Massive shooting in Colorado during The Dark Knight, 14 dead

Cars kill more people. Maybe we should outlaw cars. Its amazing how sensationalized a shooting gets. People should look at some stats before taking away rights of normal citizens.

In 2010 - Highway traffic crashes 32,885 dead (midsize city every year).
Wheres the news and wheres Obama.
2010 and 2011 U.S. & Pennsylvania Car Accident Statistics

I feel sorry for the families and lost lives in the shooting. But there's much bigger issues to worry about in the grand scheme of things. Taking away peoples right to protect themselves isnt the answer if you actually want to make a measurable impact on saving lives tomorrow.
 


WhatupG said:
It made sense long ago but not these days. In the days when it was drafted, people COULD overthrow the government with guns.

These days the U.S. government on both the state and federal levels is simply too well armed. There's no way a few rednecks are going to stand a chance against them. All gun standoffs eventually end with the police winning. Nobody has ever successfully defended themselves from government forces. Look at how they dealt with the David Koresh crazies in Waco Texas many moons ago. The crazy Waco compound was extremely well armed. Even in those days, there was no hesitation to use military violence on the citizens. That was in 1993, if you don't think the government has been amping up the arsenal and the army since then, you haven't been paying attention.

It gets worse every year. Soon there will be tens of thousands of armed drones in the skies of 'free' America, taking out anyone they feel is a threat. The feds have been heavily gearing up in the last decade to aggressively destroy anyone or any group that dares to resist.

I could be wrong, but I don't think having a few guns is going to make much of a difference against the present power structure. There's probably no other country in the world that has anywhere near such a well armed government. They have tons of tactical weapons, robots, vehicles etc... that make Joe Bob and his rifle look like childs play. A violent uprising in America is nothing more than suicide by cop, atf, fema, dhs, swat, army, national guard, etc....

The saddest part of it, is that all of this is 100% funded by the very people it controls.

Yeah it's a valid argument that a gun can protect you from a robbery, but I don't believe for one second that the original intention of the second amendment is valid against the current military police state.
Click to expand...

What happens is the few armed citizens, let's imagine if 10,000 were armed, or even a thousand - things change when the army units, police, etc, begin to go against orders, refuse to kill their fellow citizens, and change sides.

Your point leads to the conclusions of why we should have local militia's capable of standing down the Central Govt - for at least long enough for the Central Army to choose sides.
 
WhatupG said:
It made sense long ago but not these days. In the days when it was drafted, people COULD overthrow the government with guns.

These days the U.S. government on both the state and federal levels is simply too well armed. There's no way a few rednecks are going to stand a chance against them. All gun standoffs eventually end with the police winning. Nobody has ever successfully defended themselves from government forces. Look at how they dealt with the David Koresh crazies in Waco Texas many moons ago. The crazy Waco compound was extremely well armed. Even in those days, there was no hesitation to use military violence on the citizens. That was in 1993, if you don't think the government has been amping up the arsenal and the army since then, you haven't been paying attention.
Click to expand...

A small group of people, like those slaughtered in the Waco affair, have little chance of overpowering - or even surviving an assault from - the military, police, etc. That much is clear. But I do believe a large movement, with the support of the populace, could do so if armed.

The U.S. military and police are heavily armed (obviously) with more sophisticated weaponry and surveillance equipment. But that alone doesn't give them victory. For example, our military hasn't been very successful winning wars for a long time, even after picking fights with peoples armed with little more than AKs and rocket launchers.

In fact, one of the reasons counterinsurgency was promoted within our military was because of the difficulty of winning wars with might alone. The field manual recommends winning the support of the populace, and thereby defeating insurgents - even poorly-armed insurgents. (That means bribing the populace, rather than raping them.)

I think an armed populace in the U.S. could survive an assault by the government. More importantly, the state knows that the moment it attacks its people on a broad basis, the people will realize the state is illegitimate. They will abandon the state, and ignore any bleating of supposed authority.

That is how states begin to dissolve - when the "class consciousness of the exploited" (as Hoppe has referred to it) shifts.
 
JakeStratham said:
A small group of people, like those slaughtered in the Waco affair, have little chance of overpowering - or even surviving an assault from - the military, police, etc. That much is clear. But I do believe a large movement, with the support of the populace, could do so if armed.

The U.S. military and police are heavily armed (obviously) with more sophisticated weaponry and surveillance equipment. But that alone doesn't give them victory. For example, our military hasn't been very successful winning wars for a long time, even after picking fights with peoples armed with little more than AKs and rocket launchers.

In fact, one of the reasons counterinsurgency was promoted within our military was because of the difficulty of winning wars with might alone. The field manual recommends winning the support of the populace, and thereby defeating insurgents - even poorly-armed insurgents. (That means bribing the populace, rather than raping them.)

I think an armed populace in the U.S. could survive an assault by the government. More importantly, the state knows that the moment it attacks its people on a broad basis, the people will realize the state is illegitimate. They will abandon the state, and ignore any bleating of supposed authority.

That is how states begin to dissolve - when the "class consciousness of the exploited" (as Hoppe has referred to it) shifts.
Click to expand...

I'd say this is exactly what is happening in Syria right now. Helicopter gunship kills your brother? Time to bomb the state institutions.
 
JarredLv said:
This article is bullshit. I know for a fact that Century Theaters post "No Weapons" signs, so there is no way a armed person could have got in.
Click to expand...

Haha good one.

Those signs aren't doing a very good job. I think they need more. That should stop 'em for sure.

Don't generalise us English, not all of us have been castrated. I'm insanely jealous of US' constitution and rights that we don't have here.
 
WhatupG said:
It made sense long ago but not these days. In the days when it was drafted, people COULD overthrow the government with guns.

These days the U.S. government on both the state and federal levels is simply too well armed. There's no way a few rednecks are going to stand a chance against them. All gun standoffs eventually end with the police winning. Nobody has ever successfully defended themselves from government forces. Look at how they dealt with the David Koresh crazies in Waco Texas many moons ago. The crazy Waco compound was extremely well armed. Even in those days, there was no hesitation to use military violence on the citizens. That was in 1993, if you don't think the government has been amping up the arsenal and the army since then, you haven't been paying attention.

It gets worse every year. Soon there will be tens of thousands of armed drones in the skies of 'free' America, taking out anyone they feel is a threat. The feds have been heavily gearing up in the last decade to aggressively destroy anyone or any group that dares to resist.

I could be wrong, but I don't think having a few guns is going to make much of a difference against the present power structure. There's probably no other country in the world that has anywhere near such a well armed government. They have tons of tactical weapons, robots, vehicles etc... that make Joe Bob and his rifle look like childs play. A violent uprising in America is nothing more than suicide by cop, atf, fema, dhs, swat, army, national guard, etc....

The saddest part of it, is that all of this is 100% funded by the very people it controls.

Yeah it's a valid argument that a gun can protect you from a robbery, but I don't believe for one second that the original intention of the second amendment is valid against the current military police state.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you; but for me:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiQoq-wqZxg]The Clash - Guns Of Brixton Video - YouTube[/ame]

(it ain't about winning; it's about dignity)
 
WhatupG said:
It made sense long ago but not these days. In the days when it was drafted, people COULD overthrow the government with guns...
Click to expand...
LULZ!

Although Jake gave an awesome answer to this silly post already, I can't seem to help myself from piling on because of the incredible depth of stupidity displayed here.

The founding fathers didn't likely picture a few dozen ppl heading to the capital and taking over. That's not what revolutions are. It's downright moronic to think like this, as if some drunken rednecks can form a posse and remove the government at any point in history.

No, revolutions are always thus:

1. The established government is doing such a bad job that a LARGE portion of the population is ready to fight.

2. If they have guns, they large population forms an army of sorts and overpowers any resistance to install a new government.

If the populace isn't armed, then they're usually trapped in the evil government until the government collapses from economic reasons, perhaps centuries later.

If the queen of England right now became an evil tyrant that disbanded parliment and forced every citizen to kill their 1st born, the brits would have no option to but shut up and take it until the day comes that they can persuade their military to fight with them.

Not so here in the USA. At least this week.
 
WhatupG said:
It made sense long ago but not these days. In the days when it was drafted, people COULD overthrow the government with guns.

These days the U.S. government on both the state and federal levels is simply too well armed. There's no way a few rednecks are going to stand a chance against them. All gun standoffs eventually end with the police winning. Nobody has ever successfully defended themselves from government forces. Look at how they dealt with the David Koresh crazies in Waco Texas many moons ago. The crazy Waco compound was extremely well armed. Even in those days, there was no hesitation to use military violence on the citizens. That was in 1993, if you don't think the government has been amping up the arsenal and the army since then, you haven't been paying attention.

It gets worse every year. Soon there will be tens of thousands of armed drones in the skies of 'free' America, taking out anyone they feel is a threat. The feds have been heavily gearing up in the last decade to aggressively destroy anyone or any group that dares to resist.

I could be wrong, but I don't think having a few guns is going to make much of a difference against the present power structure. There's probably no other country in the world that has anywhere near such a well armed government. They have tons of tactical weapons, robots, vehicles etc... that make Joe Bob and his rifle look like childs play. A violent uprising in America is nothing more than suicide by cop, atf, fema, dhs, swat, army, national guard, etc....

The saddest part of it, is that all of this is 100% funded by the very people it controls.

Yeah it's a valid argument that a gun can protect you from a robbery, but I don't believe for one second that the original intention of the second amendment is valid against the current military police state.
Click to expand...


Guess that's why the U.S. government had such a cakewalk in Afghan and Iraq fighting the citizens who had homemade bombs and AK47s.

HERP DERP US GOVERNMENT IS ALL MIGHTY

I'd like to think, given the amount/type/quality of weapons our citizens have, we would give the U.S. Government far worse of a headache than the Iraqis did.
 
lukep said:
revolutions are always thus:
Click to expand...

Not so much bro. Revolutions as you described them are not overwhelmingly prevalent, particularly in the last couple centuries.

There's the Nasser style nationalist revolution of mid-ranking military.

There are revolutions of mixed religious and political leadership, ala Rome etc.

There are revolutions of overt external influence, as in the creation of Pakistan, Saudi, etc.

And there are revolutions of covert external incluence, which are the most prevalent today, otherwise known as color revolutions.

It ain't all the downtrodden rising up with their pitchforks, as much as I would like it to be.
 
MSTeacher said:
Not so much bro. Revolutions as you described them are not overwhelmingly prevalent, particularly in the last couple centuries.

There's the Nasser style nationalist revolution of mid-ranking military.

There are revolutions of mixed religious and political leadership, ala Rome etc.

There are revolutions of overt external influence, as in the creation of Pakistan, Saudi, etc.

And there are revolutions of covert external incluence, which are the most prevalent today, otherwise known as color revolutions.

It ain't all the downtrodden rising up with their pitchforks, as much as I would like it to be.
Click to expand...
You can really be one nitpicky SOB, you know that MST?

My point was that it's well understood, even by the forefathers, that revolutions are for LARGE groups of people, not a few dozen like he was picturing.
 
lukep said:
LULZ!

Although Jake gave an awesome answer to this silly post already, I can't seem to help myself from piling on because of the incredible depth of stupidity displayed here.

The founding fathers didn't likely picture a few dozen ppl heading to the capital and taking over. That's not what revolutions are. It's downright moronic to think like this, as if some drunken rednecks can form a posse and remove the government at any point in history.

No, revolutions are always thus:

1. The established government is doing such a bad job that a LARGE portion of the population is ready to fight.

2. If they have guns, they large population forms an army of sorts and overpowers any resistance to install a new government.

If the populace isn't armed, then they're usually trapped in the evil government until the government collapses from economic reasons, perhaps centuries later.

If the queen of England right now became an evil tyrant that disbanded parliment and forced every citizen to kill their 1st born, the brits would have no option to but shut up and take it until the day comes that they can persuade their military to fight with them.

Not so here in the USA. At least this week.
Click to expand...

Replace what I said with a few Thousand, or a few Million, you still got the same issue. Guns verses tanks, missiles, airpower, mass crowd control devices, huge bombs, the most advanced military gear known to man and lots of it. Within a few days for most, or a few weeks for others, the little guns would be worthless as all the ammo would have been used up. Contrast this with the almost unlimited supply of the government.

The only way a revolution could be successful against such strength is if the government's own forces refused orders and changed sides. Guns alone are basically worthless in my opinion. Heck even one or two tanks could render huge amounts of gun toting rebels powerless. The US defense spending is bigger than the next 27 countries combined. Outgunned is an understatement.

This wasn't the case when the second amendment was drafted. Most people had guns and the small government was not in the violence business.
 
WhatupG said:
Heck even one or two tanks could render huge amounts of gun toting rebels powerless.
Click to expand...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0qeJqC5dFA]Talibans' History, told to an ex-American soldier - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQKoyJ8KRh4]American President Ronald Regan Meeting Taliban. - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZI1AIggBl0&]Russia in Afghanistan 1979 to 1989 - Part 1 of 3 - YouTube[/ame]
 
Yes, guns are worthless against tanks. Period. End of story.

Even a shitty homemade tank makes guns look like childrens toys.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXRXi1OrViU"]Bulldozer Coverted to Tank Fires and Crushes Colorado town over Land Dispute - YouTube[/ame]
 
Since this guy surrendered quietly and is still around, when do you think there will be a public interview? Like where we might hear any justifications from his lips not hypothesized by others? Like, there are 60 minutes type interviews with serial killers and shit, how long does it usually take after the incidents??

I guess when they start attending court?

Crazy how much money will be generated from this tragedy. The whole thing is crazy. Random victims, super intelligent killer, unknown motive, surrenders without a fight yet wearing body armor. And like, Colorado people are chill, outdoorsy fucking great people, why couldn't this shit happen in some shithole on the eastcoast? NJ or something.
 
Has no one mentioned the fact that a large portion of the US army would side with the population? I know many will not carry out gun confiscations or shoot on armed civilians if/when the time comes.
 
shindig said:
Since this guy surrendered quietly and is still around, when do you think there will be a public interview? Like where we might hear any justifications from his lips not hypothesized by others? Like, there are 60 minutes type interviews with serial killers and shit, how long does it usually take after the incidents??

I guess when they start attending court?

Crazy how much money will be generated from this tragedy. The whole thing is crazy. Random victims, super intelligent killer, unknown motive, surrenders without a fight yet wearing body armor. And like, Colorado people are chill, outdoorsy fucking great people, why couldn't this shit happen in some shithole on the eastcoast? NJ or something.
Click to expand...

Soon after it happened Obama gave a speech. What struck me was how often, and how sure he was that "we will never know" why the guy did it. The paranoid side of my brain was tingling to say the least. It's like Obama knows for certain that even if some evidence or statements are made, they will be quickly destroyed and hidden under the carpet. He seemed pretty certain that we will never know.

Keep in mind, this was soon after the incident. Long before they got into the guys apartment and had any time to start an investigation. How could anyone be so certain at that point in time?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfUSWDSYnlU]Colorado Theater Shooting President Obama Addresses Nation Full Speech - YouTube[/ame]
 
WhatupG said:
Soon after it happened Obama gave a speech. What struck me was how often, and how sure he was that "we will never know" why the guy did it. The paranoid side of my brain was tingling to say the least. It's like Obama knows for certain that even if some evidence or statements are made, they will be quickly destroyed and hidden under the carpet. He seemed pretty certain that we will never know.

Keep in mind, this was soon after the incident. Long before they got into the guys apartment and had any time to start an investigation. How could anyone be so certain at that point in time?

Colorado Theater Shooting President Obama Addresses Nation Full Speech - YouTube
Click to expand...

That lady in the crowd... "yeaaaaaa. yeaaaaaaaaaaaaa. yeaaaaaaaaaaa. mmmmmmhmmmmmmmmmmmmm". Is it just me or is there at least one person like that at almost every single one of his performances? Yes, I said performances.

And sorry, didn't want to sidetrack.

Technically he said "never know why someone would take the life of another" not necessarily this person, just being general for the whole "why would someone kill someone else" type of statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom