On Friday, May 30, 2014 11:16:59 AM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2014 05:26:25 +0200, nestork

wrote:



And this analogy has nothing to do with responsible gun ownership. Guns

are safe when they're in responsible hands. It's when the gun falls

into the wrong hands and innocent people are killed for no reason that

the public demands that something be done. That's because it's at those

times that people realize that one person's right to life trumps 100

people's right to own a gun.



Nestor,



Same emotional argument could be made to take away other constitutional
rights. How many criminals have killed, where you could say
had the police been able to search without a warrant, hold without charging,
interrogate without a lawyer, use major evidence at trial that was
ruled inadmissible, that next killing would not have happened?

Or how about looking at it from another perspective. One's right to
life trumps 100 nut cases walking the streets, so anyone who mentally
ill and could possibly be a threat should be locked up. Of course the
usual libs that have issues with guns, are the ones championing all the above "rights".



Seems to me, you keep avoiding the real problem, rationalizing. Mental

illness is the problem with guns being used to commit large scale

murder. Mass murder was around long before school yard shootings.



As to "right to life", where is the outrage about babies being ripped

from wombs.

On Friday, May 30, 2014 3:30:33 PM UTC-4, Phuck Phuck & Phuck Attn at Law wrote:
On Monday, May 26, 2014 8:18:12 AM UTC-4, o m e H o m e G u y wrote:

And so we have another example of how amerika is safer because of the



right to bear arms, the right to free and easy access to personal



firearms.







Yes, 22 year-old Elliot Rodger was a law abiding legal gun owner (for



what, a few days? Weeks?) right up to the millisecond he pulled the



trigger (or triggers) and killed 6 random kids.







And you can go and froth at the mouth about how great it is that he has



the freedom to do just what he did.







But what I'm going to point out below is just how deviant and worthless



your next-generation (which you, the readers of this newsgroup) have



raised with such tender loving irresponsibility and detachment.







=========================







http://www.infowars.com/in-death-gir...mass-murderer/







Like many before him, the mass murderer who killed 6 people in the



coastal California community of Isla Vista Friday has garnered a



following in death he could never amass in life, just the latest



indication of the Stockholm syndrome psychosis and superficiality that



has taken America by storm.







While rants by rejected degenerate Elliot Rodger were aimed at the



fairer sex, over which he held a psychotic obsession, he allegedly



couldn�t figure out a way to approach them with any degree of success.







However, following his death, and the subsequent plastering of his



photos across the web, it seems the girl-hating 22-year-old virgin now



has what he always wanted in life: adoration, and some of it is coming



from dudes as well.







From Twitter, (screen-capped for posterity):







-----------



Shayanne Gonzalez: "sad part is the psyco is hot"







Josh: "the guy who killed everyone in santa barbara is kinda hot lol"







Derrek Leigh: "Sad what happened in Santa Barbara ... Why is it



always the cute ones that go crazy?"







merissa: "the guy that did that shooting in santa barbara is cute"







aff man: "seriously? not one UCSB chick could've bit the bulled and



dated that hot dude with the cool car?"







nena: "such a shame, elliiot rodger was hot"







Lesli Carlos: "the son of the director (hunger games) killed people



at ucsb - he was cute"







JN: "and the shooter was good looking. this is why you don't trust



cute boys because they could be secretly psychotic"







B&B: "apart from his odd nose, elliot rodger was kinda hot. Wonder



why girles turned him down?"







beadsme: "is this guy for real? He's so cute. So wierd how our



minds work"







Reallyrick: "he was hot, I would of ****ed him"



====================







Rodger�s overnight popularization is similar to the cult following



accused Batman shooter James Holmes generated, wherein several women



professed their adulation of him after the supposed slaying of 12



victims in a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.







..



What the Twitter twits don't realize is that you can't judge a
book by it's cover. I'll bet if they engaged with Rodgers just a bit,
they'd find the reason that those that did meet him in real life
apparently didn't want to date him. He had Asperger's for one thing,
which apparently makes it very difficult for those people to interact and
have normal social contact with people. The experts say it has no
connection to violence, but we do have two mass shootings in a year
where the guy had Aspergers. I'm no shrink, but it would seem to me
when you can't interact normally with people, it's going to lead to
major frustration, ejection, anger, etc. and that in turn could lead to very
bad things happening.

trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, May 30, 2014 11:16:59 AM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2014 05:26:25 +0200, nestork

wrote:



And this analogy has nothing to do with responsible gun
ownership.
Guns

are safe when they're in responsible hands. It's when
the gun falls

into the wrong hands and innocent people are killed for
no reason
that

the public demands that something be done. That's
because it's at
those

times that people realize that one person's right to
life trumps 100

people's right to own a gun.



Nestor,



Same emotional argument could be made to take away other
constitutional
rights. How many criminals have killed, where you could
say
had the police been able to search without a warrant, hold
without
charging, interrogate without a lawyer, use major evidence
at trial
that was
ruled inadmissible, that next killing would not have
happened?

Or how about looking at it from another perspective.
One's right to
life trumps 100 nut cases walking the streets, so anyone
who mentally
ill and could possibly be a threat should be locked up.
Of course the
usual libs that have issues with guns, are the ones
championing all
the above "rights".



Exactly, take the rights away from the sane people, but
don't put any restrictiond on the crazy ones
Typical lib speak

In article ,
HomeGuy Home@Guy.com wrote:


The supreme court has established that all rights are NOT absolute. You
have a right to free speech, but you will be punished for yelling fire
in a crowded theater.

Your right to own a gun, and by extension to point it at someone and
pull the trigger and kill them ranks lower than their right to life (ie
- to not be killed by you and your gun).

Which is reflected in both the murder and stand your ground laws. It is
a balancing of rights so you have a right to punch someone's ticket
before they punch yours as long as their is an immediate threat. But you
don't have a right to shoot your gun at random people.

It's an interesting concept: Your constitutional right to "bear arms"
does not mean you have a right to use them.
Of course it does, but the non-immediate threat being the arms
equivalent of fire and crowded theatre. As you mentioned there are few
if any absolute rights.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
-- Aaron Levenstein

On Sat, 31 May 2014 12:58:11 -0500, "ChairMan"
wrote:

Exactly, take the rights away from the sane people, but
don't put any restrictiond on the crazy ones
Typical lib speak

It has been going on for 100 years in America. Socialist thinking, no
need to do for yourself. Government will give you everything - cradle
to grave and not require any responsibility from you. Liberals think
we have endless money, but fail to realize that one day the money runs
out and all the giveaway programs will collapse.

https://tinyurl.com/bhcsmqv

http://sallyoldcow.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/liberal-democrat-brain-2.jpg
--
Liberals are like Chameleons. They keep changing colors. -- © Oren

On Sat, 31 May 2014 07:02:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Same emotional argument could be made to take away other constitutional
rights. How many criminals have killed, where you could say
had the police been able to search without a warrant, hold without charging,
interrogate without a lawyer, use major evidence at trial that was
ruled inadmissible, that next killing would not have happened?

Or how about looking at it from another perspective. One's right to
life trumps 100 nut cases walking the streets, so anyone who mentally
ill and could possibly be a threat should be locked up. Of course the
usual libs that have issues with guns, are the ones championing all the above "rights".


This partially explains it

https://tinyurl.com/kn5a3j2