Perhaps both, but that doesn’t justify his beliefs or actions.
February 6, 2013 at 3:29pm
LOL. Yes, that is the “major historical error” in that movie – how terrible to depict CT in such a light! Gimme a break! Let me address the elephant in the room because apparently nobody researches American history anymore. Abraham Lincoln was a racist. Don’t believe me? Here is a quote from a speech he gave:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
(1809-1865) 16th US President
Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
(The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.)
Perhaps both, but that doesn't justify his beliefs or actions.
January 28, 2013 at 11:38am
This story illustrates EXACTLY why we should ban guns nationally! Oh wait, they’re already banned in Chicago. Coinsidence? I think not…
January 8, 2013 at 3:40pm
I would LOVE to “debate” with Pierce Morgan. “Do you see a pattern with the last few mass shootings?” Yes – they all occured where guns are not allowed to be carried by citizens! Oh yea, and the Oregon shooter was caught by a man who was concealed-carrying and apparently didn’t see the “no guns allowed” sign or chose to ignore it – and thank god for that or there surely would’ve been more killed.
January 8, 2013 at 11:54am
Yes – concealed carry laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL and they ARE NOT an effective deterrent to gun crime. Why? Because: do you really think that a thug with an illegal handgun is going to choose to abide by a law that says he can’t conceal-carry it since he doesn’t have a permit? No, of course not!
December 28, 2012 at 1:33pm
Lol, the “race card” gets plaid almost immediately! I think it’s funny how many people scream racism at a harmless inatimate object without knowing the INTENT of it. That, in turn, proves that you’re racist IMO (as are all liberals who point the finger ever so blatantly).
December 28, 2012 at 11:30am
I suddenly feel the urge to move to Utah, where like-minded individuals actually do exist.
Paging sendthemeteors to put an idiotic, unjustified leftist twist on this clear-cut, objective article. Bueller? Bueller?
The fact of the matter is – guns are a necessary tool that law-abiding citizens should responsibly use to effectively keep crime in check. As the polls in this article indicate: no matter what legislation is passed, criminals will always find a way to obtain a gun.
December 27, 2012 at 11:53am
@ searcher619: explain how truthbeliever’s reading comprehension is lacking. Did you not compare someone’s wish for a company to go out of business to radical islamists killing people? I gathered the same assessment of your irrational and vindictive rant. If you fail to see what’s wrong with your statement, then clearly your lack of morals is the product of your choice to be an atheist. Do we need to spoon-feed you? Here you go: a business is not a living being. Ponder on that for a while before further touting your ignorance for all to see.
December 27, 2012 at 11:30am
My local newspaper did this exact same antic a few years ago. I wish I had the time and resources at that time to retaliate similarly to this blogger. Bravo!
December 24, 2012 at 10:10am
don’t mind “sendthemeteors” – it is apparent that he thrives on generic liberal ideologies and tries to apply them to every story possible, justifying idiocies at any expense – even at the sacrifice of his own dignity. He is truly a paid troll. I have learned to skip over his ignorant posts. I think if the truth slapped him in the face, he’d still cry foul.
December 23, 2012 at 10:18pm
Last time I checked, mass murderers don’t abide by laws. So why do these idiots assume that these same murderers will abide by a limited magazine law? They will just obtain an illegal 30rd magazine! Enough with these narrow-minded, unconstitutional gun restriction laws already!! The answer is to ALLOW teachers to conceal carry their weapons in the classroom IF THEY CHOOSE TO. Nobody should ever know but the person carrying and the weapon should never leave their holster on their body. Problem solved, idiots.
December 18, 2012 at 2:31pm
@no_labels: The VAST MAJORITY of the US’s gun-related deaths are suicides. That has nothing to do with protecting the innocent lives of others. Furthermore, gun-related homicides in the US are largely confined in cities with strict anti-gun laws (chicago, new york, etc). Your argument is moot concerning that as well. At least you “sort of” support the 2nd Ammendment…
December 18, 2012 at 1:40pm
@ beingthere: BINGO!
@ no_labels: Read the WHOLE transcript. “Well regulated” is in regards to militia; not gun laws. It does, however, CLEARLY state: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.
This is why an extensive vetting process is unconstitutional and stupid: any half-witted crook wishing to obtain a gun can/will do so quickly and in a matter not evident to the authorities IE: buy on “the black market” to avoid registration/stringent proceedures and background checks. Therefore, the only thing a strict vetting process will accomplish is a delay for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. Furthermore, firearms are vastly important to also protect ourselves from tyrrany of the government, as a last resort. The government has no right to force registration of guns b/c of this (it paints a target on our backs). But don’t take my word for it, take Thomas Jefferson’s: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
– Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
December 18, 2012 at 12:20pm
@bluehen: I didn’t see any dialogue from Guitar Master suggesting that “more prayer would’ve prevented this tragedy.” Clearly your lack of reading comprehension is a symptom of your shallow intelligence level or your assumptions are flawing your logic. Either way, much like your typical agnostic counterparts (no assumption here, you made this clear in your post), you were quick to belittle those with opposing viewpoints to yours at the sight of a mere trigger word “prayer”.
Guitar Master was simply (and validly) pointing out the irony/hypocrisy of non-practicing believers and agnostic/atheist types alike – that they do not pray to God nor publicly proclaim any shred of belief in a higher being unless it is in the public’s eye following a tragedy.
December 17, 2012 at 12:21pm
It is unlikely that “she tried to stop him”, considering the police reports. She was shot in her pajamas while in bed – probably in her sleep, indicating there was no struggle that occured in the moments leading up to her death.
On a more important note – although the mother may have been negligent concerning the manner in which she stored her guns (speculation), I do not believe she is solely at fault for what happened. Adam is sited as having been “intelligent” so it’s reasonable to assume that he would’ve found another means of achieving his twisted plot, even if the guns were locked up. He probably would have broken into the safe or stolen guns from elsewhere. Criminals don’t abide by laws, afterall. Hence why banning guns from civilians would be futile and actually more harmful to society. As a free country, we should ALLOW (not FORCE) civilians, teachers included, to arm themselves for reasons such as this.
December 12, 2012 at 3:42pm
Have you even taken the effort to comprehend the content of the source that YOU, YOURSELF provided? Within your own link, it clearly states the following (4th paragraph down):
“Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a “one-party consent” law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation. Furthermore, if you are not a party to the conversation, a “one-party consent” law will allow you to record the conversation or phone call so long as your source consents and has full knowledge that the communication will be recorded.”
Reading comprehension is a useful trait to have – you should work on yours.
December 11, 2012 at 11:53am
What research can you site proving that a gay couple raising a child will have no adverse effects on that child’s preferences of sexuality? Are you like most of the other gay marriage advocates who have done little or nil to consider the consequences this would have on society? Scandinavian history sites an increase of divorce rates and increase of out-of-wedlock birthrates after the right of gay marriage was passed 10 years ago. In Sweden, the divorce rate among gay men is 50% higher than among heteros, and lesbian divorce rate is 170% higher! Where is your research? I’d love to hear it, and please site your source(s). Here is mine: http://byfaithonline.com/the-cultural-argument-against-gay-marriage/
December 11, 2012 at 11:37am
And same-species killings are natural to most other species on earth. What’s your point? Humans are not held to the same standards as other species. By your definition, murders are acceptable since they are natural according to other species.