Has the NRA made a statement as of yet? I'd like to see them get on the front side of this.

 

 

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I am hoping that the NRA has the good sense not to tread on the backs of the victims of this heinous crime, for political gain. That is a strategy best left to the opposition. It just shows them up for the ghouls they are.

 

JMHO

 

Adios,

 

Pizza Bob

and how do you know he didnt specifically choose THAT particular theater because of their 'gun free zones'?

 

If that were true, it would never make it to the media.

his ar jammed. Kinda a blessing in the outcome of this story

 

And do what, Nosy Nellie? What are you going to do when you meet people you don't approve of or make you nervous? Call Janet Napolitano?

 

So you are against neighborhood watch and face to face conversations to vet applicants.

 

Are you against stop and frisk because of the profiling?

 

You fear your fellow gun owners that much?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that were true, it would never make it to the media.

 

nothing pro-gun will ever make it to the media, regardless of the truth

his ar jammed. Kinda a blessing in the outcome of this story

 

i highly, highly doubt it actually jammed. he probably just ran out of ammo, and the media is spinning it in every conceivable anti-gun way possible

Are you against stop and frisk because of the profiling?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Yes. Wait, you aren't against stop and frisk?

 

 

i highly, highly doubt it actually jammed. he probably just ran out of ammo, and the media is spinning it in every conceivable anti-gun way possible

 

How does that spin it in an anti-gun way?

So apparently there blaming it on Rap music now, something about a lil wayne song.

Mute your computer,lol.

i highly, highly doubt it actually jammed. he probably just ran out of ammo, and the media is spinning it in every conceivable anti-gun way possible

 

I've been off for the past 6 days. I've been watching the news non-stop.

 

FOX News interviewed a member of the local LE. For what it's worth, the official said that, upon inspection, the AR type weapon that the suspect left behind had clearly jammed.

 

Look at the photo - sure looks like a surplus USGI mag. How much you wanna bet it even has a black follower, LOL!!

 

As far as a CCW capping this guy, it's not that for out. Holmes' situational wareness would have been drastically affected by the promask and helmet. His peripheral vision would have been substantially reduced. I wonder if he had any ear pro in/on?

 

I've also seen reports that he was wearing a tac vest - not armor. Perhaps he was actually wearing both though.

 

Armor isn't cheap.

why do you think crime is so high in camden, newark, paterson, etc. because the criminals know the populace isnt armed.

 

I recently read that 80% of Newark murder VICTIMS in the last year have been arrested at least ten times in their life. Yes there are bystanders killed and innocents hurt, but the vast majority of crime is over drug deals, gambling debts, gang rivalry, turf wars, etc. these are scumbags killing scumbags.

 

The murder rates in these urban centers, especially in Newark, is not a matter of criminals en masse saying "oh wow, this state has no CCW let's go kill" in most instances these people know virtually nothing of politics nor do they care. They're uneducated street thugs, remember? The murders are directly tied to criminal activity which centers around - as always - drugs and poverty.

CCW would have stopped it and maybe would have prevented it.

 

Likely there were several people in the theatre who were carrying concealed, but were gripped with fear and unable to do anything, and instead fled the scene. Distracted by a loud action sequence in a movie theatre, in the dark, taken by surprise to the sound of rifle fire and the sight of smoke, is not the type of situation most people can handle. Someone with military, police, or other extensive training, yes. But average Joe gun owner who has a permit and hits the range now and then, I don't think so.

 

Yes, the theatre has a no guns policy, but it doesn't take much following of non-NJ gun forums to see that many, many people in CCW states don't care much about "no guns" signs and hold a "tried by twelve" kinda mentality.

 

Once again, if the theatre has metal detectors I stand corrected. But in Colorado, I doubt there's ever a crowd of 300 people and at least a few of them are CCW, whether the venue allows it or not.

Are you against stop and frisk because of the profiling?

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Really? Please don't tell me you are okay with stop and frisk.

bulpup, on 22 July 2012 - 10:22 PM, said:

 

Are you against stop and frisk because of the profiling?

 

 

Really? Please don't tell me you are okay with stop and frisk.

 

 

 

The question is a complete sentence asked to a specific person in a specific context.

 

 

Really? Please don't tell me you are okay with stop and frisk.

 

That's a whole other thread. Used in the proper context I am all for stop and frisk.

From what I have read the theater has a no guns policy. If its true I would take a guess that it played a role on why the guy picked that theater. People who carry I would guess take on the responsibility to follow the rules legal and civil. I'm not going to nor would I carry a firearm where it is not allowed. I would go somewhere that allows it.

I hope the shooter or his attorney makes a statement claiming that that is why he targeted this theater.

 

 

Sent from my DROID4

I hope the shooter or his attorney makes a statement claiming that that ia why he targeted this theater.

 

Sent from my DROID4

 

The shooter and his attorney are going to say nothing of the sort. The only defense will be mentally incompetent. It is the only defense they can mount. It will be up to the jury then.

The promo I just heard on 101.5 says that Dominsky and Doyle will be tackling the Aurora shooting, addressing "Lautenmummy's (yes, that's what THEY referred to him as)" latest anti-2A proposals.

Click HERE to listen online.

Regardless of one's opinion on Gov. Christie and his anti-reciprocity to carry stance, I believe it took a large pair of stones to come out with these statements:

 

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/christie_says_nj_has_enough_gu.html

WHAT? I think i just saw a pig flying out side... i just gained a little respect for Christie.

I think i just saw a pig flying out side.

 

Nope. It was just Christie.

 

I'm sorry. I had to before someone else did. I'm allowed. I'm really fat.

While I agree with the Governor on saying that some of these opportunistic politicians need to STFU... He also said:

 

"I believe that each state should have the right to make firearms laws as they see fit," Christie said during the campaign. "I don't believe it's right for the federal government to get into the middle of this and decide firearms laws for the people of the state of New Jersey."

 

So in effect he's saying that each state should have the right to ignore the US Constitution and tell you what you can and cannot do, regarding firearms. I don't agree with that!

He also said that NJ has enough firearm laws and that we do really well with them.

 

Don't agree with that.

Christ! At least the guy didn't throw in with the rest of the feckless politicians coming out on this issue. Be thankful for even the small favors.

Yes, the theatre has a no guns policy, but it doesn't take much following of non-NJ gun forums to see that many, many people in CCW states don't care much about "no guns" signs and hold a "tried by twelve" kinda mentality.

 

Once again, if the theatre has metal detectors I stand corrected. But in Colorado, I doubt there's ever a crowd of 300 people and at least a few of them are CCW, whether the venue allows it or not.

 

It seems that No Gun policies can be legally enforceable under two scenarios.

 

In the first common way you are only trespassing if you do not leave once you are asked to leave.

 

In the second more stringent scenario you are legally culpable for trespassing if you merely ignore a No Guns sign.

 

I believe that it is much more common for people that CC to carry despite No Gun policies under the first legal scenario than the second. I believe that most take their money elsewhere rather than carry under the second scenario, at least that's the feeling I get from the forums.

 

It seems that Colorado state law follows the first scenario. However Aurora has a local law that follows the second scenario, particularly (a) below:

 

Sec. 94-152. - Firearms on private property.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, carrying a firearm, to enter or remain upon any
private property of another or any building or property of a commercial establishment
when such property, building, or establishment is posted with notification that the
carrying of firearms is prohibited.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person, carrying a firearm, to remain upon any private
property of another or any building or property of a commercial establishment after such
person has been given verbal notice that the carrying of firearms is prohibited on such
property, building, or establishment.

© Possession of a permit issued pursuant to C.R.S. 18-12-105.1, as it existed prior to
repeal, or possession of a permit or temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to pt. 2
of art. 18 of tit. 9 of the Colorado Revised Statutes shall be no defense to a violation
of this section.

 

It also seems that Colorado state law cannot be preempted by local ordinance. So it's not very straightforward.

 

I copy/pasted the law from the beginning of this thread: http://forum.opencar...pons-quot-signs

This story was in the back of the newspaper today.

 

Another nutjob running loose in a “safe place”.

 

 

http://world.time.com/2012/07/21/trying-to-forget- breivik-one-year-after-the-norway-massacre/?iid=gs-main-lede

 

 

So you are against neighborhood watch and face to face conversations to vet applicants.

 

Are you against stop and frisk because of the profiling?

 

I'm against what he said. Calling the cops when somebody acts strange BECAUSE you know they own or are interested in firearms.

 

That is suspicion about firearms ownership. That is bother and sister, hand in hand, with the proposal that only certain people should possess firearms, and they are only the people that meet with your approval.

 

If he considered firearms ownership normal, or a right, then he would call the cops on everybody that acted strange. Not simply everybody that acted strange and might own a firearm.

 

You fear your fellow gun owners that much?

 

No. I'm going to take a wild guess that you are not my "fellow" anything, and I'm also not calling the cops on you simply because I find you odd.

I'm against what he said. Calling the cops when somebody acts strange BECAUSE you know they own or are interested in firearms.

That is suspicion about firearms ownership. That is bother and sister, hand in hand, with the proposal that only certain people should possess firearms, and they are only the people that meet with your approval.

If he considered firearms ownership normal, or a right, then he would call the cops on everybody that acted strange. Not simply everybody that acted strange and might own a firearm.

No. I'm going to take a wild guess that you are not my "fellow" anything, and I'm also not calling the cops on you simply because I find you odd.

 

 

One of the last times Loughner and Tierney saw each other, a mutual friend had recently purchased a .22-caliber rifle. Until then, Loughner had never shown much interest in guns, Tierney says. "My friend had just gotten a .22, and Jared kept saying we should go shooting together." But Tierney and the friend who had bought the .22 demurred. "We were sketched out," Tierney says, "and we were like, 'I don't think Jared's a good person to go shooting with.'" That was in February or March 2010. After that, Tierney didn't hear much from Loughner.

 

Since hearing of the rampage, Tierney has been trying to figure out why Loughner did what he allegedly did. "More chaos, maybe," he says. "I think the reason he did it was mainly to just promote chaos. He wanted the media to freak out about this whole thing. He wanted exactly what's happening. He wants all of that." Tierney thinks that Loughner's mindset was like the Joker in the most recent Batman movie: "He fucks things up to fugg shit up, there's no rhyme or reason, he wants to watch the world burn. He probably wanted to take everyone out of their monotonous lives: 'Another Saturday, going to go get groceries'—to take people out of these norms that he thought society had trapped us in."

 

http://www.motherjon...-message?page=2

 

Grow up, grow some.