The police and aide car sirens in Aurora, Colorado were barely silent before reporter Brian Ross on ABC's "Good Morning America" linked the senseless mass murders to the Tea Party. They were forced to apologize when it was discovered that the 58 year old Tea Party supporter named James Holmes was not the 24 year old medical student, James Holmes, who committed the monstrous crime. Of course, apology or not, the damage was done. According to Rush Limbaugh, Brian Ross committed "journalistic malpractice." Love him or hate him, on this one Rush is clearly right.
This was not the first time the liberal press and its fellow travelers on the left have tried to use such senseless events to crucify conservatives. Michelle Malkin traces the history of leftwing, knee-jerk and patently false reporting/commentary following news reports of shootings and bombings in the United States.
To read Michelle's blog post (and you should), click HERE
SHAMEFUL. And they can't figure out why the entire agenda-driven media is losing market share.
Posted by: Bastiat Fan on July 21, 2012 06:01 PMThis is fairly typical.
Note that he did not kill himself. I suspect that he wanted to see his glory on the TV and in the newspapers.
He should be locked in an iron vault and fed through a slot.
Note that the Cafe Racer killer had the grace to shoot himself in the temple. He lived for a while. He didn't know that you need to put the pistol in your mouth for the best result.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 21, 2012 06:21 PMAs conservative I truly believe we need to just start from the point that the MSM, liberal politicians and noisy lefty's will ALWAYS blame us first, misrepresent who we are, malign us generally & personally and blatantly lie.
Those MSM, liberal politicians and noisy lefty's will occasionally admit when one of their own has done wrong but I cannot remember them ever admitting they were wrong about conservatives or that they did a conservative wrong.
It's sickening but true.
We just need to go about our business knowing it.
The one thing they can no longer escape is the permanence of THEIR words... and ours, because of the net and the proliferation of conservative blogs and their wide readership. Their lies and ugly attacks are quickly exposed. Conservative blogs have particularly learned to screenshot the embarrassing ugliness certain to be quickly removed by the MSM, liberal politicians and noisy lefty's when they are exposed in all their hatefulness
I've said it before, we've learned from their tactics and must master turning them back upon them, using their own ugly words and innuendo to
do so.
The next step is to jump on the perpetual lies and coverup for the White House. Journalism from the mainstream misinformation media has sunk to a new low. Time to push back against their likes as if there's no tomorrow.
Posted by: KDS on July 21, 2012 07:10 PMThere could also be a disconnect with them because it doesn't discuss political parties explicitly . However, that is the wrong assumption, as ABC made it entirely politically biased.
Posted by: KDS on July 21, 2012 11:08 PM... that we trolls (which you apparently define as anyone who disagrees with you) couldn't care less about Holmes's political beliefs. There are crazy people at both ends of the political spectrum (and sometimes not even at the ends). The problem is with Holmes's access to deadly weapons that no civilian needs, not with his political beliefs.
Posted by: Bruce on July 22, 2012 12:01 AMIt's not up to you to determine what weapons I do or do not need.
Posted by: jimg on July 22, 2012 12:40 AMSo if you decide you need an atomic bomb or weaponized anthrax, that's none of my business?
Posted by: Bruce on July 22, 2012 12:56 AMThank you!!
For demonstrating liberalism perfectly.
Basically, Brucie, you just plain cannot mind your own business and insist on forcing your values on everyone else.
The fact that your values have been proven over and over again to be destructive and useless: i e gun control.
What arrogance you ooze. Why are your values any better than anyone else's?
Posted by: Hank on July 22, 2012 06:39 AMChina has complete firearms ban - you can't own them as a private individual. But we still find cases where 20 or more people are KILLED with a knife. Note that was just a few months ago. It happens 3-4 times a year in China. Shall we ban knives as well, since they are capable of killing more people than the deranged shooter in CO killed?
It's not the tool - it's the person. And you're also nicely ducking the central theme of the post - that the Left's first reaction was to pin this squarely on the Right. That it "had to be" someone from the Tea Party or other group that the Left/Democrats love to portray as "hateful, evil".
Yet again we see it was not the case - it was a man with ties to the left side of the political spectrum, not the right. And thus the discussion about politics - which the left brought into the issue - will now go away or be dismissed as "not relevant".
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 22, 2012 08:40 AMHe builds traffic on the site as a generous volunteer.
But I sometimes have a feeling that he is actually Pudge or Sharkansky.
There is a lot of fluster over whether one citizen in the theater with experience and a good weapon could have stopped the Aurora massacre.
Holmes had a chest shield. A proper head or groin shot would have been needed.
But if the freaks knew that decent people were out there with good guns and good gun skills, we might not have as many home invasions and mass killings.
My fantasy would have been to crawl down the right ailse of the theatre, surprise him while he was so busy shooting, and then open his throat with my Leatherman.
It's in my blood. My uncle Lt. George Ham Cannon was the first marine to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor on day one of World War II.
There is an equally good chance that I would have cowered behind a seat.
But I would never have been there in the first place. Batman movies do not interest me. I'd rather watch "Alone in the Wilderness" for the fiftieth time.
Bart
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 22, 2012 08:45 AMExample after example, INCLUDING Virgina Tech a 'gun free zone'...
Oh if good intentioned liberals could only make those bad intentioned criminals and crazies obey.... but they'll settle for taking away nor crazy. the rights of those who are neither criminal ... better half a loaf or lost rights than none.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 22, 2012 09:00 AMJim shut down the Mak economic post for "too many personal insults", yet they began with our loud lefty's starting @ #9 and escalated. So I guess that begs a question of Jim... how is it any different than the bias/blame game that's the subject to this post?
That's a stupid lie that gets told over and over again -- a Rambo mentality that many gun advocates like to fixate on that has no basis in reality. In a confusing situation, most gun owners wouldn't have the training to do much, if anything.
Heck, even if you're in the military, you just don't have the reaction time. With body armor in your way and smoke and confusion all around, you're not likely to do much other than get yourself killed.
In fact, if a few people were well-trained in unarmed defense techniques, they would be just as likely to be able to do something. However, a gun nut's answer to everything like this is just to put guns in the hands of more (untrained, unskilled) people. Bravo. For ever life you save, you'll kill a few more with gun accidents.
@13: Shall we ban knives as well, since they are capable of killing more people than the deranged shooter in CO killed?
Irrelevant. NINE people killed twenty in the article that you linked to. Same effect could be had with clubs or tire irons or rocks.
Bruce is talking about assault weapons that can kill a lot of people very quickly, and are only useful in self-defense if everyone on your block has just turned into a zombie, or there's a rhino looking to mug you.
And you're also nicely ducking the central theme of the post - that the Left's first reaction was to pin this squarely on the Right.
"Squarely" amounts to "we Googled this guy's name and this showed up". That's it. They stated SPECIFICALLY that it was unconfirmed, and later said that it wasn't the case. They'd probably report it if they thought he was a local councilman or a member of a popular Denver rock group. But apparently, whiny conservative crybabies can't pass up any opportunity to feel like poor victims.
@14: It's in my blood. ... There is an equally good chance that I would have cowered behind a seat.
Thank you for having the stones to admit that. Most gun owners feel like they would be an action hero in this circumstance, when they really wouldn't be.
And I might add -- I have no problem with guns themselves. As @13 rightly points out, it's not the gun, it's the person. However, I question the people that want to own and use weapons designed to kill MASSIVE amounts of people. Likewise, I question the people that believe that a few controls over guns getting into the wrong hands are a GOOD thing, or that somehow guns are sacred objects to be worshipped.
Given that you were the one doing a big part of the incoherent insulting, I think that he probably gave you much more leeway than liberals.
Heck, given that the powers that be are blocking folks that they don't agree with, trying to play the poor victim card HERE is pretty amusing.
Posted by: demokid on July 22, 2012 09:30 AMEight killed by one man with a knife. A "gun free society" still has psychopaths who kill lots of people at one time.
And what about the "gun free zones" of Chicago and Washington DC? Chicago tends to rack up dozens of victims every weekend.
It's also interesting how you give the media a pass for its "rush to judgment" about it being a "right wing tea party extremist". They do a Google search and immediately run with it, rather than do the proper thing which is look for corroboration. Nope, in the media's (and leftist's) mind, it had to be a right wing extremist.
You go ahead and give them a pass, though - because the media carries the water for your broken philosophy, proven as such by the wanton shooting in Chicago, which has a homicide rate higher than Kabul, Afghanistan. It's not the guns that are the problem - it's the thugs and criminals. But it's so much easier to blame an inanimate object than another person...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on July 22, 2012 09:53 AM
The Predictable Banality of the After-Massacre Media
I would like to propose that anyone and everyone who writes anything about the massacre in Colorado save their work and, when the next mass killing occurs, simply republish the article, plugging in the new names, dates, and places where appropriate.Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 22, 2012 09:59 AM
This will not only save time and effort, but, since we've already read what pundits have to say and we know all the arguments by heart, we won't have to read it again. Thus, the news-consuming public will be spared the angst-ridden diatribes against guns, or immorality, or our broken mental health system, or violence in the media, or how it's the left's fault or the right's fault -- even articles like this one that complain about pundits writing about the same subjects every time a mass shooting occurs.
You know, it's just possible it might be one of our loud lefty's since they are clearly and loudly supportive of the cause... anyone want to name names?
How do you like accusative hate-filled innuendo, loud lefty's?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 22, 2012 10:07 AM
Colorado Governor Schools Candy Crowley: Stricter Gun Laws Wouldn't Have Prevented Massacre
CNN's Candy Crowley got a much-needed education Sunday on the uselessness and futility of stricter gun laws in the wake of Friday's movie theater massacre in Aurora, Colorado.Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 22, 2012 10:12 AM
As she pushed Governor John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) to agree that tighter gun restrictions are needed to prevent such incidents in the future, the Democrat pushed back, "If there were no assault weapons available, there were no this or no that, this guy's going to find something...He's going to know how to create a bomb"
Eight CHILDREN? Try again. You're pretty close to some type of proof.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the psychopaths -- but a butcher knife in the hands of a crazy person is going to do much less damage and have more of a chance of success than the same crazy person with an assault rifle.
They do a Google search and immediately run with it, rather than do the proper thing which is look for corroboration.
To which I would say that if the fellow's name was Arabic and not English, we'd be having this argument in reverse when right-wing loons were crowing about homegrown terrorism.
I would certainly agree that the news networks run with flimsy information all the time -- my annoyance is with thin-skinned, whiny conservatives that find any reason to complain and feel victimized, while pretty much engaging in the same behavior (or worse).
And what about the "gun free zones" of Chicago and Washington DC?
Point? Your argument is that more guns in people's hands would make them safer. The article that you link to doesn't suggest that very many of those cases would be different if more people were armed.
High crime is a completely separate issue. Getting the ability to kill a massive number of people around you doesn't quite solve all the other problems involved.
No, quite on message if you don't want to fall afoul of the NRA.
Posted by: demokid on July 22, 2012 10:17 AMWhat narrative? Don't you have any better links than some manufactured outrage about a clown?
Posted by: demokid on July 22, 2012 10:21 AMFrom the Gainsville Sun:
"One of the masked men, identified as Duwayne Henderson, 19, comes in pointing a handgun at customers. The second man, Davis Dawkins, 19, is seen swinging a bat at something off screen, which was later identified as a $1,200 computer screen.
As Henderson turns his back, Williams [a concealed weapons permit holder] pulls out a .380-caliber semi-automatic handgun, stands from his chair, takes two steps, nearly drops to one knee, and fires two shots at Henderson, who bolts for the front door.
Williams takes several more steps toward the door and continues firing as Henderson and Dawkins fall over one another trying to exit the building. The two eventually run off screen.
Both men were shot by Williams."
No patrons of the Internet cafe were injured.
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on July 22, 2012 10:39 AMAs I told dorky in that other thread, you shouldn't come to a battle of wits unarmed.
My now ex-wife, while she was 8-months pregnant, fended off a burglar or two breaking into our house in the middle of the day using a Ruger Mini-14 (the same "assault rifle" the Norway shooter used).
So there! :P
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on July 22, 2012 11:00 AMAs I said, I have no problems with guns themselves. I don't even have problems with people that are well-trained in how to use them, as I mentioned above. However, when gun ownership is considered by most to be a right and not a responsibility, there is no guarantee that this would be the case.
But perhaps you thought that this fellow saved the patrons of the cafe with a bazooka? A hidden P90? Did he need to fend off a hundred people looking to rob the cafe?
This is SPECIFICALLY for Demokid @17 who said:
"@12: Had a few of those military personnel, for instance, been able to carry their weapons in with them, they would have stopped him immediately.
That's a stupid lie that gets told over and over again -- a Rambo mentality that many gun advocates like to fixate on that has no basis in reality. In a confusing situation, most gun owners wouldn't have the training to do much, if anything.
Heck, even if you're in the military, you just don't have the reaction time. With body armor in your way and smoke and confusion all around, you're not likely to do much other than get yourself killed."
If you don't like your bubbles burst, you MIGHT not want to read this...
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20120716/ARTICLES/120719707?p=2&tc=pg
Posted by: Left Behind by the New Democratic Party on July 22, 2012 11:04 AMBut then again, you just might say I'm comparing apples to oranges...
Posted by: Left Behind by the New Democratic Party on July 22, 2012 11:05 AMAnd? Did she need an "assault rifle" (as you call it) to do that? Did I say that all weapons should be illegal?
Posted by: demokid on July 22, 2012 11:07 AMAnd again... where did I say that handguns should be strictly illegal? Must have missed that part.
Posted by: demokid on July 22, 2012 11:10 AMAnd guess what.. we don't even hunt... or fish. We COLLECT.
And guess what ... with your liberal anti-rights gun-grabbing threats our collection becomes more valuable.
And guess what ... walk into Cabella's or any sports store and ask them how bullets and guns are selling since President Downgrade/Denigrate took office.
Why the hell do you folks who hate America's constitution even bother to stay here?
Gun Control Only Makes Law-Abiding People Defenseless
One of the missing elements of the Aurora, Colorado, shooting spree was the apartment of James Holmes. There is an abundant amount of news coverage describing how it was wired with explosives. The first person who entered the room would have been killed. The police need to be commended for some good reconnaissance work.Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 22, 2012 11:26 AM
If the shooter planned for months to kill people and trip-wire his apartment, making the purchase of guns illegal would not have stopped him. He would have used explosives. They're illegal, too. More people would have been killed because of the percussion effect - an explosive device going off in a small space.
If people want to kill other people, the law's not going to stop them. Box cutters and airplanes brought down the Twin Towers. If word got out that ten to twenty percent of the population was carrying a firearm, I suspect that nut jobs and world-be terrorists would have second thoughts about going on shooting rampages. We might, however, see an up-tick in other types of killings.
... The most recent riots in London indicate that lawless people will use any means at their disposal to force their wills on others. Three men were killed by an automobile, people were openly beaten in the streets, and business establishments were looted while others were burned. Store owners had no way of protecting their property. The people doing the looting, and they weren't just the poor and disenfranchised (a millionaire's daughter, a ballet student, a musician, an organic chef, a university graduate student, and a law student are just some of the types of people arrested), knew that they would meet little resistance.
"In reality, the English approach has not reduced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them. Imitating this model would be a public safety disaster for the United States."
So what does the law abiding citizen do? He shops on Amazon for baseball bats! He can't buy guns, so he gets the next best thing, a metal version of the Louisville Slugger. In a 24-hour period, sales for baseball bats on Amazon UK rose by more than 6000 percent during the London riots in August of 2011.
Defenseless citizens were also buying police-style telescoping truncheons. (The spring-loaded ones are illegal.) The Guardian reported the following: "Amazon has removed several police-style telescopic truncheons from sale on its site as soaring sales of truncheons, baseball bats and other items that could be used as weapons sparked fears of vigilantism in the wake of widespread rioting."
...So now, law-abiding citizens are even more defenseless. They can't even order a baseball bat on line to protect themselves from roaming thugs. Maybe it's time they whittle down their cricket bats. Paul Joseph Watson writes: "Just like gun control, banning baseball bats only disarms the public and creates victims. Criminals will always be able to acquire weapons of any description because they do not obey laws. Leaving Brits defenseless will only embolden the rioting hordes."
Yet more than twice as many people have been murdered this month in the president's hometown of Chicago than were killed in the Aurora shooting. They are just statistics for whom there will be no presidential visits or flags flown at half staff.Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 22, 2012 11:31 AM
Many of their deaths were very up close and personal:
Twenty-eight stabbing deaths have been logged this year compared to 27 of these deaths last year, RedEye determined. Stabbings have accounted for about 10 percent of homicides so far this year, compared to about 6 percent last year, RedEye data shows.
I proved you wrong. You're the one lying. Or living in an alternative reality.
@34: Also in 17 you said that there were only two uses for an assault weapon for self-defense.
Again I proved you wrong. She had her choice of several weapons and chose that particular one due to ease of use and accessibility.
@35: You miss a lot of things demokid. The incident in Florida happened just a week ago and was in the news in the last week so it is a "basis in reality" that you are missing. You made your stupid statement about lies in 17, you were proven wrong using a recent event, and you're still confused.
Obviously you aren't worth debating as you can't hold up your end of the argument, or even remember what your argument was. Take your lies and confusion elsewhere, it's time for the adults to have a conversation.
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on July 22, 2012 11:31 AMHere, let me help...
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 22, 2012 11:53 AMJust go back to linking to random webpages. You make (slightly) more sense then.
@38: Again, absurd and knee-jerk. You're focusing on a robbery where one person had a handgun, they were distracted, and their intent wasn't to kill anyone. Claiming that someone could IMMEDIATELY stop an armored lunatic with an AR-15 in a very confusing situation is a completely different argument.
And you haven't proven me wrong at @34, either. "Ease of use" and "accessibility"? If she had a rocket launcher in the basement, I suppose that you would say that was "accessible" as well?
Overall, I guess all this is proving is that the gun nuts go even nuttier when anyone even begins to suggest that guns are not sacred objects that should be available to anyone, at any time, in any amount, anywhere. :)
Posted by: demokid on July 22, 2012 12:01 PMJust go back to linking to random webpages. You make (slightly) more sense then.
Um, you DO understand, don't you that as I'm quoting and linking others that your first assertion makes zero sense?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 22, 2012 12:20 PMI was working in my office at about 1:30 this morning when news came about the massacre in Aurora, Colorado.
My first thought was "... is this a terrorist, ala that Hasan slimeball and Ft. Hood?"
And then I became riveted to the coverage as facts began leaking out.... there were two shooters; no.... one. There were 10 dead, then 14, then 13, then now, apparently, 12. There were 20 wounded, then 30 then 50.
I began to wonder: what would I have done in that theater?
Well, if he hadn't got me first, I'd have shot him. And I'd have shot him because I don't go anywhere without my .45.
That used to be a problem in my family. After all, when I was going to church, or to the store... or to the movies... who needs to be armed in those places?
Clearly, the answer is now "we all do."
I'd been carrying since Koenninger's moronic, yet somehow prescient piece demanding the resignation of now Democrat County Commissioner Marc Boldt resulted in some death threats back when Marc had been a legislator and I'd been his Legislative Assistant. I was my own security in the district office.
But this post isn't to proffer an argument on the 2nd Amendment or gun control or any of that. It's not even to point out that Commissioner Boldt voted for an ordinance that would have enabled the county to confiscate our weapons if they were so inclined.
No, this post is to point out the obvious: had at least one armed individual been in that movie crowd, there is an increased chance that the likelihood of this vast amount of death and destruction would not have been as great.
I'm not going to get on the Tea Party-style high horse and make the absurd claim that NO one would have been killed.
But now, we're going to be faced with absurd demands to make ever-more restrictive gun laws... as if any of those would have stopped this from happening.
What I am suggesting here is the same thing I suggested as a result of the Virginia Tech massacre given the response to those, like me, who suggest that no place should be off limits to firearms merely because it's a school:
"In situations like these, I tend to think of those writing these editorials in terms of "what would THEY want if their life was on the line?"
If these writers were at risk in a classroom. If there was a Columbine-style shooting going on in a school where they happened to be; would they pissed that I was carrying a .357 magnum? Would they be so outraged when I pulled my weapon and ended the threat?
It's not hard to imagine these sanctimonious hypocrites in a Virginia Tech classroom, whimpering on the floor in little liberal, whinny puddles, howling with outrage that some student or faculty member; or even worse, say, a college-student military-veteran had actually come to class with a firearm and was ready to use it to SAVE THEIR INCREASINGLY WORTHLESS LIVES had actually done so.
Within the past year, my wife has started shooting. Got a nice little Walther PPK that gets it done. Now, however, is the time for her to get her permit and begin to carry it, like I do, everywhere.
Because if we had been in that theater, maybe we'd have made it. If SHE had been in that theater unarmed?
Likely not.
Unfortunately, this is likely to become a political football, where both sides quickly lose sight of the issue: government cannot keep us safe; we have to do that ourselves. And in this day and age, those most strident in their demands that we be disarmed should really stop and ask themselves this question first:
"What if I had been in that theater?"
Because your efforts to disarm us will only embolden those who are not really likely to follow the law in the first place.
Then what?
It's a sad commentary that our society has reached this point. But it has. So, what to do?
Get a weapon and stand a post in your own security. If you know how to use a weapon, then you should be armed. If you don't, then get trained and THEN get armed.
Unfortunately, there are two classes of people in 2012: the sheep.... and the wolves.
Which one are you?
The people in the theater?
Which one were they?
Posted by: hinton on July 22, 2012 01:53 PMDo you even remember what you originally posted? It included: "In a confusing situation, most gun owners wouldn't have the training to do much, if anything." A single "confusing situation" where a gun owner turned the tables is all that is need to show you are wrong. I provided one.
Was the robbery in Florida that I referenced not "a confusing situation" to those involved?
As for "their intent wasn't to kill anyone" in that robbery, how do you prove that? Why did they bring a gun if they weren't prepared to use it? Were they just expecting a docile group of sheeple that would be scared into compliance by waving around a gun and baseball bat? Looks like they thought wrong. I wish those videos had audio so we could hear what the assailants were saying. Wanna bet they were saying something like "do what you're told or I'll shoot you".
And "Did she need an "assault rifle" (as you call it) to do that? Did I say that all weapons should be illegal?" and "rocket launcher in the basement" have to do with your absurd claims about using assault weapons for self defense (zombies and rhinos)? All I needed was one counter example to your claims to prove you wrong. I provided one.
No wonder Pudge calls you a liar.
So who's the knee-jerker and the nutty one?
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on July 22, 2012 02:32 PMI am now doubling my blame pointing finger at both the media who serve the meal, and the public who engorge themselves on their product.
There are many poisonous gases, and other toxic materials that diffuse into the air.
If the great neurobiologist genius really just wanted to kill everyone in the theatre he would have taken that path.
He clearly wanted to get his trigger finger and ear lust satisfied.
He could have rolled an open cylinder of hydrogen sulfide down the aisle. Smells like a fart. The members of the Batman audience would have all looked at each other with disdain until they passed out.
There are many other, more effective options than hydrogen sulfide, but none of them are as "newsy" as a gun riot.
From what I have recently heard, the first cops on the scene were no match for the shooter, and the shooter was only thwarted by a jam in his assault weapon.
If the jam hadn't occurred we can only imagine four dead cops and how many more dead civilians.
Not sure if this has already been brought up. Too much reading for me in this thread.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 22, 2012 03:48 PMMost gun owners don't carry concealed, so perhaps you are correct that they wouldn't be able to react. Most concealed carriers that I know do some training. Enough to be able to react? Maybe.
There were three men that were killed protecting their girlfriends. My bet is that they would have reacted sufficiently to reduce the slaughter, IF THEY HAD BEEN ARMED. Maybe they would have been killed anyway. Would have distracted the kook long enough that others could have gotten away. Or the kook might have gotten scared and run away.
Getting well-trained in self-defense techniques takes years of hard work and still extremely unlikely that you will be unhurt going up against a gunman. If you can get close enough...
Another thing you seem to not recognize, is that it is VERY EASY to make weapons that will kill or injure "MASSIVE amounts of people" just from the chemicals contained in most households. Oh and that "unarmed defense" you mentioned teaches you to use many common items as weapons: a 6ft long stick being particularly effective; all developed as the people were denied the use of "weapons".
It is not so much that we think guns are "sacred", we just realize that of the many easily made weapons that an intelligent and reasonably knowledgeable person knows exist in the world around them, firearms are very effective.
You seem to also overlook the slaughters when governments get to decide just which people are the WRONG ones to own weapons.
Posted by: Make Itso on July 22, 2012 06:07 PMA few days ago, when the President first went to Aurora he used the opportunity to give a thirty minute campaign speech, and then asked for a "minute of silence" for the victims. I screamed why couldn't you, Barack, just do that yourself without all the campaign talk, and go back to Washington D.C.?
I cursed at him as he spoke on my TV.
Not too long ago, tonight, he returned to Aurora and gave a moving description of the actions of two young women in the front row of the theatre.
One shot through the neck and squirting blood. Her buddy stuck her finger on the wound and carried her out of theatre. They both survived.
It choked me up and convinced me that the president is not a bad guy.
But I won't be voting for him.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 22, 2012 06:42 PMSo, yeah.... he IS a "bad guy." It's also a damned shame that he's our president... the speech (written by someone else notwithstanding) doesn't change any of that.
Posted by: Hinton on July 22, 2012 08:51 PMNow if everyone would do this I bet the number of these incidences would decrease as the murderers wouldn't get the attention/infamy they crave.
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on July 22, 2012 09:06 PMObama is not a "bad guy", but he is weasel who is bad for America.
For the first time ever, we get to vote between two men who have loving families and who are faithful to their wives.
I'm voting for the Don Draper looking guy even though I don't like Don Draper. But I do have his set of bulb cocktail glasses with the palladium coated rims.
An ex-girlfriend bought a set of six of them for me before the series began.
She is still upset that I only paid her what she paid for them. How could I know? And she never paid me for working on her car and scraping my knuckles. I say we are EVEN !!
Come by for a cocktail in a Draper globe.
That includes Mike Boy Scout.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 22, 2012 09:57 PM...your small-minded, selfish individualism is exactly what's wrong with this country.
At last! We get to the heart of the matter. This is the mindset of the left: they DESPISE the individual, and worship the collective. Obama's recent remarks about how "you didn't build that" are also an excellent example of what happens when the mask slips.
Thanks, demokid. For revealing the truth about you and your sick, evil mindset.
This is exactly the type of thug Ayn Rand warned us about so many decades ago.
Posted by: SmoledMan on July 23, 2012 12:45 AMKarl Marx couldn't have stated it any better.
Posted by: Saltherring on July 23, 2012 07:57 AMObama "not a bad guy"? Uh, he's only trying to dispose of your country's constitution, circumvent rule of law, steal whatever wealth you've accumulated, weaken your country's defenses, lay open your nation's borders to foreign invaders, betray your country's allies, force Americans to continue to be dependent evil foreign nations for energy, stifle private investment/entreprenuership, destroy the best healthcare system in the world, inhibit your means to make a living, hamstring your children/grandchildren with overwhelming debt, take over private banks/corporations and force all Americans to be dependent on government to survive.
But I guess I wouldn't call such a person a "bad" guy either, I've call him a vile, evil traitorous pile of excrement.
Posted by: Saltherring on July 23, 2012 08:12 AMTwice as many people were murdered in Chicago this month as were in Aurora last week.
President Obama flew to Aurora, Colorado to comfort the victims of the theatre massacre yesterday. That is something we expect of our presidents in contemporary America, evidently. But meanwhile, in the president's chosen home town and political incubator, Chicago, a far worse slaughter continues.
We can confidently assume that the mainstream media will never berate the president for going to comfort the mostly white victims in Colorado while ignoring the equal trauma of far more black victims in his home town. If this were a Republican president, whose former chief of staff was running a big city where blacks were being slaughtered, you can be certain they would hound him about the presumed racism of valuing white victims more than black ones.
And yet, we are the racists who deserve to lose the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution.
Ironically, even as demokid thinks his ugly philosophy helps the little guy, etc. it does exactly the opposite. Because it is his view of individualism as small-minded that gives rise to the class warfare, the "diversity" legislated equality based on color, guaranteed home loans that tanked the housing market, special set-asides for Obama donors, Solyndra cronies, etc.
A much fairer system would be to allow for more individualism and competition on merit instead of the faux-equality based approach of the Marxists that pretends to give the "little guy" a chance but really is just a vast new network of preferences and pitting us against each other based on the Blue oligarchy who control media, academia, the current White House, etc. If you don't have the right skin color, or the right connections in demo kid's world, you are screwed.
It's instructive to note just how much demokid hates freedom and individualism. He can't fathom anything but a rigid collective which limits us in every way based on government and other force.
The genius of capitalism is that for the first time in human history we had a system that was not based on fiefdoms and petty power struggles that pit us against each other.
demokid and the other Leftists are taking us backwards in time to the place where we were tribal and pitted against each other, or where there were feudal lords like Obama, who controlled energy companies and where special funding and power was allocated, rather than allowing engineers and a free market to determine what works and allow more of us to succeed.
demokid, look in the mirror, it is you who is small minded and hateful.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 23, 2012 10:49 AMDid Romney Invest in the Abortion Industry? (Answer: No)
There's a lurid anti-Romney meme that's been building momentum on liberal blogs and Twitter over the last several weeks. The claim? As an executive at Bain Capital, the presumptive GOP nominee invested in a medical waste company that services abortion clinics.
LifeNews goes even further in exposing the mendacity of the "Romney profited from abortion" line:
- Bain Capital sold off 40 percent of its shares in Stericycle in 2001 and sold the rest by 2004.
- Stericycle apparently began contracting with abortion clinics in 2007.
- The pro-life community only became aware of Stericycle's role in abortion clinics, and campaigning against its work, in 2011.
To recap: Bain invested in Stericycle after Mitt Romney left the company, and appears to have fully divested from the company three years prior to Stericycle beginning its work with abortion clinics. Also, the pro-life organizations that most actively oppose abortion didn't discover Stericycle's connection to abortion until roughly a dozen years after a (Romney-free) Bain Capital made its long-since-expired investment.
... If Team Obama or any of its unofficial surrogates decide to resurrect this inaccurate claim over the next four months, perhaps it might be time for conservatives to remind the American people that Barack Obama was the leading opponent of the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act as a State Senator. The law was crafted to end the barbaric (and documented) practice of abortionists abandoning babies who survived botched abortions, leaving them to suffer and die. Obama has offered various explanations for his multiple votes, several of which have been proven to be false and deliberately misleading.
Go ahead, loud lefty's, please defend despicable lies in a desperate attempt to retain power.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 23, 2012 11:15 AMI clearly stated that I'm NOT voting for him.
I don't ever want to see his face or hear his hightly annoying voice and speaking style ever again.
I also don't want to see him pull his forearms up and skip up and down stairs every again.
Other than his address yesterday I disagree with eveything he ever has implemented, or tried to implement.
Here in Seattle 95% will vote for him. I express utter disdain for them. To their face.
All I was saying is that he has some kind of heart and that he is loyal to his wife.
Bart
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 23, 2012 02:11 PMWe are unlikely to test your claim because few big cities would elect a Republican as mayor. OK, New York did, but he subsequently left the party and is a leading proponent of greater gun control, which I guess doesn't really support your argument.
"And yet, we are the racists who deserve to lose the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution."
No one said you are racist for thinking the constitution guarantees you unfettered access to machine guns, atomic bombs, and chemical weapons. Many other adjectives apply, but not racist.
Posted by: Bruce on July 23, 2012 02:46 PMI know what you stand for as I've read your comments (and have agreed with you) for years. What I don't agree with is any portrayal of statist/collectivist politicians as "good guys" because they seem nice and/or mean well. If I encountered Obama or Pelosi or Dingy Harry Reid on a public sidewalk (as I did Scoop Jackson many years ago) I'd probably have to turn and walk the other way to keep from spitting on them. Nothing personal, understand, I simply detest slimy, evil despots.
Posted by: Saltherring on July 23, 2012 03:26 PMIn Seattle, the second dumbest city in the country, if a wind blows your coat open and exposes your weapon you could be charged with brandishing even if your gun is still in its holster.
This according to one of the guys at Butch's Gun Shop. They pretty much know what they are talking about.
I think this form of "brandishing" would never be prosecuted, but with the current anti weapons climate, you never know.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 23, 2012 03:27 PMhttp://www.suntimes.com/news/13927970-418/woman-dies-after-abortion-at-planned-parenthood-clinic.html
The woman was undergoing the process whereby the cervix is dilated and the baby's limbs are grabbed with forceps and twisted and pulled off one piece at a time. A decapitation of a somewhat older baby in utero, usually done closer to the middle of the pregnancy.
Posted by: Monterey on July 23, 2012 03:44 PMDear Bruce, Please learn to READ a BLOCKQUOTE. I will admit to not providing the SOURCE link for the search lazy and/or intellectually incurious.
Of course, had I included the source link, as is my usual MO, certain loud lefty's would again be mocking that.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 23, 2012 04:10 PMCould be a coincidence, but it could also be that some on the left see atrocities as a way to further leftist causes.
Posted by: RMM on July 23, 2012 04:50 PMAs for me, I just lay back and envision how the light rail will pay for itself in a few short years....
In fact, when I'm not making organic salmonburgers in my Yoga/eco-friendly Indie Band, I lobby for protest group that seeks at least 5 women's basketball teams in the downtown area.
I most certainly did NOT call Obama a "good guy".
I wrote, that in the instance in question, he was not a "bad guy". And further, I wish he would disappear.
I have seen on the news that Holmes is in isolation for his own protection.
I believe that the purpose of prison is really desingned to protect the criminals from their victims and enemies.
I say let Holmes out into the general prison population. Or better yet, right onto the streets of Aurora later tonight.
Bart
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 23, 2012 07:36 PMLet's not go down the same road as the pathetic ABC reporter - Brian Ross who collaborated with the clever (in his own mind) Stephanopolous.
Holmes should not see the light of day again - LIFE in prison. I am neutral about the death penalty, mainly because as it turns out, it costs more after all the appeals to put him to death than for life in prison.
Posted by: KDS on July 23, 2012 08:06 PMWhy shouldn't we EXPECT and demand more from those who promote themselves as NEWS, or be honest enough to call themselves OPINION?
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on July 23, 2012 08:57 PMWhen I decide whether a guy is (or is not) a bad guy, I often picture that person as my neighbor. Would I invite George W. Bush over for a couple of beers, bratwurst off the grill and to chew the political fat? Yeah, sure. How about Ronald Reagan? Certainly. Bill Clinton? Yes, as Bill is probably "not a bad guy" and we may even find some common ground. How about Jimmy Carter? Probably not, as the delerious Carter and I probably wouldn't have much of anything in common. Now on to sharing my time, beer and brats with Barack Obama? Where could a normal, patriotic, conservative American possibly find any common ground with such an evil, lying, deceitful, Marxist, traitorous, contemptible, despotic thug? Nothing this man thinks, does or says would cause me to consider him to be "not a bad guy".
Posted by: Saltherring on July 24, 2012 06:52 AMI don't know why you are harping on my opinion that Obama is "not a bad guy".
He is the worst president this country has ever elected. If I could snap my fingers with a wish he would never have existed.
I want him GONE as president just as badly as you do. He is incompetent and his policies are indeed ruining this country. I challenge you to prove that you want him gone more than me.
When Obama is re-elected and we go deeper into the crapper, the liberals will just blame Bush and Reagan for the results. Frustrating.
Every day I read about criminals arrested for the sixtieh time. Those are bad guys. And what about the "three strikes" law? Never gets used.
And the "death penalty" ? Never gets used.
20,000 murders per year. 100,000 manslaughters.
Annual executions in the USA ??? About 40.
How could the death penalty ever be a deterrant to murder ? Turns that the 40 count really is a deterrant according to some studies.
Bart
An NBC reporter named Bob Constantini said that "One of the guns, and a 100 round ammunition barrel allegedly used by shooting suspect James Holmes, would not have been sold under the old assault weapons ban."
If you know guns, you know that "100 round ammunition barrel" is gibberish. There is no such thing. And even if the terminology is corrected the statement is false. Due to the way the law was written, 100 round drum magazines remained readily available during the 10 years of the so called "assault weapon" ban.
Audio can be heard here. The statement comes approx 2:15 into the show.
Posted by: wutitiz on July 24, 2012 08:50 PMMy data comes from the DOJ. What does the CDC have to do with this ?
I'll admit that my number were off the top of my head from recollections of a few years back.
My point holds, regardless. The death penalty is a joke.
Ever hear of the Andress Decision ?
Bart
Posted by: Bart Cannon on July 26, 2012 01:35 AM7/27/12 Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store
Posted by: Medic/vet on July 27, 2012 09:33 AM7/27/12 Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at Salt Lake grocery store
Posted by: Medic/vet on July 27, 2012 10:30 AM
