Shooting in Colorado at Batman Screening

Parent Cafe
561

<p>I admit I am a little apprehensive about going… It’s not like I think I’m going to get shot at, but I am afraid I might get upset. When these things happen it seems to have a much more profound effect on me than it does others… and I don’t know how people lose interest so quickly. People talk about that like it’s a bad thing that society moves on so fast, but in some ways I think it’s healthy and important that we do that… I follow these cases for months before I am able to let them go even though they deeply disturb me. We might wait for the movie to come out on Blu ray… but I dunno, I think it would be healthy to go, maybe during the day. We’re still deciding. I love batman, and my birthday was the 20th… we were supposed to go.</p>

<p>I do wonder about sending things in advance like that. I could see it being a sick sort of roleplay, following along with things seen in crime shows and comic books. I could also see it as someone throwing an arm out for help when they can see they’re being swept away… Or, maybe it’s just showing off. The apparent narcissism in many of these cases certainly implies the latter.</p>

562

<p>

Wonder if the drugs he was using a part of his obsessive mind and his insane act ?</p>

563

<p>Source?</p>

<p>Here’s a first one. The later Pennsylvania debate cites the original state constitution, where the right to bear arms in self-defense is explicitly included. </p>

<p>[1872</a> Debate: Pennsylvania Constitution and the Right to Self-Defense Democratic Thinker](<a href=“http://democraticthinker.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2010/04/29/1872-debate-pennsylvania-]1872”>http://democraticthinker.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/2010/04/29/1872-debate-pennsylvania-)
constitution-and-the-right-to-self-defense/</p>

<p>The Vermont Constitution - "Vermont’s constitutions of 1777 and 1786 similarly proclaimed: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State…”</p>

<p>It should be noted, however, that at the same time (and well-known to the framers of the Bill of Rights), New York’s constitution contained no such right.</p>

<p>“There are arguments that the framers held self-defense to be a foundation of natural law…”</p>

<p>That argument would be ahistorical. This would have been true for the framers in 1776, not in the period during which the Bill of Rights was formulated, in which most arguments based on natural law had long been abandoned. (As had Deism.)</p>

<p>At any rate, the authors of the Bill of Rights knew that the Pennsylvania constitution and that of Vermont explicitly referenced self-defense. They also knew that New York’s constitution did not have such a right. They made an actual decision not to include it in the U.S. Constitution, and would not have referenced natural law -what the Pennsylvania, Vermont, and New York framers had in common is that none of them would have made such an argument. Please remember the entire 2nd Amendment - the framers went way out of their way to give us the context for the right in the Amendment itself (as did the Pennsylvanians and Vermonters - and they came out differently.)</p>

<p>(Massachusetts and North Carolina’s constitutions specifically referenced the right to bear arms “for the common defense” - again, not for personal defense.)</p>

<p>" If you think the Constitution protects an individual’s right to own a rocket-propelled grenade, please say so.</p>

<p>I say so (but in the context of a well-regulated militia). And I think it is anachronistic.</p>

564

<p>I was so excited to go, but now think I may wait. It isn’t as if I think anything will happen, but this jerk ruined my joy surrounding this series for now.</p>

565

<p>Emaheevul, you are certainly not the only one to be deeply disturbed by something like this. </p>

<p>I was not directly affected by the theatre shooting in terms of knowing anyone who was killed or injured or anything like that, but I continue to think and wonder about it every single day. It is so difficult to wait for the kind of information that will provide greater insight into exactly how it came to occur.</p>

566

<p>Mini, how do you conclude that a reason not specifically mentioned was rejected. Where in the original debates do you find evidence for that idea?</p>

567

<p>You know, you are perfectly capable of doing your own research. Similar things happened when the framers decided to leave God out of the Constitution, knowing full well that every single state constitution and articles included references to the Deity. Every single one of the framers came from one of those states. It was debated in the time, and there were people (such as Patrick Henry) who opposed ratification, with this as one of the reasons.</p>

<p>But the framers of the Bill of Rights went further. If you read the Bill of Rights, you will see that the Second Amendment is the ONLY case where the framers decided to include a context for the right. They wanted to make very clear WHY the Amendment was included.They had all of the other state constitutions at their disposal. They all came from each of these states. A very large portion of them were lawyers. They weren’t stupid, or ill-informed. </p>

<p>They also knew quite a bit (being lawyers) about the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which also includes the right of Protestants to bear arms, to prevent the monarchy from disarming them. The reasoning was essentially the same with that included in our 2nd Amendment, with the added context of the experience of militia being used in defense against the encroachment of the British colonial govenment.</p>

<p>They were really smart people; they knew precisely what they were doing.</p>

<p>And you’re a smart person too; you can go read the records of the discussions yourself. I suggest you start with Federalist Paper #46. </p>

<p>Here’s a little tidbit:</p>

<p>“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.”</p>

568

<p>It is difficult-- I hope you know I didn’t mean it like I am the only one who is very upset, I didn’t mean that at all. I was just referencing that I have a destructive tendency to obsess over what upsets me the most. I feel like I have to know every detail and I make myself so upset. I couldn’t put that Columbine book mentioned upthread down, even though reading it was working me into such a distress that I became afraid to stay upstairs alone. I ended up throwing it out so I couldn’t keep reading it, and I am still tempted to buy it again so I can finish it. I have thought about this for a larger chunk of my day than I care to admit every day since it happened and it is to a point where my boyfriend asks me what I am posting on CC about and I tell him “nothing” because he will think I am nuts if he knows I am talking about this “AGAIN.” I am so profoundly disturbed that I can’t stop talking about it even though I would probably be better off ignoring all of the media coverage and finding other things to talk about.</p>

<p>I just meant that I’d really like to see the movie, but I wonder if I am too sensitive to do so-- because I appear to be hyper-sensitive to this kind of thing. I remember being extremely distraught after the Virginia Tech shooting because yahoo put a picture on their homepage from Cho Sung Hui’s packet, a picture of him pointing a gun at the camera. I thought, “this is what those people saw right before they died,” and I was horrified. I wonder how I could go to the movie without thinking that. And presumably there are gunshots in the movie, and I would hear them, and would I wonder if that was what it sounded like in the theater on July 20th while I was at home cutting my birthday cake? I think it might be better to see the movie at home. But it’s a shame, because I was looking forward to this movie, and I would like to be able to just go. But I haven’t decided yet whether or not that’s a good idea. That was all I was getting at.</p>

569

<p>What do you think will be done about the theature? I’ve heard people wanting to keep it open (“because if we close it, he wins”) whilst others are against it (“It is offensive to those who have died there”).</p>

<p>I am all for reopening, however, I believe a remodel needs to be done (perhaps removing the room where it all occured) and a memorial somewhere in the area placed.</p>

<p>There is no reason for those who work there to loose their jobs because of the actions of one nut job.</p>

570

<p>“The University of Colorado graduate student suspected of a mass shooting last week in Aurora, Colo., was seeing a psychiatrist as a patient, according to court documents filed Friday, offering the first documentation that he had seen a mental-health professional.”</p>

<p>[Colorado</a> Shooting Suspect James Holmes Was a Psychiatric Patient: Court Papers - WSJ.com](<a href=“Colorado Shooting Suspect James Holmes Was a Psychiatric Patient: Court Papers - WSJ”>Colorado Shooting Suspect James Holmes Was a Psychiatric Patient: Court Papers - WSJ)</p>

<p>I think that I will leave out the name of the psychiatrist. We have no clue as to the level of involvement at this point.</p>

571

<p>icedragon:</p>

<p>I agree with you - keep it open but obviously completely redo the interior. I see no reason not to leave it open and it s/b considered in no way offensive to those who were attacked there although this is in the eye of the beholder. I think an appropriate touch would be some kind of small memorial to the victims there. </p>

<p>If nothing else, it’ll help serve as a reminder of the events that happened and in the end help people think of and honor the victims more than if it just disappeared.</p>

572

<p>He has amnesia?
:rolleyes:
[James</a> Holmes Claims Amnesia: Alleged ‘Dark Knight’ Shooter Wonders Why He’s Arrested](<a href=“James Holmes Claims Amnesia: Alleged 'Dark Knight' Shooter Wonders Why He's Arrested | HuffPost Latest News”>James Holmes Claims Amnesia: Alleged 'Dark Knight' Shooter Wonders Why He's Arrested | HuffPost Latest News)</p>

573

<p>Possibly some sort of dissociative disorder?</p>

574

<p>Our Americans have this many casualties every day in the middle east, why don’t people post threads about that? Im tired of deaths with the largest media saturation being most important, and beyond all of that…what does it have to do with college?</p>

575

<p>Perhaps he also was a fan of the Jason Bourne movies.</p>

576

<p>Because to expound on why we should get out of Afghanistan now, would be to make a political statement and that board is closed. </p>

<p>This board is also called “parents cafe” and is for topics that don’t have * anything* to do with college.
Like hair transplants, or childhood icons, or what to wear to a wedding/funeral/first date/graduation.</p>

577

<p>Because the reality with war is that people die. It is much different, however, for something like this to happen on home soil.</p>

578

<p>Mini, I am aware of the notions of the militia resisting an overbearing government. Obviously, that was considered extremely important during the late 1700s. What I have not seen is a specific mention that self-defense, defense of the home, defense of anything except society against an overbearing government was rejected as an idea by those writing the Bill of Rights. I don’t see how you came to the conclusion that a ban on restricting the right to keep and bear arms, with the militia being the included reasoning, somehow rejects the idea that there is any other reason to protect the right.</p>

579

<p>I am wondering what he told his psychiatrist and whether she had a duty to warn the authorities. In some states, psychiatrists have a duty to disclose when the patient is threatening to harm people.</p>

580

<p>“If they had opened it, any psychiatrist who receives word from a patient that threatens the life of another party – especially if that person is named, but even if they aren’t – is duty bound to report that information to authorities and also to hospitalize that individual against his or her will,” Ablow, told FoxNews.com.</p>

<p>Psychiatrists who knowingly do not notify authorities when receiving this kind of information are subject to civil suits as well as disciplinary action from licensing authorities, Ablow said.</p>

<p>If a person is named in a patient’s threat, psychiatrists are required to go one step further. In a Supreme Court of California case known as the Tarasoff case, a patient had confided with a psychiatrist that he had intentions of killing a girl he had been stalking. While the psychiatrist contacted the police about detaining his patient, he did not notify the woman herself, and she was later stabbed and killed by the patient.</p>

<p>Read more: [A</a> packaged warning? Psychiatrist protocol when receiving threats from patients | Fox News](<a href=“A packaged warning? Psychiatrist protocol when receiving threats from patients | Fox News”>A packaged warning? Psychiatrist protocol when receiving threats from patients | Fox News)</p>