Classless commentary. Focus on the tragedy, not local government or political issues. Grow up.

Agree. Grow up. This statement shows no regard for the victims and a lck of class.

I mean smart enough not to tell them how they are going to prevent it.

Giving in to crazies is what got many of our rights taken away by "H.S" to begin with over the past decade.

Bruce: Given that other jurisdictions in Maryland and other areas are increasing police in theaters, we were getting questions from readers about Baltimore County. This is the department's response.

They check your ID to get into a movie? And yet not to vote?

More then likely, this will happen.

The article above says "In addition, theaters often employ off duty police officers, so law enforcement may already be present."

right on Brad,,,,,,,,, as for the comet some one made abou the speed cameras freeing up more officers, that person wasnt seriosus ? we still need traffic cops out there doing what they do............chemical imbalance huh ? I guess that about sums it up.
pyschotic too huh?

Exactly.

The perp in this incident had quite an array of 'Body Armor', in places most police officers don't have that protection. He could have held-out for some time against anyone armed. Thank goodness he quit when he did, and waited for police to arrest him. He still had a loaded Glock that was never used.(probably chickened-out on killing himself, or S.B.C.)

If some sane law abiding permit holders were in that theatre that nut would have not gotten off more than a few shots AND we would not be giving him free food and care right now.

That's one of the stupidest things I have ever read. The last time I was in a movie it was pitch dark. The last thing we need are a bunch of wannabee cowboys shooting in the dark. What would the death total have been if that happened??

harry,this is why ur not a cop..do u know who the bad people our?no is ur answer..some people just snap 4 no reason at all.never be the judge on people u don't know. nobody realy knows why james holmes did what he did but him.all u can do is take care of the ones u love,do the best u can in life.GOD will deal with the rest.i pray 4 u harry..

RIGHT ON! HARRY!

@ Steve, Wanna be cowboys? well I guess your opinion and thought we would be under British rule? Harry nation of warriors? Were still here from Vets to current military WW2 that's left. grew up with a fire arms and the respect of a weapon.and passed it on. Blue & red States Gee which one has the most?

Yea right, he had a 100 round magazine for his AR15, you might have killed him but he still would have killed many. What are we doing selling 100 round magazines? For self defense?

Dumb question, why are the vast majority of the mass murderers of this type male and white?

Yeah, right. 100 round clip, tear gas and the smoke it created. The guy had body armor. It would have been like a circular firing squad. The ban on automatic weapons was allowed to lapse. Second amendment crusaders. What a bunch of idiots.

defend freedom- if the country that's why freedom of speech is #1 right to Freedom of speech (vote) if that don't work #2 “keep and bear Arms” if for the people are under control of the government Vs. the people control the government. The education process today do not know the laws of nature and Common sense were the Generation of WW2 knew. So we went from common sense to it all depends how you define what is is? the debates I find on the patch seems its common sense Vs. define what is is? mentality We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights (common Sense) everyone prides themselves of being better than the other thru Education. I hate to tell you we all have the same color blood running thru our veins, And the level that we are to agree on is based on unalienable Rights that makes us equal. Some refuse to use what all of us are born with, but rather use another opinion or teaching of a man.

Keep drinking Pops!

Riiight.

He was in FULL body armor. None of the movie going, gun toting schlubs would have had a chance. They'd have just added to the body count.

Bart - the shooter did not have an automatic weapon. The law that was allowed to lapse (by Congress, BTW) would have banned the type of magazine he had.

i ve been heariing that alot, also one off duty i the crowd packing too right ? ( same thing I guess that is to say hed have to check his gun in too)

You Got it Buck!

The second amendment only called for citizens to be 'armed' for the specific purpose of a militia.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

It amazes me how this has turned into 'anyone can own a gun'. Nowhere does it say that we all have a Constitutional right to bear arms.

Really, what the Constitution says is that (in today's context)anyone actively in the national guard or active military duty can be armed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, conceivably, any male at any time could be called into service, i.e. the term militia. However, this is grossly taken out of context as applied today. There isn't even a draft.

Although the one qualifier I'll make to this statement, I am alright with folks having a firearm in their home. I am a big believer in the Castle Doctrine. Taking it outside of your home? No.

I consider the right to bear arms as personal security... necessary security in order to assist in the maintenance and control of government at various times thru history, and also to the future if necessary. Without this ability , the government functions the opposite of the intended purpose ...to serve the people. The government controls the people....that's a very dangerous and bad thing...

Tim, the Supreme Court seems to differ with most of your argument. Don't get me wrong. Just because the Supreme Court says something does not mean everyone must agree. See their latest ruling concerning Omamacare.

Oh, I'm completely aware that the Supreme Court disagrees. Then again, the NRA is, outside of AARP, probably the msot powerful lobbying group in the country.

You don't get justices on the Court if they don't agree with the NRA. Remember, they all get vetted by Congress.

Buck: Your personal security is not going to prevent the government from doing anything it wants, at any point in time.

Again though, I completely agree and support gun ownership for home self defense. A dead burglar is fine by me.

It's an EMERGENCY exit. By law it has to remain open. He bought a ticket, walked through the front door, through the theater, opened the exit door and got his things out of his car that he had parked there.

I agree with that...!

He did not have an automatic weapon. He had an AR-15, usually described (pejoratively) as a semi-automatic assault weapon. You can legally buy one in most states in the USA, assuming you are not a convicted felon or have been certified as mentally ill. There are many other and cheaper semi-automatic rifles also available. Many people buy the AR-15 because of its looks (it is cosmetically similar to the M-16 the military uses). The handguns that the shooter in Colorado had can also be termed as semi-automatic.

BTW, I am neither advocating nor criticizing these weapons nor their availability.

Arlow Good point FULL BODY ARMOR! ! Its not about gun control, laws, its an individuals actions, preventive actions? Dennis Gilpin makes another good point. Percentage of purchased legally for criminal use Vs. everyday crime stolen guns has to be greater percentage. Human beings are very adaptable and have a mind to over come obstacles (drugs, cell phones in prison). That is one thing no one has control of a persons mind, Face it ! their is no rational reason for this tragic meaningless action.

You are correct. And, ironically, in most states you are free to own an AR-15 but not the type of body armor that the shooter had.

That is very ironic....what if your occupation is a knight in shining armor...your out of business...

for crying out loud BODY ARMOR!! FULL BODY ARMOR!!!! lol!

Actually, the FACTS say the shooter had a simple bullet resistant vest and tactical leggings. Tactical clothing does not mean bullet proof, tactical bodywear is cheap-o made in china accessories with a lot of pockets and gun holsters. Made for people who like police gear, not any more dangerous or bullet resistant then any other pants, helmet, throat protector.

I dont care what a person is wearing, even a bullet proof vest, if that person catches a .45 they are badly hurt

There are tons and tons of anti-gun people having a field day behind this case. I can not wait until this story blows over, and all the political cry baby's go back to spewing their mis-information onto the next big news event.

BFD: That's fine. I personally don't agree they are seperate. Given the context of the law at the time (post Revolution) it's clear - at least to me - that they are not independent. If they were truly to be considered independent of each other, they'd have been seperate amendments - or at least properly seperated.

In the end, it doesn't matter what I think. If I were an actual justice, my career would go nowhere with this kind of view. Even if I had proof from the founding fathers via time travel that I was right.

I didn't think most folks would agree with me. There are some solid arguments to be made on both sides of this.

Eastsider: Yeah.

This had more to do with being the 'first' showing of the movie. It could have been 7pm and he'd still do it. This guy wanted to be a spectacle, doing it at a premier showing gave him maximum possible exposure.

Government control of guns has a clear and parallel history to genocide throughout the world...fact.

Nope, Not a fact. Government didn't control the guns in Rwanda, Bosnia or Sudan.

Take the time to watch this Steve...I think you just make comments with no point sometimes...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDivHkQ2GSg&feature=youtube_gdata_player