Saturday, July 21, 2012

More confirmation that the theater was a victim disarmament zone.

Colorado theater called 'gun-free' zone.


Anonymous said...


Why is it so difficult to comprehend the fact that an armed society is a peaceful society?

Anonymous said...

I think its time we push back.

We should all try to get word to the families of the shooting victims that they need to be suing the theatre for creating a perfect environment for the shooter by prohibiting concealed carry holds from carrying inside(and it seems that in CO those signs make it a criminal offence).

Anonymous said...

A more appropriate name is criminal protection zone aka CPZ.

Refuse to patronize criminal protection zones. Why give your hard earned money to such enablers of tyranny?

And, as you already mentioned, if you must patronize them, ignore them and carry anyway.

Anonymous said...

When an anti-gun type mouths off to me about needing more gun control, I ask them one simple question.
"How many lives do you have?"
Then I say "Is your life not worth more to you and those that care for you than the life of a criminal who tries to kill you?".
They always have trouble responding to that, because those folks do not think logically. I'd like to think that it makes them think a little bit.

- More wisdom from Old Greybeard

David Forward said...

I live in Aurora where this tragedy took place -- about 1 1/2 miles from my home. My wife and I go to this theater on rare occasion, but usually for midweek matinee or early evening showings in order to avoid the gangsta element which seems to abound late at night.Even so I still go armed though deeply concealed.

However, according to an article in today's Denver Post which interviewed many with the corporation and "others" in the theater industry that may soon change.

Excerpt: "Walking through metal detectors, handing over bags for inspection and offering identification are not part of the movie going experience...Yet.

"But in the wake of the movie- theater shootings in Aurora early Friday morning that killed 12 and injured 59, it is not hard to imagine.

"And it would be perfectly legal, say experts.

"If the theater required everyone to go through 14 different X-ray machines, and there was no evidence it was just for men or for women or people of color, that everyone had to go through them, I can't think of a reason for that to flunk a constitutional base line..."

My comment: What doesn't pass "Constitutional muster" if our overlords say it does?


Anonymous said...

While a part of me agrees with the sentiment above regarding suing the theatre, the people in the theatre willingly chose to disarm; preferring the short term enjoyment of the movie to ensuring their own safety. They made their choice, they are responsible for accepting the outcome.

Private property is private property. Does not matter if it is "open to the public" or not. A private property owner is free to ban anything they want; they can ban redheads if they want, they can ban purple shirts, they can ban firearms. On the flip side, people are responsible to make the choice of whether to abide by the property owner's rules or go elsewhere. If all the theatres in town post and become CPZs, you are free to start a competing business that encourages the action/items/people banned by your competitors.

The problem comes when government steps in and interferes or when government is the one doing the banning. Government should be treating all people and all businesses the same under the law. The Bill of Rights does not grant us, the people, anything or any rights. It is a restriction on where government may not tread.

Anonymous said...

Couple of thoughts: anon@3:16 - you are correct regarding private property BUT it never works out to the 'good guys' advantage. Just look at what the 'esteemed' mayor of bahston is doing to the Chik-Fil-A franchise because he doesn't agree with the CFA owner's stance against gay marriage.
CPZ might even be better described as a COZ - Criminal Opportunity Zone.
Finally - to Trinity - all of the metal detectors and tsa type gropings in the world would NOT have stopped this punk - as I understand it he forcibly broke into a fire escape door (crime!) entered the premises unlawfully (another crime) placed a nefarious device (yet another crime) and ALL before he opened fire on his first victim. Gee, for some odd reason all the laws against such criminal behavior apparently didn't even slow him down.
Folks, let's face the true facts here: laws only codify what we as society have decided is criminal behavior and theoretically attach a penalty to that behavior. They do not prevent crimes. They only work so long as we make them work. OK, rant off. ;-)

Dedicated_Dad said...

Sorry Trinity - but "Anon" who follows you is 100% right!

If the TSA were not from the .gov but rather policies of the airlines, we'd have no right to object!

I may require anyone who enters my business to pass through 15 metal-detectors and submit all bags for inspection if I so choose, as anyone has the right to go elsewhere!

Govt DOES prohibit excluding redheads though - although I will continue to believe they do not have that right, and for them to usurp it is a violation of our constitution.

If i don't wish to allow smoking in my establishment, or if I choose to exclude and refuse to serve whites/blacks/hispanics/asians/gays/demmunists/harelips/particular mixtures of the above/WHATEVER, I have every G*D-GIVEN right to do so!

Anyone who doesn't like my choices have every right to take their business elsewhere and encourage others to do the same - which in a *FREE* society would be the ONLY way coercion would exist!

The Fed-Govt. OTOH does not have *ANY* rights - it has *ONLY* the powers granted to it in the Constitution!

Howard said...

Fun question: how does a man receiving unemployment benefits acquire $20,000 worth of military-grade armor and weapons, in a span of 60 days? That's just what was on his person / in his car (i.e. not counting the bombs, etc in his apartment).

Further down the rabbit hole: is it just a coincidence the United Nations is voting on / editing its Small Arms Treaty in the next short while?