Posted on 07/22/2012 12:27:40 AM PDT by tsowellfan
On Saturday's Today show, as Michael Isikoff filed a report on the drive to make people safer at movie theaters after the Aurora massacre, the NBC correspondent concluded his report by suggesting that, because "the powerful National Rifle Association has blocked any move for stricter gun laws," people will have to settle for "beefed-up security and greater vigilance," as if the NRA were preventing people from being safer.
Toward the end of the report, Isikoff relayed the complaint of gun control activists that it is too easy to obtain certain types of guns. Isikoff:
Nationally, there have been about 60 multiple shootings in the past 18 months. A recurring theme, say gun control activists, is the ability of the shooters to obtain high-powered weapons, such as the AR-15 assault rifle and Glock pistols used by alleged Aurora shooter James Holmes.
Then came a clip of Dennis Henigan, vice president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence...
(Excerpt) Read more at mrc.org ...
Looks like the democrats have finally found their issue. GUN CONTROL. Secretly they smile for they think they have been delivered an issue thanks to “the joker”.
What? The theater where this shooting occurred was the pinnacle of gun control.
Shut the **** up, Mike.
I do not want or need the protection of you or anyone like you has to offer.
If I empower you to protect me, Mike, then who will protect me from you?
Their great new “issue” they are dancing and pissing themselves about will blow up in their faces. All democrats are not gun hating weenies. They will be offended by the stupid anti-gun ads we can expect to see from the 0bamaites.
Oddly enough when they want to increase security what do they do? Bring in people with guns. Yet they want us to feel safer without our firearms?
But the campaign to stop smoking on television and movies had been fairly successful...the thinking being, if kids don't see it on the screen, they're less likely to copy the behavior.
But isn't it amazing how the libs, even when a killer publicly declares himself to be a hollywood movie character as he kills innocent victims, can't seem to make the obvious connection, but instead, dust off the old reliable NRA straw boogey man.
If seeing people smoke on the big screen cause kids to start smoking, then if one were being consistent, wouldn't hollywood violence lead to real life violence? Jusaskin'
Someone I follow on Twitter said it best..
Liberals use the CO shooting as reason 4 gun control. Funny, they didn’t use 9/11 to call 4 rejecting Islam
Liberals are hypocrites but we already know this
But isn't it amazing how the libs, even when a killer publicly declares himself to be a hollywood movie character as he kills innocent victims, can't seem to make the obvious connection, but instead, dust off the old reliable NRA straw boogey man.
Two very good points!
Actually it was one point but so good it seemed like two!
That's a good tweet!
My Twitter account is: @cafenetamerica
Just added you :-) Mine is @Lakerfanalways
Thanks. I followed back!
Dam this all the way back to star wars. How long vegas over under till ya get groped for a movia?
Exactly. Nobody in the theater was armed; the shooter entered through an unlocked emergency exit, bypassing the main entrance.
“Looks like the democrats have finally found their issue. GUN CONTROL.”
But the fact that these clowns will never admit is that the vast number of people who get shot, are un-armed at the time. And why? Gun control.
This theater shooting occurred in a “gun free zone”. We will never know if the shooter may have been neutralized and the number of people killed or wounded lessened if there were armed citizens in the audience.
But what we do know is a person with evil intent and armed with any sort of weapon can and will target those places where he is assured that there will be no danger to him.
That’s gun control in theory and practice.
I’ve read that the theater was a “gun-free zone,” i.e., a zone where citizens are legally disarmed against sociopathic freaks. It’s also been reported that there were members of the military (with gun training) at the theater during this midnight showing (some of whom would have brought guns, if the theater allowed it.) Even with the tear gas, if there were multiple military at that showing, it’s likely that one of them would have got off the shot, preventing some or most of the fatalities and non-fatal injuries. Thus, the movie theater’s “gun-free zone” policy is a likely cause of some of these fatalities and injuries, most particularly the ones that occurred later in time, when the element of surprise - and the tear gas - dissipated, at least to some extent.
All of this is the predicate for a negligence/wrongful death suit against the corporate entity that owns the theater. That corporation, or its agents, corralled the victims into a forseeably dangerous situation, made dangerous by that corporation’s idiotic “gun-free” policy.
It is an obvious case of powerful socialists disarming the population inside the theater, which is what allowed one prepared but relatively untrained nutcase to kill so many. I just care about individuals, unlike liberals, so I think the emphasis should be on remembering the dead now and politics later.
Never let a tragedy go to waste!
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.