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.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#954 Jan 27, 2013
RustyS wrote:
<quoted text>
FYI. Hillary is out, brain damage, double vision and Benghazi. Let’s get serious and talk Jokin Joe or Las Vegas Reid.
Obviously you continue to underestimate the Clintons and their appeal to Americans......

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#955 Jan 27, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"At least you're finally admitting your fellow assault rifle owners are a pretty scary & dangerous lot."
BS! Your lack of comprehension is showing. I wasn't refering to gunowners, I was referring to YOU.
"Btw, they ARE considering putting ignition interlocks on ALL vehicles to help prevent drunk driving."
Some States have them for DUI convictions, there is a Federal Law giving benefits to States with laws for DUI convictions and there is a push for more States to impliment the law for DUI convictions. You have a source of who "they" is and the push for "ALL vehicles"...? Just more "CONTROL FREAK" desire to exert more control over the people.
You're right, I erred.

The NTSB (National Transportation Safety Bureau) is recommending ignition interlocks for all 1st time DUI offenders.

However, they are also recommending continued development of a passive alcohol detection system which likely WOULD be required on ALL vehichles sold.

So it's coming, have patience.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#956 Jan 27, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"...they have the same right to own a gun as everyone else..."
They do...? That's a BS lie and YOU know it.
"...especially when by design that gun acutally ENCOURAGES them to fufill their fantasies."
Source...proof
So now only SOME people have the right to own assault rifles?

If the right is absolute as you gun nutters all keep claiming, then NO ONE can be denied that right for ANY reason.

Obviously that's NOT the case- as you admit- so now it's just a matter of determining WHO has that right, and WHAT guns they have the right to own.

If crazy psychos don't have the same right to own a gun as everyone else, then it's just a matter of defining what makes a person a crazy psycho. I'd say anyone who wants to own an assault weapon meets that standard.

The proof is the bodies of 20 dead elementary school kids.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#957 Jan 27, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
Except the "individual right" finding was unanimous...I guess YOU didn't get the memo.
IF...YOU...get a court to overturn a previous courts decision in regard to a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights...you will need a lot more than "1 Justice".
Except it wasn't unaminous, not as you are intending it to be.

I've read the entire opinion & dissents.

The 4 dissenting liberal justices clearly stated the individual right existed ONLY in the context of the state being able to provide a well-regulated militia for the common defense. They specifically said it did NOT apply to an individual right to own a gun for self defense or any other reason.

It ONLY applied in the context of a well regulated militia.

So if you want to believe all 9 bought into the individual right as you interpret it, you will be the only one suprised when a 5 justice liberal majority overturns that "individual right".

Again, we've already got 4 justices on our side, so all we need is 1 more. Scalia & Kennedy can't live forever.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#958 Jan 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So now only SOME people have the right to own assault rifles?
If the right is absolute as you gun nutters all keep claiming, then NO ONE can be denied that right for ANY reason.
Obviously that's NOT the case- as you admit- so now it's just a matter of determining WHO has that right, and WHAT guns they have the right to own.
If crazy psychos don't have the same right to own a gun as everyone else, then it's just a matter of defining what makes a person a crazy psycho. I'd say anyone who wants to own an assault weapon meets that standard.
The proof is the bodies of 20 dead elementary school kids.
The only way a right can be removed constitutionally is thorugh due process, which I have no probelm with. But to remove a right from the law-abiding through legislative fiat is the way of despots and tyrants. Something we have fought for a couple centuries now to defeat.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#959 Jan 27, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
WOW!...YOU must really believe that YOU have some mystical insight that allows YOU to analyis others...just by looking at them...or from a rifle they own.
Believe me...YOU are nothing special......you really should come down off that pedestal you have yourself on and join the real world. Your continued attempts to vilify the legal owners and ownership of certain firearms that are protected by the Constitution only shows your level of frustration...nothing more. In fact, your continued claims of "insight"... "I see "wackjobs" ...kinda makes YOU look like one...just saying.
Yes, I do have those abilities, as does everybody else. That's may a majority of Americans support banning assault weapons; we all know what freaks you are.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#960 Jan 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So now only SOME people have the right to own assault rifles?
If the right is absolute as you gun nutters all keep claiming, then NO ONE can be denied that right for ANY reason.
Obviously that's NOT the case- as you admit- so now it's just a matter of determining WHO has that right, and WHAT guns they have the right to own.
If crazy psychos don't have the same right to own a gun as everyone else, then it's just a matter of defining what makes a person a crazy psycho. I'd say anyone who wants to own an assault weapon meets that standard.
The proof is the bodies of 20 dead elementary school kids.
And yours is a bullshit argument.
1. Lanza didn't own the wepoans he used. He stole them.
2. You are willing to villianize MILLIONS of people because of the actions of ONE (or a couple) insane person(s). Possession of a THING does not a psycho make.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#961 Jan 27, 2013
"weapons"

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#962 Jan 27, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
The "fear factor"...it looks "scary" to pansies...they know people will get their panties in a bunch if they see one...like you do. What it doesn't do is change the functionality of the firearm.
YOU "frustrated control freaks" feed into their needs instead of looking for ways to get them the treatment they need...oh because they have "privacy" rights as well...or not letting the punishment fit the crime...YOU'RE so good with your "insight", you think you can rehabilitate hardened killers...what a laugh. That thinking got 2 fireman killed and 2 wounded by a man that should have been dead years ago.
The only effective "treatment" for all you psychos is one of your own bullets right between your eyes.

That's why the majority of these mass shooters "treat" themselves when they're done slaughtering innocents.

Now if we could just figure out how to get you to do that BEFORE you kill 20 elementary school kids.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#963 Jan 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The only effective "treatment" for all you psychos is one of your own bullets right between your eyes.
That's why the majority of these mass shooters "treat" themselves when they're done slaughtering innocents.
Now if we could just figure out how to get you to do that BEFORE you kill 20 elementary school kids.
Why are you libtards so violent??? You should seek psychiatric counseling IMMEDIATELY before you go into a school and murder 20 innocent children.
1 post removed

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#965 Jan 27, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
See...?...I knew YOU didn't get the memo. Have YOU ever read the Heller case...? It's NOT my "claim" Sparky...it's what the Supreme Court said.
Here's a little bit to support my comment and prove yours wrong;
From Heller; JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
"The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."
So you see my little "frustrated control freak"...even your 4 dissenting Justices see the right as an "individual right".
Actually they didn't.

Reading comprhension in context obviously isn't your strong suit either.

"Surely it protects a right that can be ENFORCED by individuals".

That's not the same as saying it's a right which exists FOR individuals.

"But the conclusion that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right....."

Refers in context to the MAJORITY opinion's conclusion that such a right exists to begin with.

So in conclusion, you have a right which can be ENFORCED by individuals, but none one EXERCISED specifically by individuals.

It's a subtle differnce which I'm certain is WAY over your head.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#966 Jan 27, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
So you would be OK with someone owning whatever caliber rifle as long as it didn't LOOK like its military counterpart???
In general, yes.

Because I know from experience a "normal" looking rifle regardless of caliber doesn't play into the nutjob psyche that the same caliber rifle which mimics its military counterpart does.

It's not the gun per se as much as it is the intent & motivation of the person who would buy such a gun.

I've never met a psycho nutjob with a shotgun or 30-30 or 30-06; they're just normal hunters.

But talk more than 5 minutes with anyone who owns an assault rifle and you'll quickly find out they are likely to be an anti-government conspiracy theoriest end of the world as we know it survivalist preparing for the coming armageddon. In other words, a nutjob psycho.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#967 Jan 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
So now only SOME people have the right to own assault rifles?
If the right is absolute as you gun nutters all keep claiming, then NO ONE can be denied that right for ANY reason.
Obviously that's NOT the case- as you admit- so now it's just a matter of determining WHO has that right, and WHAT guns they have the right to own.
If crazy psychos don't have the same right to own a gun as everyone else, then it's just a matter of defining what makes a person a crazy psycho. I'd say anyone who wants to own an assault weapon meets that standard.
The proof is the bodies of 20 dead elementary school kids.
"so now it's just a matter of determining WHO has that right, and WHAT guns they have the right to own.
If crazy psychos don't have the same right to own a gun as everyone else, then it's just a matter of defining what makes a person a crazy psycho."

Already been determined, NOT by you..."due process of law" ring a bell...?

"I'd say anyone who wants to own an assault weapon meets that standard."

You would...but then you're an ignorant, "frustrated control freak" that is wrong...again.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#968 Jan 27, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
With regards to Oblunder winning another term, this old quote has never been proven more correct...“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing.”-- Edmund Burke
A lot of good men/women stayed home and did nothing on election day.
My definition of a "good" man or woman in that context is one who votes for the best candidate available.

If you sit home on election day then you get what you deserve- a government which you feel doesn't represent you.
Marauder

Anchorage, AK

#969 Jan 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The only effective "treatment" for all you psychos is one of your own bullets right between your eyes.
That's why the majority of these mass shooters "treat" themselves when they're done slaughtering innocents.
Now if we could just figure out how to get you to do that BEFORE you kill 20 elementary school kids.
Well there it is...finally from this "frustrated control freak". Another one of those "we know better than you"...peace loving...holier than thou...elitists.

"The only effective "treatment" for all you psychos is one of your own bullets right between your eyes."

I just bet you would love to be the one to squeeze that trigger wouldn't you...?...looking thru your sights...seeing that "psycho" holding that scary looking "assault rifle"...all black...pistol grip...collapsable stock...vertical forgrip...bayonet lug...flash suppressor....oh man...come on, squeeze that trigger...you can do it.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#970 Jan 27, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
In general, yes.
Because I know from experience a "normal" looking rifle regardless of caliber doesn't play into the nutjob psyche that the same caliber rifle which mimics its military counterpart does.
It's not the gun per se as much as it is the intent & motivation of the person who would buy such a gun.
I've never met a psycho nutjob with a shotgun or 30-30 or 30-06; they're just normal hunters.
But talk more than 5 minutes with anyone who owns an assault rifle and you'll quickly find out they are likely to be an anti-government conspiracy theoriest end of the world as we know it survivalist preparing for the coming armageddon. In other words, a nutjob psycho.
So it all depends on what YOU determine is "normal". Whatever you say Sigmund. It doesn't matter one iota to you if the million plus AR owners consider it to be just another rifle (which it is). Keep drinking that Obama/Pierce Morgan Koolaid. Thanks for proving Marauder right ONCE AGAIN that you are nothing but another libtard frustrated control freak.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#971 Jan 27, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
The only way a right can be removed constitutionally is thorugh due process, which I have no probelm with. But to remove a right from the law-abiding through legislative fiat is the way of despots and tyrants. Something we have fought for a couple centuries now to defeat.
The legislative process is an integral part of due process. They can't remove our rights, but they CAN restrict our rights, which is why I can't just go to Walmart and buy a fully automatic machine gun.

7 states currently ban assault weapons. If those bans are unconstitutional, then surely someone would have brought a case to the SCOTUS by now challenging such bans.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#972 Jan 27, 2013
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And yours is a bullshit argument.
1. Lanza didn't own the wepoans he used. He stole them.
2. You are willing to villianize MILLIONS of people because of the actions of ONE (or a couple) insane person(s). Possession of a THING does not a psycho make.
That's you opinion, which you are entitled to.

I view someone who wants to own an assault weapon the same as I would someone who wants to own a machine gun or a full operational & armed tank or fighter jet or a nuclear weapon.

Owners of assualt weapons villainize THEMSELVES.

“Each Thought Creates A Reality”

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#973 Jan 27, 2013
TheatreTech01 wrote:
The truth of the matter, regardless of the wingnut rationale, is that the gun crowd will gladly break any law that they don't agree with. Pretty much what the "dope is my bag" crowd and "sister is pretty" crowd do. Make laws, don't make laws... As Hillary says "What does it matter?" We have a right to dissent. A moral, but not a legal, responsibility to stand up to what we consider against our own best interest. The problem is, when a majority decides, we are bound by law to obey. If we wish to risk the consequences, fine, but don't scream and holler when they come for you and your guns. You stood your ground, be proud to be a martyr in prison. Nelson Mandella would understand. And the rest of us will pay for your upkeep, gladly. Think of it as welfare for the "Ted Nugent" crowd.
Good thinking. The majority? Thought this was a Republic. The Moral Majority? Too funny. Love the irony. Guess it depends on which foot the shoe is on.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#974 Jan 27, 2013
Marauder wrote:
<quoted text>
"so now it's just a matter of determining WHO has that right, and WHAT guns they have the right to own.
If crazy psychos don't have the same right to own a gun as everyone else, then it's just a matter of defining what makes a person a crazy psycho."
Already been determined, NOT by you..."due process of law" ring a bell...?
"I'd say anyone who wants to own an assault weapon meets that standard."
You would...but then you're an ignorant, "frustrated control freak" that is wrong...again.
And Congress or state legislatures passing a law banning assault weapons IS part of due process.

California has had their ban since 1989; surely someone would have sued by now if their due process rigths had been violated.

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 2 min Slade surfer Thom... 7,804
News Theologian finds silver lining in election 'dum... 3 min Ted Haggard s Gos... 14
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min Slade surfer Thom... 222,534
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 5 min Uncle Tab 239,527
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 min One way or another 205,041
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min VetnorsGate 1,419,245
News News 14 Mins Ago Trump rebukes racism claims as... 6 min spocko 72
News Who is the real 'racist,' Clinton or Trump? Thi... 18 min woodtick57 37
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 22 min Slade surfer Thom... 393,287
More from around the web