Gunman Opens Fire In Colorado Theater

[slonezp]

Didn't take long. My stepdaughter informed me it's going around FB the shootings were an inside job so the powers that be can ban assult rifles again. I don't know whether to laugh or worry there's a bunch of dummies out there who believe everything they read on the internet.

[Bassn Blvd]

Gun permits are up over 14% in Florida since the masacre.

[slonezp]

and background checks in CO were up 40%

[Bassn Blvd]

and background checks in CO were up 40%

Haha, LMAO.

I can't believe our government is behind this act of violence.

[Traveler2586]

Didn't take long. My stepdaughter informed me it's going around FB the shootings were an inside job so the powers that be can ban assult rifles again. I don't know whether to laugh or worry there's a bunch of dummies out there who believe everything they read on the internet.

I'll add one to the mix...

I recently read a news article where they interviewed some constitutional law professor here in Wash. D.C. who said that:

1. With the advent of National Gard to replace the militia, and the paid military, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is null and void.

2. the Supreme Court would be within it's powers to recommend that gun ownership be limited to the "arms of the day" meaning black powder single shot weapons which the authors were referring to when they wrote the amendments.

Now that would start a fight.....

[clayton86]

I'll add one to the mix...

I recently read a news article where they interviewed some constitutional law professor here in Wash. D.C. who said that:

1. With the advent of National Gard to replace the militia, and the paid military, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is null and void.

2. the Supreme Court would be within it's powers to recommend that gun ownership be limited to the "arms of the day" meaning black powder single shot weapons which the authors were referring to when they wrote the amendments.

Now that would start a fight.....

I'm in the national guard and we don't do sh...t lol

[Traveler2586]

I'm in the national guard and we don't do sh...t lol

Don't tell that to the guy's that got called up......

Your there for us when we need you, that counts for something...

[NoBassPro]

I'll add one to the mix...

I recently read a news article where they interviewed some constitutional law professor here in Wash. D.C. who said that:

1. With the advent of National Gard to replace the militia, and the paid military, the purpose of the 2nd amendment is null and void.

2. the Supreme Court would be within it's powers to recommend that gun ownership be limited to the "arms of the day" meaning black powder single shot weapons which the authors were referring to when they wrote the amendments.

Now that would start a fight.....

This is what the supreme court actually says about that second statement.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo­lous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not in­terpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

I actually like the conclusion of the majority opinion better

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amend­ment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Ironically, that was a ruling against a Wash DC law

http://www.supremeco...7pdf/07-290.pdf

[Traveler2586]

This is what the supreme court actually says about that second statement.

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivo­lous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not in­terpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

http://www.supremeco...7pdf/07-290.pdf

Yes, I've read this and find it interesting they injected "bearable" arms. I do not recall a limitation of "bearable" mentioned prior to this writing, however, I could have read over it, or just not encountered it as there is so much on this subject.

After my post I did discover this:

"In a dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said: The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers [founders/people of the day] wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”. " This may be where the law professor was coming from in his statement.

I have read that the founding Fathers were suspicious of a single government holding an army that said gov. could turn against the states, therefore they wanted the citizens to keep and bear arms as a militia to offset that threat. If I recall the writings of John Adams clearly spoke to this end, even in letters to his wife. Forgive me if I mis-speak here, it's been a while since I've dug into this subject.

[clayton86]

Don't tell that to the guy's that got called up......

Your there for us when we need you, that counts for something...

Ehh my guard unit has deployed 3 times in the last 6 years Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Kuwait in place of a 2nd Afghanistan tour though a 3rd went to Astan some here in Kuwait some in Bhrain and I think Qatar idk were spread all over the place. I'm an 11B infantryman stuck in Kuwait guarding Navy and Coast Guard NOT what I joined the infantry to do. Yeah the Guard does have a huge role but as fr as I see it we don't do **** and and I cant wait to ETS(GTFO!) 26Feb2014 maybe go active if I decide to stay military but very unlikely.

[Traveler2586]

Ehh my guard unit has deployed 3 times in the last 6 years Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Kuwait in place of a 2nd Afghanistan tour though a 3rd went to Astan some here in Kuwait some in Bhrain and I think Qatar idk were spread all over the place. I'm an 11B infantryman stuck in Kuwait guarding Navy and Coast Guard NOT what I joined the infantry to do. Yeah the Guard does have a huge role but as fr as I see it we don't do **** and and I cant wait to ETS(GTFO!) 26Feb2014 maybe go active if I decide to stay military but very unlikely.

You may think your not doing ****, but you are. Standing guard IS very boring, but at the same time VERY important and dangerous. Your the line of defense of a lot of people and the first target of an attacker.

Be thankful your not diving for cover from incoming. When I was in Baghdad at the BIAP we had a mortar round land nearby that we never heard coming, it showered us with rocks and scared the **** out of us. We were loading equipment onto a truck with a forklift at the time. We hardly had time to duck. Other than small bruises from the rocks luckily no one was hurt. Bottom line - **** can happen any place, any time.

So you are doing something, your protecting a bunch of wave-hoppers who are probably not individually armed.

Tip: never ASSUME your safe, keep aware of your surroundings at all times, on duty and off. Stay safe.

[NoBassPro]

Yes, I've read this and find it interesting they injected "bearable" arms. I do not recall a limitation of "bearable" mentioned prior to this writing, however, I could have read over it, or just not encountered it as there is so much on this subject.

After my post I did discover this:

"In a dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said: The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers [founders/people of the day] wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”. " This may be where the law professor was coming from in his statement.

The whole individual rights verse collective rights argument has been going on for quite some time. That entire opinion, both majority and dissent is entertaining to read if only because the justices tear each other apart. Both opinions are some of the most vehemently worded that I have seen.

Well, all four, actually. There are three dissenting opinions given.

[Traveler2586]

Yes, one can argue the term used in the 2nd Amendment "Bear Arms" to mean military service based on historical use of the term through the centuries back to the Latin and Greeks. The debate by its writers notwithstanding. But I rarely hear any mention of the 9th Amendment when discussing gun rights.

The Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, addresses rights of the people that are not specifically enumerated [not listed] in the Constitution.

I contend the common law right to self protection has existed from the time our ancestors climbed out of the trees and used bones to protect themselves from predators, and that necessity prevailed throughout time as technology advanced to the spear, knife, sword, gun, and so on; every culture on the planet had it's own form of tool for protection and hunting, i.e. the blowgun; the point being mankind has a right born of time in existence to protect themselves whenever and wherever necessary,,, not just inside their homes; and the 9th would cover citizen gun rights.

[NoBassPro]

Technically, that would be considered natural law, not common law. Not that it really matters, but when it comes to interpreting law, what is supposed to matter is what the wording would have meant at the time. In other words, the reason the DC professor gave for the ability to limit the scope to blackpowder rifles is what is actually used to give the right to the individual, as, at that time, the militia was pretty much everyone and they had to supply their own weapons.

[clayton86]

You may think your not doing ****, but you are. Standing guard IS very boring, but at the same time VERY important and dangerous. Your the line of defense of a lot of people and the first target of an attacker.

Be thankful your not diving for cover from incoming. When I was in Baghdad at the BIAP we had a mortar round land nearby that we never heard coming, it showered us with rocks and scared the **** out of us. We were loading equipment onto a truck with a forklift at the time. We hardly had time to duck. Other than small bruises from the rocks luckily no one was hurt. Bottom line - **** can happen any place, any time.

So you are doing something, your protecting a bunch of wave-hoppers who are probably not individually armed.

Tip: never ASSUME your safe, keep aware of your surroundings at all times, on duty and off. Stay safe.

Thanks, I know Im still doing more then what 99.5% of the rest of the country has done I just signed up for something more then this its a blessing in disguise though because I still get to talk to me kids and wife more then i would have if we ended up in Afghanistan again. I'm still actually we all are still very cognitive of whats going around no one has gotten complacent well one has but he carries a pillow and clock around everywhere lol(got caught sleeping in a tower) but I have the SOP memorized and we still catch stuff at the ECP that they try getting in or out its just dumb stuff like camera's and such not bombs and guns. They also had to re do a tower because of me speaking up saying the 240B cant traverse enough to cover the search lane or exit lane it just pointed at a ditch not any more though shes set to go if anything happens but it wont.

More on the subject of the shooting and all that's happening because of it is anyone following the case about the guy in MD who jokingly said some some things and the cops came and found a bunch of legally bought guns and ammo. Last I had read hes just being held no charges yet.

[Stasher1]

I think this argument is null and void. Two of the most dangerous cities in the country, St. Louis and Detroit both allow C&C and they are usually ranked #1&2 in the country annually for murders and aggravated assaults.

Besides, most establishments such as a theater do not allow firearms even if you are permitted to carry. And anyone that is a law abiding C&C citizen would follow rules placed on establishments. Nothing could have prevented this tragedy from happening, and someone pulling out another gun could have only made things worse with that many other people around.

One of the simple facts is that the theater this happened at has policies AGAINST concealed carry, and no law abiding citizens would have been carrying anyways.

This does nothing but show that gun control does not work.

I can't speak for the laws in CO, but here in GA, those "No Firearms" signs carry absolutely NO legal weight at all. I am legally able to carry everywhere except govt. buildings, schools, post offices, bars (unless I have the owners permission), and churches...regardless of the property owners' policies regarding weapons.

[clayton86]

I can't speak for the laws in CO, but here in GA, those "No Firearms" signs carry absolutely NO legal weight at all. I am legally able to carry everywhere except govt. buildings, schools, post offices, bars (unless I have the owners permission), and churches...regardless of the property owners' policies regarding weapons.

We were just discussing this today out at the range talking bout pistols and all that's going on basically same thing you said carry anywhere but govt buildings but I know of a church where the pastor carries a kimber compact 1911 lol so I don't know if churches are off limits.

[Stasher1]

GA's law regarding weapon carry specifically mentions churches being off-limits, but I believe there are some organizations working on changing that.

[Bassn Blvd]

I can't speak for the laws in CO, but here in GA, those "No Firearms" signs carry absolutely NO legal weight at all. I am legally able to carry everywhere except govt. buildings, schools, post offices, bars (unless I have the owners permission), and churches...regardless of the property owners' policies regarding weapons.

Don't yall have a law stating that the owner of a business has the right to REFUSE service/entry to ANYONE they want to, uless it's based on sex/race, etc. If the the tackleshop owner don't want you in his business because you are carrying, then you AINT coming in.

[Stasher1]

They can ask you to leave, but it only becomes a crime (trespass) if you refuse. Around here, though, that would be BAD idea for any outdoor-product retailer. If word got out that they were anti-gun, they'd lose the majority of their business.

[preach4bass]

I'm as pro-gun as they come, but this dosn't make sense. We have the right to bear arms, but a property owner dosn't have the right to tell you to stay off of their property if you are armed? That's an infringement on their rights as a landowner. If a resturant (for example) says "no firearms allowed" I should either abide by their rules or go eat somewhere else.

[Bassn Blvd]

They can ask you to leave, but it only becomes a crime (trespass) if you refuse. Around here, though, that would be BAD idea for any outdoor-product retailer. If word got out that they were anti-gun, they'd lose the majority of their business.

Just because a business owner doesn't want you armed while in his business doesn't make him anti-gun. I know a lot of idiots I wouldn't want to be around while they are carrying and I'm not anti-gun. I'm just anti-arshole carrying a gun. I carry everytime I leave my house.

[Bassn Blvd]

I'm as pro-gun as they come, but this dosn't make sense. We have the right to bear arms, but a property owner dosn't have the right to tell you to stay off of their property if you are armed? That's an infringement on their rights as a landowner. If a resturant (for example) says "no firearms allowed" I should either abide by their rules or go eat somewhere else.

Of course they have rights and absolutely they can keep us out, which doesn't bother me. It's his store and I'm his guest. If he doesn't want customers while armed then I'll go somewhere else. It's no different then refusing service for not wearing shoes or shirt.

[SirSnookalot]

I'm as anti gun as it comes, without a doubt I'm in the minority on this site, but on other sites and in my personal life I'm in the majority.

I worked in the inner city of of Detroit most of my life and at 1 time I did carry a pistol, glad to say never had the occasion to pull it out. With kids at home the gun was locked up, I was uncomfortable with a weapon, I got rid of it. I've been mugged 2 times, in both cases I was somewhere that I shouldn't have been, had I had half a brain I'd have no problems. The perps were on me so fast, they probably would have shot me with my own gun, that said all I got was a blade in my gut.......lol. I fish areas here in Florida that are very seedy and I fish early in the morning, all kinds of marginal characters floating around, homeless are stacked up under many of the bridges. In 9 years no one has looked at me twice.

What some else does is their business, but I don't want them around me. As far as I'm concerned there are just too many hot headed, irresponsible, untrained people walking around, IMO putting me more in harms way. If this country gets invaded, I have confidence in the army, navy, air force, coast guard, state and local police forces, much better equipped and trained than me. I don't see the need to arm myself against my own government, if I were living in Somalia I may view it differently.

As far as hunting goes, I think it's a fine activity, but how many deer are walking around wearing a flak jacket, is there a need for a 30 round clip and an automatic weapon, that's like fishing with 65# braid for a 2lb bass. A true sportsman would go the best 2 out of 3 falls in hand to hoof combat, I put my money on bambi.........lol.

[clayton86]

I'm as anti gun as it comes, without a doubt I'm in the minority on this site, but on other sites and in my personal life I'm in the majority.

I worked in the inner city of of Detroit most of my life and at 1 time I did carry a pistol, glad to say never had the occasion to pull it out. With kids at home the gun was locked up, I was uncomfortable with a weapon, I got rid of it. I've been mugged 2 times, in both cases I was somewhere that I shouldn't have been, had I had half a brain I'd have no problems. The perps were on me so fast, they probably would have shot me with my own gun, that said all I got was a blade in my gut.......lol. I fish areas here in Florida that are very seedy and I fish early in the morning, all kinds of marginal characters floating around, homeless are stacked up under many of the bridges. In 9 years no one has looked at me twice.

What some else does is their business, but I don't want them around me. As far as I'm concerned there are just too many hot headed, irresponsible, untrained people walking around, IMO putting me more in harms way. If this country gets invaded, I have confidence in the army, navy, air force, coast guard, state and local police forces, much better equipped and trained than me. I don't see the need to arm myself against my own government, if I were living in Somalia I may view it differently.

As far as hunting goes, I think it's a fine activity, but how many deer are walking around wearing a flak jacket, is there a need for a 30 round clip and an automatic weapon, that's like fishing with 65# braid for a 2lb bass. A true sportsman would go the best 2 out of 3 falls in hand to hoof combat, I put my money on bambi.........lol.

I agree with you here and I'm very pro gun. With that said I still don't think these should be illegal though where I live it is illegal however. Thats just my taste though I don't own any tactical weapons I can do more damage with my hunting rifles then any AR or AK could ever think of. I may buy one in the future but its not the top of the list the AR platform I want to build will never see more then 5 rounds loaded at once and would be to long and heavy to carry around like I'm on a swat team. Hi cap mags should be legal but not to hunt with as they are in most states and I think they should be limited to range time unless SHTF and there is a zombie Apocalypse lol. If some one owns a AR or AK and they have 30 rnd mags great take em to the range and practice learn the ins and outs of the system and how to do SPORTS when it jams. I don't think anyone needs to be carrying around full battle load outs when they carry, 1 mag in the gun and 1 reload would be more then plenty should you ever need to draw it I highly doubt your going to get into a long drawn out fire fight.