Profile of Mass Murderers

[DEDixon 39]

Let me get this right..... the party that is most vocal about assault weapons..... they are concerned about the few people that get killed in a rampage.... and this is the same party that supports abortion to the Nth degree and supports minors getting a abortion without parental consent too? Got that right, do I? Abortion, even those who support it, can't deny that it is an awful act, how is there so much concern about the few killed in a rampage yet no concern for the baby being vacuumed into a wet-vac?

Gun owners would love an answer.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So far, no one has made any convincing argument as to why an ordinary citizen would need an assault weapon.

obviously, you have never read the Federalist Papers. jefferson and madison had your answer 200 years before you were born.

the fed papers are a collection of articles written around the time of incorporation of our constitution for publication in newspapers in the major cities of the confederated states in effort to influence public opinion. said public opinion was hoped to pressure representatives from various colonies to come to the table and settle minor disagreement about the structure of the proposed constitution.

the fed papers make it abundantly clear that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow americans to defend the country against "enemies, foreign and domestic". it's not about duck hunting, elmer. it's about being able to defent the country against foreign governments, and our own government.

So according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, a citizen should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb.

[*Robert* 2]

So far, no one has made any convincing argument as to why an ordinary citizen would need an assault weapon.

obviously, you have never read the Federalist Papers. jefferson and madison had your answer 200 years before you were born.

the fed papers are a collection of articles written around the time of incorporation of our constitution for publication in newspapers in the major cities of the confederated states in effort to influence public opinion. said public opinion was hoped to pressure representatives from various colonies to come to the table and settle minor disagreement about the structure of the proposed constitution.

the fed papers make it abundantly clear that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow americans to defend the country against "enemies, foreign and domestic". it's not about duck hunting, elmer. it's about being able to defent the country against foreign governments, and our own government.

So according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, a citizen should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb.

What is so funny, or maybe not, are the people quoting the 2nd amendment like it was written yesterday!!! For Pete's sake, when the Bill of Rights was written, the only guns they had were black powder, single shot. Not friggen fully automatic rifles!!!

People need to wake up and stop taking a document written over 200 years ago so literally, and as if it still applies to today’s standards. That’s why we have a Supreme Court.

Seriously, arguing with some of these people is like talking to a brick wall. All I hear is Waa Waa Waa… Waa Wa Wa Waa!!!

Let’s keep the past separate from the present. Jeesh!!!

[HAL 9000 96]

Let me get this right..... the party that is most vocal about assault weapons..... they are concerned about the few people that get killed in a rampage.... and this is the same party that supports abortion to the Nth degree and supports minors getting a abortion without parental consent too? Got that right, do I? Abortion, even those who support it, can't deny that it is an awful act, how is there so much concern about the few killed in a rampage yet no concern for the baby being vacuumed into a wet-vac?

Gun owners would love an answer.

That seems like a fairly slanted and ignorant generalization.

[HAL 9000 96]

So far, no one has made any convincing argument as to why an ordinary citizen would need an assault weapon.

obviously, you have never read the Federalist Papers. jefferson and madison had your answer 200 years before you were born.

the fed papers are a collection of articles written around the time of incorporation of our constitution for publication in newspapers in the major cities of the confederated states in effort to influence public opinion. said public opinion was hoped to pressure representatives from various colonies to come to the table and settle minor disagreement about the structure of the proposed constitution.

the fed papers make it abundantly clear that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow americans to defend the country against "enemies, foreign and domestic". it's not about duck hunting, elmer. it's about being able to defent the country against foreign governments, and our own government.

So according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, a citizen should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb.

What is so funny, or maybe not, are the people quoting the 2nd amendment like it was written yesterday!!! For Pete's sake, when the Bill of Rights was written, the only guns they had were black powder, single shot. Not friggen fully automatic rifles!!!

People need to wake up and stop taking a document written over 200 years ago so literally, and as if it still applies to today's standards. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

Seriously, arguing with some of these people is like talking to a brick wall. All I hear is Waa Waa Waa… Waa Wa Wa Waa!!!

Let's keep the past separate from the present. Jeesh!!!

America... #### Yeah!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So far, no one has made any convincing argument as to why an ordinary citizen would need an assault weapon.

obviously, you have never read the Federalist Papers. jefferson and madison had your answer 200 years before you were born.

the fed papers are a collection of articles written around the time of incorporation of our constitution for publication in newspapers in the major cities of the confederated states in effort to influence public opinion. said public opinion was hoped to pressure representatives from various colonies to come to the table and settle minor disagreement about the structure of the proposed constitution.

the fed papers make it abundantly clear that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow americans to defend the country against "enemies, foreign and domestic". it's not about duck hunting, elmer. it's about being able to defent the country against foreign governments, and our own government.

So according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, a citizen should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb.

What is so funny, or maybe not, are the people quoting the 2nd amendment like it was written yesterday!!! For Pete's sake, when the Bill of Rights was written, the only guns they had were black powder, single shot. Not friggen fully automatic rifles!!!

People need to wake up and stop taking a document written over 200 years ago so literally, and as if it still applies to today's standards. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

Seriously, arguing with some of these people is like talking to a brick wall. All I hear is Waa Waa Waa… Waa Wa Wa Waa!!!

Let's keep the past separate from the present. Jeesh!!!

America... #### Yeah!

If all sides could agree that the language in the Constitution means what it meant when it was written, nothing more, nothing less, I could go for that.

[*Robert* 2]

HAL...

So far, no one has made any convincing argument as to why an ordinary citizen would need an assault weapon.

obviously, you have never read the Federalist Papers. jefferson and madison had your answer 200 years before you were born.

the fed papers are a collection of articles written around the time of incorporation of our constitution for publication in newspapers in the major cities of the confederated states in effort to influence public opinion. said public opinion was hoped to pressure representatives from various colonies to come to the table and settle minor disagreement about the structure of the proposed constitution.

the fed papers make it abundantly clear that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow americans to defend the country against "enemies, foreign and domestic". it's not about duck hunting, elmer. it's about being able to defent the country against foreign governments, and our own government.

So according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, a citizen should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb.

What is so funny, or maybe not, are the people quoting the 2nd amendment like it was written yesterday!!! For Pete's sake, when the Bill of Rights was written, the only guns they had were black powder, single shot. Not friggen fully automatic rifles!!!

People need to wake up and stop taking a document written over 200 years ago so literally, and as if it still applies to today's standards. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

Seriously, arguing with some of these people is like talking to a brick wall. All I hear is Waa Waa Waa… Waa Wa Wa Waa!!!

Let's keep the past separate from the present. Jeesh!!!

America... #### Yeah!

If all sides could agree that the language in the Constitution means what it meant when it was written, nothing more, nothing less, I could go for that.

Touché!

[HAL 9000 96]

So far, no one has made any convincing argument as to why an ordinary citizen would need an assault weapon.

obviously, you have never read the Federalist Papers. jefferson and madison had your answer 200 years before you were born.

the fed papers are a collection of articles written around the time of incorporation of our constitution for publication in newspapers in the major cities of the confederated states in effort to influence public opinion. said public opinion was hoped to pressure representatives from various colonies to come to the table and settle minor disagreement about the structure of the proposed constitution.

the fed papers make it abundantly clear that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow americans to defend the country against "enemies, foreign and domestic". it's not about duck hunting, elmer. it's about being able to defent the country against foreign governments, and our own government.

So according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, a citizen should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb.

What is so funny, or maybe not, are the people quoting the 2nd amendment like it was written yesterday!!! For Pete's sake, when the Bill of Rights was written, the only guns they had were black powder, single shot. Not friggen fully automatic rifles!!!

People need to wake up and stop taking a document written over 200 years ago so literally, and as if it still applies to today's standards. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

Seriously, arguing with some of these people is like talking to a brick wall. All I hear is Waa Waa Waa… Waa Wa Wa Waa!!!

Let's keep the past separate from the present. Jeesh!!!

America... #### Yeah!

If all sides could agree that the language in the Constitution means what it meant when it was written, nothing more, nothing less, I could go for that.

I respect guns and the right to bear them. What I don't respect is for someone to think they have a sudden need for a weapon that is capable of cutting down a 10-foot wide tree from 200 yards away. You gots chainsaws and axes for that.

Seems like a lot of silly machoism. But lets give our resident gun freaks the benefit of the doubt. Yes, that's right. Keep those weapons. And stay in the military to make that part of the 2nd Amendment's interpretation clear too.

At the minimum, as a condition of ownership of this kind of weaponry, there should be a legally sanctioned civilian para-police force headed by actual police officers, tasked with mowing down, Rambo-style, all violent criminals that pose a threat to society. They can target practice on pigs at target ranges.

They can do it reserve-style. Rotating weekends every month. Then a couple of weeks sometime in the year where needed.

They can be named, Team America. #### Yeah.

Just like the movie.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

So far, no one has made any convincing argument as to why an ordinary citizen would need an assault weapon.

obviously, you have never read the Federalist Papers. jefferson and madison had your answer 200 years before you were born.

the fed papers are a collection of articles written around the time of incorporation of our constitution for publication in newspapers in the major cities of the confederated states in effort to influence public opinion. said public opinion was hoped to pressure representatives from various colonies to come to the table and settle minor disagreement about the structure of the proposed constitution.

the fed papers make it abundantly clear that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow americans to defend the country against "enemies, foreign and domestic". it's not about duck hunting, elmer. it's about being able to defent the country against foreign governments, and our own government.

So according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, a citizen should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb.

What is so funny, or maybe not, are the people quoting the 2nd amendment like it was written yesterday!!! For Pete's sake, when the Bill of Rights was written, the only guns they had were black powder, single shot. Not friggen fully automatic rifles!!!

People need to wake up and stop taking a document written over 200 years ago so literally, and as if it still applies to today's standards. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

Seriously, arguing with some of these people is like talking to a brick wall. All I hear is Waa Waa Waa… Waa Wa Wa Waa!!!

Let's keep the past separate from the present. Jeesh!!!

America... #### Yeah!

If all sides could agree that the language in the Constitution means what it meant when it was written, nothing more, nothing less, I could go for that.

I respect guns and the right to bear them. What I don't respect is for someone to think they have a sudden need for a weapon that is capable of cutting down a 10-foot wide tree from 200 yards away. You gots chainsaws and axes for that.

Seems like a lot of silly machoism. But lets give our resident gun freaks the benefit of the doubt. Yes, that's right. Keep those weapons. And stay in the military to make that part of the 2nd Amendment's interpretation clear too.

At the minimum, as a condition of ownership of this kind of weaponry, there should be a legally sanctioned civilian para-police force headed by actual police officers, tasked with mowing down, Rambo-style, all violent criminals that pose a threat to society. They can target practice on pigs at target ranges.

They can do it reserve-style. Rotating weekends every month. Then a couple of weeks sometime in the year where needed.

They can be named, Team America. #### Yeah.

Just like the movie.

There is a point when the ridiculous becomes just that. Guns are fun to play with in a safe enviroment. Guns are also very dangerous in the wrong hands. Too bad common sense is not that common anymore.

Edited March 27, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[HAL 9000 96]

So far, no one has made any convincing argument as to why an ordinary citizen would need an assault weapon.

obviously, you have never read the Federalist Papers. jefferson and madison had your answer 200 years before you were born.

the fed papers are a collection of articles written around the time of incorporation of our constitution for publication in newspapers in the major cities of the confederated states in effort to influence public opinion. said public opinion was hoped to pressure representatives from various colonies to come to the table and settle minor disagreement about the structure of the proposed constitution.

the fed papers make it abundantly clear that the intent and purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow americans to defend the country against "enemies, foreign and domestic". it's not about duck hunting, elmer. it's about being able to defent the country against foreign governments, and our own government.

So according to your interpretation of the Second Amendment, a citizen should be allowed to own a nuclear bomb.

What is so funny, or maybe not, are the people quoting the 2nd amendment like it was written yesterday!!! For Pete's sake, when the Bill of Rights was written, the only guns they had were black powder, single shot. Not friggen fully automatic rifles!!!

People need to wake up and stop taking a document written over 200 years ago so literally, and as if it still applies to today's standards. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

Seriously, arguing with some of these people is like talking to a brick wall. All I hear is Waa Waa Waa… Waa Wa Wa Waa!!!

Let's keep the past separate from the present. Jeesh!!!

America... #### Yeah!

If all sides could agree that the language in the Constitution means what it meant when it was written, nothing more, nothing less, I could go for that.

I respect guns and the right to bear them. What I don't respect is for someone to think they have a sudden need for a weapon that is capable of cutting down a 10-foot wide tree from 200 yards away. You gots chainsaws and axes for that.

Seems like a lot of silly machoism. But lets give our resident gun freaks the benefit of the doubt. Yes, that's right. Keep those weapons. And stay in the military to make that part of the 2nd Amendment's interpretation clear too.

At the minimum, as a condition of ownership of this kind of weaponry, there should be a legally sanctioned civilian para-police force headed by actual police officers, tasked with mowing down, Rambo-style, all violent criminals that pose a threat to society. They can target practice on pigs at target ranges.

They can do it reserve-style. Rotating weekends every month. Then a couple of weeks sometime in the year where needed.

They can be named, Team America. #### Yeah.

Just like the movie.

There is a point when the ridiculous becomes just that. Guns are fun to play with in a safe enviroment. Guns are also very dangerous in the wrong hands. Too bad common sense is not that common anymore.

Very unfortunate indeed. I guess that's why sensible gun control laws don't make sense to insensible people.

Anyway... no more for today.

Have a safe weekend away from all those roaming mass murderers, invading armies, and killers looking for you peeps.

[*Robert* 2]

There is a point when the ridiculous becomes just that. Guns are fun to play with in a safe enviroment. Guns are also very dangerous in the wrong hands. Too bad common sense is not that common anymore.

Once again, I couldn't agree more.

Very unfortunate indeed. I guess that's why sensible gun control laws don't make sense to insensible people.

Anyway... no more for today.

Have a safe weekend away from all those roaming mass murderers, invading armies, and killers looking for you peeps.

Have a great weekend brother HAL!!!

[fozzie 41]

This is the United States of America. Not China, not the USSR.

let's keep it that way.

So then are you expecting the need to overthrow our government? That our government will some how turn into the types you refered too? Does the ballot box not serve that purpose for you? Maybe you're afraid that our military will go rouge and there will be a coup, and you can take up arms and go put them in their place?

If it comes to it, yes. That's why there is a right to keep and bear arms.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

If you want to fire assault weapons (and don't get into semantics about what is or isn't an assault weapon, you know what we mean) join the army. Then you get to protect the constitution and shoot stuff.

The inconsistency of arguments is laughable. Do people own guns because they have a right too? No. Do people own these types of weapons to defend their country? No. They have them because they like to shoot sh!t! No other reason.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

I respect guns and the right to bear them. What I don't respect is for someone to think they have a sudden need for a weapon that is capable of cutting down a 10-foot wide tree from 200 yards away. You gots chainsaws and axes for that.

maybe you can tell us which gun that is.

[Ban Hammer 13,355]

If you want to fire assault weapons (and don't get into semantics about what is or isn't an assault weapon, you know what we mean) join the army. Then you get to protect the constitution and shoot stuff.

is it that difficult to say assault rifle? come on, you can do it!

[sj5 4]

I would compare the rate of criminals without gun license against criminals with gun license. Then if this license people are likely to kill then it should be ban. This is just my opinion.

Edited March 28, 2009 by sj5