Thank a soldier indeed...

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » August 4, 2005, 3:26 pm

I hope this asshole gets life in jail.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/03/road.r ... index.html

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » August 4, 2005, 4:25 pm

Life in prison is too good for him.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 4, 2005, 4:25 pm

People suffering depression should not be carrying a loaded weapon.

PS. I didnt know Funkmaster was 60 years old.

Sabek · Post by **Sabek** » August 4, 2005, 4:44 pm

WTF even play the soldier angle on this crap?

It's a tragedy and I hope the guy gets whats coming for him, but implying all soldiers are like this is stupid in the extreme.

Don't be an ignoranus.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » August 4, 2005, 4:45 pm

I agree with Sabek, this guy was a soldier in what, Nam? I don't think being a soldier has anything to do with it, he has mental problems no matter what his past is...

Marb

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 4, 2005, 5:17 pm

The only way I could possibly imagine using the soldier angle here is if he was suffering from some mental issues after a war, but other than that.. heh pretty much a silly thing to say.

Of course, he DID become familair with guns in the military and learned to shoot.. but then again so do half the inhabitants of trailer parks.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 4, 2005, 6:36 pm

This tragedy and so many others would have been averted if everyone was armed. what you crying liberals fail to understand is stuff like this is a direct result of your bleeding heart politics.

besides, soldiers don't lose the right to execute whomever they want with little to no ramifications just because they aren't in the army anymore. are you saying you don't support the troops?

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » August 4, 2005, 6:59 pm

Your sarcasm is falling short of anything in the realm of being funny.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 4, 2005, 7:27 pm

I will defer to your expertise as the final authority on what is not funny.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 4, 2005, 7:53 pm

so whats your solution? strip all americans of the right to bear arms altogether?
people who blame crimes like these on "guns", or even worse "the general mental state of all american soldiers" are as ignorant and flat out stupid as the people who blame crimes on video games

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » August 4, 2005, 8:18 pm

The fact that somebody who is mentally unstable had a legal gun is a bit worrisome imo.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » August 4, 2005, 8:28 pm

Xzion wrote:so whats your solution? strip all americans of the right to bear arms altogether?
people who blame crimes like these on "guns", or even worse "the general mental state of all american soldiers" are as ignorant and flat out stupid as the people who blame crimes on video games

So just chalk this up to "stuff that happens from time to time", believe that it's acceptable for families to violently lose loved ones from time to time just as long as you preserve your right to carry around a gun...

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 4, 2005, 8:29 pm

Are we going to have the gun debate again?

Right, well if he was mentally unstable and only carried a flower at worst the guy may have got a punch in the face. As it stands we have a child without a father growing up.

Of course his mental state was the prime issue, but saying the gun was irrelevant is fucking stupid.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 4, 2005, 8:45 pm

kelshara-obviously if someone has a previous record of mental instability obviously they should not be allowed to own a gun

Animalor-
Look at your logic…it’s the same logic that allowed certain parts of the patriot act to pass, which I and im sure many of you find to be greatly unconstitutional…remember “those who are willing to trade civil liberties for security deserve neither”

not to beat a dead horse but if our right to bear arms is taken away then what next? If the government exploits the power to completely relinquish our second amendment rights then we are technically completely open for a censored evangelical militant state that requires one to give up there home in order to house soldiers…
Also if guns were banned or our rights to hold them were further limited they would be just as easy (or easier) to obtain then marijuana or any other drug (which we all know are very easy to obtain just about anywhere you could possibly be)…and guess who would have them

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 4, 2005, 8:56 pm

in this day and age there is no way on earth this nut bag should own a firearm, much less a handgun. the moment you go onto prescription medication to control your mental state you should not be allowed within 100 feet of a gun. hell I'd be in favor of having to pass an intelligence test to get one as well, but then there'd be a lot more people in the south cluttering up the gene pool then there are now thanks to retarded hillbillies playing with guns.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 4, 2005, 9:00 pm

kyoukan wrote:in this day and age there is no way on earth this nut bag should own a firearm, much less a handgun. the moment you go onto prescription medication to control your mental state you should not be allowed within 100 feet of a gun. hell I'd be in favor of having to pass an intelligence test to get one as well, but then there'd be a lot more people in the south cluttering up the gene pool then there are now thanks to retarded hillbillies playing with guns.

i agree with that, if your on prescription medication thats needed to control your state of mind your right to own a firearm should be revoked

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » August 4, 2005, 9:04 pm

I never called for a complete ban on firearms. However carry rights, concealed or otherwise are, imo, outdated. You have your opinion on this as do I. I doubt that we'll be able to convince each other otherwise.

Also if guns were banned or our rights to hold them were further limited they would be just as easy (or easier) to obtain then marijuana or any other drug (which we all know are very easy to obtain just about anywhere you could possibly be)…and guess who would have them

You may wanna look just north of the border. I'm pretty positive that if I wanted to, I could get pot a lot more easily than I could get an illegal handgun.

As for the patriot act, it was another quick bandaid the Bush govt used to appease the masses. If I were you guys I'd b e a lot more worries about the current administration making it a permanant meaure.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » August 4, 2005, 9:08 pm

The right to bear arms has little bearing on the American tendancy to kill himself and other Americans, and I fully support your right to do so.

The FBI only recorded 14,400 murders in 2003, 67% of which were killed with a gun. It's just not good enough, you kill 4x that many with cars!

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 4, 2005, 10:25 pm

Only Americans should own guns. We are the WORLD'S ONLY SUPER POWER and should be the only ones carrying guns. A Colt 45 strapped on our hip should be the only passport we need to travel the world.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 5, 2005, 12:10 am

who needs a gun when you have a mouth as loud as yours

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » August 5, 2005, 1:45 am

CANADIAN WARSHIP SEIZES TANKER IN... WAIT...CANADA HAS A WARSHIP?

Arabian Sea — Canadian television reported Friday that a Canadian warship in the Arabian Sea had seized a tanker suspected of smuggling oil from Iraq, leading many to suspect that the report was a hoax.

"You're kidding, right? Canada has a warship?" asked U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "Like for war?

"Does Canada know?" he added.

"Nobody was more stunned than we were," said Kali Omari, first mate of the seized vessel. "We saw this frigate steaming toward us, and we were worried, but then we saw the maple leaf on the flag, and we thought, 'Oh, Canadians. What the hell do they want?'"

When an officer of the HMCS Vancouver announced that the tanker was about to be boarded, the crew of the detained ship was confused, said Omari, but their confusion quickly turned to anger when they saw what the Canadians sailors were carrying.

"They were armed. With guns," said Omari. "Canadians. With guns. And a warship. What is this world coming to?"

"They were pretty rude, too," Omari added. "They started asking us all sorts of questions, like 'Where did that oil come from?' But first we wanted to know who gave them the damn warship."

According to Canadian defense officials, the Vancouver is one of four frigates deployed in the region to assist in the U.S.-led Afghanistan conflict. The tanker was stopped, officials said, because its cargo of crude oil violated United Nations sanctions, which prohibit Iraq from selling oil unless in exchange for food and medicine.

The U.N. said the incident is already under investigation, and promised swift action against those found responsible for giving the Canadians guns. Initial findings indicate that the Vancouver crew may have been watching too many American television shows.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 5, 2005, 11:16 am

Oh dear, that wasn't even at all funny

You can do better than that Winnow

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » August 5, 2005, 11:39 am

kyoukan wrote:in this day and age there is no way on earth this nut bag should own a firearm, much less a handgun. the moment you go onto prescription medication to control your mental state you should not be allowed within 100 feet of a gun. hell I'd be in favor of having to pass an intelligence test to get one as well, but then there'd be a lot more people in the south cluttering up the gene pool then there are now thanks to retarded hillbillies playing with guns.

I'm in agreement on this. I don't think they should take away guns but I do believe there should be more limits, state controlled rather than federal though because the whole reason to have guns as a right is to dispose of a tyrannical governemnt... as least that's why our founding fathers but it in.

Marb

miir · Post by **miir** » August 5, 2005, 12:39 pm

Also if guns were banned or our rights to hold them were further limited they would be just as easy (or easier) to obtain then marijuana or any other drug (which we all know are very easy to obtain just about anywhere you could possibly be)…and guess who would have them

What a load of ignorant horseshit.

I live in a country where the gun laws are rather strict.
I live in the largest city in that country. Violent crime is on the decline and the the number of 'gun related' crimes is a fraction of that in any American city of comparable size. In fact, you could compare US cities 1/10th the size and it would still have a lower gun related crime rate.

If I wanted to buy an illegal handgun, semi-auto machine gun or an assault rifle, I would have no idea where to even start.

If I wanted to buy some weed.. I could probably ask the guy 3 cubicles over... I'm sure he knows someone.

I'm perfectly fine living in a society where cops and criminals are the only ones with handguns. Luckily, we don't cling to some oudated ideal that being allowed to purchase a handgun or assault rifle somehow relates to the freedoms that we enjoy today.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 5, 2005, 12:47 pm

Marbus wrote: because the whole reason to have guns as a right is to dispose of a tyrannical governemnt

I agreed with what you said except for this statement. Its a bit outdated don't you think? When was the last time you were walking down the street and saw your government being tyrannical and thought to yourself, "damn, I wish I had a gun".

But don't get me wrong though, I'm all for having guns. Just locked up in your home and not out in public.

Edit: And Miir, I have ya beat. I only have to ask the guy next to me!

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 5, 2005, 12:49 pm

it doesn't happen, but the entire reason the 4th amendment exists is so the armed population can form a militia and rise up against the government if need be.

Funkmasterr · Post by **Funkmasterr** » August 5, 2005, 1:13 pm

Lynks wrote:People suffering depression should not be carrying a loaded weapon.

PS. I didnt know Funkmaster was 60 years old.

First off, I wanted to comment on how clever you obviously are lynks, I applaud your overwhelming wit and humor.

Secondly, Making a thread with the title you did animalor.. Is pathetic. Because some crazy guy who happened to be a soldier in the past shot someone, everyone in the millitary is shit. It's this kind of blissful ignorance thats going to make this world a better place.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » August 5, 2005, 1:31 pm

kyoukan wrote:it doesn't happen, but the entire reason the 4th amendment exists is so the armed population can form a militia and rise up against the government if need be.

2nd amendment

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » August 5, 2005, 2:31 pm

What if he bacame a nut bag AFTER he had owned the gun for a while? I mean the license to own a gun isn't like a drivers license where you have to go get tested or have repeated tests.

What if he did this with an Axe? Would it be any less the tragedy? If you guys want to bitch about something then bitch about the high cost of health care and how he could have mail ordered his drugs from Canada if the Government hadn't blocked that.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 5, 2005, 2:36 pm

yes guns are lovely

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 5, 2005, 2:40 pm

Bubba Grizz wrote:What if he bacame a nut bag AFTER he had owned the gun for a while? I mean the license to own a gun isn't like a drivers license where you have to go get tested or have repeated tests.

There should be some type of routine that doctors do when diagnosing a person with depression. IE, gun check. Doctors here have to take away drivers license for up to a year when a person has had a seizure.

As for the axe debate, he would of had a fighting chance to live if that were the case (depending on the situation). Easier to dodge an axe than a bullet.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 5, 2005, 2:42 pm

Nick wrote:yes guns are lovely

They are when not abused.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » August 5, 2005, 2:48 pm

"abuse" of guns?

oooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkayyyy

miir · Post by **miir** » August 5, 2005, 2:50 pm

What if he did this with an Axe? Would it be any less the tragedy?

An axe can't be (safely) concealed in your pants.
An axe is easier to dodge than a bullet.

Axes are primarily a tool used for chopping wood and henceforth are not particularly efficient for killing things that can run away. Guns are weapons made with the sole purpose of killing things.. they are very efficient at that job.

They are when not abused.

Um, what other use is there for a gun, aside from penetrating a living being with a ballistic for the sole purpose of making that living being dead?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 5, 2005, 2:51 pm

Nick wrote:"abuse" of guns?

oooooooooooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkayyyy

Ya, they keep our moose population down. Polar bears too...

Um, what other use is there for a gun, aside from penetrating a living being with a ballistic for the sole purpose of making that living being dead?

Hunting maybe? Used by the police maybe? Abusing a gun would be to go out and kill people for no reason like tis guy did. I guess its too far above your head to know the difference between using it the right way and the wrong way.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 5, 2005, 3:12 pm

miir wrote:
Also if guns were banned or our rights to hold them were further limited they would be just as easy (or easier) to obtain then marijuana or any other drug (which we all know are very easy to obtain just about anywhere you could possibly be)…and guess who would have them
What a load of ignorant horseshit.

I live in a country where the gun laws are rather strict.
I live in the largest city in that country. Violent crime is on the decline and the the number of 'gun related' crimes is a fraction of that in any American city of comparable size. In fact, you could compare US cities 1/10th the size and it would still have a lower gun related crime rate.

If I wanted to buy an illegal handgun, semi-auto machine gun or an assault rifle, I would have no idea where to even start.

If I wanted to buy some weed.. I could probably ask the guy 3 cubicles over... I'm sure he knows someone.

I'm perfectly fine living in a society where cops and criminals are the only ones with handguns. Luckily, we don't cling to some oudated ideal that being allowed to purchase a handgun or assault rifle somehow relates to the freedoms that we enjoy today.

yet your country has historically had strict gun laws…I still think several other factors contribute to a high crime rate in the US that are a lot more prominent then loose gun laws. If all of a sudden America adopted canada’s policy on guns (with the amount of guns already in this country...a shitload) guns would be as easy to obtain as pot

dont get me wrong, I would trade canada’s policy on civil liberties for ours in half a second...yet our right to bear arms is a liberty I strongly believe in

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » August 5, 2005, 3:22 pm

miir wrote:
What if he did this with an Axe? Would it be any less the tragedy?
An axe can't be (safely) concealed in your pants.
An axe is easier to dodge than a bullet.

Axes are primarily a tool used for chopping wood and henceforth are not particularly efficient for killing things that can run away. Guns are weapons made with the sole purpose of killing things.. they are very efficient at that job.

They are when not abused.
Um, what other use is there for a gun, aside from penetrating a living being with a ballistic for the sole purpose of making that living being dead?

protecting your family/home…sure the situation doesn’t arise too often, but if the situation comes you will be happy to have a handgun handy if you know how to properly use and store it. Of the handful of people I know that have taken out there guns to threaten robbers (or the pissed off KKK in Tennessee in one case I know of) they have never had to fire it. Pointing a handgun at someone is all you need to do 99% of the time to get your point across.

Sylvos · Post by **Sylvos** » August 5, 2005, 3:28 pm

who the fuck is posting using Xzion's name?
That is THREE posts in a row with no spelling mistakes or improper use of diction.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 5, 2005, 3:29 pm

protecting your family/home…

Protection from the threat of the gun making you dead.
Maybe if guns weren't so readily available, it would suffice to protect your family/home with a pair of fists and maybe a baseball bat.

Pointing a handgun at someone is all you need to do 99% of the time to get your point across.

Unless that person has a handgun and is not afraid to use it.
then you're dead because you're too afraid to use a gun for it's intended purpose... to make things dead.

miir · Post by **miir** » August 5, 2005, 3:30 pm

Sylvos wrote:who the fuck is posting using Xzion's name?
That is THREE posts in a row with no spelling mistakes or improper use of diction.

Your not looking hard enough their, Sylvos.

Bubba Grizz · Post by **Bubba Grizz** » August 5, 2005, 3:37 pm

miir wrote:
What if he did this with an Axe? Would it be any less the tragedy?
An axe can't be (safely) concealed in your pants.
An axe is easier to dodge than a bullet.

Axes are primarily a tool used for chopping wood and henceforth are not particularly efficient for killing things that can run away. Guns are weapons made with the sole purpose of killing things.. they are very efficient at that job.

What about a hatchet? Sure you can dodge an axe, IF you know or see it coming. All it takes is a good wack to the back of the head.

They are when not abused.
Um, what other use is there for a gun, aside from penetrating a living being with a ballistic for the sole purpose of making that living being dead?

How about to protect yourself and family from serial Hatchet Murderers?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » August 5, 2005, 3:50 pm

trying to steal your Packers tickets!

nobody · Post by **nobody** » August 5, 2005, 3:51 pm

kyoukan wrote:it doesn't happen, but the entire reason the 4th amendment exists is so the armed population can form a militia and rise up against the government if need be.

aye

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » August 5, 2005, 4:04 pm

kyoukan wrote:it doesn't happen, but the entire reason the 4th amendment exists is so the armed population can form a militia and rise up against the government if need be.

Last person that did this was called Timothy McVeigh...

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » August 5, 2005, 4:29 pm

Xzion wrote: protecting your family/home…sure the situation doesn’t arise too often, but if the situation comes you will be happy to have a handgun handy if you know how to properly use and store it. Of the handful of people I know that have taken out there guns to threaten robbers (or the pissed off KKK in Tennessee in one case I know of) they have never had to fire it. Pointing a handgun at someone is all you need to do 99% of the time to get your point across.

First to address the 2nd amendment. Private citizens are allowed to bear arms to form a militia in case the need arises to overthrow the government.

Last time I checked the government controls the army, so unless you have a shitload of citizens who have tanks, jets, etc. your gazillions of handguns ain't gonna mean shit. Further if you send an army of militia into the field with handguns there can only be one result, dead militia.

Second to address Xzion's point. If your handgun is properly stored and someone breaks into your house I doubt you will get the gun out of the locked cabinet and loaded in time to do shit.

Face it my American friends it is time to lose the handguns.

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » August 5, 2005, 4:53 pm

I can't fucking stand obnoxious gun control activists, but having said that, the "guns are for protection" horseshit argument has more "if"s, "but"s, "could in theory"s, "provided that"s and "if you ignore the fact that"s than the small print on a presciption drug bottle

nobody · Post by **nobody** » August 5, 2005, 5:00 pm

Atokal wrote: First to address the 2nd amendment. Private citizens are allowed to bear arms to form a militia in case the need arises to overthrow the government.

Last time I checked the government controls the army, so unless you have a shitload of citizens who have tanks, jets, etc. your gazillions of handguns ain't gonna mean shit.

someone needs to tell that to the insurgents in iraq, they don't seem to have gotten the message. granted your point is refering to handguns but i think you underestimate the ability of a few pissed off rednecks.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 5, 2005, 7:27 pm

Animalor wrote:Last person that did this was called Timothy McVeigh...

the constitution doesn't say you won't get the electric chair if you get caught.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » August 5, 2005, 7:28 pm

woops I mean 2nd amendment in this thread!

Sargeras · Post by **Sargeras** » August 5, 2005, 8:53 pm

Wow. Shoot a man in broad daylight, and then he goes home like it was any other day.

Wonder what the wife is thinking.