To the NY Daily News: Blood on YOUR hands! Victims: Sue Cinemark for banning self-defense!

The NY Daily News published an editorial and blamed anybody and everybody who doesn’t immediately pass a law that infringes on the people’s right to bear arms.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/blood-hands-obama-mitt-nra-article-1.1119049?pgno=1

They said the Police Chief was wrong in saying that the shooter acted alone, because Wayne LaPierre was there with him for defending the right to bear arms! Obama and Romney were there because they are not making it even harder than it already is to defend yourself!

Here, have a clue free of charge NY Tribune and Chicago Tribune and all you guys with totalitarian-friendly ideas about disarming any potential rebels against your oppressions!

People with guns stop crimes!

The best defense against such a purportedly “madman” is a well-armed audience in that theater!

If anybody has “blood on their hands” in the sense of what these clueless editorialists on that editorial board said (unnamed, unlisted), it’s the NY Daily Post and the Chicago Tribune and Obama and Romney for pushing so hard to make even more of us helpless to defend ourselves or without better-heroes to defend against this kind of massacre.

Some of the people in Aurora that lost their lives no doubt owned guns. Their family members should be able to sue Cinemark, the company that bans all guns from their theaters, for depriving them of the means to defend themselves.

Maybe those fallen heroes in that theater, instead of dying for their girlfriends, could have shot back and saved even more people!

14 people dead, because Cinemark did not allow even one person to go in with a gun.

Some idiot is going to say that if they let guns in, that the shooter could have just walked in with them. But of course it does not make a difference. The guy got in anyway, now, didn’t he?

How about Luby’s massacre? There’s one for you that will stand in history as a prime example of the idiotic folly of banning guns or concealed carry.

Susan Hupp reached into her purse for her handgun, and could have shot the murderer George Pierre Hennard with it, except –oh wait! she had to leave it in the car because the law said she couldn’t carry it in the purse!

Here’s a report on it:

So she had to watch her father bleed to death in front of her eyes, and she had to watch her mother bleed to death in front of her eyes, and she was not able to do a thing about it.

This angry man with guns killed 23 people before it was all over, and Susan Hupp could have stopped it with the first two or three, or anybody else who would have been legally allowed to carry the gun.

Another clueless quote on the talk shows from Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, who debated Senator Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin, on station WKOW of Washington DC.

http://www.wkow.com/story/19085594/sen-ron-johnson-talks-gun-control-after-aurora?clienttype=printable

Sen. Johnson lost a good opportunity when Feinstein left herself wide open and gave an opening for the crucial points in this conversation, and Dianne, hey, this is a sane conversation on the side that defends individual rights!

Here’s the part of the conversation leading up to the clueless quote:

WALLACE: Let me ask you, we’re not talking about hand guns. Does something that would limit magazines and carry 100 rounds, would that infringe on the constitutional right?

JOHNSON: I believe so. People will talk about unusually lethal weapons. I mean, that could be potentially a discussion you can have.

But the fact of the matter is, there are magazines, 30-round magazines that are just common all over the place, and you simply can’t keep these weapons out of the hands of sick, demented individuals that want to do harm.

WALLACE: Let me —

JOHNSON: And when you try and do it, you restrict our freedoms.

Okay, that’s my setup. Wallace flips the conversation. Some say there were just not enough guns in that place:

WALLACE: Let me flip around though here, because I’ve heard more and more people, surprising number of people, to me in the last couple of days, say the problem isn’t too many guns, it’s too few. And if somebody in that theater had been armed, they could have stopped the shooting —

FEINSTEIN: Well —

WALLACE: Let me — stop carnage, taken down the shooter and defended themselves. Do you agree with that?

JOHNSON: Well, it’s certainly one of the rationales behind conceal and carry, where criminals actually have to be a little concerned before they commit a criminal act that maybe somebody could stop them. And I think that is the truth. That somebody, a responsible individual had been carrying a weapon, maybe — maybe — they could have prevented the death and injuries. I mean, that’s just the truth.

FEINSTEIN: And maybe you could have had a firefight and killed many more people. These are people in a theater. This is a —

WALLACE: You had a massacre as it with him undefended, Senator.

FEINSTEIN: That’s right. That’s right, because he had such a big clip.

Look at this. Feinstein says “maybe you would have had a firefight and killed many more people.” This quote should live in infamy, because we DID have a firefight in AURORA Colorado and we DID have “many more people”, except ONLY THE BAD GUY was allowed to do any shooting!

I say “allowed”, because Cinemark has kept decent citizens from carrying arms into the theater..

Susan Hupp forced this massacre into everybody’s conscience, and burned into their memories the WHY this one shooter was able to kill 23 people at Luby’s that day.

The ban on concealed carry in Texas was DIRECTLY responsible for the killing of 23 people at that cafeteria that day, and the truth of it was so obvious that the next year Susan Hupp shamed the legislature into legalizing concealed carry in Texas.

But in Cinemark theaters, and for private concerns everywhere, they have a right to tell their customers they cannot carry into their property. But they bear responsibility for the deaths for that reason, and indirect responsibility falls on the voices of control freaks who want to leave the people as defenseless as possible in the face of dangerous people.

And among the most dangerous of all is the federal government which should NOT be controlling ANY aspect of the arms market. When they do, they just make sure the most dangerous people of all have them.

If you think the shooter in Aurora was dangerous, just think about the Justice Department moving thousands of guns to the most dangerous killers of all, the Mexican cartels, and getting hundreds and probably thousands dead in the process.

Tags: , , , , , , ,


%d bloggers like this: