Colorado Shooting during the Dark Knight Rises

[cybercoma]

No, but they could have had a better chance at escaping, taking out some Nazi bastards with them, or at least going down fighting with a bit of dignity rather than having their humanity ripped from them in the horrors of the industrial slaughterhouses.

You have no idea how the "deportations" worked, do you?

[Guest American Woman]

Sounds like a big load a crap to me!

Can't say I'm surprised.

Anyone in any country that has a constitution and any kind of reasonable justice system can take the government to court for whatever reason.

Yeah, that would be a sure-fire win in such a situation.

In case you're unaware, Germany was a Democratic Republic after WW1, but that didn't work out to well for the German Jews - some who had even fought for Germany during WW1. The point is, there are no guarantees throughout the rest of time, and anyone who thinks there are, is naive at best.

But correct me if I am wrong,where does it say the citizens can take up arms against the government for whatever reason?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That aside, if the people have guns, they can take them up against the government should the need arise - just as Americans did against the British Empire.

That's freekin ironic because I believe it is a capitol offense in the US to conspire to commit treason and treason itself!And who defines this???

I'm sure Britain considered it treason for the British colonists to take up arms against Britain, but being that Britain lost, what did it matter?

If the masses take on the government and the masses win, whether or not the government, as the loser, defines it as treason matters not at all.

[Guest American Woman]

No, but they could have had a better chance at escaping, taking out some Nazi bastards with them, or at least going down fighting with a bit of dignity rather than having their humanity ripped from them in the horrors of the industrial slaughterhouses.

Hitler, from what I've read, made sure that the Jews weren't armed; they were disarmed before the holocaust. I agree wholeheartedly with what you say, but perhaps the slaughter wouldn't have even been attempted if the Jews had been armed and able to fight back. It took so few armed men to in effect haul away so many Jews. It's so much easier for a few well armed men to force unarmed masses into submission.

[BubberMiley]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That aside, if the people have guns, they can take them up against the government should the need arise - just as Americans did against the British Empire.

I'll try again. Since that was written when the government could be overcome by a well regulated militia with a relatively modest amount of firepower, do you think it reasonable under these terms for a militia to acquire sufficient firepower to keep up with technological advances? If so, where do you stand on nuclear weapons in young muslim men's basements?

Edited July 27, 2012 by BubberMiley

[Bonam]

I'll try again. Since that was written when the government could be overcome by a well regulated militia with a relatively modest amount of firepower, do you think it reasonable under these terms for a militia to acquire sufficient firepower to keep up with technological advances? If so, where do you stand on nuclear weapons in young muslim men's basements?

The last part of the question is inherently absurd. Advanced weapons (aircraft, warships, long range missiles, WMDs, etc) are inherently too expensive and complex to be owned by random dudes in their basements. Such weapons can only be effectively maintained and operated by a large organization, with personnel specialized in all the various tasks associated with the maintenance and use of these weapons. And, indeed, a "well regulated militia" could be such an organization. A young muslim man's basement would not.

When it comes to biological or nuclear weapons (or any future weapons which may be even more destructive), a rebel group trying to use these on their own government is not likely to be a justifiable scenario since these inherently kill large numbers of civilians indiscriminately, and thus should not be owned by private groups.

[GostHacked]

I'll try again. Since that was written when the government could be overcome by a well regulated militia with a relatively modest amount of firepower, do you think it reasonable under these terms for a militia to acquire sufficient firepower to keep up with technological advances? If so, where do you stand on nuclear weapons in young muslim men's basements?

Do you think that the US government would use nuclear weapons on it's own people? And let's be realistic about this as well. Comparing nukes or any WMD to easily obtained firearms is ... dumb?

[BubberMiley]

Do you think that the US government would use nuclear weapons on it's own people?

No, I don't. Neither do I feel it's prudent to keep arms to fight the government with.

And let's be realistic about this as well. Comparing nukes or any WMD to easily obtained firearms is ... dumb?

They said Americans have the right to bear arms. I'm just asking how those arms are defined.

[GostHacked]

Here is one for you all.

Here is a link of two pictures side by side. The one on the left is the first picture that was put out for James Holmes just after the incident went down. The right picture is the courtroom shot of 'same' James Holmes.

http://api.ning.com/files/uOTGFoC1sUJ4iW2Ebw*oPBEthoaxLRULV5veqGDnNQUXVSNpge1m8ZBfa6l8OzDajOgWkSRdRr3fOz5qEN7yS3YvnFJAECul/557938_325569740866805_1515712023_n.jpg

Dunno, what do you think?

[WWWTT]

Can't say I'm surprised.

Then I guess you were surprised in 1993 when the ATF smoked David Koresh ( or whatever his name was) in Waco Texas!

WWWTT

[The_Squid]

It is all well and good to say that a corrupt government should be overthrown by armed citizens, but the question then is.... who decides? Should there be a referendum? If 10,000 armed people decide that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim and get together to overthrow the government, then is that a legitimate use of the 2nd amendment? There are some 300 million Americans.... If 5 million of them started an uprising, would that be legit?

I think the entire thing is hogwash. In the modern western world, the entire premise that the government can be overthrown by an armed populace is simply a fantasy that Americans are trying to keep alive. Better to vote the bums out, no?

[GostHacked]

It is all well and good to say that a corrupt government should be overthrown by armed citizens, but the question then is.... who decides? Should there be a referendum? If 10,000 armed people decide that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim and get together to overthrow the government, then is that a legitimate use of the 2nd amendment? There are some 300 million Americans.... If 5 million of them started an uprising, would that be legit?

I think the entire thing is hogwash. In the modern western world, the entire premise that the government can be overthrown by an armed populace is simply a fantasy that Americans are trying to keep alive. Better to vote the bums out, no?

Sure you can vote out the Obama bum and get in the Romney bum. New boss same as old boss. Policy remains.

And again, elections? Hope you got about a billion saved up, running for Pres is big money.

[waldo]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That aside, if the people have guns, they can take them up against the government should the need arise - just as Americans did against the British Empire.

and yet... to many 'scholars' and gun-control advocates, those words are interpreted differently, particularly when such (any) interpretations come down to emphasis relative to the placement of commas... yes, commas!

"

A well regulated Militia

,

being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

,

shall not be infringed

"

... the 'right' bold highlighted, with a description of the right italicized and underlined. Say what!

... a 'right' describing a regulated state-run police force of private individuals working on behalf of society and appointed by the state to protect the both of them. Hey now, are there any such national like police forces in the U.S.? I guess... the NRA has a greater comma interpreting influence - yes?

[Guest American Woman]

Then I guess you were surprised in 1993 when the ATF smoked David Koresh ( or whatever his name was) in Waco Texas!

Ummm. No. Not at all. Methinks you don't understand the issue at all.

[The_Squid]

Sure you can vote out the Obama bum and get in the Romney bum. New boss same as old boss. Policy remains.

And again, elections? Hope you got about a billion saved up, running for Pres is big money.

So you are saying that it is legitimate use of force to overthrow the currently elected (or Romney if he wins) government? The 2nd amendment can be used every time someone simply does not like the government. Interesting take....

[Guest American Woman]

It is all well and good to say that a corrupt government should be overthrown by armed citizens, but the question then is.... who decides? Should there be a referendum? If 10,000 armed people decide that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim and get together to overthrow the government, then is that a legitimate use of the 2nd amendment? There are some 300 million Americans.... If 5 million of them started an uprising, would that be legit?

Do you think 5 million would have a chance against over 300 million? I think that would be squashed in a hurry. I think it would take more than that to even initiate such an uprising. Furthermore, I don't think believing Obama is a Muslim is exactly the kind of tyranny that constitutes a corrupt government. Seriously. Do you think otherwise? Or do you think perhaps there could possibly be a situation that constitutes real tyranny?

I think the entire thing is hogwash. In the modern western world, the entire premise that the government can be overthrown by an armed populace is simply a fantasy that Americans are trying to keep alive. Better to vote the bums out, no?

If given the opportunity to vote them out, yes. The German Jews were given no such opportunity. If you think history cannot repeat itself, I think you are either naive or ignorant - or both - beyond belief.

Edited July 27, 2012 by American Woman

[WWWTT]

Dunno, what do you think?

Same guy.

The difference in the width at the base of the nose is caused by smiling.The police mug shot will always show more detail,better colour and be better lit.

Nothing to see here folks,move along.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Ummm. No. Not at all. Methinks you don't understand the issue at all.

Perhaps,or I do not understand you?

Either way it's not my problem,it's yours and you have to live in the US,not me.So what I say does not matter.

But what I do think is that this one is not going away anytime soon.

I believe there are going to be new laws coming your way

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Treason isn't war against the government in the US. It's war against the United States. One could claim that the government is at work against the United States as a nation by being tyrannical (or whatever), take up arms against the government, and not be committing treason. The government is not synonymous with the nation. Just as in Canada the government is not the Queen, who embodies the nation.

Oh ya ok then.While someone who is trying to explain his position that they are against the government and not the US,they will be filled with lead from the military/police on the orders from the government.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Do you think 5 million would have a chance against over 300 million? I think that would be squashed in a hurry. I think it would take more than that to even initiate such an uprising. Furthermore, I don't think believing Obama is a Muslim is exactly the kind of tyranny that constitutes a corrupt government. Seriously. Do you think otherwise? Or do you think perhaps there could possibly be a situation that constitutes real tyranny?

If given the opportunity to vote them out, yes. The German Jews were given no such opportunity. If you think history cannot repeat itself, I think you are either naive or ignorant - or both - beyond belief.

Wow,all this to justify the sale of guns!

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

Perhaps,or I do not understand you?

Either way it's not my problem,it's yours and you have to live in the US,not me.So what I say does not matter.

That's true. What you say does not ultimately matter, but the problem isn't mine.

But what I do think is that this one is not going away anytime soon.

I believe there are going to be new laws coming your way.

Think again. Even Obama, a Democrat, is saying revising gun laws isn't on the table.

[Guest American Woman]

Wow,all this to justify the sale of guns!

Yeah, that's what I'm doing. Try responding to what I said, or is this the best you can do?

Edited July 27, 2012 by American Woman

[The_Squid]

Furthermore, I don't think believing Obama is a Muslim is exactly the kind of tyranny that constitutes a corrupt government. Seriously. Do you think otherwise?

Who decides on "2nd amendment remedies"? There are many who think that the Presidency has been usurped by a Muslim non-American. If this was the case, it sounds like a perfect reason to storm the Whitehouse!

Or do you think perhaps there could possibly be a situation that constitutes real tyranny?

Certainly.... but again, who gets to decide? If enough people took up arms against the current government, then I suppose the winner would get to decide if it was within the bounds of the Constitution, no? Especially if all the SC judges are shot dead.

5 million armed people could probably march up to Washington and kill everyone there. It would be a very small minority, but then there is no formula to decide what is a tyranny and what isn't and when to take up arms against the sitting government.

[WWWTT]

That's true. What you say does not ultimately matter, but the problem isn't mine.

You don't live in the US?Thats odd I thought you did.

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

Who decides on "2nd amendment remedies"? There are many who think that the Presidency has been usurped by a Muslim non-American. If this was the case, it sounds like a perfect reason to storm the Whitehouse!

Perhaps to you it does - which ultimately means nothing.

Certainly.... but again, who gets to decide? If enough people took up arms against the current government, then I suppose the winner would get to decide if it was within the bounds of the Constitution, no? Especially if all the SC judges are shot dead.

Try to understand something. "Enough people" would have to be a majority. I don't see the majority of the American people losing their heads over nonsense.

5 million armed people could probably march up to Washington and kill everyone there.

You don't think there would be people there stopping them? But the fact of the matter is, 5 million people, a tiny minority of the population, wouldn't get away with it. Furthermore, "everyone there" doesn't represent the United States - it's not as if the rest of America would subserviently sit back and take it.

It would be a very small minority,

Indeed it would, which is why it would never happen.

but then there is no formula to decide what is a tyranny and what isn't and when to take up arms against the sitting government.

There was no formula back in 1775, either - yet we fought for, and won, our independence.

[WWWTT]

Certainly.... but again, who gets to decide? If enough people took up arms against the current government, then I suppose the winner would get to decide if it was within the bounds of the Constitution, no? Especially if all the SC judges are shot dead.

5 million armed people could probably march up to Washington and kill everyone there. It would be a very small minority, but then there is no formula to decide what is a tyranny and what isn't and when to take up arms against the sitting government.

Bingo! Who gets to decide?

WWWTT