12 people killed at a movie theater in Colorado

AndyMarquisLive said:
And, this is for Nick, I think rednecks that go around and shoot AK-47s and rifles around for fun 'because they can' are also idiots, but it's a matter of taste.
Click to expand...

:) I wont say anything about Yankees who like to talk a lot, but truly have no idea what they are talking about.
 
SST55 said:
Join the Army, they'll give you your own personel AR-15 or a varient of and all the ammo you want,,free too. A AK-47 is not a "fun gun", it's a weapon designed to kill. It's not a lot of fun when one is firing and pointed at you.

Not specifically directed to you Lappy but I find it strange and sickening so many enjoy owning and firing a weapon that has killed tens of thousands of our troops over the years.:(
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that some of the Japanese auto companies made products that killed our troops in the wars and now people love them. So reguardless if it was a gun or anything else. That company still has killed our troops right?

I look at all guns the same, that its NOT THE GUN that killedbut THE PERSON behind the trigger. Guns are not evil just some people are and they give guns a negative look.
 
I have a .45. Why? They don't make a .46 that's why. My wife has a .38 at her disposal. Why? A "wheel gun" is less complicated for a casual user in a panic situation. Pull the trigger, BANG. No safety, slide to pull back, almost non-exsistent jams.
Remington model 870 12 guage. A JC Higgens bolt action .22 given to me by my grandfather in 1957,
What more does one need?
 
I have a 9mm Hi-point pistol, i just wanted an auto pistol. I Bought it when I was 23
9MM High Point carbide Rifle. Thought it was cool. Fun to shoot. 1st gun I bought when I turned 18
.22 wheel gun. Bought when I turned 21
Rem 597 .22 auto rifle (dad got for me)
Rem 700 .243 bolt action deer
Rem 870 12 ga (gift from dad)
Westpoint 30-06
Win. 50 Cal muzzleloader
.410 double barrel
Old 12ga that will never be fired again, unless Pawn Stars gives me a couple grand.

I will be buying a new gun this year. Wanted one of my granddads but yeah it got sold to someone else after I asked about it....:(
 
So he killed 12 injured 58 and gets 24 counts of murder and 116 counts of attempted murder????
The charges broke down as one count of murder and one count of "murder of extreme indifference," for each victim, ​
NBC News' Mike Taibbi reported​
.​
and I guess 1 count attempted and 1 count attempted murder of extreme indifference???????​

How can you be charged twice??​
 
I was confused on the charges too, should be taken out back and delt with now and not spend the money to keep him in.prison for many many years
 
They should cuff him to a chair in a fake movie set type theater setting and then let the surviving victims and the families of those killed rush in and blast the sh!t out of him.
Maybe they could cuff his douchebag lawyer next to him and shoot the hell out of him, also. Anyone that tries to get this idiot off on an insanity plea deserves to get dead, too. This guy murdered and wounded these people with malice aforethought. Intricate and decisive planning went into the shooting as well as the booby-trapping of his own apartment (in an attempt to also kill law enforcement personnel).
 
Lap3Forever said:
I was confused on the charges too, should be taken out back and delt with now and not spend the money to keep him in.prison for many many years
Click to expand...
(Reuters) - Colorado prosecutors are taking advantage of a well-used tool that legal experts say could help ensure a conviction of the former graduate student accused of opening fire at a midnight showing of the new "Batman" film: the charge of murder with extreme indifference.
For each of the victims of the shooting spree in a Denver suburb that left 12 people dead and 58 wounded, prosecutors charged James Holmes with two murder counts - one standard first-degree murder charge, plus one count of murder with extreme indifference. They also filed two attempted murder counts for each of the wounded survivors.
In Colorado, a first-degree murder charge can be brought against someone who intended to murder another person. But it can also be brought where there is evidence of "extreme indifference to the value of human life generally" in which someone knowingly created a "grave risk of death to a person, or persons, other than himself."
State laws that recognize murder with indifference are not uncommon, said Daniel Filler, a professor at Drexel University's law school, but in some cases, states treat murder with indifference as a lower grade offense than pre-meditated murder. In Colorado, murder with extreme indifference is also first-degree murder.
By charging Holmes with both crimes, prosecutors are giving jurors two opportunities to find Holmes guilty.
"This is a prosecutor's insurance policy," Filler said. "Nobody is going to think this wasn't an unbelievably, crazy, reckless act."
In recent years, Colorado prosecutors have used the statute to obtain a variety of convictions, including those for drive-by shootings, according to legal experts.
"This is the charge of choice of Colorado district attorneys because it is incredibly easy to get a conviction with it," said Thomas Carberry, a Colorado criminal defense attorney.
A jury can convict of Holmes of both counts, but can punish him for only one, he said. Prosecutors have not yet indicated whether they will seek the death penalty for Holmes.
 
I'm starting think he'll never go to trial . He's going to be declared mentally unfit or whatever term they use there. He'll live out his days in the looney bin. No prison, no execution.
 
SST55 said:
I'm starting think he'll never go to trial . He's going to be declared mentally unfit or whatever term they use there. He'll live out his days in the looney bin. No prison, no execution.
Click to expand...

A.K.A.- No justice and no message sent to the next ass**le who is planning such a thing. And we wonder why it keeps happening:confused:
 
W
AndyMarquisLive said:
But again, just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should.
Click to expand...
Who is to say what I can and cannot do as long as I know that it is legal, moral and ethical and to MY standards. YOU? Bullsheet.
 
Johali said:
W

Who is to say what I can and cannot do as long as I know that it is legal, moral and ethical and to MY standards. YOU? Bullsheet.
Click to expand...

And who the **** are you to tell others what they can't do based on your moral or religious standards?
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
And who the **** are you to tell others what they can't do based on your moral or religious standards?
Click to expand...
You are trying to tell others what to do and believe, not me and you brought up religion not me and also I am not going to get in another pissing match with you over ridiculous accusations. End of conversation because this is not the podium and these little snits of yours bore me..
 
Johali said:
You are trying to tell others what to do and believe not me and you brought up religion not me and also I am not going to get in another pissing match with you over ridiculous accusations. End of conversation because this is not the podium and these little snits of yours bore me..
Click to expand...

The very same people who think that anyone should be able to own as many guns as they'd like (because of "freedom") believe gays should not have rights. They don't think gays should be allowed to get married, get civil unions and, in many cases, believe it should be legal to discriminate against them. Why? Because it goes against their "morals" and "beliefs".

The difference is, reasonable restrictions on guns will never be passed (even though the constitution calls for the Second Amendment to be "WELL REGULATED") whereas this country has always, and will always, oppress the minority and treat them as second class citizens (even though the Eighth and 14th Amendments says the majority cannot oppress the minority).
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
The very same people who think that anyone should be able to own as many guns as they'd like (because of "freedom") believe gays should not have rights. They don't think gays should be allowed to get married, get civil unions and, in many cases, believe it should be legal to discriminate against them. Why? Because it goes against their "morals" and "beliefs".

The difference is, reasonable restrictions on guns will never be passed (even though the constitution calls for the Second Amendment to be "WELL REGULATED") whereas this country has always, and will always, oppress the minority and treat them as second class citizens (even though the Eighth and 14th Amendments says the majority cannot oppress the minority).
Click to expand...

uploadfromtaptalk1343882830872.jpg
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
The very same people who think that anyone should be able to own as many guns as they'd like (because of "freedom") believe gays should not have rights. They don't think gays should be allowed to get married, get civil unions and, in many cases, believe it should be legal to discriminate against them. Why? Because it goes against their "morals" and "beliefs".

The difference is, reasonable restrictions on guns will never be passed (even though the constitution calls for the Second Amendment to be "WELL REGULATED") whereas this country has always, and will always, oppress the minority and treat them as second class citizens (even though the Eighth and 14th Amendments says the majority cannot oppress the minority).
Click to expand...

Well, the same people who support your views believe that killing unborn babies is perfectly acceptable as it is the mother's right to "choose". Many of us will never be able to accept your opinions on anything if we simply focus on that one issue. Lumping everyone into a stereotype is really pretty stupid. Not everyone who supports the 2nd amendment hates gays, anymore than everyone who supports abortion hates babies or supports any other type of murder. I happen to believe that civil unions should be recognized for the purposes of insurance and other issues. However, I don't believe that the term marriage applies to people of the same sex. It's a semantical issue, and I don't really believe everyone has to view it the way I do.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
The very same people who think that anyone should be able to own as many guns as they'd like (because of "freedom") believe gays should not have rights. They don't think gays should be allowed to get married, get civil unions and, in many cases, believe it should be legal to discriminate against them. Why? Because it goes against their "morals" and "beliefs".
Click to expand...

Cite a source for this reporter...put up or shut up.

AndyMarquisLive said:
The difference is, reasonable restrictions on guns will never be passed (even though the constitution calls for the Second Amendment to be "WELL REGULATED") whereas this country has always, and will always, oppress the minority and treat them as second class citizens (even though the Eighth and 14th Amendments says the majority cannot oppress the minority).
Click to expand...

When I read the Second Amendment, its reads like this....

As passed by the Congress:
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.​
Click to expand...
​
And....

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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.​
Click to expand...
​


The only thing that is to be "well regulated" is the militia. The RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
 
fergy1370 said:
Cite a source for this reporter...put up or shut up.



When I read the Second Amendment, its reads like this....


​
And....

​


The only thing that is to be "well regulated" is the militia. The RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Click to expand...

EVERY "right" we have is regulated. You have free speech but you can't slander someone. You have the right to vote, but states require you to have two or more photo IDs. Why shouldn't we regulate guns?

Why do you think it's irrational to regulate gun ownership?
 
Benevolent One said:
Well, the same people who support your views believe that killing unborn babies is perfectly acceptable as it is the mother's right to "choose". Many of us will never be able to accept your opinions on anything if we simply focus on that one issue. Lumping everyone into a stereotype is really pretty stupid. Not everyone who supports the 2nd amendment hates gays, anymore than everyone who supports abortion hates babies or supports any other type of murder. I happen to believe that civil unions should be recognized for the purposes of insurance and other issues. However, I don't believe that the term marriage applies to people of the same sex. It's a semantical issue, and I don't really believe everyone has to view it the way I do.
Click to expand...

I don't support abortion on a personal level, but it is legal and there are reasonable restrictions on it.

I support gun ownership but I believe there should be reasonable restrictions on it.

The problem I have is that conservatives want to make it harder to vote, place limits on free speech, make it harder for women to get medical treatment (not just abortion, but also contraception) and trounce on the rights of gays. But they think every state should place less restrictions on gun ownership.
 
AndyMarquisLive said:
EVERY "right" we have is regulated. You have the right to vote, but states require you to have two or more photo IDs. Why shouldn't we regulate guns?
Click to expand...
Wrongo grasshopper. I guess you haven't been able to vote in very many states. The last three states that I lived in don't require any ID to vote. But I wish they did. Also, guns are regulated. Go try and buy a real machine gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom