Give me a good reason why James "Joker" Holmes should have a gun?

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[martybegan]

[
Obama said that the USA is the greatest country in the history of the world.
You disagreed with him.
The liberal mantra says that disagreeing with the fearless leader is racist.
You are a vile racist pig.

I wonder, if you are the leader of the greatest country on wrath, why would you want to change it?
To change from greatest can only be to not greatest?
Hence, destroying the USA is the ultimate goal of liberals.
Correct?

The rest of the world has it figured out?
Greece, Spain, Portugal, N Korea......... ????

Perhaps if you had ever moved beyond the town you were born in you might see something.

Guy, I've been all over the country and all over the world.

Most of the world looks at America as fat, lazy, stupid and religious. And potentially dangerous.

FIXING the USA should be everyone's goal. But much like the fat guy who eats a bucket of chicken wings and never goes to the Gym, the first thing you have to get rid of is the denial.

We have too much wealth disparity.
We have too many guns.

History already shows this is never a good mix.

Self hating, another qaulity of the modern progressive.

 

[martybegan]

[

19,000 suicides, I have a feeling those idiots knew how to use the gun pefectly well.

Same as the gangbangers who the shootings, the ones that will still have guns even after you disarm the rest of us in your facist government utopia.

Keep being an eliteist dickwad, it suits you well.

Yeah, frankly, can't see a good reason for you to have a gun, really.

I mean, just reading your posts, you can tell you're a disaster looking for a place to happen.

2nd amendment, and I have no felony convictions or adjudicated mental health issues.

Those are the only reasons I need to own a firearm. You dont like it? Go fuck yourself with a tire-iron.

 

[dblack]

[

19,000 suicides, I have a feeling those idiots knew how to use the gun pefectly well.

Same as the gangbangers who the shootings, the ones that will still have guns even after you disarm the rest of us in your facist government utopia.

Keep being an eliteist dickwad, it suits you well.

Yeah, frankly, can't see a good reason for you to have a gun, really.

I mean, just reading your posts, you can tell you're a disaster looking for a place to happen.

And if you can prove this in court, he shouldn't be allowed to own guns. Probably should be jail if that's the case.

But, that's not what you're talking about, is it? Our legal system is based on a presumption of innocence, and that's really what you're attacking with this thread. That's why you asked the question the way you did ("Why should he have a gun?", rather than "Why shouldn't he have a gun?").

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL.....how predictable is this weenie?

I pop up the research that decimates his crap and he disappears until the page turns over. Fcukking whimp.......

 

[legaleagle_45]

And, no, every country that has banned private gun ownership has seen their murder numbers plummet.

Very few countries have "banned private gun ownership". Those that do totally ban the private ownership of firearms tend to be dictatorships, such as China, which banned firearm ownership in response to:

1.) A huge upswing in crime an homicide and crime; or,

2.) It was done in response to Tiananmen Square protests as China already had a low crime and homicide rate.

If you choose (2) you would be correct.

Many people think that the UK has banned ownership of firearms. Actually persons are allowed to have shotguns and rifles. The first modern gun control laws in the UK were passed in 1919 this was done in response to:

1.) An unprecedented crime wave in the UK which saw a horrendous rise in the homicide rate; or,

2.) A little flair up in Russia caused the English nobility to be a bit afraid that the returning WWI veterans may do something similar.

If you choose #2 you would be correct as the homicide rate in the UK was at an historic low and the rate in the decade after gun control was actually higher than the average rate in the decade prior to gun control... and in fact was significantly lower than it is now. In the decade beginning in 1910 the homicide rate in the UK averaged 0.81/100,00. in the decade beginning in 1920 the homicide rate averages 0.83/100,000, the homicide rate for the decade beginning in 2000 averaged just about DOUBLE the rate that they had during the 1910's with an average rate of 1.6/100,000. Thankfully, in the 2010's, the rate has gone down to about 1.3/100,000 or only a bit higher than 50% above the rate in the 1910's... so tell us Joe, how does a homicide rate which is 50% to 100% higher than before gun control was initiated equate to a "plummeting homicide rate"? Is something like:

WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

You see Joe, you are lying. The fact is there is no "plummeting of homicide rates following gun control".

 

[Esmeralda]

You may be on to something, why should he be allowed free speech too, why should he have a right to privacy?

o/

Wow. You people do not understand logic at all. There is no logical correlation between the right to free speech or privacy and the right to own a firearm.

Over and over again, the same illogical reasoning comparing owning a gun to cars, comparing guns to kitchen knives, etc., and now comparing them to privacy and free speech.

 

[martybegan]

You may be on to something, why should he be allowed free speech too, why should he have a right to privacy?

o/

Wow. You people do not understand logic at all. There is no logical correlation between the right to free speech or privacy and the right to own a firearm.

Over and over again, the same illogical reasoning comparing owning a gun to cars, comparing guns to kitchen knives, etc., and now comparing them to privacy and free speech.

Nope. Both are examples of freedom from government intervention. the freedom to speak your mind and the freedom to defend yourself, both without the government getting to decide before hand if you are allowed to do it.

Guns are tools. Cars are tools, kitchen knives are tools. In the wrong hands they are dangerous, in the right hands they are fine. but only with guns do people want to restrict access to them due to the actions of others, and not due to the actions of those misusing them in the first place.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Wow. You people do not understand logic at all. There is no logical correlation between the right to free speech or privacy and the right to own a firearm.

A recent study of the 59 countries shows that countries with the highest gun ownership rates also tend to have the lowest corruption rates and the most personal and economic freedom.

Is There a Relationship between Guns and Freedom? Comparative Results from 59 Nations by David B. Kopel, Carlisle E. Moody, Howard Ross Nemerov :: SSRN

Conversely, autocratic or authoritarian countries tend to have lower gun ownership rates and have substantially fewer personal and economic freedoms. Id. These facts epitomize the wisdom of the author of the 2nd Amendment, James Madison:

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

The Federalist, No. 46 (James Madison).

 

[Esmeralda]

You may be on to something, why should he be allowed free speech too, why should he have a right to privacy?

o/

Wow. You people do not understand logic at all. There is no logical correlation between the right to free speech or privacy and the right to own a firearm.

Over and over again, the same illogical reasoning comparing owning a gun to cars, comparing guns to kitchen knives, etc., and now comparing them to privacy and free speech.

The logical tie is in the law.
This thing called the constitution and the amendments to the constitution.
Right to freedom of speech then right to bear arms.
In that order.

That doesn't work logically. That's like saying, bananas are yellow, therefore everything that is yellow is a banana. The point is, just because something is a law or an amendment to the constitution, it doesn't mean it is equal or parallel and can be considered as the same thing. Although they are all amendments (yellow) does not mean they are all bananas.

 

[martybegan]

Wow. You people do not understand logic at all. There is no logical correlation between the right to free speech or privacy and the right to own a firearm.

Over and over again, the same illogical reasoning comparing owning a gun to cars, comparing guns to kitchen knives, etc., and now comparing them to privacy and free speech.

The logical tie is in the law.
This thing called the constitution and the amendments to the constitution.
Right to freedom of speech then right to bear arms.
In that order.

That doesn't work logically. That's like saying, bananas are yellow, therefore everything that is yellow is a banana. The point is, just because something is a law or an amendment to the constitution, it doesn't mean it is equal or parallel and can be considered as the same thing. Although they are all amendments (yellow) does not mean they are all bananas.

Thats the opinion of a person who likes to ignore consituional rights in cases where they do not agree with said rights. All rights in the amendments are the same, and are of the same value. its more like you saying one bannana in a bunch is red, even though it isnt, because for some reason you dont like that one bannana.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Okay, throwdown time, Gun Whacks.

James "Joker Holmes. Crazy as batshit. Was able to buy and AR-15 and a drum magazine that held up to 100 rounds.

Everyone in his life knew he was batshit crazy.

Why should this person have the freedom to buy a gun.

No distractions about "founding fathers" or "he would have just gotten one illegally".

Please explain why THIS GUY should be allowed to buy a gun.

Why should his actions prevent me from buying a gun?

To answer your question, if everyone knew he was batshit crazy, why didnt someone he knew begin proceedings to have a judge consider him a threat, and thus put him on the "cant buy a gun list?"

Yeah Joe Blowhard expects anyone with a gun to police everyone else with a gun but he doesn't think this loon's family should be held responsible for not putting him away.

And it's an aberration.

The overwhelming percentage of people who legally own guns will not ever even point a weapon at another person much less kill anyone.

But Joe Blow wants to hold every gun owner responsible for what every other Tom Dick or Harry does with a gun
Because some guy robs a bank Joe would hold you responsible too but he doesn't want to be held accountable for the crimes of others.

Typical control freak hypocrite.

 

[Esmeralda]

Give me a good reason why James "Joker" Holmes should have a gun?

He just slipped through the cracks. Cracks the size of airport landing strips.

 

[legaleagle_45]

That doesn't work logically. That's like saying, bananas are yellow, therefore everything that is yellow is a banana. The point is, just because something is a law or an amendment to the constitution, it doesn't mean it is equal or parallel and can be considered as the same thing. Although they are all amendments (yellow) does not mean they are all bananas.

Why do you think the Chinese government passed a law completely banning the private ownership of firearms in the aftermath of Tiananmen Square? Do you think it was a crime control measure?

 

[Esmeralda]

That doesn't work logically. That's like saying, bananas are yellow, therefore everything that is yellow is a banana. The point is, just because something is a law or an amendment to the constitution, it doesn't mean it is equal or parallel and can be considered as the same thing. Although they are all amendments (yellow) does not mean they are all bananas.

Why do you think the Chinese government passed a law completely banning the private ownership of firearms in the aftermath of Tiananmen Square? Do you think it was a crime control measure?

This has nothing to do with the OP's question.

 

[Esmeralda]

The logical tie is in the law.
This thing called the constitution and the amendments to the constitution.
Right to freedom of speech then right to bear arms.
In that order.

That doesn't work logically. That's like saying, bananas are yellow, therefore everything that is yellow is a banana. The point is, just because something is a law or an amendment to the constitution, it doesn't mean it is equal or parallel and can be considered as the same thing. Although they are all amendments (yellow) does not mean they are all bananas.

No, it's like saying that the law of the land is the constitution.
If the 2nd amendment grants the right to bear arms then that is equal to all other amendments to the constitution and the bill of rights.
If you hate the law of the land, you hate the land.
In that case, fuck off elsewhere.

Another stray bullet. You guys do not know how to debate this issue logically.

 

[Esmeralda]

Why do you think the Chinese government passed a law completely banning the private ownership of firearms in the aftermath of Tiananmen Square? Do you think it was a crime control measure?

This has nothing to do with the OP's question.

Neither do bananas but you keep bumping your gums about them.

I'm giving you an example of how logic works. You are bringing up an issue that has no relevance to the OP's question.

 

[legaleagle_45]

This has nothing to do with the OP's question.

True, but it does have to do with your assertion that freedom of speech is unrelated to the right to keep and bear arms. Authoritarian governments which seek to suppress dissent will ALWAYS disarm the opposition.

Do you think Madison was wrong when he said this:

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

 

[Esmeralda]

This has nothing to do with the OP's question.

True, but it does have to do with your assertion that freedom of speech is unrelated to the right to keep and bear arms. Authoritarian governments which seek to suppress dissent will ALWAYS disarm the opposition.

Do you think Madison was wrong when he said this:

Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

Has nothing to do with the OP's question. His question focuses not on banning all firearms for all people but on keeping them out of the hands of the mentally ill. So, please, answer the OP's question.