Aurora Colorado Violence

Oh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. I stand (sit) corrected.

It was message 64. And then it was a message in reply to you. So that's at least two times. You accused me of having never done it. So you're admitting that you lied when you claimed that I'd never defined my usage?

In the Apostles and Jesus's era, everyone, biblicalists, heathens, educated and ignorant recognized the presence and powers of demonic entities, capable of entering humans and causing them to do un-natural evil.Ask Berkowitz. He knew that Satan and/or his demons were powerful enough to make him do very sadistic and horible things to victims before killing them.This was aired in the three interviews that James Dobson had with him after his conversion to Christianity. Under the power of God's Holy Spirit, He became just the opposite. He never ever wanted to leave Attica because he knew that he, in no way, deserved parole and he was being so blessed in prison helping the infirm and other inmated who he could help.While under the influence of demons even the guards feared him. The were amazed to see a relatively sudden change in his behavior. Thus, the apostle's or Jesus's statement that conversion to Jesus, the christ/messiah would make respondents new creaturesThen, as with the Columbine boys, the were both heavily given prescription drug, ridilin. The side effects of many of these can cause humans to do unexplicitively terrible things. Not only that but they lower one's resistence to the demonic powers.Yet the gov'mt and pharmacutials who find it more profitable to look for cures than to find them are trying to get control of all natural remedies so as eliminate alternative methodology. The side effects of the naturals are nearly all good. Go figure. Political power and the love of money is driving our health care system, in bed with the FDA.

Tetrodotoxin is 100% "natural," Buz.And there ain't no such of a thing as a demon.And I would like to see the study that showed that Ritalin lowered resistance to demons, particularly as they don't even exist. Was that in JAMA, or another journal?

Allowing every man/woman in America to be armed is good.
What could go wrong?

???? WTF?? I never said or support what you are saying.

No, but they endorsed it and recommended it's reenactment. Senator Jack Brooks, a former Marine Corps Colonel and WWII Veteran sponsored the bill along with Donald Edwards (another WWII vet, Navy gunnery and intelligence officer, and FBI Agent) Chuck Schumera and William Hughes. If you want to start ridiculous name calling, start with yourself. Myself, I place more credibility in two WWII veterans, police chiefs and other more intelligent sources than yourself in the matters of firearms. The question (by YOU in MSG 131) was what does MY experience or opinion at the time have to do with the writing of the 1994 federal Assault Weapons Bill (Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994). To get back to my point before you started this stupid banter, is that there are many people in and out of congress that sanction more regulation of firearms, many who have military, police and other related firearm backgrounds. Why would thousands of police chiefs around the country support a law that you think is 'stupid'. Actually I did. Does it leave room for improvement. Sure. Does it fix all the problems. No. Does it restrict magazine capacity? Actually it does. Did you read the bill or just wikipedia it. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

Not stupid. But...I suspect that law enforcement officers are not all that enamored with how the courts interpret the first, fourth and fifth amendments either. I'm sure that the police have some good reasons for wanting fewer guns on the street, but we cannot always rely on their good intentions as reasons to accept diminshing our rights.

Well, y'know, Brenda Spencer, for example, did manage to carry out a shooting massacre using a .22 semi-automatic rifle. I don't know whether it had the accoutrements you mention, but if not then it was clearly quite dangerous even without them.

Police and military are tax-paying citizens just like yourself. The same rights apply to them as well. Again unfettered individual rights without restrictions are (a) not feasible and (b) not constitutional. All rights must be weighed between an individuals rights and the rights of the people at large and public safety. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

That's fine. But generally speaking, I do not agree with law enforcement's opinion of what my rights ought to be. I'm not stupid enough to disagree with gun control just because the police are for it. In fact, I'm in favor of fairly strict gun control. But I am not the least bit persuaded by some sheriffs view on the matter.

Ok - Let's try again. How does your reply relate to my original message?

Right, and there's basically nobody who would consider a rifle chambered for .22 LR to be an "assault rifle." So a ban on such weapons - whatever they are, since there's no operating legal definition for that term - wouldn't have proved an impediment.It just demonstrates the futility of trying to ban "assault rifles" as a category. The impetus to do so comes not from any verifiable evidence that such guns present a characteristic and unique danger, but from fear of the association of the term with military forces and SWAT. I think the evidence is overwhelming, however, that magazine restrictions would be more effective. Many of these shooters are apprehended during the reload; forcing more frequent reloads would mitigate the damage any individual mass-shooter is able to inflict. And there's just no legal ambiguity whatsoever about what constitutes a "round", a "magazine", or the number "seven." (I chose seven for basically the same reason everybody picks seven for everything.)

And that has nothing to do with my point that the verbiage in the AWB is incredibly stupid. Because they're cops and they want people to not have guns more than they care about looking foolish for supporting a stupidly written law. It does not restrict the capacity of the magazine that a rifle or pistol can take. The magazine restiction on pistols is about where the pistol can take the magazine, i.e. it has to go in the grip. And that's what I'm calling stupid. Making a pistol that takes a mag somewhere outside of the grip doesn't really make that gun more dangerous so its stupid to legislate against that.

All guns are dangerous. Singling out specific aesthetic properties of guns, like grip size, stock shape and mag placement, to indicate which ones are "assault weapons" or not shows that the people who drafted the law don't know what the hell they are talking about.Its like when you look at SOPA and go: "Do these people have any idea how the internet works?"Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.