ChangoLanzao

The Department of Defense Dictionary of Military Terms defines terrorism as: The calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. I wouldn't consider this guy a terrorist just yet. It could just turn out that he is simply a highly deranged gun-nut.

And if after the first individual opens fire another individual begins to open fire behind you will you be able to decide whether that person is with the first person? Is this second shooter also wearing a gas mask, tactical helmet, and body armor while carrying an AR-15, a pump action shotty, and two pistols? That's entirely possible in this hypothetical scenario.

You just don't get it, do ya? The people in the audience who are carrying concealed weaponry are all sane, responsible, well-trained, and courageous like wolves. They won't be affected by the panicking common sheep-dog people in the crowd. They are there to help!

And if after the first individual opens fire another individual begins to open fire behind you will you be able to decide whether that person is with the first person? Don't be silly! Just wait until the third person starts shooting and then you'll see what direction the second and third are shooting and you'll know for sure what direction you should start shooting.

The lines are already drawn, some to tight as it is. Fair enough. So, where do YOU think the line should be?

No shit John. My point is that Obama and his like try to make it sound like the taxes will only hit the "ultra rich" I content that 250K isn't the ultra rich. Please do post the samer tired shit Bill did. I understand that only 2% of the population make +250K. When a small S-corp makes a profit it does flow through to the shareholders - normal the owner of the company. When he or she wants to expand his company he'll want to use some of these profits to do so. If Buffet and Gates are so keen on raising taxes, raise them on people who make $5,000,000 a year. RAISE THE HELL OUT OF THEM. There class warefare at it's best. Raise the taxes just not on whatever I make. That's our leaders answer......guess I'll support him as long as it isn't on me. If the marginal tax rate (which I think is the tax rate we're talking about) goes up for those making more than $250K/year then those making $250K per year will not see an increase. The increase is only for the portion of income exceeding $250K.

Do you think there would be any difference in the SCOTUS appointments they'll make?

What shit?

Is that really more painful than every day the killer sentenced to life is still alive? That lasts longer. And is it vengeance if they're angry that he is alive while their loved ones are not, or does it require the rage and desire to inflict pain on him? It's a tough question indeed. The family of a murder victim is going to have a rough time dealing with the aftermath in either case. But, what about the family of an innocent man who has been murdered by the State? When an innocent man is murdered by the State, the actual criminal is free to kill again while the State presumes that the case is closed and the original victim's family remains deceived.

No. Why? A shotgun at close range in a crowd will do massive damage to human targets. So why the decision on one type of firearm used in a massacre compared to another? Where would YOU draw the line?

Only you could think that 12 dead and 50 wounded as "worked". Ad hominem. Perfect!

The theater banned CCW people from bringing in guns before this happened. Creating a disarmament zone where only those so inclined to not follow the law would have a weapon. So the theater's law worked and prevented a bad situation from becoming far worse.

Totally appropriate. Notice how they were far more efficient at removing the statue than removing the pedophiles?

Excuse me? Do you always respond in a knee jerk manner, hurling bullshit red herrings into the discusiion. There is no mention of the CIA, Sandinistas, South America, or Iran/Contra. WTF?? Not huge leap at all. You are alleging the war on drugs was racially motivated by the Reagan Admin. Sortly afterwards, crack cocaine showed up in the ghettos of America. Many think the CIA was responsible for bringing in crack. Many also believe that if the CIA brough crack in, that they did so to make money that was used to purchase arms from Iran to be given to the Contras in their civil war against the Sandinista in Nicaragua. The Sadinistas were socialists and we all know that Reagan was opposed to Socialism and did everything posible during his Presidency to destroy it. So if the War on Drugs was racially motivated as you allege, why is it such a big leap to believe the tie in with Iran-Contra and the war in Nicaragua during the same era? So now you're cooking those red herrings. They smell very bad.

Excuse me? Do you always respond in a knee jerk manner, hurling bullshit red herrings into the discusiion. There is no mention of the CIA, Sandinistas, South America, or Iran/Contra. WTF??

See? Your example, which I think is supposed to make me feel like a hypocrite, is a hypothetical anecdote, strangely based on pure vengeance. The fact that I would feel exactly the way you describe has no bearing on whether the death penalty is justified or not. I'm paraphrasing, but I think you said that the legal system should be applied in an objective and unemotional manner. I agree. Justice can and should be accomplished by the State (certainly not by the victims' family!) without the death penalty being applied.

Slavery may have ended 150 (ish) years ago in the US, but it was replaced in much of the country by Jim Crow laws that ensured that blacks were denied educational opportunities, political representation, equal justice, and on and on. When I started as faculty at the University of Georgia, I went thorough an orientation that included the history of the University. One thing that stood out was a series of photos of the student riots that happened when the school accepted the first black students (as a result of court ordered desegregation), in January 1961. It occurred to me at the time (1996) that those photos were taken a mere 35 years ago, and the students in those photos would now mostly be in their mid to late 50's, a point in life where people have moved up the corporate/administrative ladder and have a lot more power to affect people than 20-year-old students do. If they were so full of hate as a 20-year-old in 1961, how much have they really changed in their heart in 35 years? Maybe a lot, maybe not. On the other side of the race coin, we still have a lot of people who grew up under Jim Crow, and in a culture that values family and the "wisdom" of their elders, the bitterness that was put in place still bears sour fruit. Black kids are still sometimes chastised and ostracized for "acting white", meaning doing well in school. There are still a lot of barriers that have to come down before the US "culture" (as if there is such a thing) is close to color blind, on all sides. It'll take more than a couple of generations. Anyway, the point is when it comes to the US we're talking about a couple of generations, not 150 years. Events that are within the living memory of a significant segment of the population are not ancient history. Don Bump. HERE is an interesting essay that deals pretty clearly with this topic: "President Ronald Reagan officially declared the current drug war in 1982, when drug crime was declining, not rising. President Richard Nixon was the first to coin the term “a war on drugs,” but it was President Reagan who turned the rhetorical war into a literal one. From the outset, the war had relatively little to do with drug crime and much to do with racial politics. The drug war was part of a grand and highly successful Republican Party strategy of using racially coded political appeals on issues of crime and welfare to attract poor and working class white voters who were resentful of, and threatened by, desegregation, busing, and affirmative action. In the words of H.R. Haldeman, President Richard Nixon’s White House Chief of Staff: “[T]he whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to.”"

I really don't see how you could have it both ways. To me, it doesn't matter that it is *allowed* under Colorado law. It's not *required*. I don't think there should be a death penalty, but if there is one, then it certainly shouldn't be imposed.

I think we understand what you are talking about just fine. We're just not convinced. The death penalty accomplishes nothing except vengeance. The worst part about it is that innocent people, inevitably, are murdered by the State. It's barbaric.

If you think that's possible give us an example. . Mitt Romney.

No.

I wouldn't be surprised if it is Academi troops.

Well, to further clarify, I wasn't considering a direct "attack" on the POTUS. I was referring more to Chango's statement that "...the Federal Government will defeat you ...". That's why I wondered if the allegiance of the Armed Forces is to the leadership or to the Constitution. A little off topic anyway. Yeah ... sounds like one for the Oathers thread.

A personal attack. Does that strengthen your argument against gun control?

I'll take that as a personal attack by a deranged poster.