Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING NEWS: How Numb We've Become (202 comments)

Comment Preferences

    •  Two police officers were wounded... (22+ / 0-)

      but not killed because they were wearing bulletproof vests.  Come on Clavin Klein--give us some fashion so the rest of us can enjoy freedom too.  If you can make them see-thru, so much the better, nipples are nice.

      The more you learn the less you know.

      by quiet in NC on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:40:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You'll be hearing this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radarlady, Lujane

      That the shooter didn't have the gun legally therefore no law would have prevented this - unfortunately, they may be correct in this case.

      The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

      by ctexrep on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 09:47:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So? (13+ / 0-)

        What's your point?  That no law would have prevented one mass shooting so we shouldn't be trying to pass laws to prevent or at least mitigate others?

        Arrrr, the laws of science be a harsh mistress. -Bender B. Rodriguez

        by democracy inaction on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:06:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think we're using the current case (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Onomastic, BachFan

          not a hypothetical example.

          To use this case, from what I have read and have learned about the shooter - this, at this point, doesn't appear to make a strong case for tougher laws.

          Being a convicted felon (kidnapping), he cannot legally own a weapon, he shot outside of the metal detectors.

          This wasn't something random - his intent was to kill his ex-wife.

          There are ton'sof laws on the books for cases just like this that or either ineffective or not being enforced.

          I think the gun debate needs to stay on topic - there's a reasonable strategy for limiting assault weapons, large cpacity magazines and gunshow loopholes.

          The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

          by ctexrep on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:19:05 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Aha, that makes sense (0+ / 0-)

            outside the metal detectors, that I can understand. He wasn't inside the courthouse proper yet.

          •  It's NOT a "gun show" loophole. It's a private (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            splashy, BachFan, Cassandra Waites

            sale loophole that can take place outside a gun show.

            You can legally sell guns just as you can legally sell booze. The licensed dealers for both products follow the rules.

            *There are two sides to every horseshit.* Kos

            by glorificus on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:18:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  True but... (16+ / 0-)

            Regarding this case.  Somehow this shooter acquired a gun.  If that gun had been registered to someone and they had a license, their license could have been revoked for selling or lending a weapon to someone without a license.  If it had been stolen and the victim did not report it stolen, they could be held liable and their insurance would have to at least cover damages.  

            Would it stop 100% of the gun violence? no.  Does drunk driving laws stop 100% of drunk drivers? no.  Does drunk driving laws reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads? I do not think you would find anyone who would say that it doesn't.  Should we not have drunk driving laws because it doesn't stop 100% of drunk drivers?  I think everyone knows the answer to that.

            "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

            by Buckeye Nut Schell on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:26:04 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree all gun sales (0+ / 0-)

              should require background checks - dealers, gun shows and private sales - the problem being - there are millions or "cold guns" meaning, there are no records of them - so there still are no records of the transaction becasue no one knows the gun exists.  

              If you sold a person a gun - even if it was a legal sale - and the cops came to you to find out - would you admit to selling the gun or would you say - "I never sold anyone that gun" - if it was a cash transaction - there's no record.  Would you want to potentially become an avenue of recourse?

              In your example - you assume that the owner of the gun knows it's been stolen - what if one gun was stolen of of a large collection - most private gun collectors don't do a daily inventory.

              I don't like the drunk driving analogy becasue that argument can be pro / con for guns - there are laws on the books - do they prevent criminals from getting guns? - yes - are their ways around it? - yes.  Do we make everyone blow  breathalizer before starting their car?  No.

              The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

              by ctexrep on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:08:09 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Are you serious? (0+ / 0-)
                In your example - you assume that the owner of the gun knows it's been stolen - what if one gun was stolen of of a large collection - most private gun collectors don't do a daily inventory.
                If someone has a really big gun collection and they didn't secure it well enough to prevent someone from stealing one or more guns, and then they never even noticed it was gone, then they deserve to have that, and their car keys, and very possibly their children, taken away from them. Irresponsibility is not a defense.
            •  None of that stuff will pass, nor is it being (0+ / 0-)

              proposed realistically.

            •  But guns aren't registered to people (0+ / 0-)

              at least in most jurisdictions.

              I'm asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... *I'm asking you to believe in yours.* Barack Obama

              by samddobermann on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 04:23:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  It was not the ex-husband, but the ex-father-in- (0+ / 0-)

            law who shot her. The Wilmington News Journal link is in a post upthread. He might have had the gun legally since he doesn't seem to have been implicated in the kidnapping.

          •  That's not right (0+ / 0-)
            Being a convicted felon (kidnapping), he cannot legally own a weapon
            In many states, if you are a felon who has served his term, the government will automatically reinstate your right to buy (and, in some places, concealed-carry) firearms if you ask, with no review. In many other places there is a review process but it's simple and more or less a formality.

            And then there's the fact that this might have been a legally purchased weapon by someone else, for him. Or might have been purchased quite legally at a gun show. Or might have been purchased legally and then stolen from the legal owner, by him or by someone else.

            This is hardly as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

        •  Of course, have to solve the Human Condition b4 (5+ / 0-)

          we can do anything, doncha know?  Now stop whining about assault weapons, magazine size and things that might work and get busy solving that whole 'Cain & Abel' thing!

          •  Cain and Abel was never solved (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Onomastic

            and neither will jealousy and violence (with or without guns).  Guns exist - their technology exists and in our society - they will continue to exist whether or not any of us like it or not for the forseeable future.

            All of the ideas people come up with  don't address these facts.

            You want to really make a change, you need to get a constitutional ammendment to satrt.  Any new laws just add to the laundry list of red tape that criminals don't follow.

            IMHO - the best we can do is background checks for any and all firearm transactions - public or private..

            The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

            by ctexrep on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:35:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  New laws (12+ / 0-)

              in the UK, Australia etc worked pretty well. American DNA different is it?

            •  Background checks is a good first step. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Onomastic, mamamedusa

              But the rest of your argument doesn't hold.  Constitutional amendments happen.  There were plenty of people who thought civil rights wouldn't happen, that women's sufferage wouldn't happen.  I wouldn't be so confident that we don't see things change with the 2nd in our lifetime.  And I'm certainly not accepting that we can't make things better in the meantime.

              This notion that laws are useless because criminals don't follow them is bogus.  By that logic we shouldn't have any laws, cause what's the point?

              The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

              by Back In Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:36:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Laws are good (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Onomastic, kmfmstar, Cedwyn

                if they are enforceable.  If they're not enforceable, then they prevent nothing - they're made for the clean-up.

                Are death penalties a deterent?

                Even DUI laws - unless you're real drunk, get into an accident  or are just unlucky - you're going to get away with it - did you break the law?  Yes.  Did you get away with it? - Yes - as long as you made it home and no one got hurt.

                The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

                by ctexrep on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:18:28 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's absurd. (4+ / 0-)

                  Any law is enforceable.  It's only a matter of will.  Let's take DUI, a subject I'm most familiar with due to my involvement with our towns teen center.  Teens DUI has gone done over 50% over the last two decades when extensive efforts in outreach, education and yes, changing laws for teens began.  

                  xSome proven, effective strategies include minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) laws, zero tolerance laws, and graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems.
                  Hmm...law, law, and law.  Those statistics mirror the results in my town.  We also have a major state road passing through town and our section of it is heavily patrolled to the point that DUI related accidents in our town have been reduced well over half in the last 10 years.

                  None of this means that everyone has stopped DUI. But results that reduce the numbers in half simply cannot be argued with.  The laws are effective when enforced.

                  Getting laws enforced requires a change in thinking.  Teens face a full-frontal assault on their pre-conceived ideas about drinking and driving and the penalties are harsh.  Parents of teens have to participate as well if they want their kids to be able to get a license. Parents have to go through a course as well if they want their kids to get a license.  I've personally watched hundreds go through it and very, very few aren't completely changed by the experience.  I've known some who decided their kid didn't need to drive until they were 18.

                  Those programs are a result of the laws being changed and  government deciding to educate as part of the enforcement.  Teens know what the laws are and they are given little mercy when they break the law.

                  Gun laws, or any other kind of laws are the same.  All it takes is the will.  The only question is why we don't have the will.

                  The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                  by Back In Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:56:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thank you. That's a good comment. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Cedwyn

                    I would only change your one key phrase:
                    "the will"
                    to
                    "a comprehensive program."

                    Laws as part of a comprehensive program,
                    with enforcement of those laws
                    involving those affected by those laws,
                    in a pro-active way,
                    that's what I read in your comment.

                    That's not just passing one or two laws,
                    and hoping the reaction and enforcement
                    of those laws
                    will have the intended effect,
                    but a comprehensive program,
                    involving thousands of folks.

                    Thanks again.

                    •  I wouldn't change it. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bigjacbigjacbigjac

                      As you interpreted correctly, all those things go together and you can call it a comprehensive program all you want, but that will just get another group's back up about a "Program" that will do whatever it is they're afraid of—destroy marriage, cede the constitution to sharia law, confiscate my guns.  

                      Let me ask you, did they call de-segregation a program?  I don't believe so, IIRC.  The law of the land changed and the government had the will to back it up.  Some serious shit went down and some very brave souls put their lives on the line to move this nation forward.  It's the kind of will that FDR had, that Lincoln had, that LBJ had.  That's the kind of will I'm talking about.  

                      It's the kind of will that doesn't get sidetracked because the wrong label or wrong language was used to confuse and obfuscate. The goal of de-segragation was clear.  To physically change the circumstances of the status quo.  To essentially cut through all the bogus arguments and unimportant details and make it happen.  And it did happen, and it was messy, and bloody, and totally worth it.

                      I'd like to hold out hope that we've learned enough to not have to do things that way any more.  

                      The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                      by Back In Blue on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 03:39:37 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You may be correct with your feeling (0+ / 0-)

                        that using the phrase,
                        "comprehensive program"
                        is no big help,
                        and the true key to success
                        in something big,
                        is,
                        indeed,
                        a passionate will,
                        a will that doesn't get sidetracked.

                        But your example does not support your point.

                        De-segregation did not truly happen in America,
                        it seems to me.

                        In fact,
                        I was just reading a chapter in a book,
                        a book by James Howard Kunstler,
                        called The Long Emergency,
                        that makes that point.

                        And I read a book a few years ago,
                        by Jonathan Kozol,
                        called Shame of the Nation,
                        about segregation of public schools,
                        worse now that at the time of Brown v Board.

                        Plus,
                        I married a black woman over a year ago,
                        and we're living in her home neighborhood,
                        a pretty much segregated black neighborhood.  

                        •  Disagree. (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          bigjacbigjacbigjac

                          De-segregation worked.  And then we abandoned it.  

                          To the current reformers, integration is at best an irrelevance and at worst an excuse to shift attention away from shoddy teaching. But a spate of research says otherwise. The experience of an integrated education made all the difference in the lives of black children — and in the lives of their children as well. These economists’ studies consistently conclude that African-American students who attended integrated schools fared better academically than those left behind in segregated schools. They were more likely to graduate from high school and attend and graduate from college; and, the longer they spent attending integrated schools, the better they did. What’s more, the fear that white children would suffer, voiced by opponents of integration, proved groundless. Between 1970 and 1990, the black-white gap in educational attainment shrank — not because white youngsters did worse but because black youngsters did better.

                          Not only were they more successful in school, they were more successful in life as well. A 2011 study by the Berkeley public policy professor Rucker C. Johnson concludes that black youths who spent five years in desegregated schools have earned 25 percent more than those who never had that opportunity. Now in their 30s and 40s, they’re also healthier — the equivalent of being seven years younger.  

                          It's important when measuring success that you understand the goals.  De-segregation was meant to integrate our schools, provide opportunity to black children that was simply not available to them at all.  It was not designed to de-segratate our lives in the same manner which is much harder and takes a much longer time.  

                          The argument that we can't or shouldn't do something because it's not a 100% perfect solution or because past changes didn't work the way they expected is bogus.  The lives of minorities and the opportunity they have today versus the 1950's is simply night and day different.

                          The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                          by Back In Blue on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:21:27 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

            •  Your logic is Republican pretzel logic, if it were (0+ / 0-)

              true, there'd be no point in having any laws on anything.

      •  Then again, we can be pretty certain the (23+ / 0-)

        gun was manufactured legally.  And it was then sold by the manufacturer legally.  From there on, we might not know whether the subsequent sales were legal - because there's so little regulation of guns that those things can't be determined.

        Now, if manufacturers were obligated to keep track of where their guns go and if those who purchased them legally were made responsible for what happens to them once they've purchased them, perhaps there wouldn't be quite so many people who are killing others with guns even thought it's not legal for them to have a gun.  But that would require regulations, and we can't have that.

        "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

        by gustynpip on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:09:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That won't happen (4+ / 0-)

          maybe for first time sales but after that - no one is going to pass a law like that.  

          Most manufacturers don't sell the guns to the public - their products are sold through dealers or distributors - so while your regulation would be well intentioned - it will never happen - you won't get support from Democrats or Republicans becasue what you impose on one industry can become precedent on other industries - then the only people who will ever own anything are lawyers.

          The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

          by ctexrep on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 10:23:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Think I already had that one figured out. Hell, (4+ / 0-)

            we can't even have a regulation that requires registration or personal responsibility While you own a fricking gun.  I have no illusions that we'll ever expect people to also responsibly get rid of a gun.

            "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

            by gustynpip on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:07:00 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think you got it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Canis Aureus

              Where are these conformist, law abiding people?

              No one ever thought about walking on the grass until someone put up a sign that said not to.

              The mere fact of the nonsense talk that Obama is taking peoples guns away has created a rush on guns and ammo that has never been seen before.

              I wish guns didn't exist - all I am saying is there are all these grand ideas - but they're not realistic.

              What the President has propsed aren't tough laws - and they don't have the support of Congress - from what I have read - many Democrats in the Senate are not supporters (including Reid who determines if it would even get voted on).

              So don't attack me for trying to add some  reality here.

              The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

              by ctexrep on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:24:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I wonder (10+ / 0-)
            becasue what you impose on one industry can become precedent on other industries
            how the auto industry could have possibly survived.

            Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

            by milkbone on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:22:16 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  precedent: (10+ / 0-)

              Love your comment. Auto registration must be updated whenever a vehicle is sold. Why not guns too? Why do so many gun owners think every bit if proposed legisltation is pointless and won't work?

              It's not about the hundred people whose minds you can't change. It's about the two people you empower. ~ Beth Ditto

              by dejavu on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:44:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Fear. It drives a lot of gun purchases, too. n/t (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Onomastic, mamamedusa

                The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                by Back In Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:40:14 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  The only problem is, (0+ / 0-)

                there have been firearms registrations in the past that were, in fact, later used to facilitate confiscations or "requests" for turn-ins. So the NRA made it a talking point that "registration = confiscation". And, unfortunately, they have some truth to back that up. So there's a trust deficit when it comes to registries.

                I'd be fine with a registration scheme myself, if there were some sort of guarantees against arbitrary confiscations.

                •  ...how could there possibly be? (0+ / 0-)
                  I'd be fine with a registration scheme myself, if there were some sort of guarantees against arbitrary confiscations.
                  Do you mean a constitutional amendment guaranteeing that the government will never confiscate people's weapons (even if they confiscate all of their other property) or something like that?

                  Because otherwise there's no way to do what you say. No law can prevent a future law overturning that law. Which means that your condition can never be satisfied in any way except by amending the constitution to add dramatically more protections for gun owners than currently exist, and than are currently enshrined in the constitution for any other kind of property.

                  So... basically what you seem to be saying is that you'd be fine with a registration scheme if and only if something completely impossible were to happen?

                  •  Um, no, I think you're reading too much into it. (0+ / 0-)

                    I mean there's already the 2nd Amendment and the Heller verdict; there's the 4th Amendment protection against unreasonable search & seizure, etc.

                    But these things did not stop confiscations or attempts at confiscations in the past, and I'm talking about confiscations from people who had not been convicted of any crimes. There was no due process of law.

                    So I'm simply saying that at some point in any proposed registration law, there'd have to be something in that self-same body of law that reaffirms the right to posses lawfully, and protection from arbitrary confiscation.

            •  Same way the gun industry does - money (0+ / 0-)

              Why are cars built that can go 200 MPH?

              Speed kills

              The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

              by ctexrep on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:25:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Cars aren't built to kill. guns are. (0+ / 0-)

                "If you trust you are not critical; if you are critical you do not trust" by our own Dauphin

                by gustynpip on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 01:34:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You never rode in a Pinto or Vega (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  samddobermann

                  you'd feel different.

                  The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government. - Thomas Jefferson

                  by ctexrep on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:06:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Pintos got a bad rap (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    bigjacbigjacbigjac

                    I had the recall down on mine and even though my husband was rear ended and the car basically totaled it didn't explode.  

                    There have been some crappy cars out there, but they weren't built to kill on purpose.  No car is - and we've definitely made cars safer over the years.  

                    Can't say the same thing about guns.  They're made to kill.  We've tried to put restrictions on them to make them safer - trigger locks, gun safes, etc. and encourage people to use those devices for their gun(s).  But without the action of the owner to use the lock / safe, the gun is just as deadly.  

                    "Focusing your life solely on making a buck shows a certain poverty of ambition. It asks too little of yourself. Because it's only when you hitch your wagon to something larger than yourself that you realize your true potential." - Barack Obama

                    by Ricochet67 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 05:32:17 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  And they were recalled. Your point is pointless. (0+ / 0-)

                    They were recalled, making it safer for humans to drive. In fact, car manufacturing is very regulated. You have to have a computerized system in the car to determine flaws-- this was passed by Congress in the early 1980's.

                    No difference to 'recall' bad weapons, and regulate the rest.

      •  Well, I'm not sure how it got into the courthouse (0+ / 0-)

        because when I had jury duty everybody went through a metal detector.

        AFAIK, all the courthouses have them. We couldn't even bring in cell phones, and all bags/backpacks were checked. Just like airport security.

        This was a few years ago. I can't imagine things are any easier now. And it was in Dover, which tends to have a bit less crime than Wilmington.

        •  The shooting took place in the lobby. (7+ / 0-)

          You don't have to go through metal detectors in the Wilmington courthouse unless you want to leave the actual lobby area. I was there a few months ago for a friend's wedding ceremony at the JP court. Anyone can walk in, look around, talk to the person at the info desk, and leave, all without going through a metal detector.

          Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive and don't ever apologize for anything. -Harry S. Truman / -8.00, -6.77

          by Shadowmage36 on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 11:38:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Been to two courts in the last six months. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Onomastic, NonnyO

            Both in CT (Bridgeport and Norwalk).  Both had security right at the door.  No room for anything like this.

            The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

            by Back In Blue on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 12:42:25 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think it depends... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bigjacbigjacbigjac

              ... on when the courthouse was built.

              Where I live the new courthouse is down the block from the old one.  The old courthouse is one of those big monstrosities built over a century ago, it has entrances in front, back, and both sides.  It's now used for office space, but I haven't been in it for years, so I'm not sure if they have restricted access via all four doors or not.  "Retro-fitting" the old courthouse for four entrances would be almost impossibly expensive.

              The new courthouse is a modern monstrosity, but the screening area where the metal detector is is immediately inside the second front door where the glassed in foyer is where people can wait for a ride.  In fact, there's no other way into the courthouse.  The whole area is glassed in so the guards can see outside to the parking lot and the sidewalk and exit from the parking lot in front where people can be dropped off if they're disabled or during inclement weather, so if someone known to be dangerous approaches they can see that individual.

              I don't know if there's a different area on the back side of the courthouse where employees in the offices downstairs can come and go (with appropriate keys or access cards), but as far as the general public and the lawyers whose eventual destination within the courthouse is the courtrooms on the upper floors, that's all through the one front entrance door, and the exit door is the roped off area that runs beside the entrance line and the side of the metal detector, so there's some kind of directionality to the entrance and exit, but both doors are right there in front.

              I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

              by NonnyO on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 06:34:05 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Both courthouses are very old. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                NonnyO

                They just didn't care about how it looked and jammed the equipment up against the doors and blocked off area between the equipment and the space to walk through.  It's inelegant but it seems to work.

                The priest said, "Today's sermon is called 'Liars', but first I have a question. How many of you have read Chapter 66 in Matthew?" Nearly every hand went up. "You're just the group I need to speak to," the priest said. "There's no such chapter."

                by Back In Blue on Tue Feb 12, 2013 at 01:47:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  The shooter may have obtained it illegally from a (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mamamedusa

        straw purchaser in another state with lax gun laws like Virginia, where they buy them 30 at a time, to sell to people who cannot obtain one legally (like criminals).

        And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

        by MrJersey on Mon Feb 11, 2013 at 03:10:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe he bought his guns before he was (0+ / 0-)

        convicted of kidnapping or whatever else?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site