I’m wondering if any New Yorker could pop on down to the NY Times building and see if the guards in the reception area are still armed. Anyhow, since the Fish Wrap of Record is so utterly against guns, they will refuse to call those people called “police officers” who carry evil guns. Because they are really against guns. Starting off with Roger Ebert, whose headline reads “We’ve seen this movie before”. First, he calls James Holmes nuts. Then
I’m not sure there is an easy link between movies and gun violence. I think the link is between the violence and the publicity. Those like James Holmes, who feel the need to arm themselves, may also feel a deep, inchoate insecurity and a need for validation.
Obviously, Ebert is a movies guy, so, no, all that massive violence as portrayed by Hollywood liberals using all sorts of guns couldn’t have an effect on someone who is a few beers short of a six pack. He then runs on about evil guns and such, coming to the conclusion
This would be an excellent time for our political parties to join together in calling for restrictions on the sale and possession of deadly weapons. That is unlikely, because the issue has become so closely linked to paranoid fantasies about a federal takeover of personal liberties that many politicians feel they cannot afford to advocate gun control.
Perhaps Ebert should have a talk with Obama and Eric Holder, who sent legally purchased guns across the border resulting in the deaths of at least 2 federal agents and over 300 Mexican nationals.
And then we have
- Charles Blow: One step in the right direction would be to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Even coming from a gun culture, I cannot rationalize the sale of assault weapons to everyday citizens. (Hey, Chuck, Obama had a Dem House and Senate for 2 years, and didn’t)
- Editorial Board: This latest in a series of murderous acts is a moment to reflect and to search for sensible answers about guns.
- Letters to the editor: The shooting in Aurora, Colo., brings calls for increased regulation of handguns.
- Gale Collins seems to take a pro-gun position till ending with: Everybody, including the gun control advocates, knows that nothing will change unless the people decide to do the leading. Eventually, the American voters come around. Just ask the suffragists.
The Times isn’t alone. At The Washington Post, The Editorial Board chimes in about our “senseless gun laws.” And E.J. Dionne, Jr. calls for more gun control. OK. then lets disarm the police. Why do they have guns? And how about security guards on college campuses? At high schools? All they’re doing is perpetuating a notion that guns are cool and can be used for protection. Obviously, if no one was armed, no one would have guns, right? Certainly, gang bangers like MS-13, Crips, Bloods, South Side Locos, the Mexican Mafia, the Latin Kings, Folk Nation, etc would give up their guns to comply with stricter laws, right?
ABC’s Devin Dwyer notes that Obama has been silent on gun control
President Obama has been notably silent on the issue of gun control during his presidency, in spite of at least four major mass shootings during his term — Binghamton, N.Y. (2009); Fort Hood, Texas (2009); Tucson, Ariz. (2011) and now Aurora, Colo.
In his few public statements on guns, Obama has balanced support for Second Amendment rights while emphasizing enforcement of existing laws and a national background check system rather than new controls.
Obama surely wants gun control, but, he’s not dumb enough to call for it, as that would be a pathway for defeat. The purpose of gun control is to disarm the citizenry, leaving government with the only guns. My question is, why would the government need guns if the citizens are disarmed?
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
It didn’t take long for the main stream media to be full of renewed calls for gun control. It is the first and last response liberals always have to a crisis such as this. Pass more laws.
what next? the nanny state restrickting 100 round mags to nut cases?
Sadly, the gun control argument is the only song the left understands, so they parrot it over and over.
The cinema in Aurora was told as far back as 2009 that their policy on firearms leads to a gun free zone, which is tantamount to it becoming an abattoir.
They failed to heed this.
Now they’re putting a “no fake guns (as well as real) and no costume masks policy, as if anyone committed to doing wrong would actually FOLLOW their policies.
To my mind, Holmes didn’t follow the no firearms policy that they set up in the first place.
Hopolophobia in it’s finest form. I myself will not patronize them. I don’t care to be a target.
There ya go silly john. Now that’s more like it. That was hilarious. Completely off the point, illogical, but seriously funny. Thanks again for the laugh. Can always count on you.
Yeah, because there isn’t much of one. And, this is new…. blaming the killing by nutjobs on the publicity of movies. Interesting. So the commercials and trailers of Hollywood is now responsible? That’s about as funny as what silly john said. And yet, Ebert is responsible for the publicity of movies himself.
Yeah, to a Socialist like Ebert, there isn’t any limit to the loss of personal freedoms and liberties. Yet, there isn’t any idea of personal liberties and freedoms to people like Ebert.
Also, and maybe another commenter can correct me, but would the AR-15 have been restricted by the Assault Weapons Ban?
So, the long irrelevant movie-critic Ebert feels the need to ban or control knives, pipes, axes, tableware, broken glass, chunks of wood, etc?
Do you realize that even the security at hospitals have guns? Why?
One common denominator that is prevalent in all of this mass murder is that the people are nuts. Why don’t we address that problem? In the 60’s the liberals did away with mental health treatment and the result has been horrible.
Then finally, we have gun control, yet this bad guy didn’t follow the law. More control will mean more innocents killed. Lets get rid of the control and see what happens. Consider that it is against the law to have multiple guns in public, against the law to take a gun to a theater, against the law to have bullet proof vest and other tactical gear, against the law to have or use tear gas, against the law to fabricate an explosive device. In other words, the guy was breaking the law. Maybe that is the problem.
You mean we could have prevented this nutjob from doing what he did by just enacting more laws? SWEET. Let’s do it. Let’s make it illegal to own a gun with more than one bullet. Because you only need one bullet to kill something…. right?
Someone needs to tell these idiots that nutjobs and law breakers dont follow the laws. People will find ways to committing mayhem despite laws.
Laws are only meant as a legal method for enacting punishment for activities that we want to punish. Not as a prevention.
[…] (Pirates Cove) I’m wondering if any New Yorker could pop on down to the NY Times building and see if the guards in the reception area are still armed. Anyhow, since the Fish Wrap of Record is so utterly against guns, they will refuse to call those people called “police officers†who carry evil guns. Because they are really against guns. Starting off with Roger Ebert, whose headline reads “We’ve seen this movie beforeâ€. First, he calls James Holmes nuts. Then I’m not sure there is an easy link between movies and gun violence. I think the link is between the violence and the publicity. Those like James Holmes, who feel the need to arm themselves, may also feel a deep, inchoate insecurity and a need for validation. […]