What right does he have to demand I lose my rights?

[Katzndogz]

When he attacked those three with a knife, if one of them had a gun none of the other deaths would have happened.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I feel no need to pity a man in grief who brings more grief on himself because of his own words or actions. I cannot have pity on a man who uses the death of his child to engage in petty partisan politics. If anyone has an issue with this, they can promptly take a hike.

 

[Pogo]

Say, now I do believe he brought that on himself, now didn't he?

You know you deserve a neg for that - you know that, right?

"Brought it on himself" by daring to have a child who would 20 years later get in the way of a bullet? That what you mean?

Dickhead.

Um, no. If anything I deserve a little more respect from you, [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION].

Before you go putting words in my mouth, I'm saying he's garbage for turning the death of his son into a political weapon, which denigrates the memory of his son's life in this world. I was angry at him when I watched him speak. How could he? He dared to lash out at the NRA and other like minded individuals. He dared to turn his son's death into a political circus.

No father brings the loss of their loved ones upon themself, but the ire he drew from those he lashed out at is a product of his own actions. For that, he brought it down on himself, deservedly.

You got a ton of respect when I didn't neg you for blaming the victim. For now.

YOU are the one turning this into a political circus. Stop being a fucking sociopath because your handlers tell you to. It's disgusting.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is within human nature to grieve. But grief is no excuse for needlessly attacking others. Exempting him and his behavior due to his grief is like saying a fire isn't destructive because it blindly burns everything in it's path. No excuse. Never take the death of a loved one as an opportunity to attack the innocent.

 

[Pogo]

It is within human nature to grieve. But grief is no excuse for needlessly attacking others. Exempting him and his behavior due to his grief is like saying a fire isn't destructive because it blindly burns everything in it's path. No excuse. Never take the death of a loved one as an opportunity to attack the innocent.

Which is exactly what you've been doing here.

Flaming hypocrisy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You know you deserve a neg for that - you know that, right?

"Brought it on himself" by daring to have a child who would 20 years later get in the way of a bullet? That what you mean?

Dickhead.

Um, no. If anything I deserve a little more respect from you, @Pogo .

Before you go putting words in my mouth, I'm saying he's garbage for turning the death of his son into a political weapon, which denigrates the memory of his son's life in this world. I was angry at him when I watched him speak. How could he? He dared to lash out at the NRA and other like minded individuals. He dared to turn his son's death into a political circus.

No father brings the loss of their loved ones upon themself, but the ire he drew from those he lashed out at is a product of his own actions. For that, he brought it down on himself, deservedly.

You got a ton of respect when I didn't neg you for blaming the victim. For now.

YOU are the one turning this into a political circus. Stop being a fucking sociopath because your handlers tell you to. It's disgusting.

Sure, but you've already negged me, and with it went your respect. You lack wisdom. You lack insight. You are hotheaded. All you see is politics this and faux outrage that. You have just now done the same thing the father did. You accuse me of being over the line? I say the father already has crossed it. What did the NRA do to kill his son? Nothing. So why mention them? What did conservatives do to kill his son? Nothing.

How can he do something like that? No father would ever use the death of his son or daughter as a political vehicle.

And I have no handlers. The only one in charge of me is the Lord Almighty, Pogo. It's disgusting that you're agreeing with his petty remarks about people who were nowhere near his son, nor held any sway over his death. Grief does not absolve you of responsibility, nor of consequences.

Such irreverence. It is truly appalling.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is within human nature to grieve. But grief is no excuse for needlessly attacking others. Exempting him and his behavior due to his grief is like saying a fire isn't destructive because it blindly burns everything in it's path. No excuse. Never take the death of a loved one as an opportunity to attack the innocent.

Which is exactly what you've been doing here.

Flaming hypocrisy.

@Pogo

No sir, you may not walk away from this.

I haven't done anything you're accusing me of. If you can quote me on that, however, I'd appreciate it. Spare me your false outrage. Keep your indignance to yourself. What I saw was a father grieving the death of his son. What I saw was a father using the death of his son to attack innocent others. It makes me angry to see a father think so little of his own son to use him as a tool. It infuriates me to even think of such a thing.

Now, sit down, and chill the fuck out, Pogo.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, he needs to give himself a break. He lost his kid, now he's stirring the pot. I feel no need to pity someone who would bring that on himself.

You feel no pity at all, we are well aware of that.

Can you believe how heartless so many right wingers are? Such selfishness. Growing up in this country and feeling like that. I don't get it. Was it something that happened when they were growing up? Some traumatic experience that left them unable to feel human emotions?

We met you.

 

[MikeK]

Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage

Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?

Disgusting.

Yes, ban guns, ban knives, and ban anything that could possibly be used as a weapon.

And before you conservatards flip out and post some stupid comment like, "durrr how culd we inforce dat ur dum lol", Australia already has exactly this policy in place. Hammers are considered tightly-regulated weapons of mass destruction there because they, too, can be used as weapons.

It's time for America to step into the 21st Century and outlaw all weapons, as well as anything else that kills people.

And exactly how do you propose to implement such a mandate?

If a law demanding surrender of all firearms is passed the vast majority of sane, law-abiding citizens will comply. But the criminals and the crazies, the ones whom the law is intended to deprive, will not comply. And the violence will continue.

For the past four decades more than a trillion dollars has been wasted on the War On Drugs, which also has fostered a menacing militarization of our civilian police agencies and created a prison industrial complex with a prison census greater than the most totalitarian nations of the world combined. What good has it done? Have drugs been made unavailable? The fact is drugs are more available today than when Ronald Reagan escalated Nixon's failed drug war -- and there has been no reduction in the use of illegal drugs.

Banning alcohol was a failure. The ban on drugs is a failure. And if guns were banned all that will be achieved is the creation of another black market with all sorts of foreign guns smuggled in from Europe, Asia, and South America to satisfy the "bad guys'" needs.

Only the responsible, law-abiding citizens will be disarmed.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Gosh... the kid's body wasn't even cold yet before the father starts taking swings at the NRA and other politicians. What nerve? Why even have a son if all you are going to do when he dies is use him to politically attack others? Huh? What reverence is there in doing such a thing?

 

[Stephanie]

What right does he have to demand I lose my rights?

It’s sad and telling when you and others on the right fail to exhibit the same outrage when a conservative advocates that gay Americans be denied their right to equal protection of the law, and seeks to disallow gays to marry.

lol, not even close
partisan hack

 

[Pete7469]

Let's spin the dial of the not-so-wayback machine and look at prohibition? The 18th Amendment...and the result?

These people will NEVER learn.

Prohibition was never enforced strictly enough--and a good thing too, because binge drinking is quite possibly the best recreational activity to partake in.

The reason Prohibition ultimately failed was because--as I mentioned in my previous post responding to another user--they didn't ban everything that could potentially be used as a component in brewing or smuggling alcohol, hence the rise of moonshine and bootlegging. The War on Weapons will ban anything and everything that is a weapon, could become a weapon, or could conceivably be used in the development of a weapon, as well as outlawing any space discrete enough to conceal an illegal weapon, unfinished weapon, or weapon component.

Don't forget, Wrongpublican, it was your fellow religious extremist conservatards that brought about Prohibition, not liberals. Blaming us for your failures doesn't diminish our pristine track record of success.

In other words, if they had just banned yeast, corn, barley, plumbing supplies, fire, knowledge, the ability to think, and elephants, prohibition would have been a complete success.

You forgot rice, grapes, sugar, glass bottles, wood and oxygen.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Prohibition was never enforced strictly enough--and a good thing too, because binge drinking is quite possibly the best recreational activity to partake in.

The reason Prohibition ultimately failed was because--as I mentioned in my previous post responding to another user--they didn't ban everything that could potentially be used as a component in brewing or smuggling alcohol, hence the rise of moonshine and bootlegging. The War on Weapons will ban anything and everything that is a weapon, could become a weapon, or could conceivably be used in the development of a weapon, as well as outlawing any space discrete enough to conceal an illegal weapon, unfinished weapon, or weapon component.

Don't forget, Wrongpublican, it was your fellow religious extremist conservatards that brought about Prohibition, not liberals. Blaming us for your failures doesn't diminish our pristine track record of success.

In other words, if they had just banned yeast, corn, barley, plumbing supplies, fire, knowledge, the ability to think, and elephants, prohibition would have been a complete success.

You forgot rice, grapes, sugar, glass bottles, wood and oxygen.

and copper

 

[JoeB131]

Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage

Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?

Disgusting.

yes, the fact that you are only kept sane by chemicals and still insist you need a gun is disgusting.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage

Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?

Disgusting.

Yes, ban guns, ban knives, and ban anything that could possibly be used as a weapon.

And before you conservatards flip out and post some stupid comment like, "durrr how culd we inforce dat ur dum lol", Australia already has exactly this policy in place. Hammers are considered tightly-regulated weapons of mass destruction there because they, too, can be used as weapons.

It's time for America to step into the 21st Century and outlaw all weapons, as well as anything else that kills people.

The problem there is that ANYTHING can be used to kill people.

Would you have hands and feet banned?

Mandatory amputations maybe?

 

[Stephanie]

this is the "man" in tears blaming the NRA and Republicans FOR his sons actions
pictures at site

SNIP:

Exclusive: “Hunger Games” Killer’s Dad Sells Art Photos of Women’s Behinds

■Art
■Exclusives


by Roger Friedman - May 25, 2014 3:32 am

46 5135




EXCLUSIVE While Santa Barbara killer Elliot Rodger “rotted in loneliness,” his father, Peter Rodger, was anything but unable to enjoy women.

Peter Rodger isn’t just the second assistant director on “The Hunger Games.” He is also a photographer. His specialty? Women’s backsides. Arses, as it were. (He’s British.)

Sexy? Oh yes.And strange considering Elliot’s frightening declaration to “slaughter” everyone like animals.

Peter Rodger is the son of George Rodger, the famed British war photographer who helped start the Magnum photo agency. George Rodger was legendary for photos he took in World War II including some at the final days of concentration camps like Bergen Belsen. He was a serious photo journalist and died in 1995.

peter rodger

Son Peter has another focus altogether. He sells his black and white art photos of women’s bums for $1,250 on the Saatchi Art website. These derrieres are seen at the Taj Mahal, near the Eiffel Tower, in a seedy New York hotel room, and so on. They are all artfully done.

It does seem a tad peculiar that while dad was busy shooting rear ends, the son was having severe emotional problems concerning women, sex, and intimacy. In his terrifying YouTube video, Elliot talks about being unloved, being a 22 year old virgin, hating women and sexually active men. He promises to kill all of them.

Tragically, he carried through on his promise. On Friday night in Santa Barbara, California, Elliott killed seven people including himself, and wounded seven others according to reports.

ALL of it here
Exclusive: ?Hunger Games? Killer?s Dad Sells Art Photos of Women?s Behinds | Showbiz411

 

[kaz]

It is clear that when the insane get guns, there is rarely a pleasant outcome. The tool of the trade, the assault weapon, is what makes the insane "mass murderers". Further, that same tool is involved in gang shootings. Given the common link and the design features of the assault weapon, could we consider controls on how these deadly weapons are acquired?

I like how shootings with no one shooting back proves to you that we need gun laws. More shootings with no one shooting back proves we need more gun laws. When bombs blow up at the Boston Marathon that proves we need more gun laws. A guy who stabbed three people also proves we need more gun laws.

So riddle me this batman. Which is easier?

A) Keep the millions of guns in the US, the millions of guns outside the US, people from manufacturing their own guns, knives, explosives and other weapons away from nut jobs.

B) Let people arm themselves and have a chance.

You know what would be really cool?

Arm the fire hydrants with gasoline instead of water. Let the fire "have a chance".

Yes, victims having guns is just escalation, it's better that only the criminals have them. Then again how do you tell the criminal anyway? The robber or the one being robbed? Who knows? Impossible to tell. Then of course we'll make commercials convincing criminals that guns aren't cool so they don't want them anymore. Farts will smell like lilacs and gumdrops will fall from the sky. You've mentioned this before.

 

[kaz]

It is clear that when the insane get guns, there is rarely a pleasant outcome. The tool of the trade, the assault weapon, is what makes the insane "mass murderers". Further, that same tool is involved in gang shootings. Given the common link and the design features of the assault weapon, could we consider controls on how these deadly weapons are acquired?

I like how shootings with no one shooting back proves to you that we need gun laws. More shootings with no one shooting back proves we need more gun laws. When bombs blow up at the Boston Marathon that proves we need more gun laws. A guy who stabbed three people also proves we need more gun laws.

So riddle me this batman. Which is easier?

A) Keep the millions of guns in the US, the millions of guns outside the US, people from manufacturing their own guns, knives, explosives and other weapons away from nut jobs.

B) Let people arm themselves and have a chance.

Obviously A is easier, right Nosmo? LOL. You people are the nut jobs....

Could you consider manufacturing run quotas? Universal background checks? An insurance requirement for assault weapon purchase? Are there common sense solutions to gun violence?

Could you consider manufacturing run quotas? - No, that's stupid. People can just import them like they do drugs. The genie is out of the bag. Guns are not hard to make even if you could get rid of them all for one moment, they would just come back. How's the war on drugs working for you?

Universal background checks? - Only to arrest felons who buy guns, not to restrict citizens.

An insurance requirement for assault weapon purchase? - Flagrantly unconstitutional and rightly so. Would you consider that we tax abortion? We tax free speech? We tax religious freedom? That we tax voting? You can't tax Constitutional rights.

Are there common sense solutions to gun violence? - Yes, end our idiotic laws that prevent honest citizens from arming and do nothing to stop criminals from arming.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Tearful plea from victim's dad in deadly rampage

Unbelievable he would deny over 100 million their rights because of one person. And the left will eat it up. How about the 3 he stabbed to death? Shouldn't we ban knives too?

Disgusting.

Yes, ban guns, ban knives, and ban anything that could possibly be used as a weapon.

And before you conservatards flip out and post some stupid comment like, "durrr how culd we inforce dat ur dum lol", Australia already has exactly this policy in place. Hammers are considered tightly-regulated weapons of mass destruction there because they, too, can be used as weapons.

It's time for America to step into the 21st Century and outlaw all weapons, as well as anything else that kills people.

The problem there is that ANYTHING can be used to kill people.

Would you have hands and feet banned?

Mandatory amputations maybe?

Anything can be used to kill people, but to kill someone at close range when they are not tied up, asleep or drugged requires more than hands and feet. Since risk is involved is takes bit of bravery, thus, the coward relies on a gun (in fact, the possession of a gun makes a 'brave' man out of he coward).

 

[Iceweasel]

Anything can be used to kill people, but to kill someone at close range when they are not tied up, asleep or drugged requires more than hands and feet. Since risk is involved is takes bit of bravery, thus, the coward relies on a gun (in fact, the possession of a gun makes a 'brave' man out of he coward).

That explains why the shooters are liberals.