Police say gunman kills 3 in downtown Colorado Springs

[MowCowWhoHow III]

Last edited Sat Oct 31, 2015, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: AP

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) — A man marching down the street shot and killed three people on Saturday, before being fatally shot in a gunbattle with police, authorities and witnesses said.

Officers were responding to a report of shots being fired when they spotted a suspect matching the description of the person they were trying to find, Colorado Springs police Lt. Catherine Buckley said. The suspect opened fire, and police fired back, she said.

Witnesses described a chaotic scene as the suspect went down the street with a rifle.

Matt Abshire, 21, told the Colorado Springs Gazette (http://tinyurl.com/p5xpaua) he looked outside his apartment window and saw a man shoot someone with a rifle. He said he ran to the street and followed the man and called police.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f35617bd68f14caab110659eeb9e6bbd/4-dead-including-suspected-gunman-colorado-springs

[hibbing]

1. .

[MADem]

2. Another one? How many more of these are we expected to put up with before we've had

enough?

[ailsagirl]

12. Yep-- my sentiments exactly

How many more indeed??

[SwankyXomb]

75. According to our resident band of gun murder lovers

All of them.

[GGJohn]

78. Gun murder lovers?

That's the stupidest post so far, but I'm expecting more from you.

[yeoman6987]

36. lol. They are trying to blame weed. Can you believe it? Those conservative are out of their minds

[MADem]

37. Doesn't gun violence go DOWN in places where weed is legalized?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/27/medical-marijuana-crime-study_n_5044397.html

Unfortunate that this happened in CO, but they saw decreases in crime since the legalization:

http://www.mintpressnews.com/new-schools-less-crime-colorado-sees-benefits-of-marijuana-legalization/208751/

“According to statistics compiled by the DPA, in the first 11 months of 2014, the rate of violent crime fell 2.2 percent compared with the same period in 2013. In the same time frame, burglaries in Colorado’s capital, Denver, decreased by 9.5 percent and overall property crime decreased by 8.9 percent.

[pbmus]

44. Colorado springs is literally an armory with 4 military bases there...

[wordpix]

53. could be a PTSD case or just

stressing, esp. with winter coming on there

[mpcamb]

77. Or a crazy person with access to firearms.

[24601]

79. Colorado Springs military population is unique. On the Northwest Corner of the City is the US Air

Force Academy, essentially an overflow school for Cadets who had grades & tests that were too high to attend the Naval Academy, but not quite good enough for admittance to the United States Military Academy at West Point. On the East side of the City, and sharing a runway with the civilian airport, is Peterson Air Force Base (PAFB) the home to U.S. Northern Command as well as the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD (a Canada/US bi-national Command). Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Base (CMAFB) sits in the Southwest corner. NORAD and USNORTHCOM 7/24 Operations Centers are located on PAFB; however, CMAFB sits in hot standby in case the threat level warrants relocating back to CMAFB for a more secure setting. About 10 miles East of PAFB sits Shreiver AFB, a small facility that is home to the 50th Space Wing, which is part of Air Force Space Command, the Air Force Service Component of USSTRATCOM (formerly SAC), whose HQs is in Offutt, Nebraska.

The only thing that looks like a real military unit is Fort Carson on the South Side of Colorado Springs. Fort Carson has two major units, the 4th Infantry Division and the 10th Special Forces Group.

While the Air Force Bases have non-working parade rifles for the USAFA cadets, and armed military and civilian Air Police, manning the gates and patrolling the streets on base, the Air Force Bases aren't armed camps of large tactical units just waiting to draw army & ammo en-route to deployment. In addition to the Academy, the Air Force Bases house high-level headquarters and operations centers. Only Fort Carson has troops that would deploy as a unit to combat. Implying that the military presence makes Colorado Springs a well-armed network of bases & forts mis-characterizes the nature of those forces.

[GGJohn]

80. Thank you for that info.

It never ceases to amaze me how some people don't really know WTF they're talking about.
They see a military base and assume that it's a well armed base with personnel running about with firearms.

[William Seger]

91. You forgot SG1 (n/t)

[former9thward]

95. Your second sentence is very humorous.

I wonder if there is any reader who will actually believe it.

[yeoman6987]

45. Of course but they are racing to get gun out of the discussion

[wordpix]

52. I think you're right, blame it on the dread weed

[wordpix]

51. yes they're nuts and dangerous buffoons (my latest fave descriptive phrase)

[shenmue]

3. ...

[Plucketeer]

4. Where ARE the good guys with guns???

I sure hope they're not ducking for cover when the lead starts to fly! They need to unlock their piece from it's holster - flip off the safety - cock it - assume a shooting range stance and take those shooters out! Sheesh!

[Judi Lynn]

7. If they were anywhere in sight, it was their duty, to mow the varmint down, according to them.

In fact, if it can be proven they were there and DIDN'T expose themselves to fire in order to save their fellow men/women, as they claim, they should be arrested!

[GGJohn]

8. ....

In fact, if it can be proven they were there and DIDN'T expose themselves to fire in order to save their fellow men/women, as they claim, they should be arrested!

Bullshit!!!!
The purpose of having a CHL is for self protection of yourself or loved ones, not to save the world.
If I were ever caught up in such a situation, my concealed firearm isn't to play John Wayne and start blasting away at the bad guy, my concealed firearm is for MY protection only.
Now, if the gunman was coming to me, then I would pull my firearm and hopefully take he/she down before they got me.

There is no law requiring CHL holders to intervene in a shooting, none whatsoever, so you're assertion that they should be arrested is ludicrous at best.

[Judi Lynn]

11. Ludicrous? Most people would recognize it as sarcasm. n/t

[Hoyt]

29. Gun fanciers are a different breed.

[GGJohn]

41. So are armed robbers. eom.

[Judi Lynn]

106. They're not good at communication. Those peeps by nature prefer violence to dead silence

when they can't 'get' it. No time to think things through! People will notice they're stupid.

[GGJohn]

107. Not good at communication?

People will notice they're stupid?

Seems pro 2A forces are pretty good at communicating at getting pro firearms laws passed, which seems to negate your claiming that they're stupid.

[erronis]

15. Oh-oh. Now the NRA is worried that they may be held liable for NOT using their weapons.

So you can only fire on someone if they have their barrel pointed directly at you? Good luck with getting that shot off first, Wyatt.

Would you not be able to defend against that other recent Colorado attacker in the theater? If you are part of a "regulated" militia (which supposedly gives you a god-given right to pack heat), what purpose do you serve if you are only interested in protecting your own body? Aren't you going to protect fellow citizens that are in harm's way?

[hack89]

21. You keep wacking away at that straw man

CC is for self defense. We are not police. We are not soldiers.

[world wide wally]

24. Then it is hardly a "weil regulated militia" is it?

Please explain that Second Amendment again

[pocoloco]

25. Didn't teach reading comprehension in your school?

LOL

[world wide wally]

26. You didn't read the question, did you?

Please explain the part about bearng arms in a "well regulated militia"

I'm waiting

[hack89]

28. Read Heller. Read the Democratic Party platform

Then stop asking silly questions.

[GGJohn]

39. Please explain what that has to do with CC? eom.

[hack89]

27. I refer you to the Democratic Party platform. Nt

[world wide wally]

30. sounds like a cop out to me

[hack89]

32. Just pointing out that the miltia interpretation of the 2A is not universally accepted

Both major political parties, for example, explicitly reject it. And of course there is Heller. And multiple state constitutions that make no mention of the militia. And public statements by President Obama.

[world wide wally]

33. And thanks to the NRA.. they are ALL wrong

Our Founding Fathers were not idiots, but nor were they able to see into the future and imagine the weaponry available today. If they were able to do that, I can assure you they would not have worded it that way.

Yeah, yeah, I know... but it is just my hunch

[hack89]

34. Can you imagine what they would think about abortion, gay rights and women voting?

Can you imagine how the Constitution would read if they could have seen the future? Fortunately they trusted future generations to make good choices.

[world wide wally]

46. They sure fucked up, huh?

[hack89]

48. No. They were extremely wise.

The trend has been for expanded civil rights since the constitution was written. Sometimes much slower than necessary but they created a framework by which civil rights could flourish and expand.

[GGJohn]

40. Can you imagine what they would think of the internet as related to the 1A? eom.

[world wide wally]

47. How many people has the internet killed?

[hack89]

49. Like it or not the right to own guns is a civil right.

Any regulation has to be within that context.

[world wide wally]

54. Only because of misrepresntation of the English language

I have yet to hear a gun freak explain why the clause about "well regulated militia" was included.

[hack89]

55. It was not an exclusionary clause

It gives but one example why individuals have the right to keep and bear arms.

The Bill of Rights is a list of individual rights. Are you real going to argue otherwise know the history of why it was added to the Constitution?

Why the insult? Disagreeing with you makes me a freak?

[world wide wally]

59. I honestly believe that you know as well as I do that the FF never intended for every idiot in the

country to have a weapon capable of multiple killings with no regulations at all Other than the $50 to pay for one.

[GGJohn]

61. No regulations?

Keep digging that hole of ignorance.
$50.00? Where can I buy a rifle for that amount legally?

[world wide wally]

62. The trunk of the Chevy outside the gun show

[GGJohn]

64. Which is mostly a myth.

Most gun show venue's forbid that on their property and local LE and ATF agents at those gun shows look for just such a thing happening.

[world wide wally]

65. Maybe they take them from their mommy's gun cabinet

[GGJohn]

67. If you're referring to Lanza,

then what law would have prevented that?
Murder is already illegal, all of her firearms were CT legal, so, other than a total ban and confiscation, which will never happen, what law would have prevented that?

[world wide wally]

68. Its the availabiliy!

When you have more guns on the streets than cars, of course they are going to be misused by crazy people.
Not only Lanza, the asshole in Oregon too. This is infuckingsane and you can't deny it.
I now withdraw from arguing any further.

[GGJohn]

69. More guns on the streets than cars?

Where are you getting your information?
There are appox. 300,000,000 million firearms in this country, there are appox. 330,000,000 people in the US, most house holds have an average of 2 vehicles, many families have more than 2 vehicles, so how do you figure there are more guns than cars on American streets?

[world wide wally]

70. OK, Last one

There are about 270 million guns in the US and about 250 million cars.
Google it.
And even if these are not accurate numbers, what do you expect to happen?
There are far more regulations regarding vehicles than there are guns. But vehicles also have more uses than guns.

[GGJohn]

72. The vast majority of those firearms aren't on the streets, they're in the homes of

law abiding citizens.
More regulations on vehicles than firearms?
Since when did you have to get a background check to buy a vehicle?
And vehicles, for all their purposes, have an uncanny knack for injuring and killing people.
Firearms have many uses, there's competition shooting, hunting, target shooting, etc.

[world wide wally]

73. You're out of ammo.

I rest my case

[GGJohn]

74. If that's your case Mr. Barrister,

then your client should demand their money back or appeal on the grounds of inadequate representation.

[hack89]

66. The FF never intended for many things

Blacks and women voting, gay rights, abortion, unions, etc.... Do we care what the FF thought about those issues?

[smirkymonkey]

108. +1000

[GGJohn]

57. Gun freak?

Why do y'all have to resort to insults?
And y'all wonder why gun control is a smoking wreck.

[tabasco]

83. Like it or not, the right to own guns has been limited

and can be limited further.

[GGJohn]

84. Sure it can,

the problem is that, other than UBC's, there is no public appetite for further restrictions.

[hack89]

85. No doubt

The 2A is not the real obstacle to strict gun control. It is the lack of deeply committed public support. That and incredibly inept leadership on the part of gun control organizations.

[GGJohn]

50. LOL. You really went there?

Gee, how many terrorists groups use the internet to recruit new terrorists?
How many have died because of terrorists using the internet to plan attacks, look up potential targets? Coordinate with other terrorists groups?

I can't believe you actually went there.

[world wide wally]

56. For that matter, the telephone and written word have been used to conspire too, but how many people

have telephones or fountain pens or even screaming at the top of one's lungs actually killed?

[GGJohn]

58. How about GW using the pen to sign the IWR?

How many millions of Iraqi's died because of that? How many American military lives were lost because of that?

[world wide wally]

60. It wasn' tthe pen that killed them

It was mostly the bombs and bullets actually.
And why do you emulate Iraq as a model for how we should live here?

[GGJohn]

63. Jeez!!!!!!!!!!!!

It was the pen that authorized the use of those weapons that killed those Iraqi's and Americans, so it was a direct result of the pen.

[24601]

86. The pen would have had no utility without the vote authorizing military force. And we need look no

farther than our own party since we controlled the Senate at the time.

Senator Clinton voted for the resolution. Senator Sanders voted against.

I could forgive Mrs. Clinton if I thought she really believed it was the right thing to do. It is, however, pretty intuitive that she was really voting to preserve her future viability as a presidential candidate. She wasn't alone, Kerry also voted in favor.

I'm not ready for 4 years of that kind of absent leadership.

[beevul]

88. That was the SAF actually.

You know...the group that brought us Heller and McDonald.

[GGJohn]

38. No, I can fire if I peceive a deadly threat,

but, unless that deadly threat is directed at me, then I won't fire, my weapon will be in my hand, but until the threat is directed at me, I don't shoot.
My CC is not to protect others, it's to protect me and my family.

[leftyladyfrommo]

121. That was really scary.

Broad daylight downtown. Poor guy just out for a bike ride.

I wonder how many mentally ill gun nuts there are out there? Seems like there are way too many.

[patsimp]

14. or they could mow other innocent people down in their zeal to start shooting

[grntuscarora]

5. Politicians won't help us.

They're either scared, or bought off by the NRA.
Change will have to come at the local level and work its way up through the courts.
It's a long, slow slog, but it can be done.


http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/10/harrisburg_gun_ordinances_appe.html#incart_2box_harrisburg

[red dog 1]

6. "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is what the NRA leaders will say

and, despite the fact that a majority of NRA members favor universal background checks,
NRA leadership is opposed to it.

Why is NRA leadership is opposed to universal background checks?

Because the gun manufacturers who pay them are opposed to ANY type of gun control,
and the NRA gets much more money from the gun manufacturers than they get from NRA members.

"When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." makes as much sense as:

"When assholes are outlawed, only outlaws will have assholes."

[branford]

10. If you want to know why the NRA (or anyone else) might oppose UBC's,

read their literature, and dispense with the lazy straw man arguments.

For reference, and for good or ill, here's the NRA's detailed position on background checks:

https://www.nraila.org/issues/background-checksnics/

Moreover, why would I or many others care one iota what the NRA believes or advocates. I'm more than capable of determining my own opinions and positions without the guidance of the NRA, Brady, Bloomberg, DU, or anyone else. More importantly, the NRA has only about 5 millions members out of the 80-100+ million legal firearm owners in the USA (over 1 of every 3 American adults). The power and influence of the NRA is vastly overstated. They've become the boogeyman of the gun control movement, and used to rationalize the myriad of popular, electoral, legislative, and legal gun control failures.

Nevertheless, I agree that UBC's are one of the few gun control legislative possibilities that might be achievable. Accordingly, I would suggest that the elected officials offering such legislation stop combining it with far less popular and vastly more controversial measures like "assault weapon" bans and magazine limits, and draft the proposed laws to ensure they cannot be used as a national registration list or prevent common activities like loaning someone a firearm at a shooting range or leaving a firearm with a spouse at home without need of a background check.

The reason why many oppose UBC's is the same reason why many liberals, including myself, oppose any "reasonable" or relatively minor restrictions on abortion. We are full cognizant that they're just incremental steps to normalize restrictions and form a basis for much more severe regulation in the future. People aren't idiots, and know full well that once you give an inch, others will take a mile, particularly on hot culture war issues like firearms.

[patsimp]

16. you think you have your own opinions. Mysteriously they mimic the nra's

paranoid fantasy.

btw - if you truly want guns to be available put some controls in place. The day will come when the smart people of the country will say enough and start fighting back.

[branford]

20. I indeed have my own opinions, and they sometimes conflict with the NRA.

I'm a practicing litigation attorney, and I've actually worked for the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Dept. of Justice, studying a variety of issues, including matters relating to firearms. I have no need or desire for propaganda from anyone, whether its the NRA or VPC, in order to formulate my positions on firearm issues.

Ironically, I'm about as close as someone gets to being a "moderate" on the partisan issue of firearms. I've never owned firearms, nor have a current desire to do so, and would be willing to support certain restrictions, to the extent they're constitutional and would actually demonstrably reduce firearms fatalities and injuries without needlessly restricting the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners who are a threat to no one. I will not support "feel good" laws like bans on scary black rifles, nor would I consider tinkering with Bill of Rights.

As to claims that times will soon change concerning guns, you're right, although not as you would prefer. Gun laws have been liberalizing for decades, the Supreme Court has memorialized our individual right to keep and bear arms, and support for gun rights and against restrictions are at an all time high, all while crime rates have been nearly halved over the last few decades. I expect this trend to continue.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/reasons-decline-support-gun-control-n440101

[beevul]

90. You think you have your own opinions. Mysteriously they mimic the VPCs...

You think you have your own opinions. Mysteriously they mimic the VPCs...

See how that works?

[passiveporcupine]

18. What if taking a mile is the right thing to do for society?

[hack89]

22. Then try to take it without the cooperation of gun owners and leave us alone in the meantime. Nt

[passiveporcupine]

87. Do you think Australia was "taking a mile"

or are you OK with their gun laws?

[hack89]

89. I do not support mandatory confiscation. nt

[passiveporcupine]

92. So, you are OK with anyone owning a gun?

I mean you don't think guns should be confiscated from people who are mentally unstable, or prone to suicide (especially with the trend of mass killing suicide), or even criminals who have guns, or looneys building aresenals so they can start a revolution?

Nobody should lose their guns?

I, have been shot at by a large party of target shooters (about 15) who went up the logging road target area, and started drinking beer and shooting at targets, until dusk, at which time they stopped using safe targets and just started shooting at everything, in every direction. I was hiking with my dogs all day and was coming home. I had to pass the shooting area to get home and it was getting dark and I didn't have a flashlight, so I really wanted to get off that rough rocky road before dark. But I reached a point where I had bullets whizzing by my head and slamming into trees near me. I started to blow my whistle as hard as I could, but they just kept shooting. I was too far away from them to hear. So I had to keep going until I found a spot that was out of range, and then I waited as long as I could (remember it was getting dark and I had over a mile to go to get home), and finally I just had to keep walking and hope I wasn't hit. As I came around the last corner and they heard my whistle and saw me, they stopped shooting. I stopped and told them they scared the hell out of me. They could see me visibly shaking. They apologized, but it was a little late for that. They could have hit me or my dogs (or even a vehicle coming down the mountain).

I don't think people like that should own guns. Guns need to be kept in the hands of people who will not drink and shoot and who will be serious about gun safety and protocol at all times.

[hack89]

93. No. I support stronger background checks

Australia did not care about who owned particular guns - they were forced to sell their guns to the government regardless of the risk they represented.

[passiveporcupine]

94. that may be true, but at the same time

they still allowed gun licenses to people if they met the criteria for owning one. If they took all guns away and just flatly said "no more guns for anyone" I might agree with your sentiment. I think the way they did it was very thoughtful and well done. Nobody "has" to have a gun...just to own one. If you can't prove you need it for some legitimate purpose, and that you are safe to own one, then you should not have one. I think they handled it just fine.

I wish we had a plan like that here, but I know it will upset a lot of people who are gun enthusiasts.

[hack89]

96. The beauty of civil rights is that we don't need the government's permission

To exercise them. Australia does not have a 2A so what they did is somewhat irrelevant. Our government can't simply declare who needs guns and who does not.

[passiveporcupine]

97. Well, the supreme court can

if they revisit their incorrect decision that said 2A meant anyone could have a gun for self-protection, instead of what the original 2A was meant to be about.

[hack89]

98. The 2A was always intended to be an individual right.

The entire BoR are individual rights. If you don't accept than we have nothing to discuss.

[passiveporcupine]

99. You are right about that last part.

Although I will end with this question?

What every happened to the right of citizens to be safe from idiots who do not know how to store/use a weapon as dangerous as a gun? Like all those little kids who end up shooting a sibling or a parent or other unsuspecting person, because someone left a loaded gun within their reach?

And I like how you conveniently ignored my story of the target shooters drinking at night and shooting wildly, at me, on a public county logging road. What bill of rights protect people like me from things like that?

[hack89]

100. You pass regulations mandating safe storage of guns

You make reckless use of guns illegal. You severely punish people that endanger others through the negligent use of guns.

Strict regulation is allowed under the 2A. But the starting position is that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that requires strict judicial scrutiny. The government does not have the power to unilaterally decide who can and cannot own guns. Basic civics.

[passiveporcupine]

101. The government does not have the power to unilaterally decide who can and cannot own guns.

Not sure what you are getting at. Who said any new gun restrictions would be done without laws passed by congress?

U.S. gun policy is set by both state and federal law. So while Obama can't take your guns away, congress and/or the supreme court can.

[TeddyR]

102. Well actually

Congress cannot, because the Supreme Court has said that the US constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Supreme Court could reverse itself in Heller (unlikely any time soon) but that would largely mean that regulation would be left to the states, which are moving ever more in favor of laws that protect the right to keep and bear arms, not the other way around.

[passiveporcupine]

105. So who established laws that allow us to deny the right to buy a gun

to certain individuals? Like criminals and mentally unstable people who have been deemed a threat?

Yes, we do need to overturn Heller, and then we need more laws to be passed by congress at the federal level, and at state level. Not all states should have the same gun laws. Places like DC are not the same as places like Vermont.

As far as the people not wanting gun laws? I think the tide is changing. Enough popular demand, and government, even at local levels is going to have to support constituents. It's just a matter of time.

As long as the high publicity of mass shootings continues in this country, encouraging more and more people to choose to go out that way, this battle will not end. And since only about 1/3 (I think) of the population are gun owners, how long before the power shifts to those on the side of protecting innocent people?

And for myself? Well, I don't hike the logging road any more because of health issues, but if I do start again, I'm not going without a camera to document any illegal use of guns that I see.

[hack89]

103. Congress can within limits

It can't ban handguns for example.

The 2A has never been an obstacle to stricter gun laws. The lack of strong public support has been. That and the absolute ineptitude of the leadership of gun control organizations. The reason we don't have the laws you want is that people don't care that much about it. It is not a priority.

[valerief]

9. Thank Jeebus he had his god-given right to arms. If only everyone had the guns

so they could do the same. NRA logic.

[Judi Lynn]

13. Bless his heart. Everyone without guns should buy extra guns immediately to make amends! n/t

[Glimmer of Hope]

17. Make it stop.

[passiveporcupine]

19. I think it's become a meme now

just not on the internet...a real life meme.

[quakerboy]

23. Well that clearly calls for

recalls of any anti-gun politicians in Colorado!

[Hoyt]

31. A few more gun fancier myths exposed, "responsible" gun lovers, rifles aren't used in murders, and

more gunner BS.

[hack89]

35. No one has ever said that rifles are not used in murders

We have said the are the least likely weapon used in murders. No need to stretch the truth for your cause.

[GGJohn]

43. Hoyt? Stretch the truth?

[Duckhunter935]

119. past the breaking point

[Duckhunter935]

117. or lie

I am sure he will be able to post a link to where anyone on here said rifles were never used in murders.

[GGJohn]

42. So post a link of someone saying that rifles aren't used in murders.

I await with great anticipation for your link.

[Duckhunter935]

118. he knows he did not tell the truth

in other words he posed a ....

[GGJohn]

120. Kinda figured that, he has a habit of posting such nonsense and

then running away when called on it.

[Lint Head]

71. Anorther beautiful bloody day of murder and mayhem. Murica!

[Vinca]

76. Just another day in America.

Apparently we must all be armed with weapons cocked and at the ready at all times. That's the nightmare the NRA has created. This is no longer the "land of the free," it's the "land of the sitting ducks." Thanks, NRA. Thanks, gun lobby.

[Darb]

81. Retrieve the gun and get it back in circulataion , STAT!!!!

So our resident humpers don't cry us a river.

[GGJohn]

82. "So our resident humpers don't cry us a river."

And y'all wonder why gun control is a smoking wreck in this country?

[Duckhunter935]

104. That's all they have is insults

And a dead group even the hosts do not post in. Their favorite group is the RKBA group.

[Darb]

110. No, we have the fact that the RTHA folks are to blame

for criminals and crazies having easy access to guns. There is that little tidbit. Deny it all you want, if not for the kooks and their toys, then the crazies wouldn't have it so easy to get guns, nor the criminals.

We will put more limits on your toys.

[Duckhunter935]

111. RTHA?

So you are blaming democrats and the president?

[Darb]

114. Mistype, it is RKHA.

The Right to Keep and Hump Arms. Enjoy!

[Darb]

109. It's no different than the fits thrown by 2 year olds

when you first take away their blankee or their bottie. They scream and wail like little possessed gremlins, then they grow up and live without it like adults.

[GGJohn]

112. You just described the controllers to a tee.

Thank you.

[Darb]

113. If you mean "sane", then you are correct.

RKHA fanatics like yourself are to blame for the ease to which a crazie or a crook can lay their hands on weapons and use them against civil society, no ifs, ands, or buts. Own your failure please. Then lets talk about which toys that you own which are going away.

[GGJohn]

116. .....

If you mean "sane", then you are correct.

RKHA fanatics like yourself are to blame for the ease to which a crazie or a crook can lay their hands on weapons and use them against civil society, no ifs, ands, or buts. Own your failure please. Then lets talk about which toys that you own which are going away.

Pure comedy gold.
That's ok, I understand your sads.
I don't own toys, I own firearms which, I assure you, are not going away.

[LanternWaste]

122. I'd maintain that pretense too were I dogmatic and unyielding in thought...

"You just described the controllers to a tee..."

I'd maintain that pretense too were I dogmatic and unyielding in thought; as it denies rational thought and reinforces bias, it's both convenient and simplistic... a rather wonderful fit.

Bias confirmation is a godsend to the irrational mind, regardless its creative justifications as something else.

[Darb]

115. Sorry RKHA boys, gonna leave it with ya.

You're gonna have to play with yourselves.