadlier element of surprise. Unless everyone was staring at him the second he walked in, how much do you think the outcome would have changed?
The laws we have obviously didn't stop him form possessing those guns, but does that mean we let the entire country turn into the Wild West?
Going back to the original topic... did the Founding Fathers ever think a situation like this would even come up? Did they realize what assault rifles, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, etc were? Do you think they pictured a society where everyone was carrying around weapons that could kill everyone on a city block in under 1 minute when they were still using flintlock pistols and muskets? You think, perhaps, that is what Madison and Jefferson were referring to by the meanings of words changing and the advances of man?
I've personally heard of the opposite with two separate people I knew; carrying a weapon actually caused them to get into an "altercation" most people would have just avoided. They let it get to their heads that they were "protected" and approached a bad situation head-on when they could have just walked/driven away.
I read a story a friend of mine liked on facebook, it was something like this little ol' grandma in Georgia I think... Some dude broke into her house, and she was upstairs and he came up and like opened the door and had a gun. But he saw she was old so I guess he went to find some rope or something. Came back in the room with a spool of rope and left with a hole in his chest.
Grandma was packin'.
Interestingly enough, I pretty much agree with Lerxst' gun control post kind of... I mean obviously I would never condone option 1, but it does raise the dilemma. Which extreme? I have no problem with having to do a background check to buy a weapon. Unfortunately, things like Aurora happened, where he woudl have passed ALL the tests.
This also brings to light the issue of having 'background' checks for guns, and slowly making tem ore and more difficult to get, essentially making it impossible to buy guns. Like in New York, where it has taken up to a year in some cases. (some meaning thousands, not like 4 or 5 cases lol) I also am fine with checking to make sure someone is mentally stable... Here's the issue: Once that's in place, whats stopping the party/belief system in control from saying the opposite belief/party is mentally unbalanced?
I definitely think guns should be 'readily available' if you know what I mean. No absurd months waiting list to get the 5 guns on sale a month. But a week to wait is fine... Again though that isn't guaranteed to solve any problems.
Lets just go back to swords.
And I don't think the founding fathers anticipated such an evolved weaponry arsenal, however they weren't concerned withthat. They were concerned with man vs. govt with their emphasis on that, it doesn't matter how high tech shit is if I have to work my ass off to not be foreclosed goddamnit ima have claymores and rifles to make sure my one utensil set isn't stolen.
Grandma was packin'.
Interestingly enough, I pretty much agree with Lerxst' gun control post kind of... I mean obviously I would never condone option 1, but it does raise the dilemma. Which extreme? I have no problem with having to do a background check to buy a weapon. Unfortunately, things like Aurora happened, where he woudl have passed ALL the tests.
This also brings to light the issue of having 'background' checks for guns, and slowly making tem ore and more difficult to get, essentially making it impossible to buy guns. Like in New York, where it has taken up to a year in some cases. (some meaning thousands, not like 4 or 5 cases lol) I also am fine with checking to make sure someone is mentally stable... Here's the issue: Once that's in place, whats stopping the party/belief system in control from saying the opposite belief/party is mentally unbalanced?
I definitely think guns should be 'readily available' if you know what I mean. No absurd months waiting list to get the 5 guns on sale a month. But a week to wait is fine... Again though that isn't guaranteed to solve any problems.
Lets just go back to swords.
And I don't think the founding fathers anticipated such an evolved weaponry arsenal, however they weren't concerned withthat. They were concerned with man vs. govt with their emphasis on that, it doesn't matter how high tech shit is if I have to work my ass off to not be foreclosed goddamnit ima have claymores and rifles to make sure my one utensil set isn't stolen.
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2012/...tening-to.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop
"Carner said he saw Mendoza-Alvarado hit the electrical box on a power pole at the intersection with a big stick or club, causing sparks, documents said.
He said he honked to get the suspect to stop and that's when Mendoza-Alvarado came up and hit his truck, causing a dent.
Mendoza-Alvarado then pulled out a knife and threatened Carner, documents said.
Carner, who has a concealed weapons permit, pulled his handgun and held it up. He told deputies that he was scared, and said if Mendoza-Alvarado had broken the window, he would have shot him, documents said.
Mendoza-Alvarado took off running just as the deputy arrived."
Just the other day. It happens all the time, just isn't sexy enough to make the national news.
Which doesn't prove the gun is what scared him off. The thought of getting caught and jail time is more than likely the culprit.
what is this i dont even
jail time is street cred, its an honor to be arrested and then show off to all your folk.
however being shot is not an honorable thing unless you're trayvon, i suppose.
Probably not considering he was decked out with a lot more than a handgun. It was dark, he was ready, everybody else wasn't, and it was a lot easier for him to hit people than it would have been for anyone to hit him with everyone running away in confusion and panic.
Or we could all just wear body armor around and carry assault rifles so everyone can be safer. If you think anyone with a handgun vs. his gear in a movie theater, marksmen included, could have kept it from being a slaughter, you're living in a fairy tale.
Whether it scared him off or not doesn't matter. The old man not getting stabbed or dead because he had protection on him does.
Which is exactly what I'm saying wasn't proven. Did the gun scare the guy off, or the cop coming to the scene scare him off??
Yes, I'm sure the guy with the drawn gun had nothing to do with it. Must have been the cop that wasn't even there yet. Which monkey is the sarcastic monkey?