Colorado Shooting during the Dark Knight Rises

[GostHacked]

Why, are you planning on arming yourself to instill fear in your government?

I would be arming myself to protect myself. Do you want to be in control of your government, or would you rather have them control you?

[waldo]

My heart goes out to the family's and friends this degenerated psycho hurt.

As far as gun control goes...

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.

Its black and white folks. In the United States of America we do not ban the right to purchase/obtain, and use firearms. To do so would violate a core principle of our country.

and yet... to many 'scholars' and gun-control advocates, those words are interpreted differently, particularly when such (any) interpretations come down to emphasis relative to the placement of commas... yes, commas!

"

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

"

... the 'right' bold highlighted, with a description of the right italicized and underlined. Say what!

... a 'right' describing a regulated state-run police force of private individuals working on behalf of society and appointed by the state to protect the both of them. Hey now, are there any such national like police forces in the U.S.? I guess... the NRA has a greater comma interpreting influence - yes?

[BubberMiley]

You'd never make it on the air - only the stupid responses are aired. The whole point is to make Americans look stupid, so of course only those who give stupid answers are on the program.

I highly doubt there was anything but stupid responses.

[bleeding heart]

I mostly like Mercer but didn't like those skits because I had a similar feeling about them.

Yep. That was cheap and Canada-smug.

But his political editorializing is often really good.

[bleeding heart]

I would be arming myself to protect myself. Do you want to be in control of your government, or would you rather have them control you?

We have to be cautious of the power of big private entities as well...the elephant in the room, in terms of libertarian sentiment.

The idea that there are two single forces--public vs. government--simply doesn't cut it.

Edited July 24, 2012 by bleeding heart

[cybercoma]

My heart goes out to the family's and friends this degenerated psycho hurt.

As far as gun control goes...

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.

Its black and white folks. In the United States of America we do not ban the right to purchase/obtain, and use firearms. To do so would violate a core principle of our country.

If you belong to a militia that can be called up to active duty. You know what's synonymous with militia as its written there? The Reserves.

[cybercoma]

You'd never make it on the air - only the stupid responses are aired. The whole point is to make Americans look stupid, so of course only those who give stupid answers are on the program.

Kind of like Jay Walking, eh?

[Wilber]

I would be arming myself to protect myself. Do you want to be in control of your government, or would you rather have them control you?

We've been there and done that. Parliament settled with the King in 1649. The King lost his head. Parliament won with a better trained, better led army, not a bunch of rubes with rifles. Now we have elections.

Edited July 24, 2012 by Wilber

[BubberMiley]

Where does the NRA stand on young muslim men interested in acquiring nuclear arms?

[GostHacked]

We've been there and done that. Parliament settled with the King in 1649. The King lost his head. Parliament won with a better trained, better led army, not a bunch of rubes with rifles. Now we have elections.

That was over 100 years ago. Things have changed recently and I cannot say it is for the better. The time may come again where the well armed citizens will need to make a correction in how government operates.

Elections? That's pretty funny.

[jbg]

You'd never make it on the air - only the stupid responses are aired. The whole point is to make Americans look stupid, so of course only those who give stupid answers are on the program.

In this day and age I could voice-clip it on my iPhone 4s and post it somewhere. Or maybe even video it.

[BubberMiley]

In this day and age I could voice-clip it on my iPhone 4s and post it somewhere. Or maybe even video it.

You should. That would show that Mercer not everyone has a sense of humour.

[bleeding heart]

That was over 100 years ago. Things have changed recently and I cannot say it is for the better. The time may come again where the well armed citizens will need to make a correction in how government operates.

It won't happn, though right-wing militias fantasize about it (probably want it to occur) because they're little boys playing games in their minds.

But the fact is that a well-armed citizenry will not be able to fight the much-better armed machinery of government. You might kill the first two agents who show up at your door...but the second group will ensure that you (and your family) are detained or in body bags.

Besides, guns aside, the American public, like democratic publics generally, are extremely obedient and statist. They applaud the Surveillance State--the majority do so. They hate whistleblowers like wikileaks. They believe there is genuinely such a thing as a "war on terror."

They love powerful people.

They are not individualist rebels. At all. That's a self-serving fantasy.

Edited July 24, 2012 by bleeding heart

[GostHacked]

It won't happn, though right-wing militias fantasize about it (probably want it to occur) because they're little boys playing games in their minds.

If you have ever met some of the Oath Keepers, you will know they are not playing games.

But the fact is that a well-armed citizenry will not be able to fight the much-better armed machinery of government. You might kill the first two agnets that show up at your door...but the second group will ensure that you (and your family) are detained or in body bags.

Afghanistan and Iraq prove you wrong. It's called Guerrilla warfare.

Ever wonder why the police forces are getting militarized? What for? Are they expecting something big down the road? Why would 30,000 UAV drones need to be deployed in the continental USA?

Why is one border is very open (Mexico USA) while the other is getting tigher (Canada USA)?

Besides, guns aside, the American public, like democratic publics generally, are extremely obedient and statist. They applaud the Surveillance State--the majority do so. They hate whistleblowers like wikileaks. They bel;ieve there is genuinely such a thing as a "war on terror."

they love their government.

And that is exactly why these militias are not playing games here.

[bleeding heart]

If you have ever met some of the Oath Keepers, you will know they are not playing games.

Most militias are not the Oathkeepers.

Afghanistan and Iraq prove you wrong. It's called Guerrilla warfare.

That was against a foreign invader....and after decades on intrnal dictatorship.... and complicated by sectarian strife and terrorism.

I"m not saying things couldn't go violently bad, in the US, Canada, or anywehere else.

I'm disputing the self-serving, childish fanatsy, cribbed from action movies asnd defined by a narrow and self-aggrandizing view of history, that freedom-lovers, perhaps led by teen-girl diddler Ted Nugent, are going to rise up and overthrow the governemnt by force of arms.

Ever wonder why the police forces are getting militarized? What for? Are they expecting something big down the road? Why would 30,000 UAV drones need to be deployed in the continental USA?

I think they're more worried about sloppy, unorganized leftist uprisings than militia overthrows of the government!

And that is exactly why these militias are not playing games here.

They're weak, they're reactionary, they're statist, they're obedient (to government!), and they're stupid.

The rest of America has little cause to be concerned about them. The government certainly isn't, beyond a mild irritant.

[Guest American Woman]

In this day and age I could voice-clip it on my iPhone 4s and post it somewhere. Or maybe even video it.

Except Mercer doesn't do the "Talking to Americans" segment any more - he dropped it after the 9-11 attacks. Apparently it wasn't as funny to make fun of Americans after that.

[msj]

Bzzzzt. Time's up.

Unsurprisingly no one has really provided much in the way of answers to my questions so I will provide my own:

What type of gun regulations does Colorado have?

It appears that the movie theatre itself had a ban on concealed carry permit holders.

Yeah, how'd that work out.

Next level - municipal.

Aurora disallows having a concealed carry "dangerous weapon"

So no one inside the theatre should have had a gun in there either.

How'd that work out?

State level: No assault weapons ban, no magazine restrictions, no permit required to purchase a handgun.

Overall, Colorado is ranked in the middle for gun regulations.

See link for above info.

I mean, why did this guy manage to injure 71 people in all, with 12 fatalities?

Um, duh, he had an automatic assault rifle. The AR-15 which can fire pretty fast.

Thankfully, it jammed.

If not for that, more people would be dead.

Would not someone else have had a gun to take him down?

Or is real life a little too much like this video: I hate Glocks?

I'm not being cheeky here - I am actually curious as to why creeps like this seem to manage to be at the right place at the right time (from the creep's POV).

Ok, I was being a bit cheeky.

Assuming someone else violated the theater's and Aurora's rules/laws (but surely only a crazed psycho killer would do that, I'm sure ) it is unlikely someone else would have been successful taking Holmes out.

Holmes was wearing body armor and a head shot would have been difficult given that tear gas was being used and the chaos would likely have required someone with a gun, military training, a gas mask, and perhaps also a charming psychotic disorder as to be able to remain calm in such circumstances.

[Wilber]

That was over 100 years ago. Things have changed recently and I cannot say it is for the better. The time may come again where the well armed citizens will need to make a correction in how government operates.

Elections? That's pretty funny.

It was almost 400 years ago. A lot of governments have come and gone since then and I bet a lot of them have had doom and gloom critics like you. If fact we enjoy one of the most stable political systems in history.

Yes, Elections. You prefer guns?

[Guest American Woman]

It was almost 400 years ago. A lot of governments have come and gone since then and I bet a lot of them have had doom and gloom critics like you. If fact we enjoy one of the most stable political systems in history.

Yes, Elections. You prefer guns?

The idea isn't guns instead of elections - after all, the U.S. has a history of the right to bear arms AND elections (and notice that the Supreme Court settled the 2000 POTUS election controversy as Americans didn't take to the street with guns) - but rather as citizen protection should the government decide to deny the population elections, et al. If only the military is armed, the population is at their mercy.

As a side note, 400 years of stability, in the history of time, is no guarantee of endless stability by any means.

Edited July 24, 2012 by American Woman

[Shady]

That was over 100 years ago. Things have changed recently and I cannot say it is for the better. The time may come again where the well armed citizens will need to make a correction in how government operates.

Elections? That's pretty funny.

I have to agree with GH on this one.

[Bryan]

The RCMP say over 70% smuggled into the country………..So ban private ownership to prevent the possibility of the gun being stolen? I’ve got a better idea, why not just ban stealing?

These aren't binary choices. The local supply of guns needs to be removed AND smuggling needs to be stopped. Stealing already is banned, it just needs to be enforced.

[Bryan]

I strongly suspect that he did interview knowledgeable Americans....and, well, left those parts on the editing room floor.

Yes, both of them were left out in the editing.

[Wilber]

The idea isn't guns instead of elections - after all, the U.S. has a history of the right to bear arms AND elections (and notice that the Supreme Court settled the 2000 POTUS election controversy as Americans didn't take to the street with guns) - but rather as citizen protection should the government decide to deny the population elections, et al. If only the military is armed, the population is at their mercy.

As a side note, 400 years of stability, in the history of time, is no guarantee of endless stability by any means.

There are no guarantees of anything but is your military the government's or the people's. Would it make war on its own citizens. If so, we are no better than Syria.

If your government decided not to hold elections and the military supported it, I doubt there would be elections. Our military wouldn't be strong enough to enforce that. We have no regular army units west of the Rockies and I doubt reservists in particular would be very happy about shooting their neighbours.

[msj]

I am reminded of this editorial cartoon:

Second Amendment Scoreboard

[BubberMiley]

Since the constitution was written before automatic weapons existed, how is it determined which weapons are covered under the right to bear arms and which aren't? Why doesn't the NRA fight for the right to drive around in a tank?