There are any number of other posts that have nothing to do with Strip Clubs. Why not eliminate those too.
This rampage just as easily could have been inside a club.
Yeah, and people can get into car accidents while driving to strip clubs as well. You gonna start a crusade on auto-safety next? Man, you are a complete shit-for-brains.
We can't have guns, we can't smoke, we can't drink alcohol, we can't look at another woman if we are in a relationship, no yo momma jokes...but hells yeah paying a prostitute for sex is A-OK.
Or in other words, If Alucard likes it = totally fine. If Alucard doesn't like it = wrong, immoral, shouldn't be done.
I present to you ladies and gentlemen: a fucktard. (Alucard bows)
I saw a group of fat women the other day....Should we make spoons tougher to buy or just tax McDonalds out the ass. Anyone who believes stricter gun laws would have stopped that crazy SOB is just as crazy as he was.
I would prefer laxer gun laws so that more people own then and can gun psychos quicker. (Luckily this particular fucker was only able to take out a couple of others. Most of them will get 8 to 20 others these days).
I wonder how many EXISTING laws were broken during this tragedy? How many more would it take to eliminate these things?
As I recall, at Columbine, TWENTY TWO existing laws were broken. In that case, would 25 laws have prevented the tragedy? Would 30 laws have prevented the tragedy? Would 35 laws have prevented the tragedy? Would 40 laws have prevented the tragedy? Would 45 laws have prevented the tragedy? Would 50 laws have prevented the tragedy? Would 55 laws have prevented the tragedy? Would 60 laws have prevented the tragedy?
Get the point???
Gun laws only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.Criminals in Chicago,New York, and in Mexico seems to have no problem obtaining guns in places where guns are completely banned.
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.
-- Hitler, April 11 1942
I read somewhere a nurse was busted recently for stealing part or sometimes all of a patient's pain meds to feed his own drug habit.
This cannot be tolerated.
We need tougher regulation of nurses. We need tougher requirement to become a nurse. ALL nurses current and future need to undergo extensive background checks and random secret surveillance to ensure said nurses don't have any seedy, dangerous, immoral, disgusting habits that may or even may not impact their job.
Make it so!!!
TC: " random secret surveillance to ensure said nurses don't have any seedy, dangerous, immoral, disgusting habits that may or even may not impact their job."
Like paying hookers for BBBJTCIMWS in dark rooms in strip clubs? Think that might catch our dear boy alutard up in that net.
txtittyfag-yes I am aware of that,And they were never held accountable.
â€This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!†~Adolph Hitler, 1935, on The Weapons Act of Nazi Germany
"At one point in time I was sure that TUSCL had the BEST personal feedback via the Forum. This is no longer true, the reasons are rather evident." --Alucard
So Alucard, I guess if you can't beat em, join em in ruining this site with trolling threads like this one eh?
I just knew alutard's "changed man" act won't last more than a few days. He is reverting back to his normal (i.e. abnormal) personality at an accelerating rate. Witness this thread.
Its not the gun, it's the person holding gun. Guns are objects and have no motives.
As others have pointed out, if we want to use statistics to ban things, cars, alcohol, cigarettes, and doctors would have been banned ages ago.
The point Clubber is how the British handle their gun situation and their gun violence stats vs the situation in this country. Some lessons to be learned and food for thought.
Have anyone heard the new reports about this.... This guy STOLE the gun he used. So stricter gun laws would not make one difference. He stole a gun from someone who got it legally. So this is all a moot point.
This is off topic, but I can make it somewhat relevant by saying that women, especially STRIPPERS, benefit from having guns. Most women can be beaten or killed by most men, unless the women are armed.
The right to bear arms is in the Bill of Rights, and it is one of those freedoms that was denied to the common people of Europe. Citizens should cherish this right just as the cherish freedom of speech.
I'm pretty liberal on most issues, but I don't understand why liberals or anyone else want the government to have a monopoly on force. Our government--federal, state and local--is far from perfect in its policies and actions, and the fact that the people are armed tells the government that we are citizens, not subjects, and should be treated as such.
The government is also unable to protect us from all threats of violence. We need to be able to protect ourselves in our homes and on the street. The mayors of some big cities like Chicago and New York try to deny people the right to protect themselves, but these mayors live in the safest neighborhoods and are guarded day and night by armed police.
Luckily, the supreme court has ruled that the second amendment gives the right to bear arms to the people. And the courts have just overturned the strict gun laws of the state of Illinois.
The United Kingdom restricts many other freedoms, in additions to severely restricting the ability of private citizens to own firearms. In the UK, the press has much less freedom of speech. The United Kingdom does not have any doctrine even vaguely resembling the 4th Amendment prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure. The UK taxes much more of one's income. Private citizens have been prosecuted for defending themselves in their own residences with bats, clubs, and other weapons that are not firearms against shitheads who invade their homes.
In short, if the United States is so dangerous because a 22 year old fucktard can steal a semiautomatic rifle and shoot people, thereby breaking numerous laws, then put your tail between your legs and slink off like a little lamb to the UK. Me, I would rather have some freedom here in the United States, including the right to own a Model 1911 .45 caliber ACP, an AR-15, a 12 gauge pump action shotgun, and a .357 revolver, while I read the National Enquirer in my apartment and check out the latest pictorials on [view link] or read the latest crazy threads on [view link]
To quote a great American, "Give me liberty or give me death!" Fuckin' a!
@sofaking. Not true. any U.K. citizen can legally hold a firearm as long as they meet the required criteria e.g. be of apparently mental stability, no previous convictions for violence etc. I know several people that own firearms.
It is also not true that the press does not have freedom of speech. On the contrary some people are of the opinion it has too much. I doubt it has featured in any news bulletin over there but there has been a year plus long enquiry into press freedom recently. the conclusion by Lord Levesson is that a legal backstop be put in place. To his credit our useless PM has more or less told him to 'Fuck Off'.
I can't recall any news story where private citizens have defended themselves with anything other than firearms and we only get prosecuted for violence that is above and beyond minimum force. Also the law has changed recently where we have more leeway to use violence against intruders into our homes.
The only way to significantly reduce gun violence in this country, and it will never happen, would be to overturn the 2nd Amendment. It would then be a long and bloody process to effectively enforce it.
The pros of doing so do not outweigh the cons.
Does it really say somewhere that every American has the right to bear arms, or is it phrased another way and open to interpretation?
If overturning the 2nd Amendment is what would be required how would that actually happen, can Obama just do it? How about a referendum, would that be a way forward?
@londonguy, who decides if a person meets the required criteria? What exactly are the required criteria? Who decides if the firearm purchaser is of appropriate mental stability? What are the standards for appropriate mental stability? These are critical questions.
Regarding freedom of the press, if a year long inquiry occurred, and some Lord dude thinks that a backstop should be put in place, then freedom of the press is in peril.
Regarding defending one's residence, who decides what is "minimum force" that may be used against intruders? The fact that such an issue is considered shows the huge difference between UK jurisprudence and the law of self-defense in the United States. I could probably run a quick Google search on my smartphone and find numerous articles about UK prosecutions of private citizens for resisting invasions of their homes.
Suffice it to say that here in the United States, we have many more freedoms than most of the world. Thank God for the Bill of Rights! I will die to defend it. Indeed, as an attorney, I have taken an oath in several jurisdictions to defend the United States Constitution.
Bob Costas made some excellent points about the gun culture in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN. Worth a listen
Honestly ....Who gives a fuck what Bob Costas has to say about anything? ,And that goes for all celebrities and people in the media. Especially the corporate ,dinosaur news media who basically serve as a propaganda arm for the government.A person can easily be conditioned into a good little sheep these days if all the news and information they hear is only from "mainstream" (corporate and government payed for)sources.
It should be obvious to anyone that people within our government have an agenda to limit gun rights and possibly disarm the american [view link] should also not be a surprise that people within our government would use a tragic event or group of events as justification for such action.If anyone here follows the news they should realize they (elements within our government) are also not shy about staging events(fast and furious scandal) to push their agenda.
You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.
Rahm Emanuel
In the MN (and I think all states) when you purchase a gun... You go through a "back ground" check. Making sure you are not convicted of a felony, domestic abuse, warrants, etc. You have to be sober and "of right body and mind". This is deemed by the person selling you the gun and making the call to the feds for the check.
So what my question is to everyone who says we need stricter gun laws... How would they apply in this case..... THIS GUY STOLE A GUN!. You can say put gun locks on every gun....fine how do we not know this guy didn't have a bolt cutter to take off the lock? Do we know he knew were the key was? Locks do help...so do gun safes/cabinets with locks. But many thief's know how to get around those. So again... HOW DO STRICTER LAWS HELP WHEN GUNS USED IN CRIMES ARE STOLEN!!!!
"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Rahm Emanuel
Gun confiscation happened after Hurricane Katrina in the "high and dry areas" where mostly wealthy people lived and there were no problems.
[view link]
I don't own a gun so I don't have string opinions either way. But I do believe that old 70's bumper sticker:
If guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns
@londonguy, in the last few years the United States Supreme Court has considered two lawsuits that implicate the exact wording of the Second Amendment regarding statutes that purport to limit private ownership of firearms. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Supreme Court essentially held that similar to the First and Fourth amendments, the Second Amendment applies to the national government and state governments. Similar to First Amendment jurisprudence that limits "fighting words" and defamation, and Fourth Amendment jurisprudence that allows warrantless searches in limited circumstances, such as incident to a lawful arrest and in exigent circumstances, the Supreme Court signaled narrowly tailored restrictions would probably be constututional. But the Second Amendment - " A well regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." - was held to guarantee an individual American the right to possess a firearm.
The United States Constitution established specific procedures on enacting amendments. Perhaps it is a surprise, but President Obama cannot just wave a magic wand and negate the Second Amendment. Nor can Americans vote in a popular referendum to abolish part of the Constitution.
Sofaking, I believe it's the Police that decide as they can check your criminal history, they also do checks with medical people regarding medical history, and I think that on top of that stringent interviews and assessments are made to evaluate suitability. I think there is two licences as well, shotgun and firearm.
It is normally a jury that would define minimum force if it goes to
court and it's up to the DPP (director of public prosecutions) to decide if a case goes to court. The DPP lets a case go to court only if they believe a successful prosecution is possible or it is in the publics interest.
Hope that helps.
That is the problem, the police decide suitability. Gee, how do you think the police will rule the vast majority of the time?
Likewise with deciding if a person used "minimum force" in defending himself in his residence. If someone in government makes that threshold decision, too late to close the barn door.
Do you have a right to defend yourself? I think so.
Therefore, IMO, one has a right to return fire when fired upon. It's really that simple. We don't (nor want to) live in a police state. The police can't be everywhere all the time. And gun laws only take guns away from people who obey the laws. The less equipped we are to defend ourselves the more vulnerable we become.
All excellent points by steel.
Not an exact quote but I believe Ben Franklin said something along the lines of: disarming the populous (the people) is the first step towards tyranny.
Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early do... if guns kill people I can blame mis spelled words on my pencil or my keyboard. And I can blame Hustler magazine for my carpel tunnel... ever notice how those things always happen in gun free zones? Because criminals with guns are pussies. They are afraid of getting shot at
Are they necessary to keep a militia? Or a free state for that matter?
As to "home defense" I suppose that depends on what you're depending it from. If the attacker has an assault rifle and multiple clips, then...
The second amendment is not about hunting or home defense.
That said, maybe you haven't been paying attention but robberies and home invasions aren't being done by masked white guys dressed in black - they are being done by multiple member gangs these days. Even burglaries are being done by groups of two or more these days. The ole six shooter or double barrel shotgun doesn't do the trick anymore.
Remember this...
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.â€
This statement is attributed to Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto in the 1940’s. Of course like everything in the world, there are those that refute it ever being said.
Look juice is a member of the NRA and I fully embrace my southern and Celtic heratig........Fuck all you pussy ass fags that can't stand on how we even became America......it was a melisha that made us the Americas and what gave Irland its freedom.....
"Assault Rifles and multiple clips of ammo - NOT necessary for home defense. "
You don't know what you are talking about. Or many times people don't know what they are talking about.
First off a assault rifle is one that can shoot fully automatic and can be switched to three round bursts. THis person didn't have an assault rifle and 99% of the population can't get an assault rifle. They are basicly illegal and you can't get them at your local walmart.
An "Assault weapon" is defined here... [view link]
It was a political term used by people who wanted to ban guns. To be classified as an "assault weapon" you only need to look like a military weapon. Here is a fine example of how a hunting gun can then be classified into a "assault weapon" ... This is a ruger 10/22 rifle. It is used by many people to teach hunting and target shooting. It is a small caliber rifle.
Here is a link to a hunting rifle picture:
[view link]
Here is a link to the same gun.....but now would be considered an "assault weapon"
[view link]
You see it is the same gun...but one has a pistol grip and a collapseable stock and a larger capacity magazine.
It is all cosmetics is in the definition.
Here is another example.....with a shot gun...12 gauge....One is considered hunting...other is considered "Assault Weapon".
Hunting:
[view link]
"assault"
[view link]
One can hold more ammo, has pistol grip stock and an adjustable stock.
The point I am trying to make is that if you want to ban certain guns or weapons....where does it stop. Because in the two examples I just posted it shows how "hunting" guns can be converted into "assault" guns. Just by changing the cosemetics of the gun. It has nothing to do with how the gun functions.
Then if you want to ban higher capacity magazines.....where do you stop? Is 10 too many rounds to hold? 5? 3? 1? So a guy like this would just have 10 different clips....not that big of a deal to change out. You push a button clip falls, you insert new one....done. It takes 1-2 second to change out a clip. If you don't believe so....go shoot some guns and see how easy it really is. So that would not make one bit of difference.
But hey....knives kill people....lets ban them.
I forgot to add in the definition of an "assault weapon"
Assault weapon is a political term, often used by gun control advocates, typically referring to firearms "designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range,"[1] sometimes described as military-style features useful in combat.[2]
The term was most notably used in the language of the now-expired Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994, more commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2004. The federal assault weapons ban specifically prohibited 19 guns considered to be assault weapons. These were all semi-automatic firearms, meaning that they can eject spent shell casings and chamber the next round without additional human action, but (as opposed to automatic firearms) only one round is fired per pull of the trigger.[1] In addition to the 19 weapons specifically prohibited, the federal assault weapons ban also defined as a prohibited assault weapon any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher. The act also defined as a prohibited assault weapon semi-automatic pistols that weighed more than 50 ounces when unloaded or included a barrel shroud, and barred the manufacture of magazines capable of carrying more than 10 rounds.[1
Read to what it says....the weapon needs to be semi automatic, have a pistol grip stock and a folding or teloscoping stock.
So in the pictures of the shot gun above is not 100% accurate. Just change the gun from a pump action to a semi-automatic action....
Assault:
[view link]
Hunting:
[view link]
Exact same gun... Remington 11-87.
So like I was stating before... Do you ban this hunting gun loved by millions because it can be converted to be defined as an "assault". Where do you draw that line.
I tell you where I draw it....In the sand when they try to come and take it from me and the only way is by taking it out of my cold dead hands.
Oregon already has draconian gun laws, Pun intended.
Fact:
1] Where there are stricter gun laws and the average person is unarmed there is a large up-swing in violent crime.
2] This type of behaviour is not linked to guns it may be because society has lost its sense that actions have consequences or of it may be linked to the sensationalizing of the crime and many of these assholes want their moment in the spotlight even if it is postumously figuring if there is no hell they get off without punishment.
3] Criminals are aware of gun laws and if you may be armed they may attack unless you allow them situational advantage.
4] The media is a major part of this problem by implying that a woman who is raped and murdered is some how more virtueous than the woman the shoots and kills the same attacker when he attacks her. She is vilified for defending herself against a subhuman pile of evil and that same subhuman pile of evil is somehow a victim because he was not allowed to be interview by reporters as to why he raped and killed then fed, housed and given cable TV for the rest of his life.
5] The world would be a better place if governments had to fear their citizens. Obama fears and hates much of the US population because he knows that he can't declare himself "Dear Leader" for life only because of the 2nd Amendment. If you read the background writings, papers and essays behind the Constitution and Bill of Rights fear of over reaching and violation of citizens' rights by the government is the reason for the 2nd Amendment. The Brits tried to confiscate all guns from the colonists telling everyone the Red Coats are here for your security you don't need guns anymore. Hitler, Stalin, Chavez and Castro had/have strict gun control laws. It ensures obedience when people can't defend themselves.
I think Thomas Jefferson said it best, "Whenever sentence of death shall have been pronounced against any person for treason or murder, execution shall be done on the next day but one after such sentence, unless it be Sunday, and then on the Monday following."
66 comments