Good Lord, Jim; or, Drop The Baby and Run: a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do, which apparently is drop the six month old and high-tail it out of the theatre where bullets are flying, abandoning the wounded girlfriend, the baby, and the four-year old.
Rohrs said he lost his 4-month-old son, Ethan, in the darkness and chaos of the theater, but got out himself. Then, once outside, he could not initially find Legarreta.
"I got to my truck and I drove across the mall," Rohrs added. "I'm going to call 911 and trying to call Patricia and it's just ringing, and every time it rings I'm like they're dead, they're dead, your whole family is dead."
They called him before he made it across the county line, or who knows where he would have come to rest.
Well, it is easy to sit here and mock the young fool. I have never been in a chaotic situation under live fire, so I am only hoping that I would react more appropriately.
All day I have been wading thru pro and anti-gun comments and posts all over the Web. Of all the comments, this one by Jeralyn Merritt of TalkLeft makes the most sense to me:
In other case news, Holmes bought his tactical assault gear online from a company called Tactical Gear in Missouri. Here's the receipt. He ordered in on July 2 and specified 2 day shipping. One of the items is a BlackHawk Urban Assault Vest. Here's BlackHawk's website and catalog.
I think it would be more productive to monitor the sale of "urban assault vests" and similar "tactical gear" than guns. What possible sporting use could these items have?
Posted by: Sara | July 21, 2012 at 09:43 PM
--I think it would be more productive to monitor the sale of "urban assault vests" and similar "tactical gear" than guns. What possible sporting use could these items have?--
Even with someone as smart as Merritt and after Heller we still have to listen to the asinine non sequitor regarding "sporting" uses.
"Sporting" has essentially NOTHING to do with the right to bear arms.
Posted by: Ignatz | July 21, 2012 at 09:50 PM
"Sporting" has essentially NOTHING to do with the right to bear arms.
Seems to me that's the point. A perfectly legitimate thing to monitor without stepping on anyone's rights or playing into anyone's silly arguments.
Posted by: Sara | July 21, 2012 at 10:02 PM
Me thinks, Effendi Ghezali might have been involved after all.
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/07/21/al-qaeda-linked-terror-group-claims-responsibility-for-suicide-bombing-in-bulgaria-that-killed-5-israelis/
Posted by: narciso | July 21, 2012 at 10:17 PM
--Seems to me that's the point. A perfectly legitimate thing to monitor without stepping on anyone's rights or playing into anyone's silly arguments.--
No, the2nd amendment is primarily about defending the citizens against an out of control government and secondarily about self and home defense. It is not about sporting or hunting uses.
There is nothing sporting about his vest or his arms so those are the very things the 2nd amendment applies to.
Posted by: Ignatz | July 21, 2012 at 11:49 PM
We can start profiling people who buy guns.
1. If you purchase $15,000 of assault weapons in a month that's a red flag.
2. If you're single; red flag.
3. Live in a 10 by 10 apartment; red flag.
4. Loner; red flag
6. unemployed; red flag
7. Tea party membership;red flag
8. Not a member of the NRA or other gun associated organisations;red flag
9.No hunting license;red flag
Posted by: Dublindave | July 22, 2012 at 12:20 AM
Of course, they some how missed Amy Bishop, Bedell, John Stack, et al, searching for the elusive Tea Party shooter, funny how that works.
Posted by: narciso | July 22, 2012 at 12:34 AM
Not to jump the gun, but I wouldn't be too surprised;
http://twitchy.com/2012/07/22/reports-police-seek-second-person-of-interest-in-aurora-theater-shooting/
Posted by: narciso | July 22, 2012 at 12:39 AM
Ig:
I am not getting your argument at all. Monitoring who is buying vests does not seem to me to be any violation of the 2nd Amendment. I would much rather have someone watching the vest buyers than than trying to bend the 2nd Amendment to rationalize monitoring gun buying.
Posted by: Sara | July 22, 2012 at 12:47 AM
In other words, raising a red flag because a 24 year old PhD student bought 4 guns and ammo would seem to me to be unconstitutional profiling and back door gun control. Raising a red flag when a 24 year old civilian PhD student orders full body armor seems prudent.
Posted by: Sara | July 22, 2012 at 12:53 AM
After that wretched nazgul Loughner got away without any real consequences, it tears one's gut to see that this act, may not be properly punished,
http://twitchy.com/2012/07/21/6-year-old-veronica-moser-identified-as-aurora-shooting-victim-mom-in-critical-condition/
Posted by: narciso | July 22, 2012 at 01:04 AM
Narc: Loughner will stay locked up in a hell hole for the rest of his life, what kind of consequences do you consider more real than that? Please don't say putting him to death, that let's him off easy.
Posted by: Sara | July 22, 2012 at 01:47 AM
"In other words, raising a red flag because a 24 year old PhD student bought 4 guns.."
Why does a 24 year old unmarried stressed-out PhD student living alone in a small apartment need an AR15 with a 100 round magazine and several other guns...in a short period of time?
Posted by: Dublindave | July 22, 2012 at 06:44 AM
The commentary on the Aurora massacre has certainly helped clarify the delineation between
- people who think the role of government should be to centrally plan, invasively monitor, and coercively control intimate aspects of its citizens' personal lives (to forcibly prevent "bad choices"), and
- people who believe that the role of government should be limited to performing a few core functions (e.g. national defense and building infrastructure) which allow its citizens to go about their lives as free men and women.
For the most part, it has not been surprising to see which group various people self-selected themselves into.
Posted by: NO_LIMIT_NIGGA | July 22, 2012 at 08:03 AM
ABC News reporting that the description of the second "person of interest" being sought in the Colorado movie theater shooting fits one of Romney's sons.
Posted by: Jon | July 22, 2012 at 10:47 AM
DENVER – The University of Colorado says shooting suspect James Holmes had a federal grant to study neuroscience.
University spokeswoman Jacque Montgomery said Saturday that Holmes was one of six neuroscience students at the school to get National Institutes of Health grant money. She didn't know how much money he got.
He has his defense. He didn’t shoot those weapons—government did! No more federal aid. Government kills innocent civilians.
Posted by: Neo | July 22, 2012 at 09:24 PM