There's apparently very, very few air marshals.
There's apparently very, very few air marshals.
So, interesting dynamic. We have a Colorado shooter that kills 12, wounds 70+, and we talk about it for days. We have a white supremacist that kills 7, wounds an unknown number, and we barely discuss it. What's the difference?
I'd say motive. Militant, white supremecist kills non-whites. No mystery as to what sent that guy over the deep end. No real shock as to how that type got guns, either.Originally Posted by Houngan
PhD candidate goes crazy at batman flick- lots of speculation on why, how, what precipitated it, etc.
Sure, but the white supremist angle didn't come out for four days, and apparently he was "a subject of interest" for ten years. I'd ask why the government didn't have a better eye on this guy.
How do you suggest government would do that? There are lots of nutjobs and even more guns out there. Anything that remotely puts us close to "better eye" is well into a police state territory.
Er? I thought the shooting happened yesterday? Initial reports that I saw also reported "domestic terrorism" and speculated that the Sihk community was specifically targeted. Seemed pretty likely, to me at least, what the motive was for the shooting.
I honestly don't know what there is to discuss about militant white supremecist acts out, with respect to the actual shooting itself. Prevention is a viable topic of discussion, but I do think that's more a first amendment discussion than a second amendment one.
Yeah, this happened yesterday. And the media is certainly not "barely" discussing it.
What Stepsongrapes said, plus the novelty factor of shooting up a movie theater showing up a superhero movie, in full gear.
For some reason I guess many of the participants just don't have the practice in keeping a running commentary going on this week's mass shootings.
I apologize, I'm a degenerate drunkard and mistook an earlier post/link for this incident. I have the chagrin.
So that's you? Nice store.
Meanwhile, in Colorado:
Somebody gonna get fired.The psychiatrist who treated suspected movie-theater shooter James Holmes made contact with a University of Colorado police officer to express concerns about her patient's behavior several weeks before Holmes' alleged rampage, sources told ABC News.
The sources did not know what the officer approached by Dr. Lynne Fenton did with the information she passed along. They said, however, that the officer was recently interviewed, with an attorney present, by the Aurora Police Department as a part of the ongoing investigation of the shooting.
I don't know how often that sort of thing (psychiatrist informing law enforcement about patients) happens, so I have no idea how outraged to be. I.e. how negligent was it to do nothing? What could they have legally done?
It seems like they'd want to do some kind of surveillance, but that seems like the kind of thing that doesn't get done if there have been cutbacks in the police force (have there been in that area?)
Ya, I agree with that. If this kind of warning gets passed along all the time, then it's going to be hard to start pointing fingers.
I guess my question is why such a notification wouldn't get included in the NICS database. I'd much rather a proven unstable person be denied a weapon purchase than somebody who sold a bag of pot once.
I haven't followed the timeline very well, but did he purchase his weapons after the notification?
Dunno, they said he'd been buying for "months" but that could mean anything.
The other side of the coin:
http://www.wdrb.com/story/19319955/m...o-hide-firearm
Well, thank God they asked the fucking CASHIER AT ARBY'S about firearm laws. For the record, Kentucky guarantees the right to open carry in its constitution, this was a false arrest ginned up by the officer.An officer who was inside saw the gun and told Helms, "You may need to cover that up."
Helms allegedly responded, "I don't need to."
Police say the officer asked Helms if he was a police officer, and he said no. Unconcealed firearms are not allowed inside the restaurant, according to an employee of the Arby's.
I am pretty sure Arby's is within their rights to disallow open carry, or any guns at all should they so choose, in their establishments. If you don't like it, go eat somewhere else.
This guy was an idiot who should have had the decency and politeness to do as he was asked.
No, they aren't. They can prohibit concealed carry, a privilege, but not open carry, a right.
I see you are correct, but I am astounded that a private establishment that can deny you service if you arent wearing shoes or a shirt can't deny you service if you are openly carrying a weapon. These Kentuckians are crazy! *toc toc toc*
Kentucky is a special place.
New Hampshire which I am more familiar with rationally allows businesses to decide if they want people carrying weapons on their premises or not.
But people don't have a constitutional right to not wear shoes.
As always Jason weighs in with the "Everyone is just like me, right? Right?" Far more states allow open carry than deny it, including your glorious state of Washington. Of course you tried to pass laws preventing it when the black panthers were active : http://firearmslawyer.net/blog/index...012/03/01/p310 which just goes to show you how enlightened y'all are up in the PNW.
Last edited by Houngan; 08-21-2012 at 12:09 PM. Reason: I couldn't stand having a written that even mockingly
Touché
I don't remember it taking four days. But regardless, when a crime like this takes place you can assume there is hatred involving race, ethnicity etc. When a Mosque or Catholic Church is vandalized the motive is pretty obvious.
When a nut shoots people at a Batman movie there is nothing but a big ? mark.
Do you have a cite for this position? A quick Google hit the constitutional clause you mentioned, but it looks like one of the standard limitations on government prohibition and shouldn't affect private/semi-private property. I believe it would take a separate law to prohibit private businesses from excluding gun-bearers. Note that states allowing open carry and states actually prohibiting private actors from excluding gun-bearers are two very, very different issues.
Yeah I would agree that it is an intersection of rights and that the business owners rights should probably trump the rights of the patrons, however from the the quick google I did it would seem to not be the case; business owners cannot exclude open carry from their property... only concealed carry. double u tee eff
Get the government intervention out of my business!
/waits for Tea Party heads to explode
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote