Online Now 598

The Paddock

The place to discuss general topics outside of Kentucky

On this Board 24
Record: 470 (10/27/2012)

Online now 593
Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)

Boards ▾

The House of Blue

The home for all discussion on UK athletics

The Paddock

The place to discuss general topics outside of Kentucky

UK Ticket Exchange

Buy, sell or swap tickets

Reply

Century 16 Theater in Aurora, CO... Lawsuit POLL

  • We all know it's coming, but the question is... is it right?

    Do you agree that Century 16 should be sued and held accountable for all those who were killed or injured... YES or NO (and why?)

    Who else should be sued... Batman? The Joker? shrug

    signature image signature image

    JawJacker

  • Everybody gets sued. It ain't right. Unless common sense prevails, going to the movies might end up like getting on an airplane

    djkycat54906

  • The cinema shouldn't be sued. The moviemakers shouldn't be sued. The internet stores that sold this guy 6000 rounds of ammo should be sued. The NRA should be sued. The heartless republicans and cowardly democrats that won't enact common sense gun laws should be sued. President Obama should be sued for avoiding common sense gun laws like the plague.

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • All it would have took was one person to be carrying and to have pulled and killed this guy. Unfortunately the law abiding citizens werent the ones with the guns. Take guns away and the only ones who have them are the criminals. Do not support a business if it does not support your ability to carry.

    BBC vs Anti-Gun Control Advocate John Lott

    In the wake of the Aurora massacre the BBC is as usual pushing for more gun control however they dont usually interview people as well researched as John Lo...

    www.youtube.com
    signature image signature image signature image

    It smells like microwaved homeless people in here.

    Warmother51

  • Warmother51 said...

    All it would have took was one person to be carrying and to have pulled and killed this guy. Unfortunately the law abiding citizens werent the ones with the guns. Take guns away and the only ones who have them are the criminals. Do not support a business if it does not support your ability to carry.

    ^^^Exactly^^^

    More people should carry, so this kind of thing will stop.

    signature image signature image

    JawJacker

  • Warmother51 said...

    All it would have took was one person to be carrying and to have pulled and killed this guy. Unfortunately the law abiding citizens werent the ones with the guns. Take guns away and the only ones who have them are the criminals. Do not support a business if it does not support your ability to carry.

    THIS!!!!!!

    Gun Control laws wouldn't stop anything. If you wiped every gun off this planet then the dude would have used gasoline and matches, or some kind of bomb.

    tWhit

  • Warmother51 said...

    All it would have took was one person to be carrying and to have pulled and killed this guy. Unfortunately the law abiding citizens werent the ones with the guns. Take guns away and the only ones who have them are the criminals. Do not support a business if it does not support your ability to carry.

    That is just BS NRA speak. It's ridiculous. A theatre full of people shooting would have caused more deaths than we already have. The one person with a gun would have been the first shot. The guy had armor and the movie-goer wouldn't have. But you don't have to worry. The good guys don't have the balls to stand up to the bad guys(NRA).

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • CarlLexington said...

    That is just BS NRA speak. It's ridiculous. A theatre full of people shooting would have caused more deaths than we already have. The one person with a gun would have been the first shot. The guy had armor and the movie-goer wouldn't have. But you don't have to worry. The good guys don't have the balls to stand up to the bad guys(NRA).

    No this is BS. I could care less about the NRA and still agree with War.

    tWhit

  • The Dove speaks and his name is Carl.

    I go with Archie Bunker's idea from All In the Family.

    When asked his opinion on gun control on planes his suggestion was the airlines should just "pass out the pistols when you board" that way everyone is packing.biggrinbiggrin

    signature image

    The meanest dog in Taiwan.

    mrhotdice

  • CarlLexington said...

    That is just BS NRA speak. It's ridiculous. A theatre full of people shooting would have caused more deaths than we already have. The one person with a gun would have been the first shot. The guy had armor and the movie-goer wouldn't have. But you don't have to worry. The good guys don't have the balls to stand up to the bad guys(NRA).

    What kind of gun control would have prevented this?

    This is what is so curious to me. Frankly, I don't see a need for AR-15's. I don't see a need to be able to buy ak=47's. But in reality. The kid did his damage with a deer rifle. You won't find many people at all who want to see everyday deer rifles banned.

    No kind of 24 hour waiting period, gun ban, etc... would have stopped this. he had a clean record, actually went through waiting periods etc.

    The only way this doesn't happen is if this kid was never born.

    hoptownukfan

  • hoptownukfan said...

    What kind of gun control would have prevented this?

    This is what is so curious to me. Frankly, I don't see a need for AR-15's. I don't see a need to be able to buy ak=47's. But in reality. The kid did his damage with a deer rifle. You won't find many people at all who want to see everyday deer rifles banned.

    I don't think this is true. He had an AR-15, a shotgun, and two pistols. He did most of the damage with the AR-15 and it probably saved a lot of lives when it jammed and he had to start using the pistols.

    This guy could have done a lot of damage with just a deer rifle or a pistol, but by being able to get hold of one of the most efficient guns ever made (the choice of our military for 50 years or more) he was able to multiply the damage many times over.

    You're right that there's no way to keep a gun like that out of the hands of every nut, but that's hardly the same as saying we shouldn't try to limit the disbursal of this type of gun. Who really "needs" one in their everyday life.

    djkycat54906

  • Warmother51 said...

    All it would have took was one person to be carrying and to have pulled and killed this guy. Unfortunately the law abiding citizens werent the ones with the guns. Take guns away and the only ones who have them are the criminals. Do not support a business if it does not support your ability to carry.

    You guys with military experience ought to know more than anybody that this is a maybe, not a certainty. A guy with a pistol going up a guy with a semi-auto in full body armour--the pistol is gonna win what, one in 5 times. Factor in the guy with the pistol is sitting in the dark, surprised, maybe tired, probably had a few drinks by midnight on a Friday, could be with his wife or girlfriend. The scenario is just not that likely.

    Yet it will be used to defray the idea that there should be some logical controls on military-grade weapons in the hands of random citizens.

    djkycat54906

  • Our boy Jacob doing what he can.

    This post was edited by djkycat54906 on 7/23/2012 at 11:31 AM

    Denver Broncos visit Aurora shooting victims in hospital: Joe Mays, Ryan Clady, Chris Kuper, Ben Garland, Eric Decker, Jacob Tamme, Brian Dawkins - NFL News | FOX Sports on MSN

    Denver Broncos visit Aurora shooting victims in hospital: Joe Mays, Ryan Clady, Chris Kuper, Ben Garland, Eric Decker, Jacob Tamme, Brian Dawkins. Denver Broncos visit Aurora shooting victims in hospital: Joe Mays, Ryan Clady, Chris Kuper, Ben Garland, Eric Decker, Jacob Tamme, Brian Dawkins

    msn.foxsports.com

    djkycat54906

  • Make it harder for law abiding citizens to have guns and you are simply empowering the criminals and setting up even more people to become victims. It's simply stupidity and ignorance of the left that wants to ban an AR-15 and the like. Show me again where it states in the 2nd Amendment that we have the right to bear arms of less than semi-auto power and the like...

    Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    signature image

    Stoopified!

    cobbycobb

  • cobbycobb said...

    Show me again where it states in the 2nd Amendment that we have the right to bear arms of less than semi-auto power and the like...

    Show me where it says we have the right to anything more powerful than a musket--which is what "arms" consisted of back then.

    There is a line. We all agree there should be one, I think. You don't want your neighbor to have a plutonium bomb. You don't want him to have a tank. On the other hand, most of us don't mind for our neighbor to have a pistol or hunting rifle or a shotgun. There's a line drawn between and there's a legitimate argument as to which side a semi-automatic assualt rifle falls on.

    djkycat54906

  • dj-ky-cat said...

    You guys with military experience ought to know more than anybody that this is a maybe, not a certainty. A guy with a pistol going up a guy with a semi-auto in full body armour--the pistol is gonna win what, one in 5 times. Factor in the guy with the pistol is sitting in the dark, surprised, maybe tired, probably had a few drinks by midnight on a Friday, could be with his wife or girlfriend. The scenario is just not that likely.

    Yet it will be used to defray the idea that there should be some logical controls on military-grade weapons in the hands of random citizens.

    You also left out the tear gas the movie-goer would have to deal with. Unless of course he happened to bring a gas mask like the killer did.

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • JawJacker said...

    We all know it's coming, but the question is... is it right?

    Do you agree that Century 16 should be sued and held accountable for all those who were killed or injured... YES or NO (and why?)

    Who else should be sued... Batman? The Joker? shrug

    They all will be sued but is it the correct thing to do? NO. It's stupid to sue the movie theater, the actors, writers, producers, etc... Only one person is responsible for this and that is the perp. I say if you are going to sue all the other entities then they should sue the US government and all the judges and Congress people who have enacted laws INFRINGING upon their right to keep and bear arms in a lawful manner. IF they had not had their rights infringed upon they would have stood a far better chance of protecting themselves and those around them.

    You know just like this guy did here... way to go gramps! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm9o3vhKoF8

    What if this old man didn't have a gun? They would have used a baseball bat and bludgeoned him to death I'm sure. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNf8v4m5Vdg

    With the whole Fast and the Furious scandal it's unarguable that the criminals will keep and find ways to have guns even if you banned every gun ever made. The criminals won't follow the law so why further hinder the rights of the American people and potential victims?

    signature image

    Stoopified!

    cobbycobb

  • dj-ky-cat said...

    Show me where it says we have the right to anything more powerful than a musket--which is what "arms" consisted of back then.

    There is a line. We all agree there should be one, I think. You don't want your neighbor to have a plutonium bomb. You don't want him to have a tank. On the other hand, most of us don't mind for our neighbor to have a pistol or hunting rifle or a shotgun. There's a line drawn between and there's a legitimate argument as to which side a semi-automatic assualt rifle falls on.

    Do you really believe that a musket is all that is needed and necessary to provide the security of a free state? Notice the end of the amendment? SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

    yeah, take away all semi-auto cause the drug lords and criminals will willingly comply with that law too I'm sure... DWS.

    This post was edited by cobbycobb on 7/23/2012 at 12:07 PM

    signature image

    Stoopified!

    cobbycobb

  • mrhotdice said...

    The Dove speaks and his name is Carl.

    I go with Archie Bunker's idea from All In the Family.

    When asked his opinion on gun control on planes his suggestion was the airlines should just "pass out the pistols when you board" that way everyone is packing.biggrinbiggrin

    You got me there. I forgot. ALWAYS go to Archie Bunker for all things domestic and foreign lol Duh@me.

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • Spot on Cobby... as usual.

    Carl... you lose again, but thanks for playing the game. cheers

    signature image signature image

    JawJacker

  • cobbycobb said...

    Do you really believe that a musket is all that is needed and necessary to provide the security of a free state? Notice the end of the amendment? SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

    My point was we do infringe on it. We have been almost since the get-go.

    Do you know who had strict gun control laws?--Dodge City. They had to change it around to make Gunsmoke more interesting, but the law was you had to check your guns when you rode into town.

    I go back to the idea that Arms includes everything from an ICBM to a slingshot. We infringe on the rights of people to have some of these things. Some people (mental patients, children, felons) have their rights infringed a little more. Does the constitution specially allow any of that? No. The people writing it did not have to worry about mass killing machines because they didn't know they existed. It was arguable whether a musket was even deadlier than a bow. Alex Hamilton would disagree, but if you read about a lot of the duels that were fought, you'll see that their pistols were much worse than that. It was not uncommon to go three rounds at 20 paces without a single injury. So how can we expect people with that frame of reference decide if every citizen. Literally, one man with an M-16 today has as much fire power than 100 men with loaded muskets.

    djkycat54906

  • hoptownukfan said...

    What kind of gun control would have prevented this?

    This is what is so curious to me. Frankly, I don't see a need for AR-15's. I don't see a need to be able to buy ak=47's. But in reality. The kid did his damage with a deer rifle. You won't find many people at all who want to see everyday deer rifles banned.

    No kind of 24 hour waiting period, gun ban, etc... would have stopped this. he had a clean record, actually went through waiting periods etc.

    The only way this doesn't happen is if this kid was never born.

    Well not letting the assualt weapon ban lapse could might help. My personal opinion that anything not used for hunting should be confiscated and destroyed. You can have a shotgun with a 3 round max capability. You can have 1 rifle for bigger game with a 3 round max. Anything more than that is just used for killing humans and should be illegal. Possession of anything not stated above should carry a 30 year to life prison sentence. That's my dream and it's a pipe dream because it'll never even come close to happening. In reality land we have to get rid of these large mags, implement a waiting period for ALL guns at ALL locations, applications need to be monitored better, websites selling arms and ammo need to be monitored better, waiting periods for all ammo and also that should be monitored better. Everything I listed so far in reality land would work to try to spot people building arsenals easier and doesn't infringe on a persons 2nd amendment right. And as part of the registration process a person should have to take a gun safety class and a psychological exam.

    I disagree with you that nothing could have stopped this guy. If everything I mentioned were law he would have probably failed the psych exam. If he got through that he would have been red flagged with the guns and/or ammo purchases. 6000 rounds of ammo. That would have been noticed if someone was watching.

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • JawJacker said...

    Spot on Cobby... as usual.

    Carl... you lose again, but thanks for playing the game. cheers

    I know I'm on the right side when you're on the other. And I haven't even responded to cobbs nonsense yet. He's having it out with DJ. So I think you mean DJ lost again, which he hasn't. He's doing a great job of checking cobbs NRA company line childish crap so I haven't needed to respond to it.

    signature image

    CarlLexington

  • CarlLexington said...

    I know I'm on the right side when you're on the other. And I haven't even responded to cobbs nonsense yet. He's having it out with DJ. So I think you mean DJ lost again, which he hasn't. He's doing a great job of checking cobbs NRA company line childish crap so I haven't needed to respond to it.

    And you're probably way left of me on this. I have no problem with guns. I got some. I think it'd be fun to shoot an AR-15 and I recognize the right I have to do so.

    But that right is not as important as the ability of a six-year old girl to go to the movies in peace.

    Gun rights are a political football and supporters, as well as control advocates, are being manipulated to the point where we can't have a logical conversation. There are lots of topics where this happens and I'm sure I get manipulated on some as well--but nobody is as effective as the NRA in drawing and keeping the hard line.

    This might be a weird thing, but I came in to work Saturday morning and started reading all this stuff. I've got about 40,000 songs on my MP3 player on shuffle and the second song that came up was Mr. Saturday Night Special. Which leads me to wonder, who am I to argue with the late and great Ronnie Van Zant.

    So why don't we dump 'em people
    To the bottom of the sea
    Before some fool come around here
    Wanna shoot either you or me

    djkycat54906

  • CarlLexington said...

    I know I'm on the right side when you're on the other. And I haven't even responded to cobbs nonsense yet. He's having it out with DJ. So I think you mean DJ lost again, which he hasn't. He's doing a great job of checking cobbs NRA company line childish crap so I haven't needed to respond to it.

    No.. I MEANT "YOU".

    I was just making two replies in the same post... one to Cobby's posts and one to yours. Now that you mention it though... dj is definitely losing the gun argument with Cobby.

    Btw Carl, just so you know... that was just my new standard reply to all of your posts. biggrin

    So... "You lose again, but thanks for playing the game" cheers

    This post was edited by JawJacker on 7/23/2012 at 12:45 PM

    signature image signature image

    JawJacker