How to legally bring a gun to the Republican National Conven

That's essentially what happens when you disarm the law abiding public - they become fish in a barrel to be shot by someone else who isn't as concerned about being law abiding as they are. That's primarily the reason McDonald sued the city of Chicago and Heller sued DC. They were tired of being fish in the barrel.

And the shooter didn't have bullet proof vest, just a tactical vest BIG difference, and as before you have evidently never been in a shootout.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Good to hear you're on board. It's better than having all you chicken dropping liberals runny away from a good fight.

Awesome phraseology! I'm convinced!

Martin Ent Inc wrote: And the shooter didn't have bullet proof vest, just a tactical vest BIG difference, and as before you have evidently never been in a shootout.

Look out! Experienced quickdraw McMartin will get you! BIG difference!

So, lessee...This mythical "anti-shooter"/Dirty Harry/vigilante would have had to have the following qualities, according to the wacko gun-nuts here:

CCW license
Good-to-excellent marksman
Carrying weapon of sufficient caliber to be able to take the attacker down.
Able to see in the dark
Able to distinguish attacker from collateral patrons in smoke-filled room
Able to distinguish that attacker was NOT wearing bullet-proof gear, and therefore able to know where to shoot him
Previous experience in being in shoot-outs...

Did I leave anything out? Hey, then all we need to do is make sure that we have at least one person with such qualifications in every screening-room, in every theater, in every city and state across the nation!

Wow! Who knew?

(You can't make this bullsh*t up....)

Democracy4Sale wrote: So, lessee...This mythical "anti-shooter"/Dirty Harry/vigilante would have had to have had the following qualities, according to the wacko gun-nuts here:

CCW license
Good-to-excellent marksman
Carrying weapon of sufficient caliber to be able to take the attacker down.
Able to see in the dark
Able to distinguish attacker from collateral patrons in smoke-filled room
Able to distinguish that attacker was NOT wearing bullet-proof gear, and therefore able to know where to shoot him
Previous experience in being in shoot-outs...

Did I leave anything out? Hey, then all we need to do is make sure that we have at least one person with such qualifications in every screening-room, in every theater, in every city and state across the nation!

Wow! Who knew?

(You can't make this bullsh*t up....)

It's better than having your only quality... chicken poop.

Democracy4Sale wrote: So, lessee...This mythical "anti-shooter"/Dirty Harry/vigilante would have had to have had the following qualities, according to the wacko gun-nuts here:

CCW license
Good-to-excellent marksman
Carrying weapon of sufficient caliber to be able to take the attacker down.
Able to see in the dark
Able to distinguish attacker from collateral patrons in smoke-filled room
Able to distinguish that attacker was NOT wearing bullet-proof gear, and therefore able to know where to shoot him
Previous experience in being in shoot-outs...

Did I leave anything out? Hey, then all we need to do is make sure that we have at least one person with such qualifications in every screening-room, in every theater, in every city and state across the nation!

Wow! Who knew?

(You can't make this bullsh*t up....)

But you continue to try and do exactly that for some strange reason - make bovine scat up that is.

- Gunman was originally away from others in the theater when he started shooting - thus no need to be able to distinguish gunman wearing a gas mask and standing in a corner from the other patrons there to enjoy the movie.
- Gunman was shooting - which means that his muzzle was flashing. Also a good indicator of where to aim and to shoot without endangering others.
- Caliber of nearly any handgun would have been sufficient to get gunman's immediate attention. Armor prevents penetration, not the feeling of being shot. Lots and lots of survivors who were shot while wearing a vest that can attest to that reality.
- Marksmanship requirement would depend greatly on distance from the shooter. I can hit a 12" plate at 100 yards about 70% of the time with a 9mm and I get better from there. Nearly anyone can register a hit on a full body sized target 100% of the time with the first round if they are in anyway familiar with their weapon at a distance of up to 25 yards. I'm betting that even you could manage to hit a man size mannequin with your gun with the first round at that distance with regularity after minimal time at the range. Shooting down at that angle might have been a problem for someone without experience shooting at anything other than a level target, but that shouldn't have been a problem because the impact point is the same as when someone is closer to you when you are shooting either up or down, not farther away.
- No need to be in previous shootouts. The first time I rescued someone from drowning in a river I'd never done that before either. Mindset is sometimes more important than experience is.

About the only accurate item in your list is the one that you would have to have a CCW - and even that wouldn't be necessary if Aurora allowed for open carry like Park County does.

But you Alinskyites do love your ridicule, don't you SFB. You love it so much that you needn't worry about becoming bored with it. Problem with attempting to continue to use it at this point is that, like the term racist, you've resorted to it so often that no one is phased by it any longer. Time for a new page in the playbook - if you can find one that is.

Oh, and insert standard bat-crap-crazy, Sovereign Citizen/Jeffersonian/Original-Intent terms here:

regressives
corrupt oligarchy
oppressive
despotism
tyranny
usurpation
seize power
"abolished by force of arms"
"general government"
"plenary power

Really SFB - it's time to seek professional help regarding this defacation fixation you've got going. The guano buildup in your cranial cavity from all the bats in your belfry is starting to manifest itself as a serious mental incapacitation.

Many guys who carry legally also have flashlights or weapon mounted lights. Or have night sites.
If I was in the first few row, I would have been willing to take the guy down, a few shots to center mass, even if you are armored, it would give him pause. Then go for the legs or head.

But if I was higher up in the theatre with people standing and running all over the place, I think I would have taken my time and waited for a shot to open up.

This isn't rocket science here and I have both training and competed with pistols in run and shoot matches.

Fields of fire in a movie theatre? Weird.

Considering Aurora's reputation for gangbangers, you would have though one of the urban youths would have opened up on the shooter. Maybe they couldn't get the .40 out of their droopy drawers?