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

Jul 21, 2012 Full story: www.huffingtonpost.com 188

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.

Full Story

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#182 Jul 30, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
People who are shot in their body armor are still hurt. Aim for the neck and legs.
Yeah cowboy.
Jus shoot him in the head, cause that just so easy. Why not just shoot the gun out of his hand!! F*cking idiot. Thank goodness you are all talk.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#183 Jul 30, 2012
Not to mention he had used those gas canisters people could barely see it was hard to breathe not optimal conditions to play dirty Harry.
ALICIA BANKS

Little Rock, AR

#185 Jul 30, 2012
jesus has nothing to do with mk ultra/psychotropic drugs etc

fyi

http://aliciabanks.xanga.com/732474304/proof-...

“GOVERNMENT OF DECEIVERS (GOD)”

Since: Sep 10

NEWARK, NEW JERSEY

#187 Jul 30, 2012
James is a a servant of YHVH and of the Lord Jesus Christ. The anointing. YHVH suspends mercy in response to god (government of deceivers) suspension of inalienable rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) in the American Holocaust (moral corruption - fraud - Terminal Injustice - economic oppression - Murderbyproxy - population control - death fix it>deficit<).

http://www.scribd.com/doc/101079186/James-Hol...

Jesus / justice is not god. I AM YHVH DEITY THE FARTHER CIPHER 888 YHVH is pronounced YA. Thank YHVH, YHVH welcome, YHVH bless, YHVH way.

You
Have
Victory
Halleluejah!

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#188 Jul 30, 2012
Alas Buck wasn't there.
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Pushing the biggest, fattest person in the room into falling on him ought to at least slow him down long enough for most of the other patrons to flee the building. >:)

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#189 Jul 30, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Our species barring should we self destroy ourselves in a religious rage, will most likely continue to evolve several times before the sun dies. We are already vastly different. Say an NBA team walked into ancient Jerusalem what the people would say!
<quoted text>
The main difference between the populations of modern and ancient Jerusalem is that they are more diverse and less provincial. Most likely, the height and athleticism that we see in NBA players is not the result of any evolutionary change in the species over the last 2000 years, but of influences like improved nutrition and mass migrations that make for a more global gene pool rather than a huge number of isolated local ones. Even during biblical times, heights of seven feet or more was not uncommon in some tribes in Africa or some of the Nordic subgroups even if most middle easterners were (and are) well under six feet tall.

Human evolution is a slow process, mostly because our reproductive cycle is so long, ranging between from as little as twelve or thirteen year to as much as forty years between one generation and the next. 2000 years allows for at most 160 generations, probably more like 100 or 80--not much time for any real evolutionary change, and NBA heights are rare even in modern times.

Perhaps Hiding will read this and give a better explanation--this is hardly my field of expertise.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#190 Jul 30, 2012
Oh I agree with you. You would agree though that they would have seemed out of place and either dubbed angels or demons or mighty ones in ancient jerusalem. Remind me of the family guy skit where Jesus returns to earth this time in NYC and he is shorter than everyone lol YouTube it up if you haven't seen it.
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
The main difference between the populations of modern and ancient Jerusalem is that they are more diverse and less provincial. Most likely, the height and athleticism that we see in NBA players is not the result of any evolutionary change in the species over the last 2000 years, but of influences like improved nutrition and mass migrations that make for a more global gene pool rather than a huge number of isolated local ones. Even during biblical times, heights of seven feet or more was not uncommon in some tribes in Africa or some of the Nordic subgroups even if most middle easterners were (and are) well under six feet tall.
Human evolution is a slow process, mostly because our reproductive cycle is so long, ranging between from as little as twelve or thirteen year to as much as forty years between one generation and the next. 2000 years allows for at most 160 generations, probably more like 100 or 80--not much time for any real evolutionary change, and NBA heights are rare even in modern times.
Perhaps Hiding will read this and give a better explanation--this is hardly my field of expertise.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#191 Jul 30, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Not necessarily. Also, it certainly won't allow you to put a foot on his throat without him blowing your balls through the back of your head.
Second, let's say you are carring a .45, and he ISN'T wearing body armour. Gues what happens when you shoot him? It goes right through him.... In a crowded theater....
I know, I know, you are loaded with hollow points, and they won't pass through him. Well, depending on how close, and where you hit him, there is the very distinct probablitity that it will still go through him. Also, if you are using hollow points, and he is wearing body armour, the bullet almost certainly won't knock him down.
Forget the crap you see in the movies. In the real world, that kind of thinking just makes things worse.
One niggling little point: wasn't Holmes standing down in front of the screen shooting at the audience with no one behind him? If not, why would he have left himself open to attack from behind? If so, a bullet shot at him from the audience area could not have hit anyone else except as a ricochet, and given the number of rounds per second that he was firing at the audience, and rounds fired at him would have added only a minimal risk. The real problem that I see with having 5% or 10% of most movie audiences carrying concealed is the risk of other shootings in theaters becoming more common. It might well be a cure worse than the disease.

It's easy to forget that this event is an extreme anomaly--it hasn't happened before in all of American history, has it? Even instances of people firing weapons into crowds of unarmed civilians is so rare that it makes for international headlines even when it happens in war-torn areas.

I, for one, have absolutely no fear at all of being shot by a raving graduate student, and I think that anyone who does is probably nearly as bonkers\ as Holmes himself.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#192 Jul 30, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Not to mention he had used those gas canisters people could barely see it was hard to breathe not optimal conditions to play dirty Harry.
nice comment, thanks! you got to the point.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#193 Jul 30, 2012
He had this well thought out. He released the gas but was wearing a gas mask so even if someone was packing they didn't have a mask or the riot gear that he had and so that person would have still been at a huge disadvantage and could have just gotten more people hurt or killed.
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> nice comment, thanks! you got to the point.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#195 Jul 30, 2012
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
Might want to rethink that :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =VDRRJZ6rJBYXX&feature=rel ated
Wingnuts never let facts get in the way of a good argument. Arguing reality or facts has zero effect on them. They are completely immune to any facts that are not consistent with their fantasy.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#196 Jul 30, 2012
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
Wingnuts never let facts get in the way of a good argument. Arguing reality or facts has zero effect on them. They are completely immune to any facts that are not consistent with their fantasy.
Agreed

Since: Dec 10

Orefield, PA

#197 Jul 30, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
One niggling little point: wasn't Holmes standing down in front of the screen shooting at the audience with no one behind him? If not, why would he have left himself open to attack from behind? If so, a bullet shot at him from the audience area could not have hit anyone else except as a ricochet, and given the number of rounds per second that he was firing at the audience, and rounds fired at him would have added only a minimal risk. The real problem that I see with having 5% or 10% of most movie audiences carrying concealed is the risk of other shootings in theaters becoming more common. It might well be a cure worse than the disease.
It's easy to forget that this event is an extreme anomaly--it hasn't happened before in all of American history, has it? Even instances of people firing weapons into crowds of unarmed civilians is so rare that it makes for international headlines even when it happens in war-torn areas.
I, for one, have absolutely no fear at all of being shot by a raving graduate student, and I think that anyone who does is probably nearly as bonkers\ as Holmes himself.
Your point is well takern, and probably true. My comment wasn't so much specific to this particular case, but rather aimed generally to the point that shooting in a crowed place like a movie theater is at the very least ill-advised, and that hitting someone with body armour on will not likely "knock him down". In addition, in the case of multiple shooters, it would seem very unlikely that one shooter would know which shooter was the good guy, and which was the bsd guy. The rest of your post is, as always, a refreshing demonstration of common sense.

Since: Jul 11

Location hidden

#198 Jul 30, 2012
where's ron paul when you need him?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#199 Jul 30, 2012
The serpent was right wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point is well takern, and probably true. My comment wasn't so much specific to this particular case, but rather aimed generally to the point that shooting in a crowed place like a movie theater is at the very least ill-advised, and that hitting someone with body armour on will not likely "knock him down". In addition, in the case of multiple shooters, it would seem very unlikely that one shooter would know which shooter was the good guy, and which was the bsd guy. The rest of your post is, as always, a refreshing demonstration of common sense.
Again, your own points are right on target. But if I were armed and in the theater when something like this happened, I think I would try to crawl down the aisle to the front, shoot from the floor, empty my clip, and then stay low while retreating. I'd assume anyone else doing the same was a friendly and that anyone firing toward me or the audience was not. Moot point, though, since I never go armed...

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#213 Jul 30, 2012
Fatass dumbfuck Buck crick surf The atheist forums you'll see him. Most likely he'll be either telling tall tales on par with Paul Bunyun or he'll be making a jackass out of himself promoting ID or slurping Rush Limbaugh's junk. Btw your Jewish terrorist joke was funny. That was meant to be a joke yes?
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
Joe Buck?
Uncle Buck?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#214 Jul 30, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
I would say critical thinking at a minimum involves the students hearing both political views, instead of just the liberal one, rife with lies and hate. If true critical thinking was taught, liberals wouldn't have a chance.
I'd prefer we graduate students with a firm grasp of reading, writing, mathematics, geography and history, they can deduce how to put a condom on a cucumber on their own.
I disagree. First off, I don't think critical thinking centers around politics in general or the liberal-conservative dichotomy in particular. Nor are firm grasps of the academic basics adequate to produce it. In my view, the core requirements for critical thinking are skepticism, a firm grasp of logic, and a willingness, perhaps even a compulsion, to reevaluate old views in the face of new information. These combine to produce true independence of thought--critical thinking.

I'm not sure critical thinking can be taught, per se, but it can be defined, delineated, promoted, and modeled by mentors. Critical thinkers tend to be perceived as poor team players, pains in the ass, even, but without them, most teams would produce fast but shoddy products and poor decisions.

In politics, too many define critical thinkers as anyone who agrees with them. But critical thinkers are nearly certain to disagree with most others about one thing or another. But they are also willing to reconsider their views given a compelling argument or relevant new data.

I don't think our views on critical thinking have much in common.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#215 Jul 30, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, next time it happens, let's just accept the carnage and death toll, hopefully my loved ones won't be involved. Or yours.
Yes the carnage was horrific, but if you think you could have stood up against this guy, you're mistaken. You might like to create a scenario in your head where you take out the bad guy with your firearm superpowers but that's just not realistic. Officers train for years to deal with this type of thing and things go wrong and innocent people die. If you think you and your handgun would have dissolved that situation with no loss of innocent life by your hands you're frighteningly delusional.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#216 Jul 30, 2012
Floating around in his whimsical balloon of make believe heading for the land of imagination where the president doesn't need to talk to foreign leaders and we use several currencies in the US?
swedenforever wrote:
where's ron paul when you need him?

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#217 Jul 30, 2012
mr right ness wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm very suspicious of that video. In fact I don't believe it.
Would you volunteer to be shot at close range like that? i wouldn't.
Sure

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.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Top Dem: Republicans 'rigging the rules' for ne... 10 min barefoot2626 11
US to start talks with Cuba to normalize full d... 16 min Mick 146
Rep. Grimm potential replacement in middle of G... 17 min Le Jimbo 2
'Excuse Me' Biden headlines top political gaffe... 19 min barefoot2626 9
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min karl44 134,013
Probe fails to link IRS scandal to White House 1 hr ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 24
Issa's big dud: No White House connection to IR... 1 hr Gary 14
More from around the web