BF2S Forums Cho on Tape

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Should you have to submit to psychological testing to purchase a weapon?  I'm having a hard time thinking yes, but at the same time this would be a case in point.

Except that you then no longer have the right to bear arms.

Of course, you technically don't have the right to bear arms currently............................

Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-04-18 17:32:06)

Bubbalo wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Should you have to submit to psychological testing to purchase a weapon?  I'm having a hard time thinking yes, but at the same time this would be a case in point.

Except that you then no longer have the right to bear arms.

Of course, you technically don't have the right to bear arms currently............................

When your a deranged lunatic who has been admitted mental institutions, I think the safety of the world should come before your right to own a gun.

My right to live should be more important than some assholes right to have a gun.

Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2007-04-18 17:35:33)

so you would support making it harder to get a gun legally? how about making it impossible? sure would cut down on this kind of thing. every other country doesn't have this problem seemingly.

because the amendment is this
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

the militia is no longer needed it was created when the US was a fragile and young state. the US is secure and has one of the best equipped forces in the world.
and dont give me the islam stuff got from cyrus, no number of assault rifles will stop a plane or a bomb going off. thats how they fight it.

btw definition and use of the "right to bear arms"
"of the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service" Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight".

owning a personal gun is not the right to bear arms.

Last edited by Toxicseagull (2007-04-18 17:51:14)

Man his video and those pictures are disturbing.
I can't even explain my thoughts about this guy right now.

usmarine2005 wrote:

Ryan wrote:

Man his video and those pictures are disturbing.
I can't even explain my thoughts about this guy right now.

My guess.  A little emo fuck who thinks he has it so hard, yet goes to a good college in a nice town, has a roof over his head, money, a car, etc....

Couldn't get pussy, so he was angry at that, which manifested into other things.

That pretty much sums it up...
But it needs alot more profanity and name calling to suit my thoughts

http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278

Toxicseagull wrote:

because the amendment is this
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

the militia is no longer needed it was created when the US was a fragile and young state. the US is secure and has one of the best equipped forces in the world.
and dont give me the islam stuff got from cyrus, no number of assault rifles will stop a plane or a bomb going off. thats how they fight it.

btw definition and use of the "right to bear arms"
"of the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service" Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight".

owning a personal gun is not the right to bear arms.

Here is an abridged version for you -

I am American.  I have lived here for 26 years.  You don't live here (obviously).  I can read all I want about the UK on the Internet, but until I live in that society, I don't feel I can correctly gauge the collective societal feeling there.

the militia is no longer needed it was created when the US was a fragile and young state.

Actually, militias were formed BEFORE the US was a "fragile and young state."  Did Wikipedia fail to mention that?  But thanks for your opinion.  Duly noted.

and dont give me the islam stuff got from cyrus, no number of assault rifles will stop a plane or a bomb going off. thats how they fight it.

I am not ignorant enough to believe a statement (made in jest by the way) like that.  The right to bear arms was not to protect us (US citizens) from outside threats.  The amendment was created to protect citizens from an inside threat.  We will take up arms to defend the ideals of our founding fathers.

btw definition and use of the "right to bear arms"
"of the "bear arms" expression in public discourse in early America was in an unambiguous, explicitly military context in a figurative (and euphemistic) sense to stand for military service" Further, the Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles declares that a meaning of "to bear arms" is a figurative usage meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight".

Finally actually quoting case law! (since you didn't supply the source, I will - US vs. Emerson)  Good job.  But you forgot this -

"Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ is, as the Amendment’s text suggests, a personal right."

There you go.

Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-04-18 18:42:38)

Kmarion wrote:

Enjoy

Could you paraphrase that for me?

I'm sure there has been a rant about this already but for crying out loud his ugly evil voice and his fubar thoughts are wall to wall in the media because of his present today.

Now the next lunatic will probably use special effects and 24 bit sound in addition to trying for a a higher body count.


This is making me want to puke.

Does anyone else think Cho sounds like Napolean Dynamite on those tapes?

ShellShock.PwN wrote:

Same thing happened in Canada when a shooting happened at Dawson college. Its getting really annoying.

Imagine how 'annoying' it is for the dead and the mourning and I'm sure you'll feel better.

-konfusion

ATG wrote:

Yet another failure by our government:

As early as 2005, police and school administrators were wrestling with what to do with Cho, who was accused of stalking two female students and was sent to a mental health facility after police obtained a temporary detention order.

Personally, I think the government and school officials did everything they possible could have.  There are literally hundreds of thousands of mentally ill, bi-polar, manic depressive and over all schizo psychopaths out there in the country today but not all of them will necessarily go shoot up a school or a postal office.  I'd guesstimate that under 0.11111% of the mentally ill do acts such as this.  The only thing I see that they could have done and didn't was to completely boot him off campus but in this case, it probably would have just furthered his reasons. 

There are no preventatives for acts like this.  They have always happened, they always will happen.  There's nothing anyone can do about it.