In Aurora, Colorado, it is ILLEGAL to stop a massacre

[freedombecki]

Shock Revelation: City of Aurora, Colorado Would Have Arrested Anyone Who Stopped the Batman Massacre With a Concealed Weapon

by Mike Adams

Two days ago I asked the commonsense question, "Why didn't anyone fight back against James Holmes, the shooter who shot so many people in the Batman movie theater?"

Now the answer has become clear: Because Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:

Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.
Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.
Thus, any person who would have shot James Holmes and stopped the massacre would, themselves, have been arrested as a criminal!

In Aurora, Colorado, it is illegal to stop a massacre

And that is why the experienced the tragedy of a massacre in the first place. Thank you idiot liberals for creating VITCIM ZONES for criminals to target. The blood is on your hands liberals. Nice job idiots....

You're well on your way to be the winner of the "biggest right wing idiot on the forum" award.

So what he says is true, hm.

 

[Contumacious]

They would deserve to get charged for breaking a law. I am assuming that it is illegal to bring a gun into the movie theater. it would be illegal for that guy and you. If you break the law and are caught then you deserve to be charged. That is not me telling you that, that is the law of most lands.

You still have not explained the reason you believe that FREEMEN should have their right to defend their lives restricted.

.

 

[Contumacious]

The police might have filed charges, but they'd have to drop them because the public backlash against them would be deafening.

Yeah, right.

Did you forget that George Zimmerman is getting rairoaded down Florida way , as we speak !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[P@triot]

Shock Revelation: City of Aurora, Colorado Would Have Arrested Anyone Who Stopped the Batman Massacre With a Concealed Weapon

by Mike Adams

Two days ago I asked the commonsense question, "Why didn't anyone fight back against James Holmes, the shooter who shot so many people in the Batman movie theater?"

Now the answer has become clear: Because Aurora, Colorado already has strict gun control laws on the books that make it:

Illegal to carry a concealed weapon, even if you're a law-abiding citizen.
Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.
Thus, any person who would have shot James Holmes and stopped the massacre would, themselves, have been arrested as a criminal!


In Aurora, Colorado, it is illegal to stop a massacre

.

And that is why the experienced the tragedy of a massacre in the first place. Thank you idiot liberals for creating VITCIM ZONES for criminals to target. The blood is on your hands liberals. Nice job idiots....

You're well on your way to be the winner of the "biggest right wing idiot on the forum" award.

Based on what, telling the truth? I noticed you couldn't dispute one thing I said - you just made a personal attack.

As I've stated on this forum many times, despite hating the "5-0", the "pigs", etc. - no criminal EVER walks into a police station and starts shooting the place up. Gee, I wonder why?!?! Could it be because they know it's a losing battle to walk into a building filled with well armed, well trained individuals?

Where to all the massarcres occur? The overwhelming have been in high schools and colleges - where the idiot liberal has strictly forbidden firearms.

When you create vitcim zones, only an idiot is shocked when they end up with victims.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And that is why the experienced the tragedy of a massacre in the first place. Thank you idiot liberals for creating VITCIM ZONES for criminals to target. The blood is on your hands liberals. Nice job idiots....

You're well on your way to be the winner of the "biggest right wing idiot on the forum" award.

Based on what, telling the truth? I noticed you couldn't dispute one thing I said - you just made a personal attack.

As I've stated on this forum many times, despite hating the "5-0", the "pigs", etc. - no criminal EVER walks into a police station and starts shooting the place up. Gee, I wonder why?!?! Could it be because they know it's a losing battle to walk into a building filled with well armed, well trained individuals?

Where to all the massarcres occur? The overwhelming have been in high schools and colleges - where the idiot liberal has strictly forbidden firearms.

When you create vitcim zones, only an idiot is shocked when they end up with victims.

Epic win

 

[GuyPinestra]

You actually believe this? No doubt there are exceptions when lives are being taken, read the entire statute/code provision.

What, do you think the "illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer" was referring to cold blooded murder? And it doesn't matter b/c if you don't have a firearm to shoot then you can't use it. It's bull shit that people can't be legally armed to protect themselves and you know it. I've never owned a gun in my life, but I know damn well that I don't want the government infringing on my rights to protect myself.

Yeah, wouldn't that have been great if somebody stood up in that dark theater and had a wild west shootout with that nutjob? I'm sure it would have turned out very well.

Dumbfuck, how well did it turn out WITHOUT someone shooting back??

Gawd, you're an ignorant piece of shit!

 

[J.E.D]

And that is why the experienced the tragedy of a massacre in the first place. Thank you idiot liberals for creating VITCIM ZONES for criminals to target. The blood is on your hands liberals. Nice job idiots....

Wow, dumbest post possibly ever on USMB. Congrats

 

[J.E.D]

Exactly! If any place forbids you from defending yourself, then the onus is on them to protect your life. If they fail to, then they should be sued into bankruptcy for causing the loss of life.

I spoke too soon.

 

[J.E.D]

What, do you think the "illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer" was referring to cold blooded murder? And it doesn't matter b/c if you don't have a firearm to shoot then you can't use it. It's bull shit that people can't be legally armed to protect themselves and you know it. I've never owned a gun in my life, but I know damn well that I don't want the government infringing on my rights to protect myself.

Yeah, wouldn't that have been great if somebody stood up in that dark theater and had a wild west shootout with that nutjob? I'm sure it would have turned out very well.

Dumbfuck, how well did it turn out WITHOUT someone shooting back??

Gawd, you're an ignorant piece of shit!

I'm sure you're an excellent shot while under fire in a dark theater, but not every gun owner possesses those skills. Now kindly go **** yourself, or step in front of a bus.

 

[Contumacious]

Yes, the police should enforce the laws, all of them and for everyone. If someone had brought a weapon illegally into the movie theater they would have broken laws just like the shooter did and they deserve to be charged.

No, you are not above the law because you own a gun. no you are not a hero, cowboy, or the police because you have a gun. no one hired your dumb ass to play hero, and you do have to abide by the same laws everyone else does, including responsible and lawful gun owners, even if you own a gun.

Besides, this is why we have variable sentencing recommendations for crimes. This way if someone acted to stop the crime and did not harm anyone else they would have been given a minimum sentence, or possibly even been pardoned by the state government for acting if they did so and helped.

So thank you OP for completely twisting the situation, and I look foreward to yoru time destroying facts on fix noise.

No, you are not above the law because you own a gun. no you are not a hero, cowboy, or the police because you have a gun.

My life is above the law, human life is above the law.
Except yours and the rest of the anti gun scum sucking bitches.

Ummm, dufus I support gun rights. Your life may be above the law, but your vessel on earth, AKA your body, is not. But feel free to test that as you will, I am quite sure the authorites would be happy to help you into your cell.

What Law?

.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer.

The irony of this statement is absolutely delicious.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Government grants itself a monopoly on violence, calls it peace. People applaud.

Welcome to the twilight zone.

 

[Contumacious]

This shit again,....The right wing morons will believe anything their propaganda masters tell them...

So our individual right to defend our lives is shit?

Specially when the same is again under attack by a scumbag who goes by the name

The Los Angeles Times - 012-07-24: WASHINGTON -- Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), one of the few members of Congress willing to publicly discuss the politically unpopular issue of gun control, has done so again in the aftermath of the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shootings.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Oh goodie...another thread designed to give people the change to tell us what bad asses they are.


WOW! You would shoot the bad guys cause you da man.

I never cease being impressed by you internet gun queers..

Not this thread.

The purpose was to show that : (a) we have a right to life and to defend the same and (b) the government's interference with that right has severe deadly consequences !!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[Contumacious]

Well, it makes it clear that gun limitations and regulations are perfectly permissible. Their only legitimate use--when the state thinks it's "reasonable"--is for self-defense against private criminals--not self-defense against public criminals--down with this whole right to revolution.
.

Which section of Heller vs DC ?

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874)."

.

 

[J.E.D]

Oh goodie...another thread designed to give people the change to tell us what bad asses they are.


WOW! You would shoot the bad guys cause you da man.

I never cease being impressed by you internet gun queers..

Not this thread.

The purpose was to show that : (a) we have a right to life and to defend the same and (b) the government's interference with that right has severe deadly consequences !!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

You could have fooled me. I thought the purpose was for the USMB wingnut brigade to display their ignorance.

 

[Contumacious]

You actually believe this? No doubt there are exceptions when lives are being taken, read the entire statute/code provision.

What, do you think the "illegal to discharge a firearm in public unless you are a peace officer" was referring to cold blooded murder? And it doesn't matter b/c if you don't have a firearm to shoot then you can't use it. It's bull shit that people can't be legally armed to protect themselves and you know it. I've never owned a gun in my life, but I know damn well that I don't want the government infringing on my rights to protect myself.

Yeah, wouldn't that have been great if somebody stood up in that dark theater and had a wild west shootout with that nutjob? I'm sure it would have turned out very well.

Indeed it would have.

Firstly, gun aficionados believe in gun control hence we practice, practice, practice. Secondly, who the **** would have missed the retard with fluorescent orange hair?

.

 

[Contumacious]

You need to look at the law. It is hard to shoot someone when you are not allowed to bring guns onto the premesis. .

Here in the Houston Texas area very few business forbid Texans from exercising their right to defend their lives.

Americans should boycott those businesses that do and file lawsuits against them if as a consequence of their stupid rule someone dies.

.

Exactly! If any place forbids you from defending yourself, then the onus is on them to protect your life. If they fail to, then they should be sued into bankruptcy for causing the loss of life.

Yes, indeed.

They are liable for failing to protect the lives of those indivials who were killed or injured.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Why would they deserve to get charged? Because you said so? There's 12 people six feet under disagree with your "deserves" bull shit.'

And yea, the police are perfect. We can count on them, right?

Even though the Constitution , secures our RIGHT TO LIFE, the scumbags who sit in the Supreme Court have allowed the police to regulate our right to defend the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tough bananas.

No tough, fascism....tough tyranny...

.

 

[P@triot]

Yeah, wouldn't that have been great if somebody stood up in that dark theater and had a wild west shootout with that nutjob? I'm sure it would have turned out very well.

Dumbfuck, how well did it turn out WITHOUT someone shooting back??

Gawd, you're an ignorant piece of shit!

I'm sure you're an excellent shot while under fire in a dark theater, but not every gun owner possesses those skills. Now kindly go **** yourself, or step in front of a bus.

And yet you would NEVER question a police officer's ability under the exact same scenario.

Speaks volumes about what an ignorant asshole you are. You're so uninformed about the facts, yet you just keep running your mouth. I know former special forces operators that could close their eyes and could have killed that kid simply by listening to where the shots were coming from. And I've personally seen police officers that couldn't hit the target in a well lit range under ideal circumstances.

You truly have no idea what you are talking about, but for some strange reason, it doesn't stop you from talking about it anyway.