Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

@OmSigDAVID,

I think you'll find your ability to practice law was more dependent on certificates than firearms.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

It is high time the government set up a proper armed militia as the Constitution demands, so that the American people can begin storing military weaponry in their homes.

Militia in the founders day was form at the state and local level not the Federal government level.

0 Replies

Good thing his AR-15 clip got jammed or it could have been worse. The question is, did nobody suspect anything when he bought a 100 round mag.

How did he manage to walk into a cinema without raising suspicion? I mean he was wearing kevlar, had an assault rifle and a shot gun. I guess he must have had a coat to cover them but it would have been rather 'bulky.' There's always someone at the entrance to check for tickets. Did they think it was some sort of costume party?

4 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
Because it would violate the Constitution.

I don't believe you.

Then you are wrong, and you have very little understanding of either America or our Constitution.

Civil rights apply to ALL Americans. You don't get to violate people's civil rights in selected states.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

There is not such constitutional distinction between types of militias.

Wrong. The militia of the Constitution is always a distinct body from the standing army.

The militia of the Constitution always has their officers chosen by the states.

The militia of the Constitution does not ever serve outside US borders.

And most importantly, the militia of the Constitution always lets their militiamen keep individual weapons at home.

Any militia that does not meet those parameters, is not the militia that is referred to in the Constitution.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

The USSC was wrong in Heller.

Not really. They were wrong on minor technical matters (they really should have found the private self defense right in the Ninth Amendment). But they got the overall nature of our private self defense rights exactly right.

Now we just have to get them to extend it to carrying guns while out in public. (That should be taken care of within a couple years.)

0 Replies

@Rorschach,

Quote:

How did he manage to walk into a cinema without raising suspicion? I mean he was wearing kevlar, had an assault rifle and a shot gun. I guess he must have had a coat to cover them but it would have been rather 'bulky.' There's always someone at the entrance to check for tickets. Did they think it was some sort of costume party?

First he did not walked into the theater fully gear up he went out a back emergency exit and got back in fully gear up by keeping the door from closing completely.

There should had been a alarm on such a door but he might had even jump around the alarm.

0 Replies

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
The USSC separated them in HELLER.

That doesn't mean a damn' thing and you know it. The USSC also ruled, in the Dred Scott decision, that persons of color have no rights under the Constitution. The point is that any Supreme Court decision can be overturned by a subsequent decision reversing the Court's stand.

It is one thing to overturn a ruling that clearly contrasts with the Constitution.

You are hoping that they will overturn a ruling that complies with the Constitution, and set up a regime that intentionally violates the Constitution.

No chance whatsoever.

0 Replies

@Rorschach,

Rorschach wrote:

Good thing his AR-15 clip got jammed or it could have been worse.

Perhaps he could sue the manufacturers, I wonder if Dave would be interested in taking the case.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

flatly wrong as usual, David.

.....

"Well-regulated" clearly means what it always meant, regulation by the state.

Now that's funny. You actually accuse someone else of being wrong in the same post where you spew the most ridiculous falsehoods.

"Well regulated" was a term used to describe a militia that had trained to the degree that they could fight as a single coordinated unit, as opposed to fighting as a bunch of uncoordinated individuals.

MontereyJack wrote:

And grammarians specifically state that the two clauses are NOT separable, that the first clause clearly states what those arms were to be used for.

People who actually understand the Constitution, though, understand that they are actually independent clauses.

MontereyJack wrote:

Right wing activist judges disregard the explicit and clear language of the Constitution.

Nope. The Constitution protects our ancient right to carry guns for self defense. You may not like our civil rights, but that does not justify you pretending that they do not exist.

MontereyJack wrote:

The four dissenters in Heller were the only ones on thge court who got it as the framers intended.

Not even close. The Framers intended for our ancient right to carry guns for self defense to be protected.

And those four judges' silly yammering about "only applying to the militia" was pretty absurd, given that they forgot to provide a militia for it to "only apply to".

MontereyJack wrote:

As David Souter said, "You don't bear arms against a rabbit."

Sounds like a straw man. What does rabbit hunting have to do with self defense?

And yes, rabbit hunters do in fact bear arms against rabbits.

0 Replies

@Rorschach,

Rorschach wrote:

Good thing his AR-15 clip got jammed or it could have been worse. The question is, did nobody suspect anything when he bought a 100 round mag.

How did he manage to walk into a cinema without raising suspicion? I mean he was wearing kevlar, had an assault rifle and a shot gun. I guess he must have had a coat to cover them but it would have been rather 'bulky.' There's always someone at the entrance to check for tickets. Did they think it was some sort of costume party?

AR - 15 slung from one shoulder; shotgun from the other. Now, why would anyone notice a thing like that?

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Good on you, Mc. That's actually the whole point. Most of the laws and customs that go back to the days of the Founders (a period to which, apparently, OmSigDAVID would love to return) were enacted because of local conditions at that time. Conditions change and rules that were common-sense in the 17th and 18th centuries become very dangerously antiquated in the 20th and 21st centuries and later. To say that something is right and good just because the likes of Geroege Washington or John Adams said so is absurd. It might have been true for them. What on earth makes it applicable today?

It always amazes me when I see people argue that freedom is some antiquated concept that was good for our ancestors, but now is bad for everyone in the present.

We aren't going to be giving up our freedom, no matter how much you don't like it.

You have no chance of ever getting it past the NRA, and you have no chance of ever getting it past the Supreme Court.

2 Replies

@roger,

The dude had all the guns in his car, walked in the cinema with a normal ticket, propped open the emergency exit, went and got his guns from the car parked behind the theater, and came back in and opened fire.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@oralloy,

(1) I'm not talking about freedom here; you are. I'm talking about antiquated principles which have nothing whatever to do with freedom but, rather, with social conditions in the North American colonies obtaining in the late 18th Century (and, admittedly, beyond that time frame). Don't mix things up by bringing "freedom" into it somehow.

(2)I said nothing about not liking your so-called freedoms. It happens that I am a gun owner and don't particularly support any more gun control laws. I think we have too many already. But, please, argue from logic not from some down-in-the-gut emotional tug.

(3)Of course there is no chance of getting anything that would abridge the Second Amendment past the NRA. That's a given. The NRA (of which I've been a member on occasion; not right now) has more power in the House and Senate than the Cosa Nostra. And that's saying something. And, since you realize that this is so, Oralloy, why do you guys keep ranting about our Second Amendment freedoms being in danger? They're in no danger whatsoever. The NRA is standing guard.

1 Reply

@Rorschach,

Rorschach wrote:

The question is, did nobody suspect anything when he bought a 100 round mag.

Why would anyone suspect anything about that?

Rorschach wrote:

How did he manage to walk into a cinema without raising suspicion? I mean he was wearing kevlar, had an assault rifle and a shot gun. I guess he must have had a coat to cover them but it would have been rather 'bulky.' There's always someone at the entrance to check for tickets. Did they think it was some sort of costume party?

He entered in normal clothing, snuck out the back door of the theater and geared up, then returned through the back door (which he had wedged open).

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Lustig Andrei wrote:

(1) I'm not talking about freedom here; you are. I'm talking about antiquated principles which have nothing whatever to do with freedom but, rather, with social conditions in the North American colonies obtaining in the late 18th Century (and, admittedly, beyond that time frame). Don't mix things up by bringing "freedom" into it somehow.

It looked to me like the antiquated principles you were talking about were our rights. If that was wrong, then I apologize.

What antiquated principles are you referring to? I guess I completely misunderstand your post.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

I think we have too many already.

Just wait a couple years and we'll have a lot fewer. The next round of Second Amendment lawsuits is already ascending through the appeals process.

Lustig Andrei wrote:

And, since you realize that this is so, Oralloy, why do you guys keep ranting about our Second Amendment freedoms being in danger? They're in no danger whatsoever. The NRA is standing guard.

I'm just standing guard too.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Thank you. I was briefly considering the sanity of the ticket taker as well as his.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The question is, did nobody suspect anything when he bought a 100 round mag.

Why would anyone suspect anything about that?

Ask any British Chief Constable.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

We aren't going to be giving up our freedom, no matter how much you don't like it.

You can't even sell your tobacco crop or distilled moonshine without having the FTA jumping on you. I heard you can't even nip across the road in a gap in the traffic and have to wait until the little green man on the traffic lights says it's legal to cross the ******* road.

Freedom!! Forget it. It's a coy affectation.

2 Replies

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
We aren't going to be giving up our freedom, no matter how much you don't like it.

You can't even sell your tobacco crop or distilled moonshine without having the FTA jumping on you. I heard you can't even nip across the road in a gap in the traffic and have to wait until the little green man on the traffic lights says it's legal to cross the ******* road.

Freedom!! Forget it. It's a coy affectation.

The law book is very thick, very vague, and the people in charge of implementing it are politicians who are in the habit of pandering to the mob.

You can't get to freedom from there.

0 Replies

Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know