PDA

View Full Version : Colorado



Westender 3
11-28-2015, 07:42 PM
The gunman suspected of storming a Planned Parenthood clinic and killing a police officer and two others told the officers who arrested him “no more baby parts,’’ after being taken into custody, according to a law enforcement official.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/11/28/investigators-search-for-motive-in-planned-parenthood-shooting-that-left-three-dead/

Thank you Conservatives. Well done. You built that!

Barry Morris
11-28-2015, 09:09 PM
You can't legislate morality and you can't fight greed and corruption with gun.

There are nut cases everywhere.

Westender 3
11-28-2015, 09:41 PM
You can't legislate morality and you can't fight greed and corruption with gun.

There are nut cases everywhere.

A little Conservative rhetoric and demonetization helps too. Eggs the nutjobs on.

Barry Morris
11-28-2015, 10:14 PM
True.

But you might think that 58 million abortions since Roe V. Wade, and chopping babies up carefully so you can sell the parts would bother almost anyone.

Please pardon the conservative rhetoric.

RWGR
11-29-2015, 12:31 PM
The gunman suspected of storming a Planned Parenthood clinic and killing a police officer and two others told the officers who arrested him “no more baby parts,’’ after being taken into custody, according to a law enforcement official.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/11/28/investigators-search-for-motive-in-planned-parenthood-shooting-that-left-three-dead/

Thank you Conservatives. Well done. You built that!

And you built the culture that believes killing babies is okay.

You 'win', sadly.

BFLPE
11-29-2015, 01:02 PM
Thank you Conservatives. Well done. You built that!Um, ok.

Westender 3
11-29-2015, 01:16 PM
And you built the culture that believes killing babies is okay.

You 'win', sadly.

Actually no. That would be your Constitution and your Supreme Court.

Barry Morris
11-29-2015, 01:37 PM
Actually no. That would be your Constitution and your Supreme Court.

Actually, he means in general, because the same killing culture exists here.

BFLPE
11-29-2015, 02:02 PM
Doesn't really fit the idea of someone motivated by conservative ideals. Just sayin...


James Russell, Dear’s former neighbor in a rural area near Black Mountain, North Carolina, described him as a man who lived in a cabin without electricity or running water and rambled during conversation.

“If you talked to him, nothing was very cognitive -- topics all over the place,” Russell told The Associated Press.

Court records obtained by BuzzFeed suggest an unsettling past. Lt. Shane Roberts with South Carolina’s Colleton County Sheriff’s Office told the site that Dear lived in South Carolina between 1997 and 2007.

Police in the town of Walterboro, South Carolina, intervened in 1997 when his wife claimed he hit her and pushed her out of a window, though she opted not to press charges. In 2002, a woman who said Dear had been making “unwanted advancements” towards her for a couple of months reported him to police after she alleged he was hiding in the bushes near her home.

He was arrested on “peeping tom” charges, though they were ultimately dismissed, according to public Colleton County records.

RWGR
11-30-2015, 08:27 AM
Actually no. That would be your Constitution and your Supreme Court.

It was an activist, left-leaning Court that took the control out of the states' hands and into the federal government's. It's what the Left does when they know their proposed issue has no way of passing a vote of the people.

Scour the Constitution, let me know where you find a right to kill babies.

Barry Morris
11-30-2015, 04:10 PM
It was an activist, left-leaning Court that took the control out of the states' hands and into the federal government's.......

But when did that happen??

RWGR
11-30-2015, 04:59 PM
But when did that happen??

1973, with the Roe v Wade ruling

Barry Morris
11-30-2015, 08:52 PM
1973, with the Roe v Wade ruling

Then it would seem to me that both ends of the political spectrum are basically OK with this, since in 42 years no party has been very active in seeking to change what is obviously the will of the people.

RWGR
12-01-2015, 09:36 AM
Then it would seem to me that both ends of the political spectrum are basically OK with this, since in 42 years no party has been very active in seeking to change what is obviously the will of the people.

Barry, how many times do we have to go over this?

A political party cannot just get rid of a Supreme Court ruling. It can only be overturned by another Supreme Court case, or expunged from the Constitution by an amendment, which takes 3/5 of the states to approve. It's a very difficult process.

And your logic is flawed another way: just because Roe is still law = Republicans support abortion more or less.

That's like saying: Hitler killed six million Jews. The US and Canada did not stop this. So, the US and Canadian governments more or less supported the Holocaust.

Barry Morris
12-01-2015, 12:24 PM
Barry, how many times do we have to go over this?

A political party cannot just get rid of a Supreme Court ruling. It can only be overturned by another Supreme Court case, or expunged from the Constitution by an amendment, which takes 3/5 of the states to approve. It's a very difficult process.

And your logic is flawed another way: just because Roe is still law = Republicans support abortion more or less.

That's like saying: Hitler killed six million Jews. The US and Canada did not stop this. So, the US and Canadian governments more or less supported the Holocaust.

Supported the Holocaust?? Hardly. But they both sure could have prevented deaths.

As I understand it, the courts interpret laws. The government passes them.

Do you mean to tell me that an unelected group of people are responsible for the laws in our countries?? I don't think so. But if there is no will by the parties or the people to change the laws so that the courts will interpret them differently, then nothing will happen.

And this is not a right or left issue.

RWGR
12-01-2015, 01:30 PM
Supported the Holocaust?? Hardly. But they both sure could have prevented deaths.

As I understand it, the courts interpret laws. The government passes them.

Do you mean to tell me that an unelected group of people are responsible for the laws in our countries?? I don't think so. But if there is no will by the parties or the people to change the laws so that the courts will interpret them differently, then nothing will happen.

And this is not a right or left issue.

Look up "judicial activism" and "Roe v Wade"

Yes, at times an activist Court can circumvent the democratic process. The Court did so in 1973 with Roe, and again recently with the gay marriage issue with Obergefell v. Hodges.

Barry Morris
12-01-2015, 03:48 PM
Look up "judicial activism" and "Roe v Wade"

Yes, at times an activist Court can circumvent the democratic process. The Court did so in 1973 with Roe, and again recently with the gay marriage issue with Obergefell v. Hodges.

I understand that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but a concerned government SHOULD be able to pass laws that will NOT be over ridden by the courts.

RWGR
12-01-2015, 06:22 PM
I understand that, and correct me if I'm wrong, but a concerned government SHOULD be able to pass laws that will NOT be over ridden by the courts.

No federal law was over-ridden by the Roe decision. With the decision, the Court took the issue of abortion out of each state's hands, and made it a federal issue. The exact same thing happened with the gay marriage issue; an issue each state dealt with as its' citizens voted was suddenly ripped from the states and made a federal issue.

An activist Court is a much greater threat to democracy than incompetent legislators, and that is because the Court has the final say in matters, because its job is to interpret the Constitution, and the constitutionality, or not, of certain laws and legislation.

How out-of-whack with the constitutional principle of three equal branches of government was the Roe decision? The Court ruled that while the right to an abortion cannot be found at first glance in the Constitution, it can be found in the document's "penumbra".

Well, if you can find the right to kill the unborn in the dark recesses of the Constitution, then you can find the right to do just about anything.

And, sorry, but that was all the Left. Scour the Court's key decisions day and night, you'll never find anything even remotely close coming from the Right.

Re-define marriage. Use abortion for birth control. Two major issues for the Left, and they knew damn well the American voters would never vote for what they wanted. So they do what they always do: bypass the democratic process, and have the Court shove their pet issues down our throats.

Barry Morris
12-01-2015, 09:51 PM
Would you please then define how the court is chosen??

Seems to me that, if the democratic process can be over ridden this easily, then the USA is in much bigger trouble than I thought.

On the other hand, I suspect that the majority don't have any problems with these rulings.

RWGR
12-02-2015, 08:29 AM
Supreme Court justices are picked by the president, then vetted by a Senate committee.

And don't try to make this just a USA issue. Canada and Europe suffer just as much, probably more, from activism from on high. The difference is Canada and Europe have more willingly accepted their slide into a system of moral relativism. At least in the USA a sizable number of people still believe killing babies is wrong.

You expect the USA's system to be perfect; and if it's not, then it must be deeply flawed. Well, it isn't perfect; it's always a struggle to find a balance.

Even the men who made up the theories of checks and balances and representative democracy (Montesquieu, Hume, Locke, etc) knew their idea would be a challenge, and a constant juggling act. And so it goes.

Anapeg
12-02-2015, 04:50 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34987697 coming fast and furious now. The crazies are on the loose.

Hans
12-02-2015, 07:41 PM
Page not found error.

Anapeg
12-02-2015, 09:43 PM
Page not found error.

Works just fine for me Hans. Not sure what to say...

Hans
12-02-2015, 10:00 PM
I bet if you click on the link you posted above it will not work.
I know why it does not work!

Barry Morris
12-02-2015, 11:26 PM
Yer so smart.

Anapeg, delete the colon at the end of the link.

Anapeg
12-03-2015, 07:19 AM
I bet if you click on the link you posted above it will not work.
I know why it does not work!

Why would it work for me, regardless the semi colon?

Barry Morris
12-03-2015, 07:59 AM
Why would it work for me, regardless the semi colon?

Wouldn't work for me, till I removed it.

Barry Morris
12-03-2015, 01:00 PM
You can't stop crazies/criminals by the wishful thinking that you can outlaw guns.

If only one person had been carrying, things might have been different.

Barry Morris
12-03-2015, 01:07 PM
"On October 11, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law that it would be a "misdemeanor to openly carry an exposed and unloaded handgun in public or in a vehicle."

Too bad, Jerry.

California is apparently one of only six states with this law.

Nihilistic Heathen
12-03-2015, 01:11 PM
You can't stop crazies/criminals by the wishful thinking that you can outlaw guns.

If only one person had been carrying, things might have been different.

It appears, unfortunately for their victims, a few people were carrying guns that they obtained lawfully.

Barry Morris
12-03-2015, 04:56 PM
It appears, unfortunately for their victims, a few people were carrying guns that they obtained lawfully.

Until we can figure out a way to prevent criminals from obtaining lethal weapons of any kind, banning the personal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens is not in the least helpful.

Anapeg
12-03-2015, 08:04 PM
Until we can figure out a way to prevent criminals from obtaining lethal weapons of any kind, banning the personal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens is not in the least helpful.

Why then is gun play far more prevalent in the States than anywhere else in the world? Guns and gun availability sure as Hell has to have something to do with it, or are Americans different from all the other humans on our planet?

Barry Morris
12-03-2015, 10:01 PM
Why then is gun play far more prevalent in the States than anywhere else in the world? Guns and gun availability sure as Hell has to have something to do with it, or are Americans different from all the other humans on our planet?

I'd love to see some honest research into this.

Switzerland: isn't gun ownership required??

Israel: Lots of weapons there.

Middle East: Tons of weapons, but not the same kind of massacres.

That's just off the top of my head.

Towns where homeowners MUST have a weapon. Crime rate down.

States where concealed or open carry are OK: crime is down.

Barry Morris
12-04-2015, 09:22 AM
Why then is gun play far more prevalent in the States than anywhere else in the world? Guns and gun availability sure as Hell has to have something to do with it, or are Americans different from all the other humans on our planet?

Interesting.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

Anapeg
12-04-2015, 10:45 AM
Interesting.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-in-other-countries/

Interesting but suspect. Who did the research, who funded the study. many, many questions. If it be funded and studied in the U.S. I would question the interpretation of the study and what the author claims as fact. Again and worthy, to a point. IMHO.

Bluesky
12-04-2015, 12:56 PM
Until we can figure out a way to prevent criminals from obtaining lethal weapons of any kind, banning the personal ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens is not in the least helpful.

How would that help? These terrorists were not criminals. Until one commits their first criminal act and is caught, there is no way of identifying these sleeper terrorists. There is no ral solution here, except that there needs to be a sea change in their culture i.e. a massive spiritual awakening.

Upper Decker
12-04-2015, 03:19 PM
I love the mentality to having guns - If one person carrying a legally concealed fire arm things would be different. Ya it would have, despite what you see in movies not everyone turns into a killbot with expert accuracy and calm nerves of steel. Turning a terrible situation (man on a shooting spree) into the gunfight at the O.K Coral is just the answer to the situation right?

Barry Morris
12-04-2015, 04:08 PM
I love the mentality to having guns - If one person carrying a legally concealed fire arm things would be different. Ya it would have, despite what you see in movies not everyone turns into a killbot with expert accuracy and calm nerves of steel. Turning a terrible situation (man on a shooting spree) into the gunfight at the O.K Coral is just the answer to the situation right?

I see what you are saying, but don't see an obvious solution to the problem of an armed criminal in your post.

KDawg
12-04-2015, 05:44 PM
I love the mentality to having guns - If one person carrying a legally concealed fire arm things would be different. Ya it would have, despite what you see in movies not everyone turns into a killbot with expert accuracy and calm nerves of steel. Turning a terrible situation (man on a shooting spree) into the gunfight at the O.K Coral is just the answer to the situation right?
I find it strange that your mind flies immediately to a Hollywood cowboy movie scenario.

What's wrong with a gun carrying, law-abiding citizen taking down a nutbar who starts killing innocents?

Barry Morris
12-04-2015, 06:10 PM
I find it strange that your mind flies immediately to a Hollywood cowboy movie scenario.

What's wrong with a gun carrying, law-abiding citizen taking down a nutbar who starts killing innocents?

That is the way it should be, should someone choose to own a gun.

I think some mandatory training might be a good thing, except for ex-military, police or other armed services, who should not need it.

And the absolutely ludicrous rule of unarmed soldiers ON BASE has got to be the dumbest thing I ever heard!!!

Barry Morris
12-04-2015, 06:12 PM
How would that help? These terrorists were not criminals. Until one commits their first criminal act and is caught, there is no way of identifying these sleeper terrorists. There is no ral solution here, except that there needs to be a sea change in their culture i.e. a massive spiritual awakening.

You are quite correct in the need for a spiritual awakening, but, with more armed civilians, at least that previously unknown nutbar would get off fewer shots!!!

Barry Morris
12-04-2015, 06:14 PM
Something to consider:

Why have airplane hijackings ceased??

Because a potential terrorist would know that everyone on board would rise up and kill him, having absolutely nothing to lose!!!

Anapeg
12-04-2015, 08:59 PM
Yup, one idiot opens fire and twenty others start firing back. It is bound to turn out just fine what with crossfire and all.

Barry Morris
12-04-2015, 10:56 PM
Yup, one idiot opens fire and twenty others start firing back. It is bound to turn out just fine what with crossfire and all.

So, one guy starts shooting and nobody can fire back is better???

I did mention training.