Reactions to deadly CO theater shooting

Reactions to deadly CO theater shooting

There are 142 comments on the WAVY-TV Portsmouth story from Jul 20, 2012, titled Reactions to deadly CO theater shooting. In it, WAVY-TV Portsmouth reports that:

Reaction to the shooting at a crowded Denver-area movie theater, where 12 people were killed and dozens more injured Friday in one of the deadliest mass shootings in recent U.S. history: "Michelle and I are shocked and saddened by the horrific and tragic shooting in Colorado.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WAVY-TV Portsmouth.

“If you can't beat um join um”

Since: Jun 11

Under the troll bridge

#54 Jul 21, 2012
Je lai baisee wrote:
<quoted text>
From the millions of guns available in the US! Land of the violent, criminals, and racists.
Where the "right to a gun" takes precedence over "access to medical services or have medical insurance which right now is a priviledge."
The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the constitution. Nowhere does it say it is the governments responsibility to buy them for us. You have to pay for them.

While the constitution does not guarantee the right to medical care it is still available. You have to pay for it.

What ever happened to personal responsibility? Why do so many think somebody else should take care of them?
Responsibility

Redwood City, CA

#55 Jul 21, 2012
Je lai baisee wrote:
<quoted text>
From the millions of guns available in the US! Land of the violent, criminals, and racists.Where the "right to a gun" takes precedence over "access to medical services or have medical insurance which right now is a priviledge."
The whole argument about freedom, freedum, freedumb to own guns is specious when you think that our freedoms should be about a 9-year old being able for to meet her congresswoman and still be alive today, the freedom for college students to be able to sit in a classroom without being shot at and movie goers going into a movie house alive and not coming out dead or injured.

But heck, this country likes to hug their guns and speak about freedumbs.

A sad time for our country as the world laughs at another massacre in good ol' freedom loving amerikkkkaaa.
Responsibility

Redwood City, CA

#56 Jul 21, 2012
The Troll Doll wrote:
I'm not any more afraid of getting shot than I was last week.
I dare say that the hundreds of people effected by this massacre thought that way last week too.

But not today.
Responsibility

Redwood City, CA

#57 Jul 21, 2012
DEPTOF REVENUE wrote:
it appears the only winners are the CRIMINALS.
Yes I consider the gun lobbyists, the NRA and anyone who willingly buys and sells high powered guns to be CRIMINALS.
Je lai baisee

AOL

#58 Jul 21, 2012
The Troll Doll wrote:
<quoted text>
The right to bear arms is guaranteed in the constitution. Nowhere does it say it is the governments responsibility to buy them for us. You have to pay for them.
While the constitution does not guarantee the right to medical care it is still available. You have to pay for it.
What ever happened to personal responsibility? Why do so many think somebody else should take care of them?
This is what you and your biased friend don't get. That Constitution was written in an era when people were fighting imperial monarchies with the capacity of reconquering lost possession so they put that crap in the Constitution with that historical background in mind. And it was kept there because the US had its own imperial dreams as demonstrated with the three invasions of British Canada in 1813 and 1814. Now, we don't have to fear an invasion. We have missiles, nuclear bombs, and naval fleet unparallel in history so the initial motives for that constitutional "right to bear arms" is not applicable! You are re-interpreting that into internal security from law breakers (such thing could have been uncommon in 1783 and 1787)!

Now we are 315 million people with all kinds of education level, temperement, attitudes, machismo, philosophies, and religion and you want them to be armed whenever they want to? We seen this movie in Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan, etc. and they are not safer!!! Even in the 1850's and 1870's, the West was very wild with numerous border crossing, stolen cattles, and people killing each other for minute personal differences!

Of those 315 million people, all 315 million will get sick and you want access to medical services and medical insurance to be a priviledge? YOU HAVE NEVER GOVERN A COUNTRY FOR YOU TO MAKE JUDGEMENT ON AN ISSUE THAT AFFECT EVERY INDIVIDUAL AND HEALTH IS AT THE VERY TOP! Repent as*hole and recognize you are qualify to rank health as a priviledge issue! The founders had ZERO clue as to the priorities of a future US!

SATAN_64

“Walk With Me In Hell”

Since: Nov 11

Hell, Norway

#59 Jul 21, 2012
Responsibility wrote:
<quoted text>
The whole argument about freedom, freedum, freedumb to own guns is specious when you think that our freedoms should be about a 9-year old being able for to meet her congresswoman and still be alive today, the freedom for college students to be able to sit in a classroom without being shot at and movie goers going into a movie house alive and not coming out dead or injured.
But heck, this country likes to hug their guns and speak about freedumbs.
A sad time for our country as the world laughs at another massacre in good ol' freedom loving amerikkkkaaa.
Without those guns, we wouldn`t have those freedoms.

Or do you believe everything a politician tells you?
Cat74

United States

#60 Jul 21, 2012
You have a Constitutional right to own guns. You do not have the right to kill people unless you are protecting yourself or your family. I very much want the President to come out for stronger gun control.
Je lai baisee

AOL

#61 Jul 21, 2012
SATAN_64 wrote:
<quoted text>Without those guns, we wouldn`t have those freedoms.
Or do you believe everything a politician tells you?
You mean without a Government with a Continental army armed to the teeth with weapons (guns, rifles, cannon, grenades, horses, naval ships, etc.)laws can not be implemented? Otherwise, the Union will break (remember 1860 with Fort Summter in South Carolina) since any community may decide to ignore laws and imposed their will using weapons. Do we want Georgia to take over the rivers in Tennessee by force just because they want to?

Without a militarized government, there would not be a US nation! Even George Washington used the US military in 1793 to impose the tax law on the liquor makers!

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#62 Jul 21, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
You have a Constitutional right to own guns. You do not have the right to kill people unless you are protecting yourself or your family. I very much want the President to come out for stronger gun control.
Look to Chicago for the results of stronger gun control. More people have died violent deaths there so far this year than have died in Kabul.

Gun control is a firm grip, a steady aim and squeezing the trigger, not pulling it.

Since: Dec 07

Frankston, TX

#66 Jul 21, 2012
Je lai baisee wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean without a Government with a Continental army armed to the teeth with weapons (guns, rifles, cannon, grenades, horses, naval ships, etc.)laws can not be implemented? Otherwise, the Union will break (remember 1860 with Fort Summter in South Carolina) since any community may decide to ignore laws and imposed their will using weapons. Do we want Georgia to take over the rivers in Tennessee by force just because they want to?
Without a militarized government, there would not be a US nation! Even George Washington used the US military in 1793 to impose the tax law on the liquor makers!
Hitler banned guns and had a "militarized government." So did Stalin!
We all know how that turned out, don't we??
We don't know what you ingest that makes you so stupid. But it sure seems to work!!
Je lai baisee

AOL

#67 Jul 21, 2012
Bama Yankee wrote:
<quoted text>
Look to Chicago for the results of stronger gun control. More people have died violent deaths there so far this year than have died in Kabul.
Gun control is a firm grip, a steady aim and squeezing the trigger, not pulling it.
What kind of logic is this? Armed factions are killing each other in Chicago (gangs) and in Kabul (Taliban-Northen Alliance). So what is your point?

In Kabul, their Mayor, Karzai, does not permit their citizens (except for merchants and store owners) to have weapons. So what is your point?

When people hate each other, guns and bombs will be used to break wills or wipe out by attrition or instill fear! So what is your point?

“If you can't beat um join um”

Since: Jun 11

Under the troll bridge

#68 Jul 21, 2012
Cat74 wrote:
You have a Constitutional right to own guns. You do not have the right to kill people unless you are protecting yourself or your family. I very much want the President to come out for stronger gun control.
Then how to we protect ourselves or our families? The mentally ill will always be there. They will always find a way. As I stated earlier you can make a bomb from items available at Home Depot. If you take the guns from good people who will defend you and I from the bad people? If there had been one person in that theater that night how many would still be alive?

SATAN_64

“Walk With Me In Hell”

Since: Nov 11

Hell, Norway

#69 Jul 21, 2012
Je lai baisee wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean without a Government with a Continental army armed to the teeth with weapons (guns, rifles, cannon, grenades, horses, naval ships, etc.)laws can not be implemented? Otherwise, the Union will break (remember 1860 with Fort Summter in South Carolina) since any community may decide to ignore laws and imposed their will using weapons. Do we want Georgia to take over the rivers in Tennessee by force just because they want to?
Without a militarized government, there would not be a US nation! Even George Washington used the US military in 1793 to impose the tax law on the liquor makers!
You are talking about a time when it was fresh in the minds of the people, the antics of the Crown. In England the average peon, had no weapon. It was total domination over them by the military.

That is the reasoning behind the 2nd Amendment, to not allow the the government to get so large as to be able to take your guns or any of your rights away. The US military are not known to frequently fire on civilians, and unless i`m mistaken, there is something of this in the Constitution.

Lol! Now I will have to go find it.

Most the soldiers that I know (I live close to an Army base) Have said they would refuse a direct order if commanded to fire on US citizens.

“If you can't beat um join um”

Since: Jun 11

Under the troll bridge

#70 Jul 21, 2012
Responsibility wrote:
<quoted text>
I dare say that the hundreds of people effected by this massacre thought that way last week too.
But not today.
I bet a lot of them are buying guns today so it doesn't happen to them again.
Je lai baisee

AOL

#71 Jul 21, 2012
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
<quoted text>
Hitler banned guns and had a "militarized government." So did Stalin!
We all know how that turned out, don't we??
We don't know what you ingest that makes you so stupid. But it sure seems to work!!
What the hell is this organism vomitting now?

Hitler had an imperial plan to conquer the world for ethnic cleansing and when he invaded the USSR, HE WAS DONE! Nothing to do with a militarized government!

Stalin use his power to purge his perceived enemies and the enemies of the State. Then he repelled Hitler. Then he conquered the eastern Europe!

You are mixing apple with merde! Leaders that are imperialistic will pursue their dreams even if you arm them with knives, swords, spears, bow-arrows, etc. just like the Egyptian, Assyrians, Mesopotamia, ALexander the Great, Rome with their Ballistica!, etc.

Just don't vomit your digested merde here! Go have your bowl movement in your house and not in this thread!!!

“If you can't beat um join um”

Since: Jun 11

Under the troll bridge

#72 Jul 21, 2012
Je lai baisee wrote:
<quoted text>
What kind of logic is this? Armed factions are killing each other in Chicago (gangs) and in Kabul (Taliban-Northen Alliance). So what is your point?
In Kabul, their Mayor, Karzai, does not permit their citizens (except for merchants and store owners) to have weapons. So what is your point?
When people hate each other, guns and bombs will be used to break wills or wipe out by attrition or instill fear! So what is your point?
The point is gun control only takes guns away from the good guys.

Since: Dec 07

Frankston, TX

#73 Jul 21, 2012
Je lai baisee wrote:
<quoted text>
What kind of logic is this? Armed factions are killing each other in Chicago (gangs) and in Kabul (Taliban-Northen Alliance). So what is your point?
In Kabul, their Mayor, Karzai, does not permit their citizens (except for merchants and store owners) to have weapons. So what is your point?
When people hate each other, guns and bombs will be used to break wills or wipe out by attrition or instill fear! So what is your point?
We know, we saw that with the Taliban. But since Bush chased them out, things have improved quite a bit. A few get in now and then, but women are no allowed to go to school. No more executions at swimming pools because their ankles showed under their burka, etc.

Well done, President Bush

Since: Mar 12

Puyallup, WA

#74 Jul 21, 2012
What is the difference between scapegoating Jews and motivating an entire nation to hate those Jews and what ABC did?

The media in general has fostered a contempt and hate of the Tea party.

Why? Because the media has an agenda and one group of individuals hold a different political ideology than those in media?

The media in general is no longer news, it's propaganda for a single political ideology and what ABC did Friday is just another example of that.

If the news wants to present information with an ideological bent than its time ABC, NBC, CBS and the rest of the networks that present issues from one point of view, show a Disclaimer, that the information presented is from the DNC.

ABC did the Tea Party exactly the same thing Germany did to the Jews.
They lied. They twisted public perception for political reasons.

How dare ABC call themselves NEWS.

SATAN_64

“Walk With Me In Hell”

Since: Nov 11

Hell, Norway

#75 Jul 21, 2012
Je lai baisee wrote:
<quoted text>
What kind of logic is this? Armed factions are killing each other in Chicago (gangs) and in Kabul (Taliban-Northen Alliance). So what is your point?
In Kabul, their Mayor, Karzai, does not permit their citizens (except for merchants and store owners) to have weapons. So what is your point?
When people hate each other, guns and bombs will be used to break wills or wipe out by attrition or instill fear! So what is your point?
The point is, If you control guns and outlaw them, only outlaws will own guns.

More people die in cities,(Chicago, Washington DC) by guns being illegal to carry for self protection, due to them being banned, than cities of comparable size, that do not have a gun ban.

Since: Dec 07

Frankston, TX

#76 Jul 21, 2012
Je lai baisee wrote:
<quoted text>
What the hell is this organism vomitting now?
Hitler had an imperial plan to conquer the world for ethnic cleansing and when he invaded the USSR, HE WAS DONE! Nothing to do with a militarized government!
Stalin use his power to purge his perceived enemies and the enemies of the State. Then he repelled Hitler. Then he conquered the eastern Europe!
You are mixing apple with merde! Leaders that are imperialistic will pursue their dreams even if you arm them with knives, swords, spears, bow-arrows, etc. just like the Egyptian, Assyrians, Mesopotamia, ALexander the Great, Rome with their Ballistica!, etc.
Just don't vomit your digested merde here! Go have your bowl movement in your house and not in this thread!!!
You said that only the government military should have guns. I pointed out how dangerous that is with examples.

BTB, it's spelled "bowel!" Idiot

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.

US House of Representatives Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 min katrina 88 239,456
News GOP at war with itself 6 min WasteWater 1,702
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min It aint necessari... 204,982
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 56 min God Damned Holy S... 61,042
News Backlash for Trump after he lashes out at the M... 1 hr WasteWater 1,051
News News | Is Fung Eyeing Another Match Up with Rai... 1 hr mJazz 1
News Top rated ice cream shop, Owowcow in Lambertvil... 3 hr Top Mod 8 1
More from around the web