Mass Shooting at DK premiere in CO!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. -Thomas Jefferson


"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

---

Lulz..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Queens Guy

There we go. The ad hominem attack. 'Comic book fantasies.' 'Irrational.'

I can't possibly raise a good point, which you choose to disagree with by presenting another good point. No, I'm irrational and have comic book fantasies. That must be it.

There can't possibly be good things and bad things about 'open carry' as compared to 'concealed carry'. Of course not. You must be right. About everything. You must be.

---

Your recent response is nothing but an ad hominem attack! I see no arguments given whatsoever. Let me repeat my response to the assertion that "'open carry' is just plain foolish" and that banning concealed carry amounts to a virtual ban of all firearms.

"Banning concealed carrying leaves a hell of a lot dangerous things you can still do. It's nowhere near a virtual banning of all guns. If you want to carry a gun in public have the balls to carry it in the open so that everyone is aware of the risk they take by being in your proximity and so everyone can see the orientation of the barrel.

Bringing a gun into a public area is an infringement on our general right to a safe public space. If you're going to bring a hazardous instrument into a playground, a tennis court, a store and thereby increase our risk of injury, then at the very least let us know: display your piece. Why is that so unreasonable? I know, I know...you have this fantasy that all the bad guys will then know who is carrying and take them out first. Comic book fantasies are generally not a good basis of rational thought."

Sorry you didn't like the part about comic book fantasies...but I thought I counter that tired old argument about bad guys taking you out first 'cause they spied your weapon before you had a chance to make it.

Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment - YouTube

BTW, let's quit making fun of the Brit members here for being Brits. They are our one true ally and call shit the way they see it. Wrong or right. There's so much cultural overlap I don't see the point in condescending them as if they don't know 'how things are' over here across the pond.

From my experience most of them are more informed about life in the States than vice versa, and if one of them notices there happens to be a steaming pile of shit in the middle of my living room, it would be to my advantage not to step in it.

That said, we have too many guns in this country period.
And I do agree with much of Kitty's politics but I still don't think we are on the doorstep of the 2nd American Revolution.

We need political reform, not a violent insurrection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Re the two quotes in sequence:

1) was not quoted by Jefferson, they are words that were underlined in his copy of Beccaria's book On Crimes and Punishments (1674)

2) Jefferson never said or wrote The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -the quote was unknown before 2007, ref: Matt Carson, On a Hill They Call Capitol: A Revolution is Coming (Carsons Publishing, 2007), p131.

Note, to labour this point again, that the 2nd Amendment refers to 'People' not 'Persons', ie a collective of persons, not individuals.

---

That's a good one :D and typical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

Im curious to know how many people have actually prevented street robbery my felons armed with guns because they are also carrying weapons? Anyone got any intelligent info on that - rather than the line that just goes 'i carry a gun to stop being the victim of violent crime."

Similarly how many armed burglars have been shot by householders in the US defending their property?

---

Back in 2009 I prevented a neighbor from being beaten to death by her boyfriend. How did I do it, you might ask. I kindly informed him that if he didn't get off her, I would blow his f#cking head off.

hmmmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

hmmmm

---

This is the trouble with the internet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loren

Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment - YouTube

---

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.

+1 Stavros!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by giovanni_hotel

+1 Stavros!!!

---

+10000 to stavros in this thread so far lol x

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.

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

Quote:

---

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

Stavros - your knowledge on this subject is deeply impressive.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loren

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?

---

You got it. If it's out of date, or no longer relevant then it should be AMENDED. Something tells me they've done that before, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaustin

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?

---

I think you will find that he must have cased the cinema complex before, as he broke in through a rear entrance, and probably knew which was the quietest zone in the parking area.

Going to the cinema is a way of getting out, and unless you have a 65" screen at home with wrap around sound, 3D and so on, the experience just isn't the same. Particularly with a film shot in IMAX like The Dark Knight Rises -its the kind of film I would pay to see in an IMAX for the experience. Shooters go berserk in shopping malls, should we now buy everything online?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loren

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.

---

You have not understood some of the points I have been making: on the one hand the context of 1791 when the US had only reluctantly created a Standing Army, not believing the central government should do this -indeed Congress at one point had no tax raising powers to fund an army -the pre-existing militias in the states were seen as the foundation of local security in a Union where power was devolved away from the centre, one of the strongest and enduring elements of America's revolution that sets it apart from the Revolutions in, say, France, Russia and China.

Again, the context of the weapons themselves follows: not as many Americans had guns in 1791 as today, and the guns were average or if anything old-fashioned muskets. One of my cardinal points is that whether or not you believe the 2nd Amendment confers rights on an individual or a collective (I lean to the latter but that's my interpretation), the USA in 2012 does allow individuals to purchase firearms subject to certain conditions which vary from state to state.

But as President Obama has stated: do you want people to carry battlefield weapons on your streeets? This is why you have to reconcile the intentions of an Amendment passed in 1791 with the reality of 2012, if not in the principle, then in its operation: do you really need an AK-47 to secure your apartment?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

You got it. If it's out of date, or no longer relevant then it should be AMENDED. Something tells me they've done that before, right?

---

18th Amendment to the Constitution -the prohibition of alcohol, January 1919

21st Amendment to the Constitution -repeal of Amendment 18 -Dec 1933.

some verifiable stories and an opinion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/op...?smid=pl-share

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/26/op...?smid=pl-share

GUN OWNERS or those that support the purchase and ownership of assault type/automatic guns.
Where would you draw the line on weaponry? Any gun that that military currently uses? Types of ammos? Grenades or grenade launchers? Where is the line?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I think you will find that he must have cased the cinema complex before, as he broke in through a rear entrance, and probably knew which was the quietest zone in the parking area.

Going to the cinema is a way of getting out, and unless you have a 65" screen at home with wrap around sound, 3D and so on, the experience just isn't the same. Particularly with a film shot in IMAX like The Dark Knight Rises -its the kind of film I would pay to see in an IMAX for the experience. Shooters go berserk in shopping malls, should we now buy everything online?

---

I definitely don't want my local AMC to turn into LAX. Just going to the picture show. Leave me alone.

I still don't think any US citizen needs a gun that shoots off 60 rounds in less than a minute. Sane or Not or no criminal background. That should be for military/police officials only.

Everyone is capable of insanity, and not to mention this guy had no criminal background!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

GUN OWNERS or those that support the purchase and ownership of assault type/automatic guns.
Where would you draw the line on weaponry? Any gun that that military currently uses? Types of ammos? Grenades or grenade launchers? Where is the line?

---

All you wish to know can easliy be found..

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

do you want people to carry battlefield weapons on your streeets?

---

What is a battlefield weapon? Virtually every firearm on the market either was at some point or is directly descended from a "battlefield weapon".

I have a question for you; do you view the First and Forth Ammendments as individual rights, or are they only applied to collective groups?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

GUN OWNERS or those that support the purchase and ownership of assault type/automatic guns.
Where would you draw the line on weaponry? Any gun that that military currently uses? Types of ammos? Grenades or grenade launchers? Where is the line?

---

I wouldn't exactly feel comfortable if someone were walking down the street with a stinger or a dragon for that matter. I, personally, would never own a full-auto. It's a waste of ammo, anything more than 7-10 rounds per and you're just wasting lead (In the Korean War, approx. one million rounds were fired for each casualty.) Now some would argue, I'm not in this group, that there should be no limit whatsoever. I don't really believe in owning full-auto (that's just my view), however some States allow such ownership with special licensing and permits.

Did you know that technically according to the (thankfully) expired "assault weapons" ban, my reproduction single shot, black powder, muzzleloading, .58 cal Enfield Rifled Musket is an assault weapon? Because it has a bayonet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I think you will find that he must have cased the cinema complex before, as he broke in through a rear entrance, and probably knew which was the quietest zone in the parking area.

---

There are some people that are saying that someone let the shooter into the theatre through the emergancy exit. If this is true I would like to believe that it was a mistake and they had no idea of his intentions. There are others who say he was let in with full knowledge of what he wanted to do.

http://www.wkyc.com/news/article/252...-movie-theater
"As I was sitting down to get my seat, I noticed that a person came up to the front row, the front right, sat down, and as credits were going, it looked like he got a phone call. He went out toward the emergency exit doorway, which I thought was unusual to take a phone call. And it seemed like he probably pried it open, or probably did not let it latch all the way. As soon as the movie started, somebody came in, all black, gas mask, armor, and threw a gas can into the audience, and it went off, and then there were gunshots that took place."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

All you wish to know can easliy be found..

http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/

---

I'm asking those of you who support having assault rifles YOUR opinions.

As a tool to have by your side as protection from your enemies, and delivering food to your table, the credit card has replaced the musket. SURELY.
My obituary is going to say I went to school, and went to work, it's not going to say I hated my crappy job and all that meaningless homework.
Education and Jobs are the overwhelmingly important factor in our individual lives and the National Standings of Quality of Life.
But must people are concerned with sex, fun, sport.
History is a product of the glands.

And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

delete

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Going to the cinema is a way of getting out, and unless you have a 65" screen at home with wrap around sound, 3D and so on, the experience just isn't the same. Particularly with a film shot in IMAX like The Dark Knight Rises -its the kind of film I would pay to see in an IMAX for the experience. Shooters go berserk in shopping malls, should we now buy everything online?

---

It's a subjective experience, personally I hate 3D movies and won't see something in a theatre if it's only in 3D. To me it's like eating a meal cooked by a world class chef, yes a better experience would be eating said meal in a five star resturaunt with chandeliers and an orchestra, but the meal itself, just like a movie, would be "practically" the same if eaten from a tv tray on an old lumpy couch. You might aswell say unless you have a full size stadium with scoreboard, lights, and goals playing soccer at home just isn't the same experience. I myself actually watched 'The Dark Knight Rises' at home last night, and while it was an alright movie which capped off the trilogy decently enough, on it's own it wasn't as engaging as the first two, and I can guarentee that for myself, seeing the same exact film on a large screen with surround sound and all the bells and whistles would have added absolutely nothing to the experience.

I'm doubting you read my last post before you made yours, so to clarify my actual position I'll just cut and paste: "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."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loren

I have a question for you; do you view the First and Forth Ammendments as individual rights, or are they only applied to collective groups?

---

They are collective in that they refer to the citizens as a plurality; they are individual insofar as religious belief and the right not to have one's home ransacked without a warrant are individual. What makes the 2nd Amendment so elusive for some and why the Supreme Court justices can produce contrary interpretations of it, is the context provided by the phrase 'A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...', which in my interpretation, and I am not a jurist, must be a collective right.

The point is that the US has decided individuals can own firearms subject to certain conditions, it makes no difference if I disapprove and not just because I am not American. As has been stated by many in this thread , gun ownership is not a political issue that has any traction nationally, it is up to each state to impose its own conditions. The practical, operational issue for you is to decide how the conditions of 1791 relate to 2012 with regard to the technology of the firearms you can buy.

The concept of a battlefield weapon is not so hard to grasp, it is what our soldiers are bearing in Afghanistan, or AK-47's, or Uzi's or Kalashnikov's.

Thanks for the update on the back entrance, I am sure more information on the events that night will filter through in time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KellyShore

I still don't think any US citizen needs a gun that shoots off 60 rounds in less than a minute. Sane or Not or no criminal background. That should be for military/police officials only.

Everyone is capable of insanity, and not to mention this guy had no criminal background!

---

Exactly! The major argument many make on owning assault type weapons, is that they want to. We have other things we can compare this to. Some drugs are legal while others are legal. People who use illegal drugs want them. I'm sure that many 14 years would love to drive cars legally. Others would like to be able to drive 100+ miles per hour. by the way, aren't certain weapons such as rocket launchers already illegal? Or is banning 14 year olds from driving, really the first step in taking away all of or motor vehicles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

GUN OWNERS or those that support the purchase and ownership of assault type/automatic guns.
Where would you draw the line on weaponry? Any gun that that military currently uses? Types of ammos? Grenades or grenade launchers? Where is the line?

---

I would draw the line at rocket/grenade launchers and belt-fed or chain guns. As far as ammo goes Im ok with the current laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by seanchai

GUN OWNERS or those that support the purchase and ownership of assault type/automatic guns.
Where would you draw the line on weaponry? Any gun that that military currently uses? Types of ammos? Grenades or grenade launchers? Where is the line?

---

Since I was in the military and proficient with everything from an old M-1 carbine to a fully automatic M-16 to a pedestal mounted 50 cal. Browning, I enjoy shooting the civilian versions of the first two. No citizen can by law own a fully automatic weapon ( there are some special exceptions...collectors, etc). I'd draw the line at a particular caliber...that would prohibit grenade launchers, etc.


Would my life be altered to the point where I couldn't survive if some weapons were banned? Obviously no. But here's several issues no one has been able to reconcile.
1. What weapons to ban fully? How big is the list?
2. What are we to make of the 2nd amendment if we start to infringe on it? The actual amendment speaks to infringement. What next.....banning racist speech ? Then looking at the Commerce Clause to force citizens to buy a particular product and calling it commerce? lol
3. If you had 100% consensus and certain styles of firearms were outlawed on say August 1, what are you going to do about the tens of millions of firearms in the hands of private citizens ? Send the ATF in to confiscate them? That happened....recall Ruby Ridge ? That's the result you're going to see. People are not going to go quietly on this.

In response to the prospect of guns being outlawed or restricted, Even Moses himself held up a firearm in his right hand and mouthed..."from my cold dead hands". Ok...it wasn't Moses, but rather Charlton Heston, but the message can't be understated. Folks are not going to give up thier firearms. I realize that's puzzling to some of you in the UK and Europe.

Convicted Felons aren't allowed to have firearms.