After the bodies have been buried and time has past the democrats will start advocating for gun control...
Wait. I can't even type that and not laugh.
AP
Look at this freak! Seriously? Bright red, curly hair? Then today he appears all whacked out in court? They don't *know* if there were signs prior that would indicate that he was f*c%ing crazy!? No, I'm not saying everyone with dyed bright red hair is insane but, in this case it is and I'm sure you understand. If you don't, well...what are you doing here? This clown-look, coupled with odd and disturbing behavior should have been a clue to anyone with a pulse around him that he was in some sort of trouble. If this is not the way he normally behaved then this is all a pathetic act on his part.
Of course the main stream media is all over this story. They are already trying to make him sound like a human who was simply overcome by the power of owning a gun. Here's a line from The Associated Press:
Holmes has been assigned a public defender, and Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said the former doctoral student has "lawyered up" since his arrest early Friday, following the shooting at an Aurora theater that left 12 dead and 58 wounded, some critically.Former doctoral student? How about, "Idiot, loser, and attention-whore with no self-control or instilled morals from a real father has 'lawyered' up"? That sounds more accurate to me. What difference does it make what he was before? I think randomly killing people sort of scratches out any previous, possible good things or accomplishments made prior to said killings. I think.
In addition to salivating over their freak with guns and bombs, the main stream media and democrats alike (yeah, the media is not liberal, duh...that's just Fox News stuff), have wasted no time in taking the opportunity to tell the American public that we need more gun control, as if any other types of control have been successful. I love how confident they are in their failed ideas. It's amazing.
Gun-grabbing commies always seem to express their belief that the sheer act of owning a gun or even being near one will seduce a person to the dark side by its presence alone, and will ultimately cause a person to lose control of their body and shoot people at random. Gun control? I wish more people were carrying a gun that night. It would have been much safer and this clown would most likely have been stopped. That being said, I also support people carrying bigger and badder weapons. Why should the government be any more armed than the people?
This is just another typical story that is used only for the purposes of pushing a political agenda. This has nothing to do with caring about people shooting others. Come to North Omaha. There's not a damn day that doesn't go by where someone is randomly shot by someone. This guy just so happened to kill many at one time. No, the left just wants to take a story about a mental patient candidate who decided to freak out one day and compare him to a man who owns a gun in order to protect his wife and family. Guns are neutral. The people who own them are not. It is a tool of protection as well as one that can give harm. If we want to ensure only good people have guns, then why is is so hard for some to understand why it's so important for the government to recognize and support morality? Moral actions, religious studies, prayer, and meditation are virtually non-existent in schools and in homes throughout the county. A government that rewards and honors integrity will help foster a culture that is also moral and just.
Guns that are in the hands of responsible people is what we should be striving for. Instead we seem to glorify people like this in such a way, it convinces many this is a way for them to get the attention they are so desperate for. Not only is this type of thinking selfish and immoral, it is also unhealthy.
Click title of this post for full AP story.
3 comments:
Funny all the name calling when when he is of your elk.Sad that you didnt do the same for G.Z.He is a killer also
Yes, GZ did kill. A kill during an act of self defense. I'm very glad that you used that word properly. However, your context shows that you meant the word murder.
So which did you mean? Or do you not even recognize the difference? Well, obviously you do not recognize the difference because your comment also tells me your ignorance of the Trayvon Martin case.
Perhaps if you took the time to study the case in full and not what you read on some grinder-site that has been repeatedly found lying about the facts of the case, and focused more on actual reports and information concerning the case, you too would realize that Zimmerman is an innocent man who was defending himself against an aggressive young man who struggled with drug problems.
Not even the policeman that had a grudge against him for Zimmerman's previous campaign against them were able to find inconsistencies in his story.
Your focus really should be on why certain people in the government are so anxious to exploit these cases and destroy people's lives in hopes of convincing the useful idiots (gee, who could that be?), to display their hatred and convince them to ban guns.
The Zimmerman case is a bonus for them. They get to pull out the race card too. I see you picked that habit up rather nicely. Do you ever question WHY you believe what you believe? I guess just taking someone's word for it is enough for you.
"...he is of your ilk."
Just to be fair, let's say you weren't pulling a typical "call-you-a-racist-because-I-really-don't-know-anything-about-anything-but-I'm-attempting-to-shut-you-up-and-ignore-debate-by-calling-you-a-name" card. What do you mean by "ilk" exactly?
Perhaps you do not mean race because if you did, then you would know I'm not all white or did you just assume that the same way you initially assumed Zimmerman to be a white man? What does that say about you when you assume someone to be white when they are not? Are you looking at a picture and making an assumption on race? How is that not ignorant or racist itself?
I'm certainly not a man, nor am I a criminal-so obviously I haven't gone around shooting anyone. I fail to see how this is someone of my "ilk." Perhaps you would care to explain that to me.
Post a Comment