Nancy Pelosi, with a straight face and honest intent, suggested her duty of “protecting” the Constitution demanded further restrictions on the Second Amendment. Of course, few people have ever accused her of being intelligent.
In the early 1980s, transit officials in Washington couldn't figure out why traffic on the Beltway would grind to a near halt every day around the exact same time. The usual explanations didn't fit.
It would show far more integrity for liberals to point their fingers at the real culprit here and their own partner in crime: liberal Hollywood. The liberal call for gun control is not unlike Lady Macbeth muttering “Out, damned spot” in an attempt to expiate herself from complicity with murder.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” – The Second Amendment
Anyone who reads my columns can tell you that it is one of my mantras that politics should take up as little space in your life as possible. If it doesn’t, it’s only out of necessity occasioned by bad government, something we have in surplus.
On Monday, July 23rd’s Talking Points, O’Reilly made some outrageous and erroneous statements about guns and gun purchases. They were so misleading that I was wondering if Michael Moore was moonlighting as a writer for The Factor.
If just one man had given his life by throwing himself atop his girlfriend to shield her from bullets in that Aurora, Colo., theater, it would have been cause for amazement. That three apparently did so is deeply affecting.
The memorable massacres of history have been the stuff of ruthless despots. They're about power and intolerance -- getting rid of anyone who could cause trouble. Attila the Hun needed an army to massacre his enemy. Josef Stalin was a wholesale killer who measured his dead in the millions.
Only a few lonely media outlets responded to the Aurora Mall murders by calling for stricter gun control measures. President Barack Obama and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper made eloquent statements, as did Mitt Romney, but neither the two Democrats nor the Republican called for changes in gun laws.
When someone is ill or anxious to avoid illness, he may be open to any possible treatments. That's why quack remedies, untested formulas and obvious placebos often find takers. When a mass shooting occurs, the urge to find a cure is powerful. As a rule, though, those that emerge are sugar pills.
Turn the dial this way and that, and it's all the same -- the same separate but equal banalities you hear after every one of these dreadful things, this time even before all the dead in Aurora, Colo., have been given a decent burial.
Watching the massive 24/7 coverage of the massacre in Aurora, Colo., coverage that will only serve to inspire some future twisted male mind to seek infamy -- to die hated but not unnoticed -- one cannot help but be disgusted.
I feel awful about what happened in Colorado, but can we stop the hugging and the teddy bears? Just as society can become inured to violence, it can also become inured to sentiment. There is nothing so hackneyed in the world of photojournalism as pictures of the hugging and the shrines with candles and teddy bears after a tragedy, with a piano softly trilling in the background.
After the grisly massacre in Colorado no one will attend weekend showings of The Dark Knight Rises with expectations of a rollicking, uplifting, feel-good night at the movies.
I have been struggling, all weekend, to try and understand what happened in Aurora, Colorado.
Public discussion and debate about the Aurora, Colo., horror has missed the point. With numbing predictability, liberal opinion leaders in the press have focused on gun laws as the potential solution for such atrocities.
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper had the right idea when he refused to utter the suspected gunman's name in the Aurora multiplex theater shootings, which left 12 dead and 58 wounded.
I don't believe there was any political context to the shooting; not everything is political.