Aurora, CO - gun control

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by bkt, Jul 24, 2012.

  1. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    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


    "I cannot help but think, if one person in that audience was carrying a gun with them, that person could have saved lives. Unfortunately – despite what some of the Left have said – this tragedy is an example of the importance of our Second Amendment Rights," reports Ron Meyer at CNS News.

    "Crime rates alone of cities such as Chicago and Washington D.C. prove that gun bans only increase crime. The D.C. police response rate is eight minutes; most crimes are done in less than one. Gun bans create a trouble-free world for criminals considering no one can defend themselves."

    As a lawful, FBI-background-checked individual with a concealed carry permit, if I had been present in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater during this shooting, I would have been arrested and charged as a felon for discharging my own firearm aimed at James Holmes. It is apparently a "crime" to defend innocent lives, protect children, stop a shooting and end a massacre in Aurora Colorado. It is a crime to protect your own children from violence.

    Violent criminals now know to target Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Longmont and other "gun ban" cities in Colorado

    According to current Colorado law, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in all the following cities:

    Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield, Colorado Springs, Denver, Englewood, Lakewood, Littleton, Longmont, Northglenn, Pueblo, Thornton, Westminster, Wheat Ridge.

    It is illegal to even OWN a large number of firearms in Thornton and Lafayette. In Aurora, it is illegal to carry a firearm in a vehicle! Thus, even driving to a movie theater with a firearm in your own car makes you a criminal.

    These laws did not stop James Holmes from driving with a loaded gun in his car, along with explosives that were also found in his car. Once again, this demonstrates that gun control laws only disarm the public while allowing criminals to have "free reign" over a completely helpless public.

    Here are some of the other gun control laws that already exist in Aurora.

    1. "Dangerous weapon" includes firearm
    2. Revocation of license for furnishing a firearm to a minor or someone under the influence.
    3. Window displays cannot include firearms with barrels less than 12 inches long.
    4. Unlawful to carry concealed "dangerous weapon"
    5. Unlawful to discharge firearms, unless by law enforcement on duty or on shooting range.
    6. Unlawful to possess firearm while under the influence of intoxicant
    7. Unlawful to have loaded firearm in motor vehicle.
    8. Unlawful for a juvenile to possess a firearm.

    By definition criminals do not abide by such laws

    Notice, again, that none of these laws stopped James Holmes. By definition criminals do not follow these laws. Thus, the only real impact of gun disarmament of the public is to create yet more victims by making sure the honest, law-abiding citizenry is completely defenseless against criminals.

    So this answers my previous question of why nobody shot back. The answer is that all law-abiding citizens left their guns at home in order to "comply" with Aurora gun control laws!

    This is precisely what allowed the massacre to produce such a high body count. Had just one person been in that audience with a concealed carry permit and a loaded firearm, they could have shot back and ended the massacre. The number of dead could have been sharply reduced. Lives could have been saved.

    "Mass shootings can be stopped. People need to arm themselves with the facts (and with weapons). If one law-abiding person in the theater had been carrying a gun, lives could have been saved," writes Hillary Cherry at CNS News.

    And she's right.

    Gun disarmament really means gun concentration in the hands of government

    A disarmed public is helpless against crazed shooters. But the government wants you to believe that the answer to all this is yet more gun confiscation from law-abiding citizens.

    This makes about as much sense as trying to fight a fire by throwing gasoline on it. If the reality is that police can't protect you and that honest, law-abiding citizens are forced to leave all their guns at home, then how are violent criminals (who ignore laws, of course) supposed to be stopped by forcing even more restrictive gun control laws onto the victims themselves?

    The Aurora, Colorado shooting victims died in their seats because they could not shoot back. Now, Obama, Bloomberg and others want to actually promote those same victim conditions across the entire nation, practically ensuring more violent crime takes place against a disarmed and helpless public.

    Washington D.C., it seems, will not be satisfied until we are all placed in the same seats under which the victims of Aurora, Colorado helplessly died. We are all to be made powerless, defenseless and totally dependent on government employees with guns (i.e. police) instead of having the right to defend our own families against random acts of sudden violence.

    Now it all makes sense: Aurora, Denver and Boulder will be the perfect targets for future massacres because violent criminals who want to kill as many people as possible are smart enough to understand their odds are better when nobody can shoot back.

    This is why Hitler disarmed the Jews, of course, before sending them to the gas chambers. It's so much easier to load people onto railroad cars at gunpoint if they can't shoot back. Disarmament has always been the aim of every government that sought total power over the People. Historically, this has almost always led to mass murder or genocide at the hands of corrupt, criminal government.

    Self defense is a DIVINE right

    The right to protect your person, your children and your family is a divine right, granted in alignment with the principles of our Creator. We see self defense reflected throughout nature, from the spines on a cactus plant to the ability of nearly every plant or animal to fight back against predators that would cause it harm.

    The United Nations, which is an evil, destructive force of global domination, does not recognize the fundamental human right of self defense. Instead, it pursues a philosophy of a "monopoly of violence" in the hands of world governments.

    The United Nations, in other words, is not truly "anti-gun," it simply wants all the guns in the hands of government workers and none of the guns in the hands of the people.

    Remember this about gun control: No government seeks to eliminate ALL guns. It only seeks to monopolize the guns in the hands of government and thereby create a so-called "monopoly of violence" to be used against the People.

    You don't hear governments, for example, say they're going to disarm all their police, disarm the FBI, disarm the ATF and disarm the military. That would be "disarmament" if really true. No, what they propose is selectively disarming only the public while concentrating the "monopoly of violence" in the hands of the government.

    This creates a dangerous imbalance of power, especially given that cities and states are sharply cutting back on law enforcement budgets due to increasing debt. The police simply can't protect private citizens from violence, and the recent shooting in Aurora, Colorado absolutely proves it. Let there be no doubt that dialing 911 and screaming for help does about as much good as crossing your fingers and wishing for a magical genie to appear and take out the bad guy.

    But we don't need magical genies to do that job. We already have millions of law-abiding citizens all across the country who responsibly carry concealed weapons, acting as a powerful deterrent to outbreaks of violence. Those citizens pass background checks, they get fingerprinted, they must pass training courses to show competency in handling firearms. But citizens who can stop crime are not welcomed in Aurora, Colorado!

    Because stopping a massacre in Aurora is a crime!

    Aurora, the city of surrender to violent crime

    Aurora, Colorado should rename itself "the city of surrender" to violent crime. Welcome to Aurora! Disarm yourself and prepare to be shot, because even though you're not allowed to protect yourself, our police force is so thin and spread out that we can't protect you either. Good luck!

    Mass shootings CAN be stopped. They can be stopped by private citizens working with the same aims as peace officers: to stop the violence immediately, thereby saving lives.

    It is astonishing that cities like Aurora, Colorado do not allow citizens to protect themselves against violence. The deaths of those 12 victims rest squarely on the officials of the city of Aurora who deliberately created an environment of total helplessness that directly led to the unnecessary deaths of innocent people, including young women and children.

    City and state officials of Colorado are, in my view, negligent in these deaths and should be sued by the families of the survivors for criminalizing self defense. Shame on these officials! Shame of those who demand that we all become victims of violent crime. Shame on those who call for yet more disarmament of the public which will inevitably lead to yet more violent crime that can't be stopped.

    Think about these FACTS for a second

    • The massacre in Aurora took only two minutes to carry out.
    • The average response time of police is, at minimum, six minutes (and getting worse).
    • A typical concealed carry holder can draw, aim and shoot back in less than five seconds.

    Do the math.
     
  2. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Great post. I've been anxiously awaiting this information. Thanks
     

  3. Rick1967

    Rick1967 Well-Known Member

    4,992
    51
    48
    I know that there were some cities that passed laws because they did not want to honor the Colorado Concealed Weapons permit. Mayor Hickenlooper did so for the City if Denver. But Gov Ritter signed a bill that made any law passed by a city that contradicted a state law was not enforcable. I dont remember the law. But it was right about the time I got my permit. It was a big deal. Any law like that is null and void.
     
  4. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Well you better start informing the citizens and Leo about that then. ;)
     
  5. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    Once again, here's that quote...that fits like a glove...

    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’
    -Thomas Jefferson

    It's like the man was psychic...

    Great post BKT, thanks.
     
  6. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    Nah. He just understood human nature. History is filled with dire unintended consequences of the good-intentioned.
     
  7. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,598
    731
    113
    Colorado already has pre-emption. Any local law may not legally conflict with state law.

    Also, remember that the shooter was covered head to toe in body armor.

    Any firearm capable of being easily concealed would have been useless against his armor, without armor piercing ammo, which is already illegal (for handguns, at least) under federal law..

    Sorry, folks, but armed citizens probably wouldn't (couldn't) have helped in this particular situation.:(
     
  8. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Armor or no a 10mm round to the chest is gonna slow you down. Especially if its followed quickly by 14 more. If he was wearing a gasmask I guarantee it wasn't bullet resistant. On that note how did anyone hear him yell 'im the joker' through a gasmask over the movie?
     
  9. Rick1967

    Rick1967 Well-Known Member

    4,992
    51
    48
  10. vincent

    vincent New Member

    4,123
    0
    0
    I politely beg to differ...Many of us can easily conceal .45's and while his gear may have stopped the bullet, it does NOT stop the transfer of energy which can cause a variety on injuries, broken bones, lacerated organs, internal bleeding etc. Enough to at least slow him down, but it's all neither here nor there since nobody was afforded the right of self defense...:cool:
     
  11. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    With this information the city of Aurora should be sued by the families of the victims and survivors. I sent an email to fox news including this info. Let's see if it goes anywhere. I'm also having others spread the info and a call for a class action suit against the city of Aurora. The families of victims and survivors should be compensated.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  12. tellmaster207

    tellmaster207 New Member

    524
    0
    0
    Body armor: if you believe it wouldn't have made a difference put some on & have somebody shoot @ you. I guarantee you will run for cover.
     
  13. beastmode986

    beastmode986 New Member

    967
    0
    0
    Wouldn't a fmj go through some of the minorly armored spots(legs,arms,neck,head)? Im surprised more people don't open carry long guns where its allowed.I know it draws alot more attention but it also yields extra stopping power. Although some stupid cop might shoot you on sight.
     
  14. Tackleberry1

    Tackleberry1 New Member

    6,165
    3
    0
    Baloney...

    This shooter was no soldier...he had no interest in dying himself as he prooved with his immediate surrender once confronted by a gun when LEO'S finally arrived.

    All of these lone shooters pick GFZ's for there soft nature and they are not expecting opposition.

    One armed citizen returning fire would had sent ^^THIS^^ coward scurrying back out the door and saved lives.
     
  15. rjd3282

    rjd3282 New Member

    3,852
    0
    0

    Another good reason for open carry, you could carry a large enough gun to get the job done. Also a good reason not to carry mouse guns.
     
  16. fmj

    fmj Active Member

    3,460
    0
    36
    Yeah, this thing has had me rethinking carrying the pf-9...it conceals easily and is lightweight...you typically "forget" its there....but something like this i would want my 1911 or 686...or even an xd 45 or super redhawk in .44.

    "bring enough gun"
     
  17. mountainman13

    mountainman13 New Member

    11,488
    0
    0
    Glock 20 baby.
    15 rnds of 155 grain hollow points packing 498 fpe of shut the fu@$ up and sit down. Lol
     
  18. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,598
    731
    113
    Uhhhh...... I wore level 2 or level 3A armor every day for 20 years. I'm fairly familar with it. And a level 3 vest will stop anything a .44 magnum can put out. The blunt force trauma hurts, but it doesn't stop a person.

    If you're interested in what it will, and won't, do, google the body armor tests conducted by the NIJ. (National Institute of Justice.) I believe the FBI website still has some of their test results as well.

    The manufacturers of the armor will also provide you with the specs.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2012
  19. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    "Gun Control"-

    The premise that by writing laws you will be able to get criminals to stop using guns.

    At least,thats its public face.And its obviously a blatant failure.

    But if you look at what "gun control" has been good at,turning an otherwise inalienable right of the individual into a mere government administered privilege and "controlling" the use of force in such a way as to give government a monopoly on the use of force,one has got to admit,its working pretty well.

    So now you know why the gun grabbers keep arguing for more "gun control",despite its failure at its publicly stated goals.

    As a side note,soft body armor won't stop 7.62x25 Tokarev.
     
  20. Chandler51

    Chandler51 New Member

    2,182
    0
    0
    Just saw on the news that gun sales have increased 41% since the shooting. IN COLORADO. Make no mistake, there is zero appetite for increased gun control among the vast majority of Americans.

    It's the usual crew on tv that has re-ignited the "debate". (MSNBC, etc).