Quotes of the day

posted at 8:01 pm on July 20, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

An eager audience forgoing sleep to take in the midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises” instead were witnesses Friday to a bloody mass shooting at a suburban Denver movie theater. Police said a man clad in black threw a canister that spewed smoke before he opened fire. Witnesses said that at first, they thought it was a prank or a stunt. Then the gunman shot steadily at the audience, not speaking.

***

The man suspected in the mass shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater screening of the new Batman film early Friday had colored his hair red and told police he was “the Joker,” according to a federal law enforcement source with detailed knowledge of the investigation.

At least 12 people were killed in the rampage and 59 were wounded.

…Witnesses to the shooting described him as wearing a gas mask that concealed much of his face and head. But the federal law enforcement source’s information about the suspect’s appearance fits with a statement from New York Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, who was briefed by Colorado authorities Friday. …

Police say Holmes, 24, dressed head-to-toe in protective tactical gear, set off two devices of some kind before spraying the theater with bullets from an AR-15 rifle, a 12-gauge shotgun and at least one of two .40-caliber handguns police recovered at the scene.

***

Jordan told the paper that one girl was struck in cheek, others in stomach including a girl who looked to be around 9-years-old. …

“Like little explosions going on and shortly after that we heard people screaming,” he told the station. …

The youngest victim reported was a 6-year-old being treated at Children’s Hospital Colorado, where a total of six victims were taken. Their condition wasn’t known.

***

Now, even as we learn how this happened and who’s responsible, we may never understand what leads anybody to terrorize their fellow human beings like this. Such violence, such evil is senseless. It’s beyond reason. But while we will never know fully what causes somebody to take the life of another, we do know what makes life worth living. The people we lost in Aurora loved, and they were loved. They were mothers and fathers; they were husbands and wives; sisters and brothers; sons and daughters, friends and neighbors. They had hopes for the future, and they had dreams that were not yet fulfilled.

And if there’s anything to take away from this tragedy, it’s the reminder that life is very fragile. Our time here is limited, and it is precious. And what matters at the end of the day is not the small things, it’s not the trivial things, which so often consume us and our daily lives. Ultimately, it’s how we choose to treat one another and how we love one another.

***

“Our hearts break with the sadness of this unspeakable tragedy,” Romney said, according to a rush transcript. “Ann and I join the president and first lady and all Americans in offering our deepest condolences for those whose lives were shattered in a few moments, a few moments of evil, in Colorado. I stand before you today not as a man running for office but as a father and grandfather, a husband, an American. This is a time for each of us to look into our hearts and remember how much we love one another and how much we love and how much we care for our great country. There’s so much love and goodness in the heart of America.”

***

The telegenic schoolmarms we call pundits are all denouncing the politicization of the tragedy in Aurora, calling out the crass opportunists who would dare to use human suffering to advance their preferred public policy choices. I feel terrible about what happened in that movie theater, and I’m agnostic about gun control, but there is nothing wrong with politicizing tragedy.

The talking heads don’t like it, because they think of politics as a silly game about who sang out of tune and whose words can be used against them and whose surrogate undercut whose message, but politics is about life and death and human suffering. At least that’s what it should be about. …

…But politics matters, because policies matter. “Obamacare” and “gay marriage” are not just issues that might play badly with swing voters or turn the tide in Virginia; they’re issues that affect people’s lives. Gun control and the Second Amendment are issues, too, and now seems like a pretty good time to talk about them.

***

***

“Soothing words are nice,” Bloomberg said during a regularly scheduled appearance on WOR 710 AM in New York. “But maybe it’s time the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they’re going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country. And everybody always says, ‘Isn’t it tragic?’”

“I mean, there’s so many murders with guns every day,” Bloomberg continued. “It’s just gotta stop. And instead of these two people, President [Barack] Obama and Governor [Mitt] Romney talking in broad things about, they want to make the world a better place. OK, tell us how. And this is a problem. No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them, concretely, not just in generalities, specifically, what are they going to do about guns?”

***

The only fitting response to a terrible crime like this is silence or prayer. The idea that acts of mass murder reflect Hollywood violence is absurd; you can’t get more violent than King Lear. It’s true that guns are more convenient than hatchets as mass-murder weapons; they are also more convenient for self-defense. Defense and attack are generally on par in the long blood-stain of human history, and this is the wrong moment for political agitation for or against gun control. (If such laws really did “control” guns it might be different. But as matters stand, if we outlaw guns, we had better outlaw crime also.) A whole generation has been reared, in many parts of society, without the moral compass of biblical religion. Does that make any difference to the rate of violent crime? I don’t know and, again, this is the wrong moment to argue about it. In human life, savagery is a given. God knows we all wish it weren’t.

Tags: , , ,

Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

It’s a mystery indeed.

squint on May 7, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Bishopalooza!

Marcola on May 7, 2013 at 4:41 PM

Coburn Proposes Common Sense Universal Background Check System, Gun Controllers Hate It
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/coburn-proposes-common-sense-universal-background-check-system-gun-control-advocates-hate-it/

Here’s how Coburn’s idea works. A prospective buyer logs into a website run by the FBI’s NICS division and enters the information you would put on a standard ATF form 4473. The NICS database then does a background check, and returns either a “proceed” or “denied” result along with a unique code. That code, combined with the buyer’s name, can be used by the seller to verify the authenticity of the “proceed” from the background check.
Once the buyer has his background check completed, he can purchase a firearm within 30 days.

Before Coburn’s proposal, no “universal” background check system even came close to the level of privacy protection and convenience that this one offers. And that’s why gun control advocates don’t like it. They want their records, and they want their national gun registry.

Make no mistake: a universal gun registry is what they really want. “Universal” background checks are just the means to the end for them, the stepping stone in that direction. And Coburn’s proposal gives the public what they want while denying the gun control advocates their registry. And it’s pissing them off.

Colbyjack on May 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Facts, who knew?

D-fusit on May 7, 2013 at 4:45 PM

But how much did gun crime go UP … in Chicago ?

listens2glenn on May 7, 2013 at 4:46 PM

Okay, as someone wise once wrote…the baby boomers, it’s a lot harder to climb through a window and rob a house when you are sixty years old than when you are under 40…

We can’t run as fast, talk as fast, fight as hard…we just want to finish off our life in quiet…

All of our lives we have driven the economy…now we are driving retirement…

right2bright on May 7, 2013 at 4:46 PM

The problem must be getting worse to justify making it his tippy top public priority; otherwise, one might be forced to conclude that he’s demagoging it simply as a handy bludgeon to try to use against the GOP in the midterms.

He needs an enemy to progress against the US. Guns is a handy one. Notice how the “War on Women” has been non-existent since the start of the Gosnell trial. Whenever a verdict is reached, it’ll be back.

BobMbx on May 7, 2013 at 4:47 PM

These facts hurt the libs ajenda and don’t play well their their “story”. Libs=lies. This truth won’t stand with them.

Cadian on May 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM

Um, I’m not sure about other states, but that time frame coincides with the change in Texas law allowing for concealed carry. Before then, there were defenses from prosecution, not carry laws.

Made it much easier for those of us with a need to carry. And allowed for others who did not meet the need at the time to carry a firearm.

I saw no mention of that in either study.

cozmo on May 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM

And yet, per Pew, just 12 percent of the public has any clue about the dramatic decline in gun crime.

Just shows how much we all have been victimized by the gun grabbing propagandists with the fully automatic talking points.

fourdeucer on May 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM

and most Americans have no idea

None whatsoever. Sadly, thanks to school idoctrinators, abetted by our media and entertainment industries, that’s pretty much the case in so many important matters.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 4:50 PM

well thats what happens, when the media is in the tank for the left.

Raquel Pinkbullet on May 7, 2013 at 4:53 PM

Coburn Proposes Common Sense Universal Background Check System, Gun Controllers Hate It
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/coburn-proposes-common-sense-universal-background-check-system-gun-control-advocates-hate-it/

Here’s how Coburn’s idea works. A prospective buyer logs into a website run by the FBI’s NICS division and enters the information you would put on a standard ATF form 4473. The NICS database then does a background check, and returns either a “proceed” or “denied” result along with a unique code. That code, combined with the buyer’s name, can be used by the seller to verify the authenticity of the “proceed” from the background check.
Once the buyer has his background check completed, he can purchase a firearm within 30 days.

Before Coburn’s proposal, no “universal” background check system even came close to the level of privacy protection and convenience that this one offers. And that’s why gun control advocates don’t like it. They want their records, and they want their national gun registry.

This system infringes on my privacy and is an offense. the idea that it somehow precludes the feral government amassing a database is ridiculous.

F-Off Coburn. No universal background checks, period. What we already have is an offense to the Constitution.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM

According to Frekonmics it’s inner city abortion. Also we have been buying lots of guns and CC laws have become commonplace except in peaceful Chicago, Detroit, NC, ATL, LA and other democrat dominated hell holes.

jukin3 on May 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Colbyjack on May 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

On a different post today I linked to an Executive Order signed by Obama on Jan. 1, 2013 that gave these agencies access to NICS.

Membership. In addition to the Chair, the Working Group shall consist of representatives of the following agencies:

(i) the Department of Defense;

(ii) the Department of Health and Human Services;

(iii) the Department of Transportation;

(iv) the Department of Veterans Affairs;

(v) the Department of Homeland Security;

(vi) the Social Security Administration;

(vii) the Office of Personnel Management;

(viii) the Office of Management and Budget; and

(ix) such other agencies or offices as the Chair may designate.

fourdeucer on May 7, 2013 at 4:59 PM

That screen shot is so grating. Makes me wanna give him a smack upside that smirk.

tru2tx on May 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM

and most Americans have no idea

Well, we did learn about how much having sex at Georgetown costs over 4 years instead.

BobMbx on May 7, 2013 at 5:00 PM

Television and movies have gotten much, much more violent over the years which gives the impression that there is more violence. And the news media can’t wait to sensationalize each child abduction or shooting. But that had always happened, really. People today think that the wild west was one big gun battle. The reality is that the fight out at the OK Corral was a big deal at the time because those things just didn’t happen all that much.

It did in the movies. And it’s still does… in the movies.

Lily on May 7, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Let’s face it, a majority of the American public has their head up their ass. They’re too busy watching Dancing with Stars and Honey Boo-boo.

GarandFan on May 7, 2013 at 5:03 PM

Thats why when DEMOCRATS and the left wing libtards talk about gun laws, they are full of $HIT every time, and are liars.

TX-96 on May 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM

It’s not PC but if Black gun violence were taken out of the equation the numbers would drop to near insignificance.

Mason on May 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM

(v) the Department of Homeland Security;

fourdeucer on May 7, 2013 at 4:59 PM

I constantly see their “police SUVs” all over Philadelphia. It offends me. Truly. And the fact that they say “POLICE” in big letters on the SUV and have that idiotic “federal protective police” label on the sides make me sick. The US has never had any federal police force and should never have one. It is insane. I cannot believe that this cr@p is allowed to go on. I feel like I stepped into some sh!thole Eurotrash joke of a nation – though I guess living in the American Socialist Superstate is supposed to give that exact sort of sick feeling to any sane person.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 7, 2013 at 5:05 PM

So how does Pew end up with a 49% decline in gun homicides since 1993 while DOJ ends up with a 39% decline? I wonder what different sources they used. I would also like to know the estimate of how many guns were privately owned in 1993 vs. the present. It has to be tens of millions more, which would make the case for gun control even weaker.

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

And yet, per Pew, just 12 percent of the public has any clue

Putting a positive spin on it, this is at least a decrease from the 52% who had no clue about anything last November.

Erich66 on May 7, 2013 at 5:07 PM

This is why the media, education and entertainment does matter.

Just because we know about this do not assumes other should naturally know this as well. Conservatives and libertarians must crush the leftest in the MSM (buy them out or ruin them), the public education system (with vouchers and charter schools), and the entertainment industry (Hollywood and the music industry).

This is a informational war and right now we are losing because we don’t communicate our views well at all.

William Eaton on May 7, 2013 at 5:09 PM

This system infringes on my privacy and is an offense. the idea that it somehow precludes the feral government amassing a database is ridiculous.

F-Off Coburn. No universal background checks, period. What we already have is an offense to the Constitution.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Such things are very illustrative in showing the gun grabber’s true intentions in wanting Universal Registration.

On the one hand they will claim it does no such thing, but on the other – their “universal Registration” scam can Only work with registration.

Galt2009 on May 7, 2013 at 5:10 PM

So how does Pew end up with a 49% decline in gun homicides since 1993 while DOJ ends up with a 39% decline? I wonder what different sources they used. I would also like to know the estimate of how many guns were privately owned in 1993 vs. the present. It has to be tens of millions more, which would make the case for gun control even weaker.

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Maybe DOJ used prosecutions/convictions whereas the other data may include unsolved/unprosecuted cases?

weaselyone on May 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM

otherwise, one might be forced to conclude that he’s demagoging it simply as a handy bludgeon to try to use against the GOP in the midterms. And that can’t be true. Can it?


Or the SCOAMF is using it as a distraction from the Most Corrupt Administration EVER bankrolling the Too Big Too Fail banks with $ 83 billion/year in government subsidies (i.e. their profits and his camaign contributors billions of dollars and bonuses) while unemployment numbers, the GDP number and Obamacare disaster are completely ignored by the Pavlovian response of the Kneepad Media to the “gun control bell”?

PolAgnostic on May 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM

So how does Pew end up with a 49% decline in gun homicides since 1993 while DOJ ends up with a 39% decline? I wonder what different sources they used. I would also like to know the estimate of how many guns were privately owned in 1993 vs. the present. It has to be tens of millions more, which would make the case for gun control even weaker.

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 5:06 PM

Maybe DOJ used prosecutions/convictions whereas the other data may include unsolved/unprosecuted cases?

weaselyone on May 7, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Could it possibly be because DOJ for the past 4 1/2 years has been unethically run by someone who hates guns?

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Coburn Proposes Common Sense Universal Background Check System, Gun Controllers Hate It
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/coburn-proposes-common-sense-universal-background-check-system-gun-control-advocates-hate-it/

Here’s how Coburn’s idea works. A prospective buyer logs into a website run by the FBI’s NICS division and enters the information you would put on a standard ATF form 4473. The NICS database then does a background check, and returns either a “proceed” or “denied” result along with a unique code. That code, combined with the buyer’s name, can be used by the seller to verify the authenticity of the “proceed” from the background check.
Once the buyer has his background check completed, he can purchase a firearm within 30 days.

Before Coburn’s proposal, no “universal” background check system even came close to the level of privacy protection and convenience that this one offers. And that’s why gun control advocates don’t like it. They want their records, and they want their national gun registry.

Make no mistake: a universal gun registry is what they really want. “Universal” background checks are just the means to the end for them, the stepping stone in that direction. And Coburn’s proposal gives the public what they want while denying the gun control advocates their registry. And it’s pissing them off.

Colbyjack on May 7, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I’ve never seen a writeup of what exactly is wrong with our present system of background checks for gun purchases. I’ve done it many times, the first time about eighteen years ago and it seemed to work just fine. Why is it the existing system not ‘universal’?

Has the public ever been polled with the question: “are you aware we already have a system for background checks for the purchase of guns, and have for X years?”

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2013 at 5:21 PM

It’s not PC but if Black gun violence were taken out of the equation the numbers would drop to near insignificance.

Mason on May 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Didn’t look at the breakdowns by race, but didn’t other minorities also have a lot of gun violence, like the Hispanics?

Del Dolemonte on May 7, 2013 at 5:22 PM

It’s not PC but if Black gun violence were taken out of the equation the numbers would drop to near insignificance.

Mason on May 7, 2013 at 5:04 PM

Yeah, but that’s really the fault of you white people, because,

because…

Shutup!

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

But how much did gun crime go UP … in Chicago ?

listens2glenn on May 7, 2013 at 4:46 PM

This.

And I would bet that the bulk of the decrease in national gun violence occurred in states that passed concealed carry laws. Thugs don’t like a level playing field, and gun-free zones are still victim-rich zones.

iurockhead on May 7, 2013 at 5:26 PM

But how much did gun crime go UP … in Chicago ?

listens2glenn on May 7, 2013 at 4:46 PM

http://www.heyjackass.com/

davidk on May 7, 2013 at 5:28 PM

and most Americans have no idea

Facts are hard.

itsspideyman on May 7, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Close the burglary background check loophole!!!!!111!!

Ward Cleaver on May 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM

because…

Shutup!

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM

This will never get old. Ever.

Just like “pull my finger”, it will live forever.

hey, let’s do a Reese’s cup thing here…

“Pull my finger”

“Why”

“because….shutup!”

BobMbx on May 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Gun ownership up, gun crime down.

It’s only puzzling if you’re a gun-grabbing lib.

Missy on May 7, 2013 at 5:29 PM

According to data from the FBI’s uniform crime reports, California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220 — which makes up 68 percent of all murders in the state that year and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.

The irony of such a grisly distinction is evident when you look at which state was named the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011 by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You guessed it — it was California.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/06/the-firearms-statistics-that-gun-control-advocates-dont-want-to-see/

davidk on May 7, 2013 at 5:31 PM

But…Piers Morgan.

d1carter on May 7, 2013 at 5:36 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 7, 2013 at 5:05 PM

You are so right on in your opinion and analysis of DHS, I can’t even imagine a more bureaucratic, militaristic, disdainful organization than DHS.

fourdeucer on May 7, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Um, I’m not sure about other states, but that time frame coincides with the change in Texas law allowing for concealed carry….And allowed for others who did not meet the need at the time to carry a firearm.

I saw no mention of that in either study.

cozmo on May 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM

excellent catch cozmo. October 1991 was the Luby’s massacre in Killeen. Spring of 1995 we passed the must issue CCL law. Removed the barriers to carry.

DanMan on May 7, 2013 at 5:38 PM

From the Pew Chart – Percentage decrease by ethnicity from 1994 – 2010

……………….% Decr.
White……….-42%
Hispanic…..-69%
Black………..-50%
Nat Amer….-28%
Asn/P Isl….-79%

PolAgnostic on May 7, 2013 at 5:53 PM

DanMan on May 7, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Not so excellent catch.

I was very familiar with the carry laws before Texas changed them. I met two of the three requirements to be able to carry, and was angry that it was a defense from prosecution instead of a true ability to carry.

There is such a thing as jerk cops, and I had to deal with a few of them during that period.

cozmo on May 7, 2013 at 5:55 PM

My friends and I used to set off stink bombs at school. Think that would classify as chemical weapons today?

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Ooops. Wrong thread.

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 6:06 PM

Crap….nonpartisan still doesn’t know.

CW on May 7, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Nonpartisan still doesn’t know crap.

CW on May 7, 2013 at 6:16 PM

Preview your sentence structure.

cozmo on May 7, 2013 at 6:18 PM

[Charlie Rangel] went on: “We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons, were talking about handguns easier in the inner cities, to get these guns in the inner cities, than to get computers. This is not just a political issue, it’s a moral issue and so when we condemn the NRA we should not ignore the fact that a lot of people that have taken moral positions have been solid on this big one.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/21/dem-rep-makes-wildly-inaccurate-claim-about-children-killed-with-so-called-assault-weapons/

davidk on May 7, 2013 at 6:20 PM

What’s the carbon footprint of this?: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020936072_apwaseattlegunbuyback.html

davidk on May 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM

There is such a thing as jerk cops, and I had to deal with a few of them during that period.

must still be around too, wasn’t that vet on the Scout camping trip that had the rude gun detained right around Killeen recently?

DanMan on May 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM

[Charlie Rangel] went on: “We’re talking about millions of kids dying — being shot down by assault weapons, were talking about handguns easier in the inner cities, to get these guns in the inner cities, than to get computers. This is not just a political issue, it’s a moral issue and so when we condemn the NRA we should not ignore the fact that a lot of people that have taken moral positions have been solid on this big one.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/21/dem-rep-makes-wildly-inaccurate-claim-about-children-killed-with-so-called-assault-weapons/

davidk on May 7, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Millions of kids dying? Did he get ‘gun crime’ mixed up with the abortion industry?

slickwillie2001 on May 7, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Coincidently enough – gun crime has gone down as the LEGAL sales of gun have skyrocketed.
Couldn’t possibly be a link between those stats, could there?

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Many watch the alphabet media and parrot what they hear and see, never for a moment checking back at the sources of their statements. There are those that talk about magazines holding illegal amounts of ammo for revolvers, chem trails with internet sites showing the spraying over seven miles up. Google (list of government agencies) read’em all, it’s so bad that you will think it’s fake. And while you’re at it google (number of staff for Congress) this too is beyond belief.

mixplix on May 7, 2013 at 6:47 PM

Um, I’m not sure about other states, but that time frame coincides with the change in Texas law allowing for concealed carry. Before then, there were defenses from prosecution, not carry laws.

Made it much easier for those of us with a need to carry. And allowed for others who did not meet the need at the time to carry a firearm.

I saw no mention of that in either study.

cozmo on May 7, 2013 at 4:49 PM

My girl has that covered, but you might want to see Coulter’s recent, too:

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2013/05/americas-most-feared-economist.html

Axe on May 7, 2013 at 6:49 PM

You said it right Alla:

It “feels” that things are worse, which means we must pass new laws.

It “feels” that you are gonna get shot for stepping out of your house thus we must pass laws that will help criminals retain the power and make law abiding citizens victims.

It “feels” that the health care system is bad, thus we need to pass a whole new entitlement to make that bad system happen.

It “feels” that hot summer weather is hot thus we must pass new laws to cut our standard of living making everyone poorer.

It “feels” that gays and women are horribly oppressed and have no special rights nowhere found in the Constitution thus we need to pass laws that curtail someone else’s rights to not “feel” guilty anymore.

….

It “feels” that we are getting screwed…

ptcamn on May 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM

It “feels” that we are getting screwed…

ptcamn on May 7, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Yes. WE are.

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 7:02 PM

While I don’t actually object to a national registry of all guns, it sure is fun seeing the Democrats get beat up over it.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 7:27 PM

While I don’t actually object to a national registry of all guns, it sure is fun seeing the Democrats get beat up over it.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 7:27 PM

And I don’t object to a national registry of your political leanings. Hello Obama.care

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 7:31 PM

And I don’t object to a national registry of your political leanings. Hello Obama.care

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 7:31 PM

Non sequitor?

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Get over it, libtards!!!!

ladyingray on May 7, 2013 at 7:35 PM

While I don’t actually object to a national registry of all guns, it sure is fun seeing the Democrats get beat up over it.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 7:27 PM

Oh good lord…if you are in favor of a national registry of all guns, you are as liberal as all Democrats. Give it up.

ladyingray on May 7, 2013 at 7:36 PM

Non sequitor?

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 7:33 PM

Nahhh. I’m as stiff as Victor Von Doom after a fire hydrant.

You get what you pay for.

Econ. 101.

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Troll free thread. Go figure…

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Oh good lord…if you are in favor of a national registry of all guns, you are as liberal as all Democrats. Give it up.

ladyingray on May 7, 2013 at 7:36 PM

???
So, tactically, I can see the objection to a registry as a useful defensive line against gun grabbing, but otherwise I don’t really see much harm in it. If it ever comes down to “the government will use it to come after gun owners”, we’re all pretty much so screwed it won’t make a difference.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Troll free thread. Go figure…

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM

hardly.

eat more kale!!!!!!

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Nahhh. I’m as stiff as Victor Von Doom after a fire hydrant.

You get what you pay for.

Econ. 101.

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 7:42 PM

Wait, what?

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:13 PM

So, tactically, I can see the objection to a registry as a useful defensive line against gun grabbing, but otherwise I don’t really see much harm in it. If it ever comes down to “the government will use it to come after gun owners”, we’re all pretty much so screwed it won’t make a difference.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM

so, it’s ok if the gubmint appoints someone to vote for you too…..

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:14 PM

So, tactically, I can see the objection to a registry as a useful defensive line against gun grabbing, but otherwise I don’t really see much harm in it. If it ever comes down to “the government will use it to come after gun owners”, we’re all pretty much so screwed it won’t make a difference.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:12 PM

OK – try putting on the old thinking cap for a minute.
With the registry they know who has what guns – except for the criminals of course.
Without the registry, they don’t know who to go after.
That’s why every fascist or communist dictatorship in human history started with a national gun registry, THEN went for the total confiscation – Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and more.
Also the UK. They implemented a registry first, and that was followd by a total confiscation a few years ago.
Do you see a connection yet?

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Troll free thread. Go figure…

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2013 at 7:59 PM

Not quite…..

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:21 PM

so, it’s ok if the gubmint appoints someone to vote for you too…..

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:14 PM

I think that may have already been done in the last 2 major elections.

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:22 PM

Not quite…..

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:21 PM

more like, not even close

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:24 PM

OK – try putting on the old thinking cap for a minute.
With the registry they know who has what guns – except for the criminals of course.
Without the registry, they don’t know who to go after.
That’s why every fascist or communist dictatorship in human history started with a national gun registry, THEN went for the total confiscation – Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and more.
Also the UK. They implemented a registry first, and that was followd by a total confiscation a few years ago.
Do you see a connection yet?

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:20 PM

And, if they are going to come after you, they will do it with or without a registry. The absence of a registry would be little more than an inconvenience to the dictator — and might even be an convenience, as that could give them an excuse to crack down even harder. Either way, we’ve already lost at that point, so it’s basically irrelevant.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:28 PM

so, it’s ok if the gubmint appoints someone to vote for you too…..

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:14 PM

…
Are you just pulling my leg, or do you really see any kind of logical connection between your comments and mine?

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:31 PM

And, if they are going to come after you, they will do it with or without a registry. The absence of a registry would be little more than an inconvenience to the dictator — and might even be an convenience, as that could give them an excuse to crack down even harder. Either way, we’ve already lost at that point, so it’s basically irrelevant.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:28 PM

EXACTLY!! The harder they crack down, the faster they lose.

Bank on it.

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:34 PM

And, if they are going to come after you, they will do it with or without a registry. The absence of a registry would be little more than an inconvenience to the dictator — and might even be an convenience, as that could give them an excuse to crack down even harder. Either way, we’ve already lost at that point, so it’s basically irrelevant.

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:28 PM

How do they know who to go after? How would they know if I have guns to consfiscate?
Without a registry, they would have to search every house in the country with no probable cause, in violation of the 4th amendment as well as the 2nd, and that would attract far too much attention – and resistance.

Now, if you’re trying to tap dance around the idea of the Dems declaring martial law, as they nearly / essentially did in Watertown, MA, then perhaps you have a point. But if they tried that in a red state (vs very blue Taxachusetts), people would be putting up a fight.

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:35 PM

Are you just pulling my leg, or do you really see any kind of logical connection between your comments and mine?

Count to 10 on May 7, 2013 at 8:31 PM

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Who’s trolling? I read through the comments twice and don’t see a single libtard attacking the data.

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2013 at 8:40 PM

Who’s trolling? I read through the comments twice and don’t see a single libtard attacking the data.

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2013 at 8:40 PM

what difference does that data make at this point?

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Who’s trolling? I read through the comments twice and don’t see a single libtard attacking the data.

Kataklysmic on May 7, 2013 at 8:40 PM

That’s why I said “not quite”.
I’m not really sure whether Count to 10 is a troll or not.
So far just seems to have a misguided or non-thinking opinion on gun registry – so I’m trying to stay calm and logical so far.

dentarthurdent on May 7, 2013 at 8:57 PM

So Ricardo says to Shattner…..

WryTrvllr on May 7, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Stats can be stats for many reason…ownership is up because their is more discretionary income to spend on our hobbies.
That’s what the baby boomers have done their whole life…drive the economy. Also an increase in RV sales coincides with a decrease in crime, so criminals are taking a vacation now?
No, it’s because an aging population commits fewer crimes…like I stated above, an over weight, aging criminal can’t crawl through a window of a house…the “drive” is gone, they just want to retire.
For the next 20 years, crime will drop, and hospital/medical costs will rise.
Larger homes will go on the market as we downsize, guns, scrap booking, etc, will increase in popularity.

We have driven the economy, and have driven marketing of products since we were born…and driven the social scene, you think the “60′s” were people over 30? You think the sexual revolution was people over 40?

And now we are “tired” finishing up our work, and yes, that includes criminals.

And yes, that means more conservative ideas…and higher medical costs.

Reading that an increase in guns have caused a drop in crime…means that an increase in RV sales has decreased crime also, increase in retirement, increase in medical care, increase in the number of grandchildren…

right2bright on May 7, 2013 at 10:16 PM

One word: lofo.

Axeman on May 8, 2013 at 8:54 AM

According to Frekonmics it’s inner city abortion. Also we have been buying lots of guns and CC laws have become commonplace except in peaceful Chicago, Detroit, NC, ATL, LA and other democrat dominated hell holes.

jukin3 on May 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM

I think you are right on point one, and point two.

Dasher on May 8, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Allapundit should educate himself with this article from the Weekly Standard’s Lee Smith on why it is important to intervene in Syria.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/our-strategic-allys-strategic-clarity_721924.html

philrat on May 8, 2013 at 11:22 PM