Posted on 07/21/2012 5:52:47 PM PDT by nhwingut
The police chief in Aurora, Colo., said he is confident that massacre gunman James Holmes acted alone. The police chief was dead wrong.
Standing at Holmes’ side as he unleashed an AR-15 assault rifle and a shotgun and a handgun was Wayne LaPierre, political enforcer of the National Rifle Association.
Standing at Holmes’ side as he sprayed bullets and buckshot into a crowded movie theater were Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, a President and a would-be President, who have bowed to the NRA’s dictates and who responded to the slaughter Friday with revolting, useless treacle.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Go after the violence producers that give people these ideas.
Gee...all this left out was the success Gun Control was having in Chicago.....
I’ve got just one thing to say to those stupid Flukers at the “editorial board” of the New Yawk Daily News. You can’t blame the NRA without also blaiming the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights! So shut the Fluke up and don’t you ever dare wave the First Amendment in my face again! The same people who gave you your Fluken First Amendment rights also gave us the Second Amendment rights. Get off the drugs and stop acting like a bunch of retards. I know you must have at least a little education, use your heads, MORONS!
Romney is a life-long hunter and just purchased a life-time NRA membership a few years ago at the same time he flip-flopped on guns, abortion, gays, etc, and disavowed all responsibility for any and all the liberal/progressive things that happened to Massachusetts on his watch. None of it was his fault.
And Detroit, and New York, and Washington DC, and Los Angles, and England...
I’m beginning to wonder who the lunatic is in all this.
Aurora’s Strict Gun Laws Didn’t Prevent Shooting, But If One Law-Abiding Person In The Theater Had Been Carrying One...
So who profits from such movies and midnight showings? Who has spent millions promoting the Batman culture, cult and ideology? Who has created the dark creature and the violent portrayals? And which newspapers have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in advertising fees to promote such?
Moreover, since guns don’t jump up and grab hold of trigger happy perps to cause mayhem, perhaps the answer to the article’s question lies in the simple phrase: cui bono? Who benefits? Who anticipates the profits, who receives the advertising dollars and who benefits from creating a culture of violence hungry movie goers?
I ALSO want those that advocate gun control to tell me how well making marijuana illegal stopped its possession and use!
The Bill of Rights of which the Second Amendment is one, are not for the public servants to just take away. They are a compact between the people and the government. If the government breaks that compact, the people are no longer bound to be loyal to that government.
He killed just 20% of those he targeted, and most of the crowd escaped.
That tells me everything I need to know about this Registered Democrat Environmental Whacko ~ they, too, believe people are stupid enough to just stand there and drown if/when the ocean rises!
Then there was the door. It's one that's supposed to be easily opened from the inside ~ that's to keep folks from sneaking into the theatre.
At the same time it was easily jimmied! The attacker knew that but apparently the theatre management didn't, or they didn't care.
Looking around for some deep pockets it's just a matter of time until the lawyers figure out where payday is coming from.
The theatre chain also prohibits concealed weapons on the premises.
As usual, a weapons free zone is a free fire zone for a motivated killer. Further advocacy of such nonsense is just the sort of thing that gets people killed. Frankly, if I were the lawyer for one of the victims I'd try to find a LINK between the managers and owners of that theatre chain AND the managers and owners of the New York Daily News.
All it takes is finding an 'active' interest by Zuckerman in Cinemark holdings ~ more or less.
So predictable.
So dreary.
So disgusting.
By denying citizens the right to self defense the
theater is guarranteeing their safety. I expect
to see some pretty hefty law suits come out of this.
It’s like going to city hall, there should be gun check
in the entrance. Why should I have to be defenseless
between my vehicle and the building.
We’ll see how much gun grabbing they get away with when they come for my weapon.
This editorial was naught but slander, libel, and bile. But that’s par for the course for left-wing editors.
“...and England...”
YES! England has very tight gun control...throughout the United Kingdom, which includes Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Shotguns are allowed ‘for hunting’.
I lived in Northern Ireland for three years, ‘78 - ‘81...a time of the ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland. Of course the IRA had guns, rifles, automatic weapons, rockets, elaborate bomb detonating devices etc. The people were generally disarmed, except for some shotguns.
One evening, after a bit of a pub crawl, I gave a lift home to a fellow I knew, and he proceeded to show me his Rigby, and over/under shotgun. We proceeded to take it out into his back ‘garden’ and shoot at cans (food still in them). Great sport, after midnight, of course...and no police showed up to put a stop to our ‘fun’. A day or so later he got a ‘visit’ and he was made to understand that he should not pull that kind of a stunt again. The point of this is that even with their strict controls, the ‘bad guys’ had guns, and they could be reasonable when the ‘good guys’ pushed the envelope.
Part of the answer may lie within the theme of the movie itself. This attack was patterned on the kind of assault that the antagonist, ‘Bane’, would direct at the ‘moneyed class’ in fictional Gotham City. Somehow, the theater goers are supposed to represent the 1%, and the guy in the mask is showing up to exact vengeance.
The ‘Bane’ in the movie was more on the order of the ‘Occupy Wall Street’ types, and their spinoff groups. Bruce Wayne/Batman came across as Mitt Romney. Perhaps the assault on the theater viewers was partly because the movie did not play on the obvious pun of ‘Bane’ and ‘Bain Capital’, because here, ‘Bane’ could in no way be confused with the operation of ‘Bain Capital’.
It was definitely not a ‘right-wing terrorist’ that expressed his rant so dramatically. But the possibility it was an ‘Occupy Wall Street’ sympathizer cannot be easily dismissed, as this is the sort of tactics they would employ, whether it be in a movie theater, a bus stop, a restaurant, or even out on a noon lunch hour rush in a business section of town.
Why was a graduate student (obviously not the best paying profession on the planet) able to accumulate what had to be several thousands of dollars’ worth of assault gear and high-powered ammunition?
To quote that famous American statesman, Barack Hussein Obama, ‘If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.’
I would say James Holmes was highly successful in his most recent endeavour.
But of course, nobody will follow the money. That would destroy the narrative.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.