When "thoughts and prayers" simply aren't enough
News blogs, sports blogs, entertainment blogs, and more from Philly.com, The Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News.
When "thoughts and prayers" simply aren't enough
I know it may sound trivial, but as I watched some of the early coverage of the Aurora shooting yesterday, I thought about an episode I'd just seen of HBO's cable-news drama "The Newsroom." It centered on fictional coverage of a real-life event, the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. The journalists wanted to ask hard-hitting questions of BP and its contractor Halliburton about lax safety and environmental standards; both companies wanted to stick to scripted statements that their "thoughts and prayers" were with the families of the 11 workers missing and presumed dead. By the second time, anchorman Will McAvoy's voice catches -- an ironic half-chuckle, really -- in bemused frustration at corporate vapidity wearing the cloak of sincerity.
It wasn't fiction when the horrific news broke this morning that a black-attired, gas-mask-wearing "Joker" burst into the midnight showing of "Batman: Dark Knight Rises" in a Colorado exurb, hitting 71 people with gunfire -- a grim U.S. record -- and killing 12 of them. As I watched MSNBC to learn any fresh details, this reality-based cable channel was running a feed of Twitter posts from prominent politicians and celebrities across the bottom of the screen. The similarity of the comments was oddly chilling -- the words "thoughts and prayers" flickered, again and again and again.
I'm not trying to be as cynical as this probably sounds -- I'm sure that Newt Gingrich, Mike Tyson, Sean Hannity, Michael Dell, John McCain, Nick Jonas or whoever else you want to pull out of the endless "thoughts and prayers" queue were coping with the same heartfelt mixture of grief, anguish and anger that you and I first felt. But the repetitive use of the exact same phrase by so many people seemed telling. It meant that this American brand of insanity had happened so many times, with such numbing repetition, that even our leaders no longer know what to say. Or even worse, they've learned that "thoughts and prayers" has become the safe and secure way of responding -- focus-group tested to be gaffe-proof and offend not a single person on either the Right or the Left. Because in our 21st Century political culture, the name of the game is not offending anyone. Actually doing something? That's so far off the radar screen it's not even in the control tower.
The "thoughts and prayers" statement is just one step in a grim dance that's become so predictable that the satirical site The Onion nailed it in a piece so on target it may win a Pulitzer Prize for commentary next year. Of course we have rituals, because this happens so often. Sure, the facts are mind-boggling: 20 mass killings in the United States, on average, every year. But then, consider this: Mass shootings have become so common in this country that earlier in this very week, a man fired a gun into a crowded bar in Tuscaloosa, Ala., and wounded 17 people-- and it barely made the news. Consider this: Yesterday's mayhem wasn't even the only horrific shooting in the history of Aurora, Colo.; in 1993 a man walked into the Chuck E. Cheese restaurant there and gunned down four people. And consider this: One of the victims in yesterday's tragedy, the aspiring sportswriter Jessica Ghawi, had also been at the scene of a mass shooting in Toronto (yes, Canada...it happens sometimes). After witnessing the mayhem there, she wrote: "Every second of every day is a gift." She wrote that 46 days ago. She was only 24 when she died.
And yet the more astonishingly awful that gun violence becomes, the more insipid is the response from on high. It was also telling that the presidential campaigns suspended not just their campaigns but their political advertisingas news of the mass murder sunk in. It shows that against the backdrop of America's actual problems, the shallowness of what passes for political dialogue and debate would seem too jarring to ever live down. Instead, President Obama and Mitt Romney came out to share the undoubtedly heartfelt thoughts and prayers with the American people, in words that I cannot quote because I already have forgotten them. Maybe that's because it's hard to say who has less moral authority when it comes to gun violence -- the former gun-control advocate who boasts about killing varmints and now bows down in tribute to the NRA, or the former gun-control advocate who's it easier to shoot somebody in a national park or on a high-speed train because he cowers in fear of the NRA.
I guess it would be fair to note here that Obama and Romney were far from the only "leaders" who turned to jello when required to say something about the senseless killing of 12 citizens. Their ilk was summed up by Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, who struggled on national TV for something to say, blurting out that there's “an anger that can’t find focus.”
It's time to focus, people. Forgive me, but here, too, I am reminded of the same episode of "The Newsroom," and Will McAvoy's rant when asked why America is the greatest nation on earth. It's triggered by two signs from his ex-girlfriend and future executive producer. "It's not," read the first one, before: "But it can be."
There were brief moments in the gruesome aftermath when it almost was. One politician struck the real right tone, not the phony right tone. That was Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York. He said: "You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be President of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country," and he added this:
And instead of the two people – President Obama and Governor Romney – talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, okay, tell us how. And this is a real 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?
Billionaire Bloomberg has put his money behind this, funding major gun control efforts. He shouldn't be alone. That suspension of political advertising yesterday? America got along fine without it, didn't it? What if we continued that through November, and all the plutocrats tossing their millions down the money pit of electing the next president pledged to fund anti-violence campaigns? I'm not just talking about your George Soroses and Morgan Freemans on the left, but your Koch Brothers and your Sheldon Adelsons on the right. Hey, there must be big conservative ideas for reducing violence, right? Maybe this is the height of naivety, but to solve a big problem America will have to dream big.
A decade ago, the teen pregnancy rate in America went down -- in part because liberals and conservatives agreed it was a worthy goal, and there was a movement that tolerated ideas from both sides. Gun violence should be no different. We should acknowledge that there's a large silent majority of Americans that doesn't want to overturn the 2nd Amendment but also recognizes that -- just as our freedom of movement doesn't mean the government can't regulate autos and airplanes -- the right to bear arms is not a permisssion slip for rapid-fire mass-killing devices. In a nation of more than 300 million, there are too many ticking time bombs, too many would-be Jared Lee Loughners and James Holmes to give them an open ended license to kill.
Common sense would allow us to work together to ban high-capacity magazines -- mechanisms that aren't so useful to deer hunters but enable mass murderers, and that were illegal in a recent decade in which the Republic did not crumble. Indeed, common sense would allow our leaders to revisit the expired 1994 assault rifle ban -- which outlawed the AR-15 rifle that Holmes used to gun down a number of his victims. Common sense would also allow us to revisit one-gun-a-month laws, considering that Holmes was able to legally amass his deadly arsenal in a short period of time.
Let's also remember that this heinous crime took place on July 20 -- the 43rd anniversary of the day that two Americans walked on the surface of the moon. That was the America that wasn't intimidated by an impossible dream, that worked together to make it happen. America was great on that July 20. And it can be...again. That will depend on our leaders..but even more so on us. It makes no sense tbat so many politicians are so afraid of a single-issue extremist group called the National Rifle Association. They need to be afraid of us, the real moral majority.
There was nothing wrong with President Obama reminding us yesterday that it could have been his daughters in the theater -- that was something I knew too well. You see, my 17-year-old son was at a midnight showing of "Batman" in the Philadelphia suburbs Friday morning. He walked through the front door safe and sound at 2:40 a.m. Eastern, the exact instant that hell was breaking loose 2,000 miles away. I consider myself the luckiest person in the world, but the future of my son and President Obama's daughters depends on more than luck. And sometimes, "thoughts and prayers" just aren't nearly enough.
Sometimes, action is required.
"A government taking away peoples' ability to amass an arsenal was one of the reasons why 13 separated from England in 1776. " . . . I'm fairly certain we were already rising in rebellion when the British started confiscating weapons from the militias and citizens, as you might expect them to as a tactical matter, or under martial law. However, among the many grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence, the wholesale disarming of citizens was not among them. Furthermore, while the natural right to bear arms - as an auxiliary right of life (self defense) and liberty (the last resort against tyranny) - was invoked by our patriots of the day, it was also understood to have "due restrictions".— montani semper liberi
"The fact that summer youth camps are absolutely unarmed is a vulnerability, not a strong point." . . . . . . Not sure what your point is. If immunity from liability extends to the seller and dealer of a firearm that's lawfully sold, then it should certainly apply to any person, association or business that lawfully chooses not to be armed, or that prohibits arms on their property or as a condition of membership or entry. That's surely a question of liberty, freedom of association, and possibly religion, but not of the second amendment. However, can the federal government require you to bear arms when in public? Arguably it's constitutional under the taxing power of Congress to "mandate" such carrying of "insurance", given the SCOTUS decision on health care reform. Would you support that, or is that extending the nanny state a bit too far?- There is absolutely no rational reason that someone would want to purchase 4 firearms including a fully automatic assault rifle and 6,000 rounds of ammunition over a month and a half period. Start by legislating away peoples' ability to amass an arsenal quickly and you will make these kinds of attacks harder to carryout and give people more time to identify the warning signs. This guy apparently went from highly successful grad student to psychotic killer in a short period of time. Limiting the rate at which people like him can acquire mass quantities of weapons seems like a common sense approach to lowering the likelihood of these types of incidents.— philliesphan79
- The "gun nuts" at the private range noticed the warning signs. Nobody else did. Explain that, and you will have found an iron-clad conclusion to your point.
"There is an invisible dividing line beween genius and insanity." (Daniel T. Yu)
A government taking away peoples' ability to amass an arsenal was one of the reasons why 13 separated from England in 1776.
Finally, the rifle was neither fully automatic nor an assault rifle. It was a semi-automatic copy of a military rifle.— DonQ - Also about the guy at the gun range (Don't know why you put gun nut. I guess trying to make someone with a differing opinion than you sound hateful or overly partisan helps your cause?) It's a good thing that he ran his business responsibly and looked for warning signs. Maybe a take-away is to have gun club operators search for warning signs and report any suspicious activity to the authorities like we do for terrorism. — philliesphan79
- "A government taking away peoples' ability to amass an arsenal was one of the reasons why 13 separated from England in 1776. "
As a former American History major I can assure you that your equivocation of the British disbanding militias in the colonies and common sense gun control today as described above is just absurd. If you believe otherwise there is really no point in debating 2012 policy with you.
I do stand corrected on the description of the gun and amend it to high capacity magazines. My feeling is that there is no plausible reason why someone needs to be able to shoot hundreds of bullets in a few minutes and legislating away that ability is not a great loss of freedom or the first step in the government coming in to send you away or whatever strawman arguments people want to bring up to avoid debating the actual issues here. Far too many people are killed by guns and mass shootings are a problem far worse than terrorism in our country. We should be at the very least be debating how to deal with it instead of talking about the American Revolution.— philliesphan79 - Hey did you see what these "unarmed" teens in Chicago id to a 62 ear old father of 12? I mean "unarmed" in the same sense as the media uses it when describing Trayvon Martin who tried to beat George Zimmerman to death before the white Hispanic Zimmerman decided he wasn't going to die at the hands of the self described "no limit n***a:
http://www.suntimes.com/13817699-761/prosecutor-teens-killed-man-in-knock-em-down-game.html— Phishface - Gotta love the wingnuts! They immediately react as if all guns were already taken away. LOL. Exactly what is wrong with discussing this? Shouldn't we as a nation discuss our problems and work toward solutions? Or aren't all the mass killings a problem for you? Maybe I lost you at "working toward solutions"? Would you have the rest of us (not wingnuts) believe the vast majority of the country that isn't you is OK with all this, just keep moving along, business as usual? I'd think all parents who truly love their children would have a concern that this could happen to their kids. I certainly feel that way now. Gun control is a way more important issue than the social distractions you tout, like gay marriage. Will banning or allowing it fix our country? Hell no.— philharmonic55
- So..."common sense" doesn't tell you that this highly intellegent guy couldn't get around ANY laws??? So.."common sense" doesn't tell you your idea would create a whole new "black market"??? "BUNCH OF B.S." focus on the treatment of these folks, places like the "Norristown Nut House" are not discriminatory, they actually help these folks and prevent them from public access.— sarah89
- MSL - If you are honesty arguing solely for the banning of extended mags and a 1-2 year wait/greater restrictions on assault rifles I'm with you. If you think increased gun control will prevent a determined nut from causing carnage I have to shake my head in disbelief.— 2ndNlong
- I would simply suggest it would be easier to detect the determined nut by making it harder to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Surely that's logical. No law is a panacea, but absence of law is an open invitation.
- MSL, the opposite is true. The 1994 ban was allowed to expire after several studies revealed that the ban on certain weapons and magazines (your dreaded "high-capacity") served only to drive the market for them underground. China profited greatly from the ban, producing cheap knockoffs of the AK-47 and calling them "sporterized", plus selling a huge inventory of magazines exceeding the 10-round limit as being "pre-ban". Who would be easier to detect - the man buying a gun under the present law, or a man buying a black-market gun under a prohibition? — DonQ
- Half-truth was the wrong wording as nothing you said was false so I apologize for the wording of my response. — philliesphan79
- That's a half truth at best. the 1994 law like any law written the last 30 years was so influenced by lobbyists that it was pretty much toothless. There were major loopholes including the few you highlight as reasons the ban didn't work. Pre-existing guns were grandfathered in as was their resale in many circumstances. Modifications were also allowed that made "non-automatic assauolt rifles" function basically the same as fully automatic and be completely legal. No wonder the law didn't work. If we had an actual assault rifle ban with teeth or at least ammo/wait time restrictions these types of events would be harder to commit. — philliesphan79
- "The 71-year-old Florida man who fired his gun at two men trying to rob a crowded Internet café will not face criminal charges. Gladson said in the memo Williams' use of force was lawful under Florida's statutes regarding individuals rights to use deadly force when resisting a forcible felony, like a robbery.
The Ocala Star-Banner reports one robber pointed a gun at customers while the other swung a baseball bat." So, we want gun control why? Gun control nuts want to remove an effective deterrent to a high probability event in the mistaken belief it will lessen the effects of an incredibly low probability event. Unacceptable.
— 2ndNlong - I'm a target shooter and buy my ammunition in bulk. I recently bought a case of .22 ammunition (5,000 rounds). Does that make an "almost-terrorist"? — DonQ
- Btw, how did gun control work for the people on the island in Norway? Even the cops there didn't have proper weapons. When criminals have a healthy fear of getting shot first, they are much mess likely to start their carnage.— savetherepublic
- The shooter was able to purchase his weapons legally in Norway, including an American made assault weapon. It's not like he was able to obtain banned weapons that the summer youth camp couldn't. I wonder how many summer youth camps in the US require campers to be armed at all times?
- Are you arguing for or against savethepublic's point? The fact that summer youth camps are absolutely unarmed is a vulnerability, not a strong point. What would you ay if one were attacked? That it was the gun's fault? — DonQ
- If everyone in that theatre had a weapon there would have been a lot less people killed and wounded, except for Holmes. Gun control isn't the solution, it's the problem.— savetherepublic
- How did gun control prevent the theater-goers from being armed? Colorado allows licensed concealed carrying of weapons, and unless the theater was armed with security and metal detectors at the door, concealed weapons with a permit could have been brought in.
- You don't wear your barbecue gun to a movie. The theater was a "gun-free" business. People looking for a place to commit a massacre are attracted to them. Columbine and VA Tech were. So was the mall where Rep Giffords was shot. If you want to commit mass murder, the last thing you want is someone shooting back at you. — DonQ
- Will Bunch is being truthful about "thoughts and prayers" not being enough. Injecting copious doses of liberal politics and aversion to the 2nd Amendment had to follow, lest he be dissatisfied with the discussion.
— DonQ - I knew you'd fit "gun control" into this piece somewhere. Quit playing God trying to read the minds of those who offer condolences, and go back to watching your distorted leftist propaganda on MSNBC. Maybe you and "Rev Jesse" can have a party.— dogman5
- Idiot America at it's best — mleland215
- "In 2004, Mitt Romney, then governor of Massachusetts, signed such a bill banning assault weapons in that state. (Today he opposes all new gun-control laws.) During his presidential campaign in 2008, Barack Obama pledged to enact a new federal ban on assault weapons during his first term in office, but no such legislation has been introduced."
Will, seems like both sides of the political spectrum, have been silent on this issue!!!— Dadair1 - MSL - "I'm not so sure. I think he wanted the "thrill" of using the guns. If his only motivation was death, gassing would have been equally if not more effective. But not so manly, eh?" The killer used guns because they are more readily controlled than gas. If guns had been removed from the equation by legislation he would have gone to something more destructive (bomb or gas). As he already made bombs and used gas their use in the absence of guns is a logic progression. He wanted to murder and would have regardless of any conceivable gun restrictions.— 2ndNlong
- I think he wanted to play Rambo. He obviously had the knowledge and skill to gas the crowd undetected if he wanted. If your assumption is that lethal gas could have been obtained even if assault weapons couldn't, then the crowd wouldn't have noticed before it was too late.
- Joe Biden is going to fake an illness and Obama will put Hillary on the ticket. I know this because Obama hasn't played the " War on Women" card in a couple weeks.
He's overdue for another phony hate fest, and he's getting desperate to move the dial.— Mr. Smith - A WELL REGULATED militia...— mick-of-the-moment
I very much enjoyed reading your point of view and it's very much like mine.
The 2nd amendment was written in a time the people of this country needed to be armed to protect themselves from what was in the wilderness and don't forget the Native Americans...as their land was taken from them.
Why does someone need an assault rifle for? Are you going to war? Why can a private citizen purchase complete tactical gear that US soldiers wear in war? That's right - it's a free country and you can do what you want to do, own as many guns as you want and use them to murder people when/if you go crazy.
I'm not against hunters, law enforcement or members of the military that protect and serve the citizens of this country. Everyone else...no - you don't need a gun.
The people who have threatened this writer - shame on you! While you toot your horn about the 2nd amendment, don't forget mine the the writer's rights - in the 1st amendment. My rights about my opinions are protected too...just like your right to own an assault rifle.— swimfishie- in 1789, There were fewer American citizens under the threat of an indian attack than there are now under the threat of a criminal assault.
For what does someone need an assault rifle in 2012? Ask for what did someone need a .69 caliber musket in 1789. Certainly not for hunting. But, the 2nd mendment did not single out any type of "arm." Not even a rusty old sword.
"Everyone else?" That will be YOU the day a criminal points a gun at you and attempts to rape your wife. Sorry to tell you, then it will be too late for you to avail yourself of a gun. Call 911, and the cops will arrive just in time to help you get your raped wife dressed, if you're still alive.
Want to know what is the only thing standing in protection of the 1st Amendment? Madison and Jefferson made it clear - The 2nd! The capability of the citizenry to rise up, bear arms and defend its rights against a tyrannical government is the only reason why the 2nd Amendment was enacted. It was not meant to make hunters, cops and soldiers comfortable. In fact, none of the three is mentioned in the article.
— DonQ - Guns have to be manufactured and placed into ordinary commerce before they can be obtained by criminals, legally or not. I'm not against owning a gun for self-defense, but I don't think I should have to obtain an assault weapon, large capacity magazines, and thousands of rounds of ammo to feel safe from everyone else legally having them. Also, the first amendment is protected by a proper legal system. The absence of gun control did not prevent the Alien and Sedition Acts in our early history. Some folks settled their argumenty by dueling, e.g., Burr killing Hamilton.
- I don't own a military-style weapon ("assault rifle" being a misnomer). This said, if my neighbor decides he needs one, together with the accompanying magazines and ammunition, it's not for me to decide whether he has a right to them or not. People like you who wish to impone your judgments on others are deserving of having others impose their judgments on you. How would you feel if your neighbor decided that your car is a hazard and decided to have it banned from the road? — DonQ
- @FW--Yeah he really bowed to that Bin Laden guy.— mick-of-the-moment
- @WilliamVon--Well 3,000 less American civilians have been murdered by Islamic religious fanatics since the "Kenyan Socialist Revolutionary" became president. A better protection record than our previous tongue tied dry drunk Pres. and his two time DUI, shoot my friend in the face VP.— mick-of-the-moment
You make a fair point MSL.. you own a Glock and have no problem with restrictions on other guns. But as history shows the minority liberals never stop at just this or that.. they always come back for more. Today assault rifles tomorrow your Glock, then what?. The question should be asked why this guys parents who knew he was unstable did not report it, that just might have stopped him getting his hands on these firearms.— PAEnglish- Frank S's comment encapsulates everything that's wrong and ignorant about American gun culture. The Second Amendment does NOT exist so Frank S can avoid imaginary "enslavement" by newspaper writers (for God's sake). It does NOT exist to allow Americans to kill each other with assault weapons. It does NOT exist so that paranoids can amass arsenals with the excuse that they're defending their homes. It exists solely because the founders believed the people of that time needed protection in case a foreign power -- notably Britain -- decided to attack the new country, which did not have a standing army. Everything else that is said today about the Second Amendment is after-the-fact rubbish peddled by the gun manufacturers' trade association, the NRA, whose aim is to sell as many guns to as many people as possible. And people keep falling for the NRA's spurious argument, even as Americans continue to be slaughtered by guns legal and illegal -- as if it made any difference.— Dave Clemens
- Well articulated and cogent response.
It is crystal clear to me that the Second Amendment was intended to protect a young rural nation from invasion by other countries and provide for personal safety when a legitimate local police force was non-existent. Many others are just as clear on the opposite point of view.
If we can declare a truce on calling each other names, and stop, even briefly, labeling our beliefs, we can solve this problem.
— jaburk3 - Please keep us safe, President Obama. We'll relinquish everything, including all of our income and our assets, but PLEASE KEEP US SAFE!!!!!!!— Wilhelm Von Humboldt
- "But MSL, 99.99999% of legal gun owners didn't do anything wrong last night." . . . . But the night before last?
- Goner, would you believe me if I tell you I see the same misery? It didn't start with Obama nor will it end with him. Jeez, I'm not pleased with him either. I see him from a liberal's point of view as simply another politician trying to keep his job. He says what he thinks us libs want to hear, but fails to act on it. I echo Will's disappointment. I'll still vote for him because for me the alternative is much worse. Sure, I can't convince you of that, but I'm old enough to realize nothing is solved overnight nor so bad we have to give up. Now, I don't want guns outlawed. I own a Glock 9mm for family defense because I live too far in the boonies to rely on police protection. However, I don't fear reasonable restrictions on my keeping and bearing it as an act of tyranny. Some inconveniences are worth it for the good of all. I drive a car too, and don't feel oppressed because I need it registered and insured, inspected annually, and had to obtain proficiency in order to use it. I have to pass a vision test and refrain from being under the influence in order to keep that right. Why can't we apply that rationale to the equally if not more dangerous firearm?
- But MSL, 99.99999% of legal gun owners didn't do anything wrong last night. So it may be "that broken record again" but it doesn't mean it isn't true. I only threw out alcohol to make a point in regards to gun owners. Our knee jerk reaction is to limit, restrict or remove something that a vast majority of people can handle on their own. Do you know how many true recreational drug users there are? Responsible gamblers? Responsible drinkers? And, yes responsible gun owners. The fact is that some people will indeed go to an extreme and something tragic like this happens. My only position is that the responsible people should not have their "hobbies" for lack of a better term, removed by the overreaching - not to mention corrupt - government. That's just my opinion. No need to be condescending. Good day.— phillyjeffsr
- This comment has been deleted.— RufusG
- fair strawman, rufus. I do support decriminalizing pot, and as yet don't know of anyone committing mass murder with a joint. That's as far as I'm willing to go, though. How about you?
- montani - I'm perfectly fine. I'm just a member of the private sector world that hears the trials and tribulations of other private sector people on a daily basis. My guess you are a teacher - guaranteed pay raises, fully paid medical and a pension too. You didn't feel a thing with the bad economy.— gone with the wind
- A fair strawman, rufus. I do support decriminalizing pot, and as yet don't know of anyone committing mass murder with a joint. That's as far as I'm willing to go, though. How about you?
- MSL, you need a gun to keep your freedom from Will?— shamdog
- Come on gone with the wind, let us know if you're okay dude.
- I guess if Obama mentions his daughters again, goner's goin postal?— montani semper liberi
- I even hear Obama breathes our oxygen, the nerve.— montani semper liberi
- We need to find out why such an intelligent kid with such promise would be pushed to such an act of extreme violence. I have read comments that he was having trouble finding a job. My guess he had to withdraw from school due to money issues. And that's why I brought up the Sacchia & Malia comment Obama made yesterday. Obama tries to make it seem like he's one of the people but he isn't. While people are struggling in their daily lives to find jobs and just make ends meet this man decides he's going to ram a health care fiasco down everyones throat. He's out golfing, concerts and parties at the White House, Hollywood fundraisers, Michele jetting all over the world on the taxpayers tab - but the man is clueless to what is going on out there in the real world. People are hurting and stressed to the max! I can't call this kid "evil" just as I can't call the people that jump in front of a train or jump off a bridge. Guns aren't the cause. This incident should be a wake up call to the country that we have just endured 3/4 years of the most devisive president EVER! Never in our history have we needed CHANGE more than now.— gone with the wind
- That broken record again.— montani semper liberi
- "How many people last night got drunk and then behind the wheel?" . . . . . . Or picked up a lawfully owned gun for that matter.— montani semper liberi
- How many people last night got drunk and then behind the wheel? Where is the OUTRAGE over alcohol - who I am assuming kills more - either by DUI or a lifetime of use - then legal gun owners do. Why can't anything ever happen where people say, "Wow, what a whack job", and then move on with their lives?— phillyjeffsr
- "You are never going to get all the guns. Ever. That train left the station." . . . . . . You're never going to get all the illegal drugs either, yet I don't see you calling for an end to drug control, or the necessity of doctors prescribing them according to a regulated medical profession. Your logic left the station.— montani semper liberi
- What doesthis comment have to do with what I posted? Do you really need to see your name that badly that you need to constantly make idiotic comments? Barking moonbats should learn to stay in your caves.
— georgel - "Obviously you didn't get the point of my post." . . . . Sorry, I forgot it already. What was it?— montani semper liberi
- "If guns were totally banned he would have used explosives or readily available household chemicals to gas his victims." . . . . . I'm not so sure. I think he wanted the "thrill" of using the guns. If his only motivation was death, gassing would have been equally if not more effective. But not so manly, eh?— montani semper liberi
- @MSL: Obviously you didn't get the point of my post. But based on your incessant ranting, I'm not too surprised.— LouDiamondPhillipsheadScrewdriver
- The City of Philadelphia cannot even get assault weapons banned.As long as there have been guns in America there have been regulations governing their use and storage. The 19th century understanding of the 2nd amendment was overturned in the 21st century in th name of originalism. Gun violence has got to be addressed by responsible citizens of whatever the political stripe.— Ed3
- Will was probably doing cartwheels when ABC News blamed the shooting on a tea party person. I bet he had an article ready in 10 minutes and pulled it back just in time when ABC retracted their manufactured lie.— AvoidSundanceVacations
- 1. You are never going to get all the guns. Ever. That train left the station.
2. You are never going to stop these kind of senseless incidents. Ever.
3. As much as the left wants to create a utopian risk free society it will not happen. Ever. Accept it.
4. The left will continue to try and exploit these kind of incidents to accrue more power to control our lives to the gov. They can't help. It's in their DNA. It's the reason they breath. We are all to stupid and incompetent to run our own lives. The overlords are the only ones smart enough to make decisions. We should all be grateful they exist to guide us thru life. All hail the narcicist in chief.— georgel - George,
The people of the center and the left do not want all of your guns but how about not selling a 100 round clip!
No, we could never round up all of the radical right wing and place them in interment camps, just kidding.
Risk is for insurance companies to deal with, that is why gun manufacturers do not want to be held responsible for their products.
As for make political hay, the crazies hit the ground running here, did nit even wait for the blood to finish pumping out of those poor victims hearts. You really do not project here, everything you blame on the middle and the left is modish-operand i of the right.
The right never wants to take responsibility for their or the benefactors actions, they want to push the cost of insurance for the gun manufacturers onto the owners of movie theaters and apartment buildings. You are just too narrow minded or ignorant to realize this but what do we expect from a bunch of Ditto Heads.— DavidAG - The only politician that rounded people up and put them in camps was Roosevelt. And yes, the left does want all the guns.
As far as risk-I never broached the subject. As political hay, talk to ABC news. As far as being held responsible, lets talk about all the abortions aasociated with casual sex. You know, that inconvenient clump of cells. You're an idiot.Alot more deaths there every year.— georgel - Sorry, I did mention risk, but I stand by my comment about risk, You can't eliminate it. Gun laws, drunk driving laws don't reduce any risk. Never will. — georgel
- Gun control nuts are missing an important point. This was a highly inteligent individual. If he was going to go postal, he was going to take a bunch of people with him. If guns were totally banned he would have used explosives or readily available household chemicals to gas his victims. Removing guns won't stop these incidents any more than all of the saccompanying self-righteous posturing. It is an unfortunate situation.— 2ndNlong
- They're coming to take my guns, haha, they're coming to take my guns, haha. Same broken record. What losers.— montani semper liberi
- Where's your outrage on a daily basis, Miles? At Will Bunch? You must be so proud. Change your diapers now.— montani semper liberi
- Liberal ghouls like Montani,Bunch, Frank "the walking dead" Lautenberg, etc. love these atrocities. It gives them a golden opportunity to espouse more draconian gun laws and trash the Gun Lobby.If they are so concerned about gun violence, where is their outrage over the body count in Philly and Chicago that happens on a daily basis? Frauds one and all.— MilesLong1
- The media doesn't care what happens in the ghettos, hellyeah (and really, do you?), so why should politicians bother? First, how many law-abiding citizens there can afford to get fancy high-tech weaponry like Holmes did to even defend themselves? Yet you can't keep guns out of the hands of inner-city criminals if they can be bought everywhere else legally with crime booty. The excuse that criminals can get guns anyway is perpetuated so long as we're left powerless to stop it by the gun lobby.— montani semper liberi
Comment removed.- "Anyone who disagrees with the 2nd Amendment should smacked in the face." . . . . . That's intelligent debating. Does the 2nd amendment prohibit gun control? Even our current Supreme Court doesn't think so. From the Heller opinion: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."— montani semper liberi
- Comment removed.
- Keep your eyes open Frank. Some blogger might be coming to enslave you.— montani semper liberi
- "Let's stop fighting amongst ourselves, instead, let's pull together and do things MY WAY!" ..... Afraid to debate YOUR WAY such that anyone can be reasonably persuaded? Or do you need a gun?— montani semper liberi
- @Montani, Sorry dude, got a life to live here, and much to do today. But you keep hanging out in Mom's basement fighting the good ol' progressivist/ fascist fight here on Bunchie's Jourolist-approved website.— Frank S.
- "At some point we're going to have to accept that we've done enough." . . . . How can you be sure? http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/on_target.pdf— montani semper liberi
- "Sometimes action is needed." What kind of action, Bunchie? How about if we find a Tea Party member with the same last name as the alleged gunman, and then lynch him in the media? Is that the kind of action that's needed?— Frank S.
- I've heard these calls for unity enough times to have it memorized:
"Let's stop fighting amongst ourselves, instead, let's pull together and do things MY WAY!"— Manny Yunker - Frank S, I guess I'm deluded in reading that you need a gun to fend off enslavement by a blogger. Yeah, I need help.— montani semper liberi
- Piers Morgan, of all people, put an NRA sympathizer in his place last night. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XumMF-_2kIg— montani semper liberi
People have to understand that you can't really "do" anything about what happened at the Batman screening. We are a free society of 300+ million people. There are unstable people in that mix. This kind of thing is going to happen from time to time. Actually, that it doesn't happen more often is astounding. All this wringing of hands about gun control amounts to nothing. In this society people have access to guns, period. Most use them lawfully, some do not. At some point we're going to have to accept that we've done enough. Things can't be perfect. That may sound a bit callous, but it deals with reality better than anything that the gun control opportunists are putting out there.— jmc- @Montani, I'm not going to dignify your comment about Alex Jones Infowars other than to suggest that you seek help. The delusions you suffer from are very probably treatable.— Frank S.
- Frank, Could it be that you cannot defend the undefendable, so you attack the messenger? — DavidAG
- "Actually, it turns out the whole shooting was "staged" by Obama so he could come take your guns." . . . . . Incredibly, there are losers out there posting that very proposition. See AlexJones Infowars. Frank S, you'd love that site.— montani semper liberi
- Didn't Barry make a statement with the tone of "thoughts and prayers"....— FletcherT
- "Their efforts would be better if they focused on the parenting problem we have in the US." . . . . . How are parents the problem? They should take away junior's play guns and video games?— montani semper liberi
- "Sad to say, but if someone wants to kill, they're going to find a way." . . . . . . And the weapons industry will continue to make it easier and more efficient.— montani semper liberi
- "The Second Amendment is there for a reason... to keep us from being enslaved by people like you." . . . . . . Funny, the only party trying to restrict your voting rights is Republican.— montani semper liberi
- Ok great, so you ban assault rifles with extended magazine clips. Then what happens when someone walks into a crowded placed with two 9mm, some extra clips, and kils just as many people. Or makes a homemade bomb and throws it into a crowd of people. Sad to say, but if someone wants to kill, they're going to find a way.— LouDiamondPhillipsheadScrewdriver
- Wow, Frank S. post wasn't up until I submitted mine.— blackhawk90
- That because crazy soup has only one ingredient, NUTS! — DavidAG
- Never let a crisis go to waste, right Bunch?— blackhawk90
- Never let a tragedy go to waste, eh Bunchie? The Second Amendment is there for a reason... to keep us from being enslaved by people like you.— Frank S.
- You live in a democracy, meathead. What are you going to do, kill everyone with whom you disagree? Lock and load, my man, lock and load.
— Mr_Cool - "Drag politics into this"? Gun control IS a political issue. The assault rifle ban IS a political issue. The solution to these shootings (if we can find one) will come through government intervention and will be political. Stop shooting the messenger.— Chuck19083
- Their efforts would be better if they focused on the parenting problem we have in the US.— Mr. Smith
- In only took 27 hours for Will to drag politics into this. By Monday he will be blaming Corbett.— CD75
- It took the crazy wacky right wing media about twenty minutes to drag politics into this issue, so give Will a break.
— DavidAG - If this is not a political issue, I don't know what is. — jaburk3
- RG - be careful. I know you've written many posts expressing your deep "concern" about the TSA:
Well, here's a clip of another libertarian extremist ranting about the TSA. I figured you'd want to watch. It turns out that as the result of the Aurora shooting, the TSA is coming to malls to "group" people. I figured you want to get in line to add your outrage. Actually, it turns out the whole shooting was "staged" by Obama so he could come take your guns.
Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDRdD1yDiR0&feature=player_embedded— Talking point sleuth
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
