Albuquerque teenager 'shoots dead two...

Albuquerque teenager 'shoots dead two adults and three children'

There are 1973 comments on the The Guardian story from Jan 20, 2013, titled Albuquerque teenager 'shoots dead two adults and three children'. In it, The Guardian reports that:

A teenager shot dead two adults and three children inside a Albuquerque home, authorities in New Mexico said on Sunday.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Guardian.

“I laugh at Robo Posters”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#747 Jan 26, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Not according to the FBI liberal/moron
That's not fair, you are using facts on Orca.

“I laugh at Robo Posters”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#748 Jan 26, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
That would at least be accurate, instead of the bullshit you have been spreading on these threads.
And would be qualified by "Only At Certain Distances".

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#749 Jan 26, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
We are not talking about fully auto weapons or weapons of mass destruction troll......
We are talking about sporting rifles that are used for hunting by millions and 100s of thousands that compete in competition designed for rapid fire.......
But moron/liberals are too stupid to understand the difference between a nuclear bomb and a semi auto rifle..........LOL
http://www.myvssa.org/content/high-power-rifl...
Either the 2nd amendment right applies to ALL arms, or it doesn't.

YOU may be taking sporting rifles; I'm talking about assault rifles use to kill.

Only moron "conservatives" are too stupid to understand the difference between an assault rifle and normal hunting rifles.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#750 Jan 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about "More moronic rhetoric."
"...Americans are "punished" by not being able to own a tactical nuke."
Do you have a "tactical nuke" up your a$$...?...why do you keep bring up that idiotic argument..?
You are one ignorant, "frustrated control freak".
Because you keep claiming you would be punished by not being able to own the weapon of your choice.

Then I am also being punished for not being able to own the weapon of MY choice, which happens to be a tactical nuke.

Damn you frustrated control freaks!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#751 Jan 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"I said if it can save even one life when the item in question has NO OTHER VALID CIVILIAN USE."
I'll use mine as a "doorstop" or a "paperweight" then...or maybe window decoration in my pickup...or an exercise weight on hikes in the woods...or a hole punch at the local range.
"Assault rifles have no other valid civilian use which can't be accomplished with a less lethal firearm."
Would that be those "military style" so called "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines...would you say they are typically in common use as part of military equipment...?
If you're going to use it as a doorstop, then it doesn't need the capability of firing a projectile.

Yes, they should be restricted to the military.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#752 Jan 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU want a tactical nuke for self defense.
"You're no different than any other criminal who thinks they're above the law."
Yes, I want one, but they're illegal and I abide by the law.

You've clearly stated you would NOT abide by a law banning assault rifles or high capacity magazines or registering all guns, which makes you no different from any other criminal.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#753 Jan 26, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah...you couldn't have one to begin with.
Hmmmmm, so if we had banned assault rifles from ever being sold then you wouldn't be "punished" either?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#754 Jan 26, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
You do nothing but prove how TOTALLY IGNORANT you are when it comes to firearms and their use. The scope does NOT, repeat DOES NOT, make the gun more dangerous or lethal. It make THE SHOOTER more ACCURATE. Lethal or dangerous depends on what he is doing with it.
You better quit while you are a marathon behind.
And that's exactly why we're trying to prevent shooters from getting their hands on weapons like assault rifles which allow the shooter to be more lethal when firing at elementary school children.

If you're now going to claim all semi-automatic weapons are equally lethal, that just gives us more reason to ban them all.

I'd prefer not to have to ban all semi-automatic guns, but if that's what it takes to start cutting down on the endless slaughter, then I can live with just owning my 30-30 & 30-06.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#755 Jan 26, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a little test for you. Which one of these rifles is an "assault rifle"?
#1: http://www.tactical-life.com/online/wp-conten...
#2: http://www.marlinfirearms.com/images/photo_60...
Assuming that's a detachable magazine,#1.

I don't care if they both fire the same round or even if they both hold the same number of rounds.

The pistol grip and detachable magazine and attemp to mimic a military weapon is reason enough to ban it.

You just don't get it. It has nothing to do with the gun looking "scary", but rather that the gun is designed to attempt to mimic a military weapon. Designing guns like that ENCOURAGES the unstable psychos who play too many fake military video games.

They don't fantasize about picking up a Marlin .22 or 30-30 and wiping out an entire "squad" of elementary school kids.

Stop designing weapons to mimic military weapons and I'll stop opposing their sale.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#756 Jan 26, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Target shooting, shooting competitions, varmint hunting/control, collecting, self-defense, etc. are not "VALID CIVILIAN USES"???
Or is that the sight of a gun that LOOKS like something the military would carry simply makes you piss your little panties???
That can be accomplished just as effectively with non-assault rifles.

Only unstable psyhos want to own a rifle designed to mimic military weapons because it plays into their fantasies and makes them feel more like a man than just owning a normal gun. That's also what makes those people more dangerous.

But again, since we can't ban pyschotic people, the only thing we can do is ban the guns the you psychos prefer to use to slaughter innocent children.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#757 Jan 26, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
So then your intent is simply to infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens for the hell of it??? Hitler, Stalin and Mao would be so proud of you.
Just as you infringe on my right to own a tactical nuke just for the hell of it by making them illegal.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would be so proud of you.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Tlajomulco De Z˙˝iga, Mexico

#758 Jan 26, 2013
Yeah wrote:
<quoted text>lol! unfortunately, with lying idiots like you, you're the real moron son!

you just don't know it!
Why are you too scared to post this so called lie here??? C

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#759 Jan 26, 2013
You really don't need to go through the same old arguments. The shooters, as you call them, were/are criminals and their acts were illegal. No one disagrees, though you like to make the old straw man argument to lump all gun owners into the criminal camp.
Drugs are illegal. Your law abiding and reasonable citizen does not do anything with illegal drugs. There are those few that abuse illegal drugs. There are those few that abuse prescription and legal drugs.
To label all prescription drug users as addicts or abusers is what you are attempting to do with legal and responsible gun owners. Give it a break.
The Supremes have ruled that gun ownership is not illegal within the purview of the BATF. You are talking ex post facto. Though I am sure you knew that. No reasonable person is stating that an individual should own a battleship or nuke.
A stacked jury. A stacked court? You want to stack it to your liking. That makes it right? If that is all it is, stacking the court, then the law has nothing to do with fairness or equality or freedom. It is just that you want to be in charge and dictate through the color of law. Ex post facto anyone? Like executive orders. Bypass to get your agenda. Makes it a mockery. And therefore I agree with you. You feel that making it a mockery is justified if it agrees with your views. Good thinking. Shows the laws up for what they are.

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Tlajomulco De Z˙˝iga, Mexico

#760 Jan 26, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>That's not fair, you are using facts on Orca.
Yes morons/liberals don't use fact that their gods did not tell them to look at

“Facts”

Since: May 08

Tlajomulco De Z˙˝iga, Mexico

#761 Jan 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>Either the 2nd amendment right applies to ALL arms, or it doesn't.

YOU may be taking sporting rifles; I'm talking about assault rifles use to kill.

Only moron "conservatives" are too stupid to understand the difference between an assault rifle and normal hunting rifles.
Really moron

A custom built AR that was built strictly for competition you call a assault weapon

Yes a morons will call a pistole that is heavy a assault weapon because of its weight

That is what the definition is in the old ban

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#762 Jan 26, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
And that's exactly why we're trying to prevent shooters from getting their hands on weapons like assault rifles which allow the shooter to be more lethal when firing at elementary school children.
If you're now going to claim all semi-automatic weapons are equally lethal, that just gives us more reason to ban them all.
I'd prefer not to have to ban all semi-automatic guns, but if that's what it takes to start cutting down on the endless slaughter, then I can live with just owning my 30-30 & 30-06.
Do you even know what you are talking about? A single shot 30.30 or 30.06? Bolt action only? They do have magazines. Seen how fast a person can fire and reload a revolver? Pump action shotguns? You obviously know your firearms.

Try 12 shots in under 3 seconds. Might as well ban all firearms.

Jerry Miculek is worth a watch. I am sure it will expand your call for banning more than just semi-autos.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#763 Jan 26, 2013


Nice video for those that practice. Jerry Miculek again.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#764 Jan 26, 2013
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_in...

Remington 30.06 Semi-Automatic Carbine (Model 7077). Oopsies. Out of stock.
Yeah

Mililani, HI

#765 Jan 26, 2013
Here Is One wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you too scared to post this so called lie here??? C
lol! Already have son.

Why are you so reluctant to read and comprehend? Is it because you can't?

Woohoo!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#766 Jan 26, 2013
Willothewisp wrote:
You really don't need to go through the same old arguments. The shooters, as you call them, were/are criminals and their acts were illegal. No one disagrees, though you like to make the old straw man argument to lump all gun owners into the criminal camp.
Drugs are illegal. Your law abiding and reasonable citizen does not do anything with illegal drugs. There are those few that abuse illegal drugs. There are those few that abuse prescription and legal drugs.
To label all prescription drug users as addicts or abusers is what you are attempting to do with legal and responsible gun owners. Give it a break.
The Supremes have ruled that gun ownership is not illegal within the purview of the BATF. You are talking ex post facto. Though I am sure you knew that. No reasonable person is stating that an individual should own a battleship or nuke.
A stacked jury. A stacked court? You want to stack it to your liking. That makes it right? If that is all it is, stacking the court, then the law has nothing to do with fairness or equality or freedom. It is just that you want to be in charge and dictate through the color of law. Ex post facto anyone? Like executive orders. Bypass to get your agenda. Makes it a mockery. And therefore I agree with you. You feel that making it a mockery is justified if it agrees with your views. Good thinking. Shows the laws up for what they are.
You want to "stack the court" to YOUR liking, so there's no difference.

And MANY reasonable people ARE saying individuals shouldn't be able to own assault rifles either.

You want the law your way and will do anything to keep it that way, including stacking the courts with pro-gun nuts.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Placitas Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
APS school board 27 min Willothewisp 15
Valentino has resigned 44 min APS parent 1
Today I Saw (Nov '09) 1 hr fmer505-1951 58,717
Good Old Days 2 (Apr '10) 1 hr fmer505-1951 109,425
Vote For Donald Trump 1 hr Veronica 65
NM Secretary of State and Money Laundering of C... 13 hr Coleen 4
Curfew For Teens Albuquerque 14 hr Juanita 54
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Placitas Mortgages