Aurora Shootings Result Of 'Ongoing A...

Aurora Shootings Result Of 'Ongoing Attacks On Judeo-Christian Beliefs'

There are 187 comments on the www.huffingtonpost.com story from Jul 21, 2012, titled Aurora Shootings Result Of 'Ongoing Attacks On Judeo-Christian Beliefs'. In it, www.huffingtonpost.com reports that:

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Friday that the shootings that took place in an Aurora, Colo. movie theater hours earlier were a result of "ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs" and questioned why nobody else in the theater had a gun to take down the shooter.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.huffingtonpost.com.

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#52 Jul 28, 2012
Nontheist wrote:
<quoted text>
Add 5-6 people from multiple locations firing at him...or possibly who they THOUGHT...the shooter was, and the death toll/injured might likely have doubled.
Can you imagine the chaos??

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#53 Jul 28, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you imagine the chaos??
Yeah.

Lets hope the knee jerk reaction to this incident isn't for the John Wayne's in society to begin to go to the movies strapped, and ready to gun down any suspicious characters or decide that a person "was lookin funny".

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#60 Jul 28, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama[and his controllers] wasn't stupid enough to repeat Al Snores mistake, but clearly BO's record before was anti gun, like all communists.
As soon as you start using words like communist, I don't take you seriously.
Dismissed,

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#63 Jul 28, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
It's still not to say that POSSIBLY the right person could not have saved lives.
Anything is possible, but when dealing with human lives, and the more likely chance of catastrophe from the average yahoo blazing away, I would say that it is better that we err on the side of the conservative(not the political type)

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#65 Jul 28, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
I promise to only shoot at suspicious characters firing a gun, OK?
And what kind of gun and bullet would you be shooting in a crowded theater?

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#67 Jul 28, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
Blow me, BO is a lying commie rat bastard:
Obama has intentionally and willfully lied to the American public, yet idiotic liberals stick by him:
On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.
In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.
Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
Rush and others were right, idiotic Topix libs were wrong, big surprise
"Blow me, BO is a lying commie rat bastard:"

That's where I stopped reading.

Dismissed.

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#69 Jul 28, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
Blow me, BO is a lying commie rat bastard:
Obama has intentionally and willfully lied to the American public, yet idiotic liberals stick by him:
On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.
In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.
Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.
Rush and others were right, idiotic Topix libs were wrong, big surprise
Let me guess.. You're a birther too.

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#70 Jul 28, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
I promise to only shoot at suspicious characters firing a gun, OK?
You probably think I'm all for gun control, too.

So if another person walks into an establishment, sees you firing at someone, and thinks, "I need to take him down", pullls and shoots you dead, it's all good.

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#71 Jul 28, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought I was dismissed, yet here you are again.
The Communist’ Part I: Obama’s Mentor Frank Marshall Davis Exposed
July 14, 2012Gunny GLeave a commentGo to comments
On July 17th, Mercury Ink and author Paul Kengor, PhD, will introduce the world to the real Frank Marshall Davis – the card-carrying member of the Communist Party U.S.A, and who all accounts indicate was Barack Obama’s closest role model and mentor.
Stanley Armour Dunham, Ann Dunham, Maya Soetoro and Barack Obama, mid 1970s (l to r)(Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Devoid of outrageous conspiracy theories or sensational claims, Kengor painstakingly documents the historical facts of this dynamic, at times even sympathetic character, who walked the path from Republican roots clear through to the radical fringe of unfettered Marxism.
Presently, certain news and commentary outlets are focusing on the more outrageous aspects of Frank Marshall Davis’ life, such as his self-admitted penchant for perverse sexual escapades as well as for taking photos of naked women (including of Stanley Ann Dunham, Obama’s mother).
Your post was dismissed as mindless, uninform drivel. You are just another neo-con right wing nut.

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#72 Jul 28, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll wager the 12 dead and the 58 wounded disagree with you.
And I'll wager that anyone with an ounce of common sense, and experience in law enforcement would disagree with you. It's morons who think that they are Rambo, and would "save the day if they had been there with their gun" that scare me as much as the nut-job shooter in that theater. Big mouth nobody's who talk a big line of shit on the internet are a dime a dozen.

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#73 Jul 28, 2012
Nontheist wrote:
<quoted text>
You probably think I'm all for gun control, too.
So if another person walks into an establishment, sees you firing at someone, and thinks, "I need to take him down", pullls and shoots you dead, it's all good.
Or can you imagine the chaos of two or three of these yahoos blazing away at this guy from different angles with 9mm's? If he wasn't wearing body armour, and those bullets are punching right through him and killing innocent people fleeing, than Rambo 'A' see's Rambo'B' shooting and thinks he is with the real bad guy and starts blazing away at him, while Rambo 'C' sees Rambo 'A' shooting multiple people so he decides that he is another nut case and shoots him..... Oh yeah, this is just what we need in a dark crowded theater, more cowboys with guns!!!

Since: Dec 10

Fogelsville, PA

#74 Jul 28, 2012
I oppose gun control, and I own an indecent number of guns, but I also oppose idiot, wanna-be'cops thinking they are going to "get the bad guy", and save the day by being irresponsible. It's pathetic.

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#80 Jul 28, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
I wouldn't call that good at all. I suggest you look at the way we defended ourselves a hundred years ago and the way we wait for the police now. I don't remember any mass killings of the innocent back in olden days.
40 years of forced liberal policies have emasculated the American male, it indirectly led to 20 little arab weasels with boxcutters producing 9/11. Just let the police handle it.
Riiiight...

"these fights were usually close-up and personal, with a number of shots blasted from pistols, often resulting in innocent bystanders hit by a bullet gone wild. Much of the time, it would be difficult to tell who had even "won” the gunfight for several minutes, as the black powder smoke"
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-gunfights....

"As the posse began to push its way into the make-shift courthouse, all hell broke loose as shot after shot was fired. After the smoke had cleared, seven posse men were killed, including Deputy Owens."
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-gunfights2...

"The three other Texas cowboys also began firing, perhaps to keep the crowd back. However, an 18 year-old man who was a friend of McCluskie's opened fire into the smoke filled room, killing two of the Texas cowboys, the would-be peacemaker gambler, and an innocent bystander. He also wounded Hugh Anderson, one of the Texas cowboys, as well as another man having nothing to do with the squabble."
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/we-gunfights3...

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#81 Jul 28, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
In Georgia, it's legal to carry a concealed weapon almost anywhere, even in church. Somehow that just seems oxymoronic.
Concealed carry is not allowed in churches in Georgia.
http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/georgias-carr...

As to why someone might want to carry in a church, here's an example:

"In Colorado, where a Georgia firearms license is good enough to get you into a church legally in spite of its worthlessness for the same purpose in its home state, Jeanne Assam carried a concealed pistol to church on the morning of December 7, 2007. This is the same morning that an insane twenty four year old man bearing a murderous grudge against the New Life Church brought two handguns, a rifle, and more than 1,000 rounds of ammunition to the church, intent on using them to kill as many worshipers as he could before dying. The previous day, he had shot four people, killing two, at a missionary school affiliated with the New Life Church. Now, he was targeting the church's large sanctuary, holding what he assumed to be an estimated 7,000 helpless victims. Fortunately for them, his assumption was wrong.

Upon his arrival, he killed two teenage girls in the parking lot and severely injured their father. He met no resistance as he walked across the parking lot and entered the church.

Inside, however, his progress quickly changed. Jeanne Assam, who had a Colorado license to carry a concealed weapon, met him in the hallway with her pistol and shot at him ten times from a distance of 63 feet, taking him down before he had a chance to use his 1,000 rounds of ammunition inside the sanctuary."

http://www.examiner.com/article/firearms-have...

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#83 Jul 28, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
Right.......... no instances of some lunatic cowboy walking into a Sunday school blazing away?
12 dead, 58 wounded, or one person maybe taking out the perp, what's your choice, if your daughter is in the theater?
My choice would be that she not go to the theater at all if on any given night there are possibly 2-10 people, who knows, maybe more, sitting in the audience waiting for thier chance to save the world, and deciding when that will be based upon arbitrary and not always good perceptions.

You know as well as I do that there are some people that aren't capable of being responsible with weapons.

Even though they may have no criminal history or obvious mental issues etc...

They don't need to be the wards of society.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#87 Jul 28, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you familiar with the word "disssembling"? I use it a lot to describe my opponents who don't want to answer hard questions.
I doubt if many of those with CCW's are waiting for their chance to be a hero or save the world. Once upon a time, men were men and were expected to act like men. The police cant be everywhere and can't be counted on to prevent crime,, merely to come after the fact.
What if one soldier would have been armed at Ft. Hood? What if PC wouldn't have prevented us from kicking the MF out of the army for his views?
Lol, not another lying Creationist. You guys always give it away by talking about politics and attempting to label all atheists as liberals.

The point is you have no points other than tired 2005 Wedge strategy talking points.

Give it a rest, your cult has failed in all its aims to discredit science. That's why nobody takes you seriously in the real and you're left to spam forums all day with religious propoganda like Buck Crick.

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#88 Jul 28, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you familiar with the word "disssembling"? I use it a lot to describe my opponents who don't want to answer hard questions.
I doubt if many of those with CCW's are waiting for their chance to be a hero or save the world. Once upon a time, men were men and were expected to act like men. The police cant be everywhere and can't be counted on to prevent crime,, merely to come after the fact.
What if one soldier would have been armed at Ft. Hood? What if PC wouldn't have prevented us from kicking the MF out of the army for his views?
Unless the military has changed drastically since I was in, PC is the least of its concerns.

Additionally, there was no dissembling on my part. I answered your question. I answered it honestly.

“The eye has it...”

Since: Jan 12

Russell's teapot.

#89 Jul 28, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm in favor of all kinds of restrictions on our rights to purchase and possess weapons, i.e. low capacity magazines and limited numbers of bullets that can be purchased, which puts me in direct conflict with the true "gun nuts".
For Holmes to be able to buy 6,000 rounds to me is insanity.
I can agree with that.

Judged:

14

13

12

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!
Common Sense

Leonard, TX

#93 Jul 29, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a thread on this once, the real gun nuts ripped me to shreds because of my views on restrictions.
When freedom is "restricted", there is no longer freedom. Slippery slope there, restricting freedoms - whose to say what rights everyone should have, and are those rights distributed in an equitable fashion? Gun control has always had racist and economic roots, meant to help enslave certain groups of people. A little education in history is very revealing as to the past reasons for gun control.

"Sensible" gun control is another newspeak phrase, meant to coerce people into giving up their natural rights to self-defense, one magazine and restriction at a time, and it's obvious to all except the gullible.

Judged:

14

13

11

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#94 Jul 29, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
There was a thread on this once, the real gun nuts ripped me to shreds because of my views on restrictions.
Sorry, I pasted the wrong comment, meant no disrespect. I totally am with you and don't understand why the US is so backwards when it comes to walking around in society with objects that have only one purpose.

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.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 7 min It aint necessari... 16,325
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 31 min Chimney1 40,799
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 52 min IB DaMann 256,094
A Universe from Nothing? 1 hr Eagle 12 83
Who Is Satan The Devil? Is He Real? (Jan '16) 4 hr Reason Personified 26
For Atheists: Why do You Call Theories "Scient... 8 hr Into The Night 274
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 9 hr Mikko 3,771
More from around the web