Umpqua

Breaking:

Shooter was asking people about their religion.

Identified as a 20 year-old male. That usually means he wasn't white... ;) ;)
 
Last edited:
These stories always give AJ a huge boner.

I suspect Mrs AJ keeps a Glock by the bed.
 
What about the dedicated person with pressure cookers or the crazy person with a sword, knife, machete or car? That's the problem with the gun control crowd. In this one instance, they blame the mechanism. Now, the next really big question(s) is...,

;)

Was this a typical liberal safe gun-free zone where the anti-gun crowd holds sway?

Were there legal drugs involved designed to mainstream the mentally unstable?

God, I mean Allah, forbid, we violate their civil rights by institutionalization.

This just shows your inability to understand. Nobody believe a gun acts alone. Not one person here believe a gun got up and started killing people at a college today.
They do believe that easy access to a gun made it a LOT easier for a crazy and/or very pissed off person to kill a bunch of people. They did not need to manufacture a bomb or get into a melee with a sword, all they had to do was pick up the gun and pull the trigger and kill anyone they wanted with no special training, ability or intelligence required to purchase or use.
 
...

“Possession, use, or threatened use of firearms (including but not limited to BB guns, air guns, water pistols, and paint guns) ammunition, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or any other objects as weapons on college property, except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations, is prohibited,” the college’s security policy states.

Joe Olson, former president of the college, told The Associated Press the school has only one security officer on duty at a time, and that person isn’t armed.

He says last year, one of the biggest debates on campus was whether the school should have armed security officers. He says the college had three training exercises with local law agencies in the past two years, “but you can never be prepared for something like this.”

...

http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2015/10/01/oregon-community-college-shooting/
 
This just shows your inability to understand. Nobody believe a gun acts alone. Not one person here believe a gun got up and started killing people at a college today.
They do believe that easy access to a gun made it a LOT easier for a crazy and/or very pissed off person to kill a bunch of people. They did not need to manufacture a bomb or get into a melee with a sword, all they had to do was pick up the gun and pull the trigger and kill anyone they wanted with no special training, ability or intelligence required to purchase or use.

Got you.

I do not share your point of view, therefore I am stupid.

Pretty typical of the conversations I have enjoyed here since 1999...
 
Got you.

I do not share your point of view, therefore I am stupid.

Pretty typical of the conversations I have enjoyed here since 1999...

pretty typical of this Board, actually.
Some of us (mainly gals) cannot have a f..g discussion without it degenerating in some form of pissing contest.
 
pretty typical of this Board, actually.
Some of us (mainly gals) cannot have a f..g discussion without it degenerating in some form of pissing contest.

I refer to it as dick measuring, but, yeah.

The internet has brought out one of the undeniable facts of life, most people prefer the immediate satisfaction of emotional response to measure and reasoned examination of the topic at hand.
 
Got you.

I do not share your point of view, therefore I am stupid.

Pretty typical of the conversations I have enjoyed here since 1999...

No, not sharing my point of view means we disagree on something. You are stupid because you are stupid. It has nothing to do with this or any other subject.
 
There is a gun and a probably crazy person. We can put the crazy person away now but the gun will continue to be there, waiting for the next crazy person to pick it up until and unless we do something about it.

:rolleyes:
 
No, not sharing my point of view means we disagree on something. You are stupid because you are stupid. It has nothing to do with this or any other subject.

Or, in other words, I really don't have a cogent argument so I'll just start calling you names...
 
Describe "gun-obsession" as you mean it. It's like you're trying to lay a trap, no matter how I respond, this is so ambiguous as to allow you to take it anywhere so, knowing the nature of most people on the board, I am hesitant to respond. (I do not think you mean to do such a thing, so I await further clarification.)

You are right. A loaded term, as it were, and I withdraw it. 'Focus'? Unusually high levels of gun crime compared with other first world countries, shall we say?

Anyway, it was a constitutional point about placing within the Bill of Rights. Most advocates of gun freedom (I am trying to be neutral here), or very limited restrictions on gun ownership, see the second amendment without the important first section: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'. Only the last part, for example, is quoted by the NRA on the side of its buildings, etc.

Furthermore, such advocates see the second amendment as following on from the first amendment, in that it guarantees a personal freedom. As such, the right to bear arms is one with the freedom of speech, association, etc, etc.

Other constitutionalists, however, and with as much justification ( I say no more), see the second amendment linked far more closely in spirit with the entirely uncontroversial third amendment: 'No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.' If, in short, we see 1+2 as linked together, with the uncontroversial 3 a hangover from Revolutionary times and no longer relevant, we are likely to see gun freedom as fundamental to our sense of individual liberty. If, on the other hand, we see 1 as the amendment dealing with personal, individual freedoms, and 2+3 linked together as corporate freedoms relating to self-defence against a regular standing army, then we are likely to see gun freedom as fundamentally less essential, and standing on far weaker ground, than the first group.

I have not expressed it as well as he did, of course, and I expect you have heard it before. But for me it was an interesting angle.
 
Or, in other words, I really don't have a cogent argument so I'll just start calling you names...

I do not usually call people names. However he and a couple others are indeed very stupid and I felt the need to stop biting my tongue over it.
 
You are right. A loaded term, as it were, and I withdraw it. 'Focus'? Unusually high levels of gun crime compared with other first world countries, shall we say?

Anyway, it was a constitutional point about placing within the Bill of Rights. Most advocates of gun freedom (I am trying to be neutral here), or very limited restrictions on gun ownership, see the second amendment without the important first section: 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State'. Only the last part, for example, is quoted by the NRA on the side of its buildings, etc.

Furthermore, such advocates see the second amendment as following on from the first amendment, in that it guarantees a personal freedom. As such, the right to bear arms is one with the freedom of speech, association, etc, etc.

Other constitutionalists, however, and with as much justification ( I say no more), see the second amendment linked far more closely in spirit with the entirely uncontroversial third amendment: 'No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.' If, in short, we see 1+2 as linked together, with the uncontroversial 3 a hangover from Revolutionary times and no longer relevant, we are likely to see gun freedom as fundamental to our sense of individual liberty. If, on the other hand, we see 1 as the amendment dealing with personal, individual freedoms, and 2+3 linked together as corporate freedoms relating to self-defence against a regular standing army, then we are likely to see gun freedom as fundamentally less essential, and standing on far weaker ground, than the first group.

I have not expressed it as well as he did, of course, and I expect you have heard it before. But for me it was an interesting angle.

I would put it simply to you, what was the safer environment, the wild West of America circa the 1870s or the current rates exacerbated thricely by the war on drugs, the war on the West and the mainstreaming of mental illness?

Now, of those three instances, outlawing guns might only work in the latter case, but in that case, the proper remedy might be removing the individual from society for his and our safety, but their right to not be institutionalized has been elevated as a greater right than the right to bear arms.

I await more facts. If this was a nut-job, there are other ways. If it was one of the other two, they are going to get guns; in any country.
 
Or, in other words, I really don't have a cogent argument so I'll just start calling you names...

The Left is done debating.

You are stupid.

You are a denier.

You are a conservative.

You are a member of the radical RWCJ...


:shrug:
 
Once again, an armed crazy person shot a whole bunch of people....
I would have thought, given the total inability to regulate firearms, that someone would have realised that any place where people gather in large numbers (movie theatres, schools, sporting events, churches, etc) is vulnerable to these crazies and would have taken steps by now to protect them.
Seriously..... one unarmed security guard?
What about metal detectors, armed security, and whatever else can be put in place?
Too expensive?
Put a Security Tax in place and charge all current gun owners with the cost of providing safeguards to protect as many innocent people as is possible.
 
Describe "gun-obsession" as you mean it. It's like you're trying to lay a trap, no matter how I respond, this is so ambiguous as to allow you to take it anywhere so, knowing the nature of most people on the board, I am hesitant to respond. (I do not think you mean to do such a thing, so I await further clarification.)

What is with you and accusing everyone and your mother of setting a trap? Not every question is a loaded one. Grow up, JR.

Iggy for being a fucking idiot.

No one cares, Skippy. You won't be posting here anymore soon enough.

The Left is done debating.

You are stupid.

You are a denier.

You are a conservative.

You are a member of the radical RWCJ...


:shrug:

^^Paranoid Android. You live your life in more fear than vettebirther does.
 
Back
Top