Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!

[BluegrassCat]

Are these two being sarcastic or just exhibiting the skills in deception they perform with admittedly clever showmanship on stage? The Continental Army commanded by Washington fought a British army -not a British militia, and the militia referred to in the clip are those which had existed in states (eg in Connecticut) for decades before the revolution even began! And also, People, where I come from, is the Plural form of the word Person, and the structure of the sentence, pauses and all, begins with a reference to Militias because that is what the Amendment is about. Simple really.

Yep, it's embarrassing how deeply wrong-headed their take on it is. It's like saying "Congress shall make no law respecting...religion" meant that laws are only allowed to disrespect religion. Just flatly and weirdly wrong.

[SammiValentine]

+1 Stavros!!!

+10000 to stavros in this thread so far lol x

[shaustin]

It's odd how people so easily dismiss the rights of others when it has no bearing on themselves. Getting a bit closer to the original topic, a tragic loss of life and not gun ownership and the 2nd amendment, and what could have been done to avoid it. Personally I find it sad that after 34 pages into the thread more than 2 dozen are commited solely to firearms. Why has the theatre not been scrutinized for not having security to the point that a clown with assault weapons and body armor can waltz right into a film in progress? Shouldn't they have had people watching the theatre entrances? Why were there no metal detectors or uniformed guards at the front door? Wouldn't a stationed parking attendent at the lot have seen a man with guns and been able to call 911 before he had made it inside? In fact why have theatres that gather so many people into a dark confined space at all, surely that's just a giant bullseye for mass murderers, why aren't all films placed directly to dvd for watching in the safety of ones own home?

Yes that last one looks like an exaggerated overreaction. But to someone who never goes to the theatre, it would look like a good idea. To them it would mean that the incident would not have occured, and since they have no vested interest in using the theatres themselves why not just get rid of them? It's very much the same as people who do not have any guns, let alone handguns or assault weapons, who are so anti-gun. It's easy for someone to take away a right they do not use themselves, but when any of their rights may be in jeopardy, it's always those same people who bite, claw, and scream until they are assured they will get their way. Very few people are willing to recognize the right of others versus their own, for that a person must have understanding, empathy, and intelligence enough to step away from personal bias' so that they can look at the whole picture and how others are effected, not just themselves.

[giovanni_hotel]

There's a middle ground between being pro-gun without exception and banning ALL guns.

[trish]

It's odd how people so easily dismiss the rights of others when it has no bearing on themselves.

Exactly, very few people think about the risk that carry poses to the general public and how that unasked for risk infringes on the public's right to an expectation of safety. At least open carry would be a compromise that would allow people to readily assess the proximate dangers.

What? you want to turn movie theaters into airports? It's the theater's fault, not the fact that it's easier to buy a gun in the U.S. than vote!

[shaustin]

Exactly, very few people think about the risk that carry poses to the general public and how that unasked for risk infringes on the public's right to an expectation of safety. At least open carry would be a compromise that would allow people to readily assess the proximate dangers.

What? you want to turn movie theaters into airports? It's the theater's fault, not the fact that it's easier to buy a gun in the U.S. than vote!

Personally I myself am against the idea of ANYONE carrying a handgun on their person in public, even police. When I see a weapon, I become aware of it, and unless I know the individual personally I myself am always uneasy and wary until I'm away from that person. Humans are strange and fragile things, and I don't feel comfortable being within range of that kind of power without having the same in my hands. But I'm able to recognize that others don't feel the same and I'm capable of accepting I don't have the right to tell them that what they believe is wrong. So for now I'm willing to set aside my personal wishes and allow others to do as they will.

And no, personally I'd rather not have theatre's with rigorous security, that was just an arguement from a different viewpoint than most people would think of, it was simply ment to provoke thought. To me, it's the person that commits an illegal act and what has occured in their life up until that point that is of real concern. To me those are the true causes and the waypoints by which I myself make judgements of events, the tools that were used mean very little in the larger picture.

[loren]

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.

According to Stavros, the lilly-livers, and the English, the Second Ammendment has nothing to do with individual rights to firearm. Instead only certain select persons (chosen by the government, I suppose) are allowed to join the militia and as such only they are entitled to possess and own firearms. As such, the First and Forth Ammendments have nothing to do with individual liberties and instead are only applied to select groups.


It has been supposed by some on this forum that the Second Ammendment, being 221 years old, is outdated and has no legal bearing in the modern day. Since there is apparently some sort of expiration date placed on pieces of legislation, how about we go ahead and get rid of the rest of the Bill of Rights? I mean the other nine ammendments are 211 years old too, so they've gotta be just as outdated and out of touch with modern concerns. And what about the Constitution, we should get rid of that too, it's even older - and, hey, old has got to go. I guess that laws should only be valid for the length of time that the generation who wrote them is still in the majority of elected government positions. Once enough of the old geezers are voted out of office, then any laws they passed and signed are no longer valid.

[giovanni_hotel]

M-16s for everyone!!
We're handing out .32s to all the kiddies at the local elementary for back to school night.

More guns make good neighbors.

[Prospero]

Stavros - your knowledge on this subject is deeply impressive.

[Prospero]

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...h-guns/260327/