Mass Shooting At Denver Batman Movie Premiere

From what experience do you draw such knowledge of urban warfare? Sounds like you are describing a scene from Saving Private Ryan.

snood wrote:

From what experience do you draw such knowledge of urban warfare? Sounds like you are describing a scene from Saving Private Ryan.

I think we're all contributing to BilRM's sick fantasies about leading the resistance, as it would be the only thing that gave his life any meaning.

It's probably best not to encourage him.

Gun-rights arguments have their origins not in eighteenth-century Anti-Federalism but in twentieth-century liberalism. They are the product of what the Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet has called the “rights revolution,” the pursuit of rights, especially civil rights, through the courts...

In the nineteen-seventies, the N.R.A. began advancing the argument that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to carry a gun, rather than the people’s right to form armed militias to provide for the common defense. Fights over rights are effective at getting out the vote. Describing gun-safety legislation as an attack on a constitutional right gave conservatives a power at the polls that, at the time, the movement lacked. Opposing gun control was also consistent with a larger anti-regulation, libertarian, and anti-government conservative agenda...

Ronald Reagan was the first Presidential candidate whom the N.R.A. had endorsed. David Keene ran Reagan’s Southern campaign. Reagan’s election, in 1980, made it possible for conservatives to begin turning a new interpretation of the Second Amendment into law. As the legal scholar Reva B. Siegel has chronicled, Orrin Hatch became the chair of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, and commissioned a history of the Second Amendment, which resulted in a 1982 report, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” The authors of the report claimed to have discovered “clear—and long-lost—proof that the Second Amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.”...

In 1986, the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment achieved new legal authority with the passage of the Firearms Owners Protection Act, which repealed parts of the 1968 Gun Control Act by invoking “the rights of citizens . . . to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.” This interpretation was supported by a growing body of scholarship, much of it funded by the N.R.A. According to the constitutional-law scholar Carl Bogus, at least sixteen of the twenty-seven law-review articles published between 1970 and 1989 that were favorable to the N.R.A.’s interpretation of the Second Amendment were “written by lawyers who had been directly employed by or represented the N.R.A. or other gun-rights organizations.” In an interview, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said that the new interpretation of the Second Amendment was “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”...

"If you had asked, in 1968, will we have the right to do with guns in 2012 what we can do now, no one, on either side, would have believed you,” David Keene said....

Between 1968 and 2012, the idea that owning and carrying a gun is both a fundamental American freedom and an act of citizenship gained wide acceptance and, along with it, the principle that this right is absolute and cannot be compromised; gun-control legislation was diluted, defeated, overturned, or allowed to expire; the right to carry a concealed handgun became nearly ubiquitous; Stand Your Ground legislation passed in half the states; and, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5–4 decision, that the District’s 1975 Firearms Control Regulations Act was unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote, “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia.” Two years later, in another 5–4 ruling, McDonald v. Chicago, the Court extended Heller to the states....
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore#ixzz23G3NuCCr

When carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense is understood not as a failure of civil society, to be mourned, but as an act of citizenship, to be vaunted, there is little civilian life left.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/04/23/120423fa_fact_lepore#ixzz23G85PScz

Appeared to imply is not the same as imply,

but for the record, it would be better
if you all had imitation weapons, no-one would be shot,
and you could still strut about like cock of the walk.

hear ya Izzy, but I don't think this particular disturbed state responds to whether it's encouraged or not.

In sum, Holmes sent signals that he was on the edge—but once he left school, he was on his own. That is the fact at the center of this tragedy and others like it. James Holmes has far too much in common with Jared Loughner, who pleaded guilty this week to killing six people and wounding 13 more in the Arizona shooting that seriously injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Loughner also dropped out before the shootings, after he was suspended from Pima Community College for erratic outbursts. “No one in that class would even sit next to him,” one of the students in his poetry course said. Pima required Loughner to get a mental health consultation before he could come back to school. He didn’t. And so, like Holmes, he was left to his own distress and delusions. It wasn’t until after the killings that Loughner was diagnosed as schizophrenic by a court-appointed psychologist. At that point he got medication, so he could be deemed competent to stand trial. And he started showing “some understanding of his actions,” according to the psychologist. He told her he wished he’d taken medication earlier. And he expressed remorse to her, saying, "I especially cried about the child," in reference to the 9-year-old girl he killed.
This is so incredibly sad, from every vantage point—the killers’ as well as the victims’. As Dave Cullen writes in a superb analysis of the Aurora shootings, a mentally ill person who becomes violent often unravels slowly. As this frightening process unfolds, he is “typically perplexed and then distraught by the alarming thoughts ricocheting around his brain.” Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 people and wounded 25 at Virginia Tech in 2007, requested a psych evaluation as he felt himself falling into his mind’s abyss.
As far as we know, Holmes, too, voluntarily sought help from Fenton. What’s particularly terrible about the bare minimum of the facts we know—the judge in this case has imposed a blanket seal and gag order that he should soon lift—is how tantalizingly close he came to getting sustained care and to being flagged as dangerous. Closer than Loughner. Closer than Cho..
.
.
Serious mental illness can be incredibly hard to live with and to deal with. But these shootings keep telling us that we sweep it under the rug at our own peril. After a massacre like Aurora, it’s very hard to see the killer as worthy of any sort of sympathy. "They keep talking about fairness for him," a man whose sister died in the Aurora shootings told the Associated Press at Holmes’ court appearance this week. "It's like they're babying this dude." It’s an understandable reaction, but if Holmes’ lawyers are right and he is seriously ill, he won’t be coddled by the legal system. He’ll get the treatment he needed, but far too late.
After Loughner’s guilty plea, one of the survivors of his shooting spree had the compassion to point out the lack of mental health services for people like him. "We really have to be our brother's keeper here and reach out and get them help," victim Randy Gardner said. Real reform of mental health care, so that dropping out of school doesn’t mean being dropped by your therapist, would be arduous. It would offer no throb of vengeance. But it would make us safe

wearing guns is like wearing your wallet:
u just forget about it, until u need it.
Do u find that implausible, Izzy??

U choose not to address my questions??
I was hoping that we coud see
the nature of your thawt processes,
that give rise to your point of vu.

From military history books written in many cases by those who was there.

David do you think that when British government took away the firearms
from their citizens they also took the military history books away?

wearing guns is like wearing your wallet:
u just forget about it, until u need it.
Do u find that implausible, Izzy??

I use my wallet about 2-3 times a day.
Do you draw your pistol as much?
That's seems like quite a lot.

U choose not to address my questions??
I was hoping that we coud see
the nature of your thawt processes,
that give rise to your point of vu.

I didn't address your question because
I didn't say that imitation weapons were better, you just thought I implied it.

It is a view that has largely been advanced since only the 1960's.

in the fullness of sincerity & candor, it has never even occurred to me to strut, nor has any person at any gunnery-related meeting
walked in any
un-natural fashion. Hunte
rs don't do it.
Soldiers don't
do it. Police don't do
it. We
don't
do
it.

Well, I was a little taken aback
when an Englishman (was it Spendius, maybe ??)
denied that thay had borrowed small arms from us
(rifles, shotguns or handguns) as part of lend-lease in the early 1940s.

It was news to me, but I didn't deny it happened.