Comments on: More Copycat Killings and a Proposal.

By: Will ‘Wanted’ Trigger the Next Columbine? « The Political Inquirer

Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:19:43 +0000

[...] Will ‘Wanted’ Trigger the Next Columbine? Posted on July 1, 2008 by Mike O I did enjoy the movie ‘Wanted’ (even as my son and I laughed at the unending violations in the laws of physics), but it is a concern that this particular movie will trigger other mass killings. It has all the same touchpoints of the ‘Matrix’ (which served as a triggering image for the sick pair at Columbine) and it’s clear that Hollywood has not learned the lessons of glorifying violence by ‘deadenders’, any more than the News Media has. [...]

By: Another Mass Shooting of Innocents. Why? « The Political Inquirer

Another Mass Shooting of Innocents. Why? « The Political Inquirer — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 04:36:12 +0000

[...] Mass Shooting of Innocents. Why? Posted on February 16, 2008 by Mike O I wrote on this before but let’s address it again and expound on [...]

By: Additional Suggestions after another Campus Shooting « Musings of a Political Wonk, Charity Ronin & Oracle Hack

Fri, 15 Feb 2008 04:26:58 +0000

[...] Suggestions after another Campus Shooting February 15, 2008 — Mike O I made some suggestions after the last one, to which Instapundit comment was ‘only 5%?’ Fine, [...]

By: cbgrace

cbgrace — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 16:46:52 +0000

This is a hot topic I guess…I just couldn’t read all the other posts. By the way, I am a Texan. I don’t carry a concealed weapon, not that I am opposed to it. One guy asked why double the training to carry – because a gun is so simple to fire, people need training so they can be told to engage the safety. Come on…the training is for those carrying so they don’t shoot themselves in the foot.

Heck, I say every state should have write to carry a concealed weapon laws…

By: mopenshaw

mopenshaw — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 13:13:55 +0000

Of course, I tire of somebody who miss the point entirely while peering at the details.

The point is that the freedom of speech, like to freedom to bear arms, IS constrained to some point. If you don’t like the ‘yelling fire in a theater’ analogy, how about libel and slander provisions? Those are clearly restrictions of ‘free speech’, as is the illegality of me buying and operating a fully armed M1A1 tank on my right to bear arms.

By: totaltransformation

totaltransformation — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:49:33 +0000

“It is unknown at this time if the two church shootings are related”

It now appears that the shootings are connected and linked to a young person who was booted out of their missionary program.

By: zahraen

zahraen — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:49:33 +0000

A test Comment from iran!!!

By: Tazbot

Tazbot — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 08:35:52 +0000

What a simple solution.

By: Gerry

Gerry — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:46:42 +0000

#20 above. I tire in the effort to correct persons who claim to know the law, or some tiny piece of the law. I refer to inferences, or outright statements that one cannot ” (shout) fire ina (crowded) theater”. That’s just bullshit, though very popular bullshit. It’s an Urban Myth and in places a hoax.
It originates in the case before the Supremes, 1919, Schenk vs US. Oliver Wendel Holmes makes an aside of what might not be protected speech, “falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic”. NOTE the “falsely”, something almost every user forgets to include. Idiots, piled on idiots, shoehorned into morons and covered over with ignorant wackos. G]

[In holding for Schenk’s constitutional right to distribute pamphlets against the draft during war time, both outside of draft boards and through the mails, Mr. Justice O. W. Holmes, Jr., writing for the Court: (extract)

“But the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”

By: Congrats to Mopenshaw « Constitution Club

Congrats to Mopenshaw « Constitution Club — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 06:45:11 +0000

[...] More Copycat Killings and a Proposal The shooter who died I’m sure never expected to run into an armed individual in a church. ‘Oh My God; someone had a gun in a church?’ will be the reaction of many. If he hadn’t, how many else would be dead? [...]