July 20, 2012 – Daily Brief

Looks like you just started that debate right here, right now. Well, I have to say that I am pro 2nd Amendment, but I am also not happy that assualt weapons are available to the general public either. Maybe someone could explain why it’s essential?

And before we start screaming for new laws and restrictions, let’s make sure our current laws are being enforced.

And before we start screaming for new laws and restrictions, let’s make sure our current laws are being enforced. Are we talking about guns or immigration? Just sayin’…

I was only thinking about criminal laws.

Being here illegally is not a criminal offense?

What does this have to do with the shooting in Colorado?

Spineflower: If you read the U.S. District Court judge’s opinion in the Arizona “papers please case”, the judge makes a specific finding of law that it isn’t illegal to work here without a Green Card or work visa, and it isn’t illegal to be here without INS approval, as long as one has not been previously deported. The judge wrote a long blathering point on the “It’s not illegal to be illegal” issue. Fixing that stupidity is certainly something the Republicans in Congress should tackle.

So if he made a home made bomb and used that device to inflict the death and destruction what then? When arms are controlled that does not stop the bad guys from getting them.

Interesting. From 1978 until 1996 Ted Kaczynski killed 3 people and wounded 23 with his homemade bombs. During the same time period hundreds of thousands of people were killed with firearms. Your argument is because people can use homemade bombs to kill people we shouldn’t seek to end gun violence. Because guys like Ted Kaczynski kill a few people every year with homemade bombs we shouldn’t try to stop gun violence which kills hundreds of thousands every year? Interesting argument.

Yes, and on 9/11 3000 of your fellow citizens were killed without a single shot being fired. So I’ll ask again, can you describe for me the law that would have prevented this from happening?

If you read the Supreme Court’s majority opinion striking down the District of Columbia’s “absolutely no hand guns allowed” law, the Court was crystal clear that it would be a very uphill battle to get the majority of this Court to support much, if any, gun or ammunition control. Specifically, in that opinion the Court shot down pro-gun-control lawyers and pundits arguments that the Second Amendment only protects a state’s right to have a militia, so most of the pro-gun control people blathering on TV today are wasting their breath and viewers’ airtime, because once the Supreme Court has decided a key case, such as the District of Columbia gun ban case, the “losing side’s arguments” are flushed down the toilet forever. As Justice Scalia said in his recent interview, he is a Constitutional literalist, in effect saying “shall not be abridged” means exactly what it says. Then there’s the entertaining question of whether sophisticated weapons are “arms”. What about canons? George Washington’s army stole as many canons as they could from the British, as well as buying them from “French smugglers” and making their own. I don’t think it’s going to happen, but I’d love to see a Justice Scalia opinion on the meaning of the term “arms”. In his interview on CNN, Justice Scalia said he likes to think he understand what the Framers of the Constitution were thinking, and decide Constitutional questions on that basis. Just like Hilary used to imagine talking to Eleanor Roosevelt.

So…. what is your preference? Ban all guns and ammo…. or…. ?

“As Justice Scalia said in his recent interview, he is a Constitutional literalist, in effect saying “shall not be abridged” means exactly what it says.” The most advanced weapon of that period was the flintlock musket, so per the reasoning of Justice Scalia that is what the Framers intended to protect. Only through a “living, breathing document” can you extend 2nd Amendment protections to automatic and semi-automatic weapons.

Having a “living, breathing” constitution could wreak further havoc upon our Republic… as it stands, left wingers are doing a pretty good job tearing down America.

The assault rifle used in this attack was purchased legally (along with the other weapons). Perhaps an assault weapons ban would have saved a few lives and/or resulted in fewer injured.

That’s the thing Scott… that guy had booby trap devices/bombs in his apartment so clearly he was bound and determined to bring devastation to his community one way or another. Plus, he was prepared with backup weapons to insure a successful attack. I’m not crazy about assault rifles in the public sector but bad guys are gonna do what they’re gonna do.

Obviously it brought out at least one of the pro-more-gun-control crowd. Can you describe for me the law that would have prevented this from happening?

Prevent? No. Reduce casualties? Most likely, yes.

So where’s the law Capt Gene asked for?

Did you not read the first two words of my post?

Wasn’t Capt Gene asking about existing laws? Moreover, do you really think Obama and his fellow left wingers are willing to take on gun control? I think not… it appears that they are chickening out, eh.

Assault weapons bans are issued at the state level. Colorado doesn’t have one. Why wouldn’t a state issue an assault weapons ban? What is the reasoning for ordinary citizens to have access to assault weapons?

This person was able to legally buy an assault weapon, a high capacity drum capable of firing 50 rounds a minute and 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the internet. Make all of that illegal.

All left wingers have to do is convince Obama, Harry Weed & Nanny Nancy to pass a bill. Good luck having them even talk about such a bill… they’re pretty much spineless,

If a couple of the moviegoers were armed, that most likely would have reduced casualties too. If the crazy person wasn’t assured that he was a theater full of unarmed innocents, he may never have done what he did.

1) we don’t know if any filmgoers were armed or not 2) if a filmgoer was armed and tried to stop him, we don’t know if there wouldn’t be any casualties from the heroics. It was chaos, by all accounts

We also don’t know if the same guy that ignored the law about killing people would have cared about a law that banned assualt weapons. You don’t think a ban on assualt weapons makes assualt weapons magically disappear, do you?

So there’s no reason to keep assault weapons legal, then? we we can agree on that?

Capt Gene by that logic nothing should be illegal if some people break the law. Do speed limits magically make speeding go away? No, some people still speed. Yet we still have speed limits. Why? Because most people do follow the law. This guy did not break the law in ordering the guns. There’s every reason to believe if he couldn’t legally buy an assault weapon who wouldn’t have bought one.

You’ve got to be kidding. He broke countless laws before he killed one person, but you think one more would have stopped him? Really? I still wait to hear the what law would have prevented this.

Venturan, I’ll agree that there’s no reason to keep assualt weapons legal if you agree that it would be little more than feel-good legislation that only law abiding citizens would respect. Fair enough?

I believe an assault weapons ban would give law enforcement one more tool to take down bad guys. It’s illegal to cheat on your taxes, and many do it… but it’s how we ultimately took down Al Capone. Anyhow, you haven’t answered my previous question. Can you name one reason why assault weapons should be legal?

Capt. Gene. According the news everything he had with him that day was purchased legally in the state of Colorado. What laws did he break?

Information is hard to come by, but I suspect the way he had his apartment rigged by be frowned on by the law enforcment community. Pretty sure he did that before friday night. Do you believe that if it was illegal for him to purchase those guns that this wouldn’t have happened?

On one hand, you do have career criminals with ties to the underworld, who need to purchase any gun illegally, or people immersed in the world of guns to the extent that they would know how to obtain illegal weapons and terrorists. It’s doubtful that if such a person were determined to shoot lots of people that any sort of gun control would affect how many people they would kill. On the other hand, you have mentally disturbed people, acting on their own, outside of the system, using what is readily available to them. The shooter in Arizona comes to mind, and to some extent we see shades of this here, at least as it concerns his firearms. In both cases, they had incredibly easy access to weapons that were capable of firing off so many rounds in a short period of time. Absent an argument in favor of a citizen’s necessity to have such capability, I don’t see why it should be legal for these kids of guns and clips and modifications to be so easy to obtain. It’s hard to say if he would have sought to obtain a gun like that on the black market, or if he would even know where to look, or how to look without alerting the ATF. But with a different gun, we know that far fewer people would have been shot in that theater. On the flip side, both gun ownership and gun violence is way down from 20 years ago. I’m concerned that these mass killings are going to worse and worse as time goes on, but on the whole, we should remember that we’re making steady progress against crime. I would like to see California-style restrictions nationwide, but I don’t think we need anything beyond that.

Capt Gene I believe a couple of things. If he bought these things illegally there is a chance that could have been discovered before the tragedy and the whole thing averted. If you had to register the purchase of 6000 rounds of ammunition perhaps that would have triggered something. He might well have wanted to stay within the law prior to going to the theater so as not to be arrested before. Were you to make all the changes I suggest he could still have legally gone in with say two handguns with 6-8 bullets each. He still could have killed people, but far far fewer would likely have been killed and injured. Again I would say if you follow your logic, which is not to make something illegal if people are going to break the law and do it anyway, then nothing would be illegal.

Just two handguns, you believe that would have lowered the body count? Two words: Virginia Tech. One kid with 2 pistols (.22 and 9mm) kills 32, wounds 17. Unless you believe there should be a law limiting the amount of ammo someone should be allowed to take to a mass murder. As for your belief that a person with criminal intent is going to remain within the law when planning his crime, and only break the law when he commits his chosen crime defies logic. As if a mass murderer says “well, I’m happy to kill innocents, but buy a gun or ammo illegally? Are you nuts?” By definition these are outlaws; the law doesn’t matter to them. Now, to be clear, I don’t care if “assault weapons” are banned or not, I believe that it’s just a piece of feel good legislation that isn’t going to do any good.

Capt Gene Virginia Tech isn’t remotely comparable. He had two semi-automatic hand guns with 15 round magazines and was left alone for hours after the first shooting to kill people and reload his gun. In Aurora he was able to shoot 70 people in a matter of minutes. Now imagine the Aurora guy had two non semi-automatic guns with magazines of 6 or 8. Remember Gabby Giffords shooter was brought down while he was reloading.

You’re missing the point. If a nutjob like the guy in CO wants to kill people your attempt at limiting his access to arms and ammo may make you feel like your doing some good, but he will find a way around it. It’s naive to think that just because there is a law it’s going to dissuade a criminal from breaking it. Look at the two guys from the NoHo shootout. Not only did they have an AR-15 and a couple of AKs (illegal in CA since 89) they converted them to full automatic (I believe that’s a Federal offense). Using your logic the law should have been sufficient to keep those weapons out of their hands. How can it be that these criminals would have so little respect for the law?

Capt Gene if that were true then why didn’t he go in with an illegal fully automatic weapon?

That’s a question you should answer; you seem to think you know which laws a mass murderer will and won’t break. So if you were to be able to wave a magic wand and pass a law that restricted gun owners to the weapons of the Civil War, what would the penalty be for those that break it?

Exactly. You don’t know why, but we do know he had the option to buy and use an even more powerful weapon that was illegal to own and could only be obtained illegally, and he chose not to buy it or use it. He chose instead weapons and ammunition he could buy legally. We pass laws to restrict behavior we decide is destructive to society at large. We don’t expect that no one will ever break a law, we expect that most people will follow them, we expect that illegal behavior will be harded to engage in, and we expect to find and punish people who break the law. Criminals are arrested all the time for attempting to buy illegal weapons and put in jail before using them. What we do know is the guy in Aurora had the option to buy more powerful illegal weapons and decided not to. If high capacity magazines and semi automatic assault rifles were illegal might he have stayed away from them too? Maybe. If he tried to buy the guns illegally might he have been caught before shooting up the theater? Maybe. If he had stayed with legal handguns and low capacity magazines would dozens of people not been shot? Most likely. It’s certainly the right steps to take.

You are free to believe that the same guy that was willing to face the death penalty for murder would have thought twice about prison time for purchasing illegal weapons.

Jim: Having raised five children and had at least temporary responsibility caring for three grandchildren (so far) I have always felt that an adult should be IN the pool with the small children until they have demonstrated that they are competent swimmers. Even now when I take our 8 year old grandson to the pool (he is an excellent swimmer) if I fail to hear his “chatter” I will immediately scan the pool to locate him.

We were the same and always remained alert when our young-uns were around the pool. It was my assumption all parents were this way. That’s why I’m flabergasted that 90 children in the U.S. drowned in the last 8 weeks, about 11 kids a week? I know it’s a big country, but still.

Besides the gunman who killed 12 and wounded 50 you mean?

A sensible gun owner/carrier would not fire into a crowded, dark theatre for fear of “friendly fire” casualties that might be worse than the criminal’s actions.

One sensible gun carrying citizen could have saved lives. Think about it…

We don’t know yet. We don’t know whether anyone returned fire, or if anyone was armed and didn’t or couldn’t. Consider the smoke bombs, combined noise of the shooting/panic/movie, the premeditated nature of it all, the darkness of the theater and the reports that the shooter was wearing body armor, we can’t conclude that anyone could have reasonably stopped him, nor that anyone didn’t. On the other hand, there may have been people who would have had a clear shot if they were carrying, responsible and experienced. We’ll have to wait and see.

Petz, I heard that movie theater is located in a “Gun Free Zone”. Go figure…

When that one person loses it and does something horrible, at a minimum, is it unreasonable to make it more difficult to obtain weapons that allow them to kill so many people so quickly?

Uhhhh, so you want to abolish the 2nd Amendment? Where do you draw the line… just curious.

If the guns were obtained in viloation of current laws, wouldn’t it be more appropriate just to enforce the current laws. Adding another law that will not be enforced seems to a useless endeavor (often followed by politicans trying to curry favor).

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/31290679/detail.html reports say: purchased legally

…. and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said that the shootings were a result of “ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs” . Hooray~ go you! dumb a$$ politicians

Louie is one of Michelle Bachman’s pack of idiots. Are you surprised?

not surprised. Just sad. Sad that these slobs~ right or left~ take something like this and immediately twist it to work their own agendas.

I cite a line from “The Closer” from a detective working a serial killer case where the murderer wore ninja clothing. “We don’t know who the killer is but I can guarantee it is an 18-35 year old white male with self esteem issues that are COMPLETELY justified .”

Fort Hood…. hello.

Once again Tim puts someone in the box he’s decided they belong in so he can smugly dismiss them.

Extremist from all sides come out… this guy says that the attack on Judeo-Christian beliefs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/under-god/post/texas-rep-gohmert-on-aurora-shooting-weve-told-god-we-dont-want-him-around/2012/07/20/gJQAzabRyW_blog.html

And by the way, did Obama give a sympathy speech and take a moment of silence for our military personnel killed at Fort Hood by that Muslim soldier? I don’t think so…

Bill: He spoke at the Memorial Service. Please…..

Did he speak out and offer a prayer the day that it happened?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUCOoatudP4

This is a different subject. What I was saying is many politician regardless of party takes a tragedy like this and tries to make some point on how if people just did what they believe it could have been avoided. A foolish sediment as this was the act of a deranged sociopath… unfortunately these lone wolfs are nearly impossible to stop as most are committed by people how are not on the authorites radar.

There’s you first problem…. CNN. Expalins a lot.

Tim, From your many posting you seem like a pretty reasonable and informed Father and Grandfather. But, to allow a 17 yr old to return from a movie that probably ended before 2 am at 7:30 am seems a little irresponsible. To quote the old saying “Nothing good happens after midnight” What was he doing for 5 hours in the middle of the night? Maybe he is extremely responsible and this is un warranted concern. I certainly argued with my then teenager over what was a reasonable time to come home after movies. Just a thought from possibly an over protective parent here.

Jim, take another look. Tim was up at 4:30, not 7:30. Movie would have finished, all in, close to 3. (153 minutes, plus previews)

Misread Tim’s posting. My apologies.

If you can’t trust your 17 year old to attend and return from a midnight showing in the City of Santa Clarita, then your mistakes happened years ago before they could actually get into trouble. Kids don’t turn 18 and magically become responsible adults. Trust should be doled out in palatable amounts as they approach “legality” so that, when the moment passes, they can take the handoff without fanfare. Kid Resume: 29, 27 & 20

Tell that to the City. From SCVSheriff.com: “The curfew, which applies to those 17 years old and younger, makes it unlawful for any minor to remain upon any public street, public building, place of amusement or eating place, vacant lot, or unsupervised place between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.” I hope Myers Jr was in the company of an adult I

Santa Clarita has the most restrictive minor curfew ordinance of any municipality in the free world. Seriously.

If you continue to read while you walk down stairs, your Nebraska bride might want to consider having an ambulance standing by.

Best suggestion yet.

Petz, I’m gonna take your advice. Have a nice afternoon, everyone. Be thankful for who you have.

One report I saw detailed a 4-month-old having been taken to the hospital from inhaling the pepper gas. Sorry, no, but I’ve got an 8-month-old, and for damned sure, I’m not taking her to a midnight movie… let alone a 4-month-old. But thats not really here nor there today, is it?

I happen to have three month old this very second. I haven’t taken him to a movie, because it sounds like a big hassle, but if I did, it would be with the hope that he would sleep through it. This would be true of a midnight movie or an afternoon movie. Three month olds sleep all the time and they wake up at any given time, too. They don’t have school. They don’t have jobs. Midnight is just another hour to them. My son likes to treat 3am like 3pm. That aside, there is no imaginable way that the parents could have anticipated this happening, at any time, in any setting. They just went through what has been and will likely be the most horrific experience of their lives. Do they really deserve this sort of public shaming?

I would question taking a six year old to the midnight showing over a 4 month old. Typically infants or babies, under the age of 6 to 8 months are sleeping through the night and can arose easily from noise. I know of several parents that have taken their infants to movies (granted not at midnight) and their babies slept through. But you are correct Mike, the last thing these parents need after dealing with the terror they experienced is shame. I’m sure they will reflect long and hard on the events of that evening and feel enough emotions on their own. My hearts go out to everyone that was involved, down to the first responders and hospital personnel.