CO movie theater shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
Gibson, right?

Mel was and is a big believer in conspiracy theories. Catcher in the Rye was in the filmnecause it may have been used in that manner in real life.

MkUltra was - is? - quote real and it would be possible to program a shooter who would be confused and docile afterwards.

Not that such happened in this case. But...m
 
I've discovered of late that I get into these threads and I really don't know anything about the subject and my typing finger gets worn out trying to keep up. So given that situation I respectfully bail from the topic. I beg your forgiveness.

Jim
 
It is becoming clear this murderer is a violent ultra left wing radical. Occupy Black Bloc has already claimed him as one of theirs.
Back in the 1960-70s when there was a terrorist attack or plane hijacking there were always five or six European terrorist groups, from Red Brigade to IRA to PLO, Ustasa, Ordine Nuovo, Black September who would call the media and claim responsibility.

The point...THEY claim him a member. It serves their purpose to get a day in the sun. It matters not if it is true or not.
 
In 1776 a Kentucky long rifle was and "assault rifle." That being said - I fear that "assault rifles" will ultimately bring about the end of the second amendment. All those little ol' ladies in rocking chairs watching the mainstream media will be so moved to rid the world of those horrible things that they will vote to help your wise legislators take your rights away. They cannot distinguish between "assault rifles" and the guy who wants to take his grandson to the range to shoot a single shot .22

rolomac
 
In 1776 a Kentucky long rifle was and "assault rifle." That being said - I fear that "assault rifles" will ultimately bring about the end of the second amendment. All those little ol' ladies in rocking chairs watching the mainstream media will be so moved to rid the world of those horrible things that they will vote to help your wise legislators take your rights away. They cannot distinguish between "assault rifles" and the guy who wants to take his grandson to the range to shoot a single shot .22

rolomac
It is the mootest of moot points, given that NONE of these incidents involved a REAL "assault rifle". The last one that I can think of was the North Hollywood shootout where the bank robbers had [illegally converted?] Kalashnikov clones.

The "assault rifle" meme in the media is nothing but an INTENTIONAL LIE.
 
Assault rifle, dum-dum bullets, and Saturday nite special are all pejoratives the anti crowd uses to put down guns. A while ago I had a Postal Inspector relay a story of waiting in line in a bank when a woman found out he was LEO and asked "What do you think of those awful dum-dum bullets?" She had a little girl with her. He replied to the effect if a masked robber came in the bank and fired into the ceiling and announced a holdup. Then her little girl becomes afraid and begins to cry. The robber turns to her and growls "Lady shut that kid up or I will shoot her". He said what kind of ammunition do you think I should use? She said, "Oh, I see what you mean."

The way the press was reporting the use of hollowpoint or ballistic tip ammo, you would think law enforcement was doing drive by shootings. At the time I knew several LEOs from small departments where only lead of FMJ was allowed. Thankfully that has changed a lot.

I can remember when the rage was to ban "Saturday night specials". The anti's promised the firearms community they would never go after long guns.

I suppose if some nut case figures out a way to use a Barrett .50 cal (in a horrific crime) there will be an outcry to ban them.

I would love to have a .50 cal sniper rifle, but that is just too much money for a conversation piece.
 
He said what kind of ammunition do you think I should use? She said, "Oh, I see what you mean."
A better reply would be, "Those 'dum dum' bullets expand and are intended to stay in the person you're shooting. Would you rather that I shoot THROUGH the holdup man and INTO your child?"

I suppose if some nut case figures out a way to use a Barrett .50 cal (in a horrific crime) there will be an outcry to ban them.
It's NEVER happened, but they've been doing EXACTLY that for more than ten years.

The gun control industry is composed of a top level of pathological liars sitting atop a pyramid of ignorant hysterics.
 
It is the mootest of moot points, given that NONE of these incidents involved a REAL "assault rifle". The last one that I can think of was the North Hollywood shootout where the bank robbers had [illegally converted?] Kalashnikov clones.

The "assault rifle" meme in the media is nothing but an INTENTIONAL LIE.
The issue, however is more specific than whether the media or grandma uses the right word.

So, really it is not a moot point. Trying to defend with semantics seldom works. Ask Bill Clinton.
 
The issue, however is more specific than whether the media or grandma uses the right word.

So, really it is not a moot point. Trying to defend with semantics seldom works. Ask Bill Clinton.
It is 100% "semantics".

"Assault weapon" is an UTTERLY meaningless term.

I ABSOLUTELY refuse to let the dishonest and the ignorant set the terms of debate. I won't let Holocaust deniers do it. I certainly won't let gun control fanatics do it.

If you let them call a pig a rose without contradiction, you have lost the argument before it's started.

NEVER, EVER give a liar an even break. They'll take advantage of it EVERY time.

I won't let the National Alliance call Anne Frank a "casualty of war" without challenge. What makes you think I'll let VPC call my AR an "assault rifle"?

I've got 20+ years debating both groups of sociopaths. Buying into their malignant fantasy worlds gets you nowhere.
 
If I wasn't already depressed enough about this tragedy, it got worse today...turns out one of the kids killed was a family friend from Phoenix. I didn't know him personally but he was good friends with a couple of my nephews.
 
It is 100% "semantics".

"Assault weapon" is an UTTERLY meaningless term.

I ABSOLUTELY refuse to let the dishonest and the ignorant set the terms of debate. I won't let Holocaust deniers do it. I certainly won't let gun control fanatics do it.

If you let them call a pig a rose without contradiction, you have lost the argument before it's started.

NEVER, EVER give a liar an even break. They'll take advantage of it EVERY time.

I won't let the National Alliance call Anne Frank a "casualty of war" without challenge. What makes you think I'll let VPC call my AR an "assault rifle"?

I've got 20+ years debating both groups of sociopaths. Buying into their malignant fantasy worlds gets you nowhere.
You just made my point. The word is moot. What folks may or may not want to do with X or Y weapon, defined much more specifically than calling it an "assault" weapon IS not moot.

So while you can argue the semantics of the word "assault" until the cows come home, the debate will have passed you by as the rest of the world will have moved beyond the dictionary and be discussing actual lists of firearms. And THAT is what we need to make a priority. They can be called "pew pews" for all I care. The point is to understand the discussion behind the words and act on them.
 
There's some documentation on it that was archived here

Occupy Wall Street Names Colorado Massacre Shooter James Holmes as Occupy Black Bloc Member (Part 4 of BM) - Watchwoman on the Wall

Supposedly it was based on a post made on the Occupy Wall Street web forum but it was supposedly taken down after an hour.

Private Investigator Names Colorado Massacre Shooter James Holmes as Occupy Black Bloc Member - YouTube
All the articles on the net on this loop back to the same rumor by the same guy [Warner], though many with less annoying music.
 
Regardless of what is moot or not, the media is having a feeding frenzie over this event. I've purposely held off reading very much on the event until today but after reading a dozen different accounts I am just flabergasted at the bias, distortions, and downright editorializing in what is supposed to be news reports. They use way to many words like "possibly", "could have", "likely", and "suspected". In a competitive effort to get their byline published first they use WAAAY too much conjecture.

There is one thing to consider out of all this, once the government gets the 2nd ammendment abolished they'll be able to get the 1st ammendment under control and all these lying reporters will be out of a job. :(
 
Last edited:
There's some documentation on it that was archived here

Occupy Wall Street Names Colorado Massacre Shooter James Holmes as Occupy Black Bloc Member (Part 4 of BM) - Watchwoman on the Wall

Supposedly it was based on a post made on the Occupy Wall Street web forum but it was supposedly taken down after an hour.

Private Investigator Names Colorado Massacre Shooter James Holmes as Occupy Black Bloc Member - YouTube

Unlike ABC's Brian Ross, going out of his way to implicate the Tea Party, we should wait until the investigation is complete before making any assumptions.
 
Unlike ABC's Brian Ross, going out of his way to implicate the Tea Party, we should wait until the investigation is complete before making any assumptions.
Yep...ABC's Brian Ross took a local Denver reporter's report and went national with it, Fox took a local Denver reporter's report and went national with it, both retracted nearly as soon as it broadcast.

It does make sense to actually vet these rumors before broadcasting. An historical perspective for ABC. When Reagan was shot someone at ABC put up on the Telepromptor that Brady was dead and Frank Reynolds read it. A few minutes later they corrected that he was not dead. Reynolds went off on the production people for not getting their facts straight on the air. After the next commercials Ted Koppel was in the big chair.
 
I don't think most of you guys understand public opinion of non-gun owners and many gun owners is that assault weaposn and high capacity magazines are becoming a public safety threat.

The perception they will believe and be sold is that during the 10 year assault weapon ban there was decreasing crime.

Crime decreased for demographic reasons.

I think it is increasing for demographic reasons as well.

1. there are more vilolent youth and gangs
2. the economy is bad
3. there is a generation of kids raised on ADHD and anti-psychotic drugs

One kid in our church from a good family has mental illness, he started having problems between ages 8-12. He tried to stab his mother his little brother aged 6 told me in the stomach with a knife. His father and mother are decent educated people our family has known for years. Her family has issues, her brother a severe alcoholic a smart guy but a neaderthal. I think that is were the kid gets the issues from.

Another kid in my daughters class stabbed a kid with a pencil and disappeared after being taken to a special school.

Both kids have been on anti-psychotics since they started displaying problems.

The drugs only treat the symptoms and do not solve the problems.

I agree some kids are over diagnosed and over drugged, the these 2 a messed up.

A LOT of people have issues, and I know LEO's that think a lot of crazy people shouldn't have guns and even you and I should not. It makes their job harder and makes it harder to get home to their wives.

We can all be in denial, but this event makes it VERY likely another assault weapon ban that will make ownership impossible likely.

Remember california banned them such that when the owner dies they have to be turned into the state. Didn't they?

Chime in california gun owners!

We have a VERY TOUGH road ahead of us now.

I am donating $100 to the NRA this month. I you don't we will lose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top