|
*Updated* Shooting in Virginia school (pg. 10)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tathi |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
You know where this topic needs to go? Why are "quiet loners" always the psychos?
EDIT*If incidents like this keep on happening half of PDD will never lose their virgenities... |
Releasing pent up anger is catharsis for most teenagers / young adults but the shy, quiet and antisocial people will internalise their anger until it reaches bursting point |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Right on cue, the Phelps lunacy parade comes out of the woodworks. From Westboro Baptist Church (which I refuse to link):
Unbelievable, yet predictable.
Hmmm, no wonder one of the Phelps' daughters told me today that her family wants to know her location throughout the day at all times. Makes sense now. |
Gack :nervous:
 |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
You guys do realize the overwhelming majority of gun crimes committed in the US are by guns that are acquired illegally, right? In other words, it wouldn't make any difference if you changed the constitution or made them illegal. The only thing that would change is that any semblance of being able to track and register guns and their owners would be completely lost and we would have absolutely no clue as to who had guns. Sorry folks, but the "genie" is out. Blame the ancient Chinese for inventing gunpowder in the first place if you need someone. There are guns now and there always will be, especially in the US which has had a torrid history with them.
I find it ironic that many on these boards will bitch about the downfall of freedoms in the US, but have no problem saying that a part of our constitution should be changed because of the actions of a few. Not to get on a soapbox, but every freedom has a responsibility, and not all people decide to act responsibly. However, that does not mean the irresponsibility of a few should mean the freedom is erased for the many.
Should slander, libel or "hate speech" from a few mean the first amendment should be removed?
Should the acts of a few homicidal maniacs mean the second amendment should be removed?
Should drunk drivers mean alcohol should be prohibited again, or what about cars?
No. In each case you punish those who acted irresponsibly, while preserving the rights of the millions of individuals who choose to act responsibly.
This country, this world, is so fickle. We jump on the latest and greatest news story, totally losing perspective. Who cares that out of a country of 300 million these events are rare? Who cares that we're talking about stripping a part of the Bill of Rights? Who cares that we're again arguing for "safety" over freedom? We only care that right now some crazy person killed 30+ people and we don't care what we do, as long as we do something. |
Man, well said!
The problem is internal to all of us; our societies are reflections of ourselves. |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
America is a angry place because of too much sugar in their diets, fairly liberal firearm ownership laws, a number of cultural quirks which has everyone hating each other to some extent and then add in a government keeping them all in fear of terrorists and anything else they can thing up to stay in power.
It's a front row seat at the freakshow of humanity, add to that the people who do own guns are rarely shown how to use the damn things responsibly or for safety purposes so they don't shoot themselves. I really do think there would be a noticeable benefit for exacting background checks and training like owning a motorvehicle, which would involve a few days learning not to be an idiot with it.
Buying it, walking out same day or a few days later, really is inviting accidental disaster, there's really not much you can do with things like someone going on a shooting rampage. However, it's such a rare event you should probably be better off watching what you eat and watching when you cross the road and watching where you're driving, rather than watching out for lunatics on a shooting rampage.
Because those, will kill you.
Cars and heart disease statistically wipe out tons of people before their time in a civilian environment. Sure, it's not as newsworthy as having your body parts perforated by hot lead, but it's ultimately just as fatal. |
Brilliantly said, as always.
So we're predisposed for high sugar intake due to geographic chance, and the communists are predisposed to awesome green tea?
That hardly seems fair. :haha: |
|
|
| DJ Shibby |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
As many of you can attest; drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, mdma, lsd to name a few are illegal and are banned yet you people can score some get high whenever you can and scream from the rooftops when the "man" has got you down whenever you people want to legalize it.
But when it comes to banning guns there are still people who manage (just like my drug analogy) to get a hold of a gun and there are people that cry from the rooftops to ban guns.
Truth be told there are some that shouldn't have a weapon in their hands but there are some that should who could have protected the 32 victims.
Those that claim there should be control do not see that the ones at the podium during the sound bites usually have armed guards or are armed themselves while us little people suffer at the hands of the criminals. |
Except you can only shoot yourself when it comes to drugs. |
|
|
| Dopey |
And another ing thing...
The gun that killed those 33 ppl was purchased legally! Maybe if guns were illegal, that Korean guy would have gotten his ass kicked and his money stolen by some thug that was pretending to sell him an illegal gun. Yeah it's a maybe, but maybe those 33 people would be alive, sans one or two he would have probably stabbed.
And all you gun fanatics really think those legal guns will help if the government wants to impose martial law against your wishes? Do you have tanks? |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheDemon
100% correct. Guns don't make you strong. I'll fight any mother****** hand to hand if they have a problem with me or my family.. |
Oh Hand to Hand?? Yeah its all well and good till some one brings a gun... No one fights fair, if its anything other than some Machismo B.S. you should never have that "I will throw hands wit anyone" that right there is a death warrent if you stumble on the wrong person..That Billy Bad Ass Attitude will just get your ass kicked and even killed if the situation escalates.....its better to just walk away from idiots ... and if you can't then you had better be prepared to take it to the next level and on the quick step if needed.
But, I use to think that too.."I am Billy Badd Ass" .:rolleyes: .. then was jumped by 5 car loads of Asians in Houston. Oh it was a fair fight, even when it was apparent I was getting my ass kicked in by 5 little guys. Busted jaw, busted eye socket and nose smashed...focking tai chi b.s. ;) I would of died that night... over what?? Machismo?? Until my bud, Ronnie, got the upper hand, then he was shot....died...gun shot wound to the chest.... EVER TRIED TO STOP THE BLEEDING ON A gun shot to the chest?? spurting out blood, red foam and a stench from death its self....
when the comes down, I do not want to be one of these people that bend backwards and allows the innocent to be prayed upon by the criminal mind. It tore my family up when my Aunt was killed in a Home Invasion in Houston.... her son, killed 2 of the 4 men that broke into their house...with a .45; he was later sued by the 2 dead guys families, and had to pay 45K to each family.......
AMerica is not the Spoiled little Bitch you Non-US Citizens seem to believe. We are not stupid or naive..... We are our own Culture and guns have been a very big part of it. Saying to an Gun Having American that gun control would work is just about the same trying to get a Muslim to eat pork,, its just not going to happen |
|
|
| pmoisse |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
when the comes down, I do not want to be one of these people that bend backwards and allows the innocent to be prayed upon by the criminal mind. It tore my family up when my Aunt was killed in a Home Invasion in Houston.... her son, killed 2 of the 4 men that broke into their house...with a .45; he was later sued by the 2 dead guys families, and had to pay 45K to each family.......
AMerica is not the Spoiled little Bitch you Non-US Citizens seem to believe. We are not stupid or naive..... We are our own Culture and guns have been a very big part of it. Saying to an Gun Having American that gun control would work is just about the same trying to get a Muslim to eat pork,, its just not going to happen |
Good points, and the pork analogy sounds pretty accurate actually. I'm a bad person for lol'ing at it, aren't I? :)
Though I have one question regarding the obviously distressing story about your Aunt. Why did the judge award $45k in penalties if the son was just defending the home? Strikes me as though there's some sort of double-standard (maybe not the right term). I know hindsight is 20/20, but would the thieves have taken $45 each worth of stuff? And add to that, your Aunt was killed!?!!? Why the $$$ penalty?
Honestly, I'm not at all being critical of how your relative handled the matter. In the context of gun ownership defending the home, the kid did everything to help.
Are Texas laws different from Florida ones which let people shoot first and ask later, so long as they can prove they were fearing for their life (which would have applied in the case of your Aunt for sure)? |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by pmoisse
Good points, and the pork analogy sounds pretty accurate actually. I'm a bad person for lol'ing at it, aren't I? :)
Though I have one question regarding the obviously distressing story about your Aunt. Why did the judge award $45k in penalties if the son was just defending the home? Strikes me as though there's some sort of double-standard (maybe not the right term). I know hindsight is 20/20, but would the thieves have taken $45 each worth of stuff? And add to that, your Aunt was killed!?!!? Why the $$$ penalty?
Honestly, I'm not at all being critical of how your relative handled the matter. In the context of gun ownership defending the home, the kid did everything to help.
Are Texas laws different from Florida ones which let people shoot first and ask later, so long as they can prove they were fearing for their life (which would have applied in the case of your Aunt for sure)? |
It was a terrible scene, the Wet Backs knocked on the door and when my aunt answered the door, they kicked in the door, smashed her in the head with a rifle butt and commenced to raid and one of the fat s shot her in the face, no open casket, apparently, my cousin went to his step dad's gun rack, grabbed the gun and went downstairs. The focked up thing was, the DA sent him to the Grand Jury to levy man slaughter charges, but the Grand Jury came Back No Bill. It did not help my cousin out that he went total primal on one of the dead guys carcass...won't go into details but a total of 20 long mins elapsed before the cops showed up...he went ape on one of the guys... really bad..almost animal like... and was about to shoot the other in the face with a hollow point, but the cops got there first and stopped him.
Simply Put, the focking Mexican nationals that did the deed were not citizens and it also did not help that the gun was not registered to my cousin...it was registered to his step father. I also should state that it was civil court that the wetback's family got rich off of. Kind of like the Border Patrol Agents who recently shot and wounded a wet back drug runner; they are sitting in jail at the moment for violating the little Wet's civil rights... I MEAN THE GUY WAS A DRUG RUNNER!!! but you know.....America is a nice place, but the laws favor the criminal and that's the fact..
There is nothing in my mind that would ever change my right to have a fire arm. I do have some, but that's mainly for the Job.... but that's another side to the pentagram that makes up my psyche :D
here is an example of the FOCKED UP SITUATION
| quote: | Border Patrol agents' case, House of Death go to the heart of Justice scandal
By Bill Conroy,
Posted on Fri Apr 13th, 2007 at 08:52:47 PM EST
It seems the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas, overseen by Johnny Sutton from his throne in San Antonio, has a PR problem when it comes to dealing with drug smugglers.
In the high-profile case of the two Border Patrol agents in Texas who are now serving long prison terms for shooting a drug smuggler in the rear end, conservative media outlets are proclaiming that Sutton’s office showed special favor to the smuggler in order to ruin the lives of the agents.
Likewise, in the House of Death mass murder case, an informant was shown special consideration by Sutton’s office after a run-in with Border Patrol agents in New Mexico, recent documents uncovered by Narco News show.
The two Border Patrol agents at the center of the controversy in Texas were stationed near El Paso in February 2005 when one of them shot a drug smuggler in the butt cheek after a bungled apprehension attempt and then allegedly covered-up the evidence of the shooting. The agents (Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean) were prosecuted by Sutton’s office, convicted by a jury of violating the smuggler’s civil rights and of covering up evidence, and each sentenced to more than a decade in prison.
Sutton, in a Jan. 19 appearance on FoxNews, said the Border Patrol agents in this case “deliberately lied, deliberately covered-up … and filed false reports” about the shooting of the smuggler, an individual named Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila. Sutton also stressed that a jury convicted the agents based on the facts, which he alleged have been distorted by the media.
The fate of Ramos and Compean is likely to continue to be a flashpoint in the divisive battle over immigration. Those on the right who have rallied to the agents’ cause claim they are victims of the Bush administration’s pro-illegal immigration agenda and of its cozy relations with the rulers of Mexico.
Such a conspiracy theory makes for sexy headlines in the world of political punditry. But could it be that there is a much more human-scale reason for Sutton’s aggressive prosecution of Ramos and Compean, and his kit-glove treatment of the drug mule Aldrete-Davila?
It pays for a prosecutor to appear tough on crime, particularly when it comes to the alleged misconduct of law enforcers – such as Ramos and Compean. The payback can be even greater if it diverts the media spotlight away from the skeletons in the prosecutor’s own backyard.
For evidence of that, we only need to turn to the House of Death mass murder case, which also was overseen by Sutton’s office.
As you recall, in that case, a U.S. government informant helped to arrange, and even participated in, the murders of a dozen people in Juarez as part of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operation targeting a narco-trafficking cell headed by Heriberto Santillan-Tabares. To date, not one U.S. law enforcer or prosecutor has been held accountable in a criminal court for their complicity in the House of Death murders.
But you can never be to safe on that front, if you’re a powerful prosecutor working for a paranoid administration with a lot of political enemies. So when an opportunity presents itself to produce a script for the mainstream media that depicts you as being tough on law enforcement corruption, as it did with the case of Ramos and Compean, then a politically astute prosecutor naturally jumps at the opportunity.
It’s the perfect way to divert attention away from your own bungled, and possibly criminal, handling of a quite separate law-enforcement corruption case that could ruin your career and deepen the political troubles of the administration you serve. And, as in the House of Death, if the ongoing cover-up implicates even high-level officials in the government, possibly even the White House, all the more reason to reach for a script that will divert attention away from your problems.
So, Ramos and Compean become the perfect scapegoats for a politically motivated prosecution based not on a grand conspiracy to create a New World Order, but rather on the very human desire to protect your neck. In the wake of the U.S. Attorney purge, and its charges of politically motivated prosecutions, is that such a far-fetched speculation?
But as with every plan of man, the world always has its own way. And now Sutton and his boss, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, face a major backlash – on the right due to the Ramos and Compean case, and on the left due to the recent U.S. Attorney purge.
But ironically, should these esteemed leaders take a fall from their wall due to their political miscalculations, it can be argued that a pair of drug smugglers, and the House of Death, helped to push them off their perch.
Tough on crime
In the House of Death case, court documents obtained by Narco News show (similar to the case of Ramos and Compean) that Border Patrol agents early on apprehended a key player, Guillermo Ramirez Peyro, for attempting to smuggle dope across the U.S. border.
And just as in the Ramos and Compean case, the drug smuggler Ramirez Peyro (who also happened to be a U.S. government informant) received favorable treatment, approved at high levels in Washington, D.C. This was done in order to protect an ongoing narco-trafficking investigation.
Importantly in this case, at the time Border Patrol agents caught up with Ramirez Peyro, he allegedly was acting on his own and had not informed his U.S. government handlers (at the time both DEA and ICE) of his freelance dope smuggling enterprise.
SOURCE
|
Some damn utter e that the state of Texas seems to have with Wetbacks and their country......
The same with my Cousin, the wetback invaders, since they were not citizens, were deported and then a few months later.... they sued!!
Had Lulac, FOCK THEM, doing their case Pro Bono, since the Grand Jury came back No Bill against my cousin, they went after him in civil court.
In Texas, the gun laws are very liberal. Lets say you are behind in a car payment....a repo man comes on to your land to take your car... if he does it in the manner that most repo men do, they will sneak up in the middle of the night and trespass on your land to get said car. In Texas you can blast his ass away.....but there are stipulations, but still. In Texas if you shoot a man outside your house its can be murder, if you shoot the man and then drag his ass in the door, its self defense. Unless like my cousin, you have a Spanish last name..... There are big difs between Texas Gun Laws and other states.. I am just a little foggy since the past 4 years I have been having to abide by Federal Protocols for gun ownership... a lot more B.S.
but my cousin is all good now, a few years later he joined the army, went to Iraq for a few tours, came back and started his own business, Home security and protection... also he teaches self defense to battered women, he was the staright arrow of the familia ;) |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
You guys do realize the overwhelming majority of gun crimes committed in the US are by guns that are acquired illegally, right? In other words, it wouldn't make any difference if you changed the constitution or made them illegal. The only thing that would change is that any semblance of being able to track and register guns and their owners would be completely lost and we would have absolutely no clue as to who had guns. Sorry folks, but the "genie" is out. Blame the ancient Chinese for inventing gunpowder in the first place if you need someone. There are guns now and there always will be, especially in the US which has had a torrid history with them.
I find it ironic that many on these boards will bitch about the downfall of freedoms in the US, but have no problem saying that a part of our constitution should be changed because of the actions of a few. Not to get on a soapbox, but every freedom has a responsibility, and not all people decide to act responsibly. However, that does not mean the irresponsibility of a few should mean the freedom is erased for the many.
Should slander, libel or "hate speech" from a few mean the first amendment should be removed?
Should the acts of a few homicidal maniacs mean the second amendment should be removed?
Should drunk drivers mean alcohol should be prohibited again, or what about cars?
No. In each case you punish those who acted irresponsibly, while preserving the rights of the millions of individuals who choose to act responsibly.
This country, this world, is so fickle. We jump on the latest and greatest news story, totally losing perspective. Who cares that out of a country of 300 million these events are rare? Who cares that we're talking about stripping a part of the Bill of Rights? Who cares that we're again arguing for "safety" over freedom? We only care that right now some crazy person killed 30+ people and we don't care what we do, as long as we do something. |
Great Post!!
Its the knee jerk reaction that gets people talking this crazy talk.....
its kind of like someone that posts every time a Muslim in America gets looked at wrong, or tasered or people on a plane freak due to a Muslim praying...... out of millions upon millions of every day living and breathing, a few come to the attention and already, Oh Boo Hoo Hoo, the Muslims are so downtrodden, poor me....FOCK OFF and grow a Pair! Or in this instance, "THE GUN LAWS NEED TO BE CHANGED"
For a country that is so diverse, for a country to have this many different ethnic groups, religions and people...... its not as bad as some in the media want others to believe or for that fact, many of the posters on this board.
Its not the gun, its the person that did the deed. But that seems to be the cool thing to do these days, BLAME OTHERS and NOT HOLD ACCOUNTABLE the Person that Did the Deed! focking pathetic to tell you the truth, ing pathetic :( |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Gack :nervous:
|
That reminds me of Lilith  . |
|
|
|
|
