After Aurora, what will big brother do next?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • manwithnoname

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 25, 2012
    410
    16
    So what will big brother do next?

    TSA style pat downs and searches before going into theaters and malls?

    Installation of DHS at theaters and malls?

    Further curtailment of individual liberty?

    Big brother never lets a crisis go to waste.
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,196
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    So what will big brother do next?

    TSA style pat downs and searches before going into theaters and malls?

    Installation of DHS at theaters and malls?

    Further curtailment of individual liberty?

    Big brother never lets a crisis go to waste.

    Don't forget all that sort of thing costs money. Big Brother thinks he's made of money, but he isn't.

    There will be the predictable attempts to enact more gun control, but I suspect many folks will continue to point out that: 1. More people are killed in vehicular accidents in this country than by firearms, 2. Since criminals don't obey restrictive gun laws, why restrict honest citizens? and 3. Declaring a particular venue a "gun free zone" is equivalent to declaring it a "criminal free fire zone".
     

    netsecurity

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Oct 14, 2011
    4,201
    48
    Hancock County
    I think you will see metal detectors and more gun restrictions at many theaters. Unfortunately those would be useless and a waste of money, as this shooter proved by buying a ticket and using an emergency exit to enter. Theaters will want to show that they are doing something to try and increase safety though, even if they are doing the wrong thing. Most mothers will not want armed civilians where their children are, even after this tragedy, because they are too ignorant about guns and naive about crime, so they will feel assured by the metal detectors.

    Of course, we know that allowing guns is the only thing that can increase safety, besides armed security at every entrance, and every theater, but even then there is the parking lot. I doubt theaters can afford body guards for every guest.

    I hope I'm wrong and theaters get wise and start having pro gun signs on their doors, but history has taught me that the opposite will happen, and the tools used by the criminal will be villified, even in the hands of a good guy. CPZ = Criminal Protection Zone.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    251972_411925235511650_1597373035_n.jpg
     

    Armed-N-Ready

    Expert
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 25, 2009
    1,007
    36
    Ft. Wayne
    They can shut em all down.

    I very rarely go to the theatre now anyway. Why pay for overprices tickets, eat overpriced unhealthy food so I can sit in a dark room with a bunch of strangers with my feet stuck to the floor. All this so I can watch a bunch of liberal, socialists that are overpaid, untalented idiots that need to be told what to do and say. They think they know all and look down on us. The last good movie I watched was "Act of Valor", at least I had some respect for those starring in that film.:twocents:
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,196
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    We need to keep making the point that it wasn't law-abiding citizens who shot down all those people at the theater and criminals have a verifiable history of ignoring the law. Removing guns - even if the government could do so - wouldn't stop mass killings by those inclined to do so; it would just ensure that innocent victims would have fewer options for self-defense, while doing nothing to deter potential killers.
     

    Blackhawk2001

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Jun 20, 2010
    8,196
    113
    NW Indianapolis
    It could be argued that Hollywood movies, with their emphasis on increasing levels of realistic violence, are at least as responsible for these types of mass killings as "the gun culture" of this country. Consider, incidents of seemingly senseless mass murders didn't start gaining notoriety until well after the '68 gun ban' (for purposes of "senseless" we'll exclude gangland violence of the Prohibition Era) and the progressive acceleration of governmental intrusion into its citizens' affairs.

    Up until the mid-60s, we didn't have wholesale violence even in Chicago, and the retail violence that occurred was mainly confined to the more rundown areas of the City and largely unremarked in the Suburbs.

    In the late 60s we started seeing movies that began to be more "realistic" in their blood and gore quotients. (Biker movies and Vietnam war movies come to mind)

    In the 90s, with the advent of computers, the video games went from relatively harmless "pong" to "donkey kong" and progressed through "Duke Nukem" into "DOOM" and on and on.

    In the meantime, movies have gotten much gorier and much more creative about ways in which human beings can be killed and their organs displayed in un-living color. I'd say instead of restricting firearms ownership, we should restrict the movies that Hollywood is allowed to make. Yeah, let's make that suggestion and listen to the Liberals howl.
     

    rambone

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Mar 3, 2009
    18,745
    83
    'Merica
    In the 90s, with the advent of computers, the video games went from relatively harmless "pong" to "donkey kong" and progressed through "Duke Nukem" into "DOOM" and on and on.

    In the meantime, movies have gotten much gorier and much more creative about ways in which human beings can be killed and their organs displayed in un-living color. I'd say instead of restricting firearms ownership, we should restrict the movies that Hollywood is allowed to make. Yeah, let's make that suggestion and listen to the Liberals howl.

    Liberals would be right to oppose Federal censorship. Should we ban certain books too?
     

    mydoghasfleas

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Nov 19, 2011
    1,082
    38
    Undisclosed
    It could be argued that Hollywood movies, with their emphasis on increasing levels of realistic violence, are at least as responsible for these types of mass killings as "the gun culture" of this country. Consider, incidents of seemingly senseless mass murders didn't start gaining notoriety until well after the '68 gun ban' (for purposes of "senseless" we'll exclude gangland violence of the Prohibition Era) and the progressive acceleration of governmental intrusion into its citizens' affairs.

    Up until the mid-60s, we didn't have wholesale violence even in Chicago, and the retail violence that occurred was mainly confined to the more rundown areas of the City and largely unremarked in the Suburbs.

    In the late 60s we started seeing movies that began to be more "realistic" in their blood and gore quotients. (Biker movies and Vietnam war movies come to mind)

    In the 90s, with the advent of computers, the video games went from relatively harmless "pong" to "donkey kong" and progressed through "Duke Nukem" into "DOOM" and on and on.

    In the meantime, movies have gotten much gorier and much more creative about ways in which human beings can be killed and their organs displayed in un-living color. I'd say instead of restricting firearms ownership, we should restrict the movies that Hollywood is allowed to make. Yeah, let's make that suggestion and listen to the Liberals howl.

    What I find amazing is that censers give the OK :yesway: to all the violence on tv, but when "Mrs Jackson" (I have to call here that per my nastiness) has a nip slip they go bonkers. WTF?

    I guess they think its OK for my kids to see a man shot or stabbed on tv, or a man beating the crap out of a woman, but to see the very thing they sucked on as babies is a no-no!? :dunno:
     

    Kick

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Jan 4, 2010
    5,930
    38
    Illinois
    Liberals would be right to oppose Federal censorship. Should we ban certain books too?


    When I read his post, I was under the impression that he would be opposed to Federal censorship. I interpreted the post as point out the swiftness of certain ends of the political spectrum to condemn items that can be utilized as tools of violence when the same people embrace a possible root of the violence.

    I personally believe that our founding fathers would want us to use our own brains. They would want us to decide what is best for our children and what is best for us. They would also believe that we should all be free to do as we wish so long as it does not infringe on the personal liberty of another. But then again, those are only the ideals that this country was founded on. The T.V. tells me that ideas like that are old, stale, and smell funny...
     
    Top Bottom