Massacre, Redux

A little later today the President of the United States will give a speech a little like this one or, perhaps, like that one.  The point is that the President will express his shock and grief over the shootings in Aurora, Colorado.

For the next few days we’ll have all sorts of reports about the massacre – we’ll learn about the shooter and about the least details of his sorry life.  We’ll learn if this was just some sort of crazed attack or (less likely) some sort of terrorist attack.  If it was a terrorist attack then it will be swiftly played down by government and MSM because confronting actual terrorism is forbidden right now (too busy with electoral matters – if it was some sort of terrorist attack, the reaction will be akin to the reaction to the Cole incident in 2000).  More than likely, though, this massacre is just another crazed attack in a long line of them – both in the United States and around the world.  Zero Hedge put together a handy list of the major mass shootings of the past 20 years.  Makes for depressing reading – but not so much because of the shootings, but because of our blindness on what it all means.

Even if the attack turns out to be terrorism, the list is still depressing and still so because of our unwillingness to confront reality.  Once upon a time, there weren’t mass shootings.  Not that there were fewer:  there were none.  Crazed lunatics with access to repeating rifles did not go on murderous rampages in the 1880’s.  Crazed lunatics with access to the Thompson sub-machine gun (a fully automatic weapon firing a murderous .45 ACP round at 600 rounds per minute…and anyone could buy it in the 20’s or 30’s…didn’t even need a permit) did not go on murderous rampages in the 1930’s.  Crazed lunatics who have to jump through government hoops to obtain semi-automatic weapons do go on murderous rampages, today.  What has changed?  I mean, other than the fact that it is harder to obtain less effective murder weapons than were available in the 1930’s?

Morality has changed.

Back in the past we didn’t have a society where the family was half collapsed.  We didn’t have a society where lies were officially designated as “politically correct” and thus not to be questioned.  Where the government nanny-State has replaced men in a quarter of all households.  Where violence is glorified in “cool” movies, television shows and video games.  Where obscene and/or anti-social behavior is not a matter for concern (until, that is, the obscene or anti-social person picks up a gun and starts shooting).   The problem we have – the reason people go on shooting rampages – is because we are an immoral society.  Until we become, once again, a moral society this will not change – all you’ll get is ever more shootings and, likely, ever worse shootings.

Until we brace ourselves to the task of rebuilding the family, denouncing the politically correct lies, dismantling the welfare State and start censoring what goes on in our popular culture, none of this will improve.  It will, indeed, only get worse.  Carp and complain about what I just wrote all you want – shriek to high heaven about how I just advocated censorship…but if you don’t agree with me, then you are part of the problem.  Your head is stuck firmly in the sand (though a much more vulgar suggestion of where it is would be more accurate).  You are ignoring reality in favor of one politically correct lie or another.   This is what it is – our collapse in morality leads to mass shootings.  Just as our collapse in morality has led to increased illegitimacy, divorce, cross-generational government dependence, rape, adultery/fornication, child abuse/neglect/abandonment, massively widespread sexually transmitted disease, increased child poverty, crime of all sorts, decayed cities…

Want to end all that?  Then start insisting upon the enforcement of morality.  If you don’t then nothing else you do will work and you’ll just see more and more of this…

UPDATE:  Roger L. Simon gets on the right track:

From Oliver Stone to Quentin Tarantino to Clint Eastwood, many of our best known filmmakers have trafficked in extreme, sometimes even gratuitous, violence. It has long been their contention, and those of others, that violence in film does not beget violence in life.

As the mass murder in Colorado has shown, they were wrong. Yes, normal people are able to separate illusion from reality, but for the criminally insane like James Holmes, it is quite clear that ultra-violent films can act as an inspiration for unspeakable acts.

Given the horrifying death toll, rare as the likes of Holmes may be, we have to account for the similarly deranged and aberrant. We owe that to the dead of Colorado and elsewhere. Moreover, we should not encourage these events, wittingly or unwittingly. And by we I mean the people who make films (which includes me)…

But he doesn’t go far enough – he eschews censorship.  But censorship of films, television, radio and video games (especially) is a necessary act in bringing to an end these horrendous massacres.  It is simple calculation:  what is more important, human lives of the ability of entertainment people to make an easy buck?  It is my view that because we have allowed popular culture to become a cesspit that it has not only become soaked in violence and sex but that it has also become lousy – actors are worse, direction is worse, writing is worse than it was in the glory days of Hollywood.  This is because acting in the manner of Spencer Tracy, directing in the manner of John Ford and writing with the style and grace of Charles Brackett (Ninotchka, Sunset Boulevard, The King and I, etc.) takes hard work as well as talent – much easier to just grind out movies with spectacular special effects, a few flashed boobs, some cuss words and a couple catch-phrases.

Do not, I pray you, try to sell me the utter garbage that censoring violence and sex out of popular culture attacks freedom.  Men and women did not fight and die for the “freedom” to put out disgusting filth and charge $8 to see it.  The heroes of America’s past fought and died so that we could worship God, speak our minds and live our lives without let or hindrance from others.  If the only way you can feel free is when your watching someone be disemboweled in an action flick, then you are a complete slave, so pound sand and get out of this debate and allow the adults to take over.

UPDATE II:  Naturally, the left is trying to blame the TEA Party and the larger conservative movement for this.  They’ll never take aim at the purveyors of popular filth.  Oh, no – that would mean a drying up of invites to the cool parties as well as a drop off in donations…

UPDATE III:  Its not just me thinking along these lines.


151 thoughts on “Massacre, Redux

  1. irisspirit July 20, 2012 / 10:28 am

    How do you enforce morality? You know nothing about the shooter at this point, but already assume it is the break down of the family. How about some better gun controls? I am sick and tired of hearing “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. What a crock. If people kill people, what the hell did he use to kill them? His fists? No, he used guns! I am so tired of the massacres in this country and it is because of the NRA and the lack of gun control laws. Period. Now let the far right nut case gun owners begin.
    Again, I ask, How do you enforce morality????????????

    • Mark Edward Noonan July 20, 2012 / 12:06 pm

      Iris – people had easier access to much more deadly weapons in the past AND THEY DIDN’T GO ON SHOOTING RAMPAGES. For crying out loud will you THINK for once.

      You enforce morality by making it harder to do immoral things – you don’t allow our popular culture to become an open sewer so that any filth-monger looking for a quick buck can pour more sh** in to it. You re-strengthen the family by reforming government and economics so that only one parent has to work as well as by ending no-fault divorce. You censor television so that gratuitous violence and sex are just not on it any longer.

      Or you can say “gun control” and ensure that ever more people get killed – they had strict gun control in nation after nation where gun massacres occurred…gun control doesn’t work. A gun is just an item – no one wakes up one, fine morning and say “hey, I think I’ll go get a gun and massacre people”. It takes years – some times decades – of continual moral degradation of a person in order to get him ready to do such a deed. Until we stop degrading people, we’ll keep getting this.

    • tiredoflibbs July 20, 2012 / 12:32 pm

      “How about some better gun controls?”

      AND right on CUE, a mindless drone chimes in with the usual dumbed down talking point.

      “…and the lack of gun control laws.”

      LACK? What a crock!

      DC had the ultimate gun control laws. NO GUNS PERIOD (other than law enforcement)!!! But for a long time, they had the highest per capital murder rate in the country! A law does not stop criminals – that why they are CRIMINALS in the first place!!! A lawyer would know the obvious!!

      You do know that the lefty proggies made it harder to COMMIT mentally ill people to institutions. Many were released from their meddling. Family members who live with ill people can do nothing to have them committed because of their behavior. THey have to prove that he/she is a danger to himself/herself or others. By then, possibly in this case, it will be too late!

      But, no, the only thing you mindless drones can think of is more gun control! Yo are aware that the Supreme Court ruled that we do not have the right to police protection? If not the police , then who will protect us?
      Hmmmmmm, miss lawyer?

      Let the dodging and ignoring begin, velma!

    • neocon1 July 20, 2012 / 3:51 pm


      How do you enforce morality?

      YOU DONT, you either have it or not.
      If you arent a Christian you DONT.

    • tiredoflibbs July 21, 2012 / 11:56 am

      naive velma: “How do you enforce morality?”

      Simple. You pass a law to make it illegal to be immoral.

      I mean you proggies believe that simply passing a gun control law will stop this kind of violence even though criminals and insane people don’t obey laws to begin with.

      How could you ask a dumb question like that after so many times Democrats pass laws to prohibit or force behavior?

    • dvindice July 27, 2012 / 9:31 am

      It does not matter what a person uses to harm or kill another person. Weapons are only tools. It takes a man or woman to use a weapon to harm or kill someone so, I really don’t care how “sick and tired” of hearing the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. It’s a true statement. Though I believe that “weapons don’t kill people, people kill people”.

      If a lack of gun control laws is to blame, why are the cities with the strict gun laws have the highest crime rates?

  2. GMB July 20, 2012 / 11:01 am

    One person with a legal concealed weapon could have put an end to this mans rampage. Despite Sunny’s little screed against the NRA and “right wing nuts” the right to self defense is enshrined in our Constitution.

    You take that right away and people who do not respect human life will do these sort of things. There are no deadly weapons just deadly people. Those guns were just mere tools. Just like any other tool. That man choose to pull the trigger, the trigger did not pull the man.

    BTW, nice way to wait and get all the facts the Sunny.

    • irisspirit July 20, 2012 / 11:27 am

      What a pile of garbage. Of course there are deadly weapons – what a totally asinine statement! That is what killed these people in Colorado last night, what killed students in Columbine, Colorado, at the University of West Virginia, in Arizona when Congresswoman Giffords was shot in the head. Stop the foolishness saying there are no deadly weapons – even George Zimmerman had a deadly weapon. It just plain sounds STUPID to keep making the same argument – guns don’t kill people, people kill people. You may get some fools to agree with you but they are the nuts that want to walk around with a gun in their waistband to protect themselves. We need tighter gun laws. Why does anyone who is a civilian need an automatic weapon? I don’t believe our forefathers intended that everyone walk around armed. It is one thing to protect your home and family if your are in danger, but things have gotten so far out of hand with gun nuts like you and those who think like you.
      Obviously, there are those who do not respect human life. Read the examples above. Guns are not tools – they are intended to kill. And that is pretty much the only purpose of guns.
      And bite me on waiting to get all the facts. The fact is is that at least 12 human beings were killed last night while at a movie by someone who felt he needed an automatic weapon and decided to use it on innocent people. Those are enough fact to know that we need tougher gun laws and that the NRA has way too much power over our legislators!

      • Cluster July 20, 2012 / 11:35 am

        Iris dear,

        Gun control laws don’t work, period. Chicago has strict gun control laws and yet it is more dangerous than Afghanistan. In Arizona you can walk around packing heat without a permit and gun violence is among the lowest in the nation. Gun control laws only ensure that criminals will be the only ones with guns.

      • tiredoflibbs July 20, 2012 / 12:41 pm

        There goes velma again with the whole dumbed down talking points bible on guns.

        A gun is a TOOL. It takes a CONSCIENCE OPERATOR to make a gun KILL someone. Here is a little experiment, if you dare! Get a gun, put it next to you and wait. That gun will rust and deteriorate long before it will kill you! A gun by itself, with no conscience human user, will not EVER kill anyone.

        CAFE standards, that make cars less safe, have done more to KILL people than guns have. You constant proggy whine of more gun control will not stop gun violence from criminals – all gun control laws only make MORE VICTIMS of CRIMINAL ACTIVITY.

        Sheesh, this drone is dense.

      • Amazona July 20, 2012 / 12:45 pm

        Oh, dear, poor sad pathetic Velma is begging people to bite her again. TMI, Vel—waaaaay too much information about what you need/want/crave. Surely even Tulsa has people who will accommodate your needs, if for a price, so you don’t have to come here begging.

        As for this vaunted “gun control”, how do you plan to get guns away from criminals and nutters who already have them? Because if the only ones restrained from buying guns are people who follow the law, you will be setting up nothing more than a feeding station for predators, who will be confident that they can prey without reprisal.

        Velma is such a delight, not only for the sweetness and light of her charming contributions here but for her illustrations of the simple-minded belief that if you isolate a single aspect of a problem and address it, the entire problem just goes away. She is a perfect example of the Magical Thinking that doesn’t just permeate the Pseudo Left, it explains why they ARE the Pseudo Left.

        Mark is right. We have, as a nation, always had guns. Just the other day I heard a talk show host talk about taking rifles to school nearly every day, leaving them in the car, so he and his friends could go hunting or target shooting after school. Long before that, people routinely carried firearms, and used them responsibly.

        Velma, please tell us of a single time in, say, the 1800’s in the United States when a person opened fire on a crowd of people. Yeah, I thought so. OK, move up to the first half of the 1900’s. Easier? Not really. Moving forward, there was that guy in Texas who took a rifle to the top of a tower and started picking people off. But you pretty much have to get into the 21st Century to find things like the Aurora massacre.

        So intelligent people—-and you can go get a soda here, Vel, since this won’t involve you—–will look at what has changed.

        More guns? Hardly. From a time when nearly every home had several, we are now in a time where most homes have none. So, hard as it is for the Velmas to grasp, the presence of guns is not the factor at work here.

        So what could it be?

        I suggest a few things.

        One is the cultivation of rage as a political tool. We have moved from a culture which shuns irrational rage to one which just tries to direct it at political enemies, openly and overtly.

        One is the glorification of horrible, violent, death, gory and gruesome and unspeakably violent, in our “entertainment”. We now have movies which show in the most stunning detail the violent deaths of people, in excruciating detail, with audiences applauding the violence and gore. We now have children hooting with triumph at blowing up people in video games, growing up desensitized to the horrors of violent death and, instead, being rewarded for causing it, albeit in games and not in real life.

        One is the official, legal, statement that not all human life is of value, and that people have the “right” to pick and choose which human life should be protected and which can be brutally ended, by poisoning or dismemberment or sucking out the brain, based on the convenience of others.

        These are just three things which have changed in the past fifty years or so. And we expect children to grow up with these influences and then somehow, magically, cross a virtual line where they suddenly, magically, understand that these elements, which are quite common and acceptable and even desirable on one side of the line, are not when on the other side of the line.

      • Amazona July 20, 2012 / 12:46 pm

        Did the shooter have an automatic weapon?

        But they are already illegal.

        So if he had one, making buying or owning one illegal has not proved to be very effective, has it?

        And if he didn’t, then you are lying, Velma, to shore up your hysterical screed.

      • Velma DuBois, Sunny Drama Queen July 20, 2012 / 1:27 pm

        SOME gun control didn’t prevent him form getting an automatic assault rifle, but more gun control will.

        And I forgot to mention that the Founding Forefathers never intended for you wright wing gun nuts to have tear-gas canisters, but you defend tear-gas canisters as a Second Amendment wright; we need tear-gas canister laws.

      • neocon1 July 20, 2012 / 3:57 pm


        The fact is is that at least 12 human beings were killed last night while at a movie by someone who felt he needed an automatic weapon and decided to use it on innocent people

        what a crock of SHIITE………

        Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million
        Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

        12 vs 3700 MURDERS a DAY you Fn hyprocrite and not one firearm was used.

  3. Cluster July 20, 2012 / 11:31 am

    The coursening of our culture is certainly in part to blame here. Another factor in my opinion is the divide and conquer strategy of liberals. We can’t continue to blame and demonize segments of society without serious consequences – this younger generation has it so ingrained in their heads that there is someone else to blame for their struggles, that some of them are certain to lash out when they get frustrated, primarily because they have no ability to deal with adversity.

    We need to teach our children to be independent, strong, and capable of dealing with life’s setbacks, because no one escapes setbacks in their life. Of course this requires a family, preferably with two attentive parents who can teach those life lessens from experience and there is no better way to gain experience than by getting out there and doing it. Sitting around and waiting for a government check doesn’t qualify.

    • irisspirit July 20, 2012 / 11:56 am

      A typical response from the wright wing uber conservatives – “Sitting around and waiting for a government check does quality.” Do you know if this shooter was sitting around waiting for a government check? My guess he considers himself much more of a conservative than a liberal. We have no idea of his family background, but already you make the assumption he is liberal. You write of “divide and conquer strategy of liberals”. Doesn’t that strike you as a hypocritical statement? Probably not! That is the first thing that comes from conservatives – its all the fault of the liberals. When are conservatives going to own up to the fact they are just as guilty, if not more so, than liberals in dividing this country? Until both parties agree this is not healthy for our country nothing is going to change. When you accuse people of being Anti/Un American, you divide. That is what the Republican Party and its members constantly do to those who do not agree with its policies. Frankly, I am SICK of it. There is a constant publication by Republicans and spokespersons for the party that our President just isn’t American enough, he just doesn’t have that American whatever . . . and it is getting old. We are all Americans and we all have different idea as to how we should live our lives, what is best for our families, how we want to educate and raise our children and there isn’t any one size that fits all. There is always talk of freedom, until someone defines freedom differently than you, then they are wrong and you are always right in what really entails freedom in this country.

      • Cluster July 20, 2012 / 12:17 pm

        I never said he was liberal, that’s just your hyper sensitivity kicking in. And conservatives have never divided Americans by class and blamed one segment for the problems of the other, that is purely liberal, and has accelerated in the last twenty years.

        When 49% of all American households receive some form of government assistance, you can be sure that there are a lot of people sitting around waiting for their government check. That is not good for society, nor is it good for the individual spirit.

      • tiredoflibbs July 20, 2012 / 12:50 pm

        velma, you don’t like it here, then move to someplace with more gun control and less freedom – try Canada.

        BTW, obAMATEUR has done more to divide this country and convince people that they are owed something for their efforts, than ANY pResident in history.

        He needs to divide us – pit rich against poor, white against black, Christian against non-Christian, etc etc. BECAUSE he has nothing to run on.

        Now this unfortunate incident comes along and he, his followers and mindless drones will use it to distract away from his dismal record.

      • Amazona July 20, 2012 / 12:51 pm

        “My guess he considers himself much more of a conservative than a liberal”

        Yeah, and your “guesses” are always soooo correct, aren’t they, Velma. Admit it, what you call a “guess” is just an exhibition of vicious bigotry, based on nothing more than your sour and hateful attitude toward an Other you don’t even begin to understand but love to hate.

        But let’s play, OK?

        What part of believing that the United States should be governed according to its Constitution do you feel contributed to this person’s desire to slaughter innocent people?

        Surely you are not going to vomit up that tired old PL effort to associate cultural beliefs, religious orientation, or personal values with a simple and easily identified and very specific POLITICAL ideology, are you?

  4. Bob1 July 20, 2012 / 11:52 am

    Mark, I agree with you. Our country and everyone in it is caught in a moral avalanche that is sweeping away everything that is decent and right and stabilizing in our social order for living together. And our political and even are legal systems cannot stop the destruction or repair the damage that is being done. We need a major spiritual revival in this country, but I don’t believe that it is going to happen. For a fuller commentary regarding this matter see this statement on my website: .

    • Bob1 July 20, 2012 / 12:02 pm

      Here is the link to my statement about “Morality”:

      • Bob1 July 20, 2012 / 12:08 pm

        Here is the link that I think will work: Morality>

    • Mark Edward Noonan July 20, 2012 / 3:23 pm

      The biggest problem we have is that those who know what to do are too cowardly to do it. I plead guilty on this – I believe this is the first time I’ve called specifically for censorship (I may have alluded to it in the past, however). Unless we grow a pair and starting acting like adults, this is just going to get worse.

      • neocon1 July 20, 2012 / 4:10 pm

        homosexuality and homosexual “marriage” is NOT Morality, it is SIN,
        sin is evil and leads to spiritual death.
        95 % of all serial killers are homosexuals.

      • Bob1 July 20, 2012 / 5:49 pm

        Mark, In addition to the lack of courage are the problems that are created by the Main Stream Media that refuses to be objective in its reporting of the various facts regarding the issues that divide us as they seek to maintain their “popular” positions in the business of publishing the news.

  5. Velma DuBois, Sunny Drama Queen July 20, 2012 / 12:44 pm

    We’re all Americans, we’re being divided and it’s all your fault. you wright wing uber conservatives gun nuts. And I’m SICK of it! If I could just … be glad I’m not armed since I’m PMS-ing and totally irrational.

    I don’t believe our forefathers intended that everyone walk around armed, in spite of the fact that they were … actually … armed … all of them … all the time, they never intended for you wright wing gun nuts to be armed.

    You know nothing about the shooter at this point, But I KNOW he’s someone who felt he needed an automatic weapon and decided to use it on innocent people. Even though it wasn’t an automatic weapon; he felt he needed an automatic weapon!

    • irisspirit July 20, 2012 / 1:21 pm

      Very funny. That you think 12 dead innocent individuals are dead because our gun laws are so lax that any fool – someone like you – can go out and buy an automatic weapon. I am glad you find humor in that. It is people like you that make sure there are more guns on the streets of this country than any other nation. And why should I be the one who leaves this country? Because I believe that too many unstable individuals have access to guns? Even in the old west, cowboys were required to leave their gun with the sheriff before going out on the town. We don’t agree on this issue – but that does not necessarily make you right and me wrong. I have as much right to believe there are too many guns in the hands of people who should not have them as you do to believe that every one should be armed. You can preach all day about the Constitution giving you the right to bear arms – but you cannot convince me that our forefathers envisioned the kind of killing of civilians that has occurred in the past 10 years as something they would have supported.
      You can call me all the names you want, and I especially enjoy Tired looking down the barrel of a gun. Whoo Hoo! Aren’t you just the tough he-man? All these guns on the streets puts our police officers in jeopardy every day. But hey, they are just government workers, members of unions, and so it really isn’t a big deal if they get shot and killed by some lunatic. Both of my sons are hunters, but neither walk around with guns in the waist of their pants like big shots. I am not against guns – I am against weapons that are for killing as many people in the shortest amount of time.

      • tiredoflibbs July 20, 2012 / 2:18 pm

        “if you think Americans are supposed to be able to have guns you just dont understand the contituiton you ignorat moran”

        Second amendment is very clear there velma “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed”….. who’s the ignorant moron now?

      • irisspirit July 20, 2012 / 4:23 pm

        Tired, you fool. You keep responding to someone pretending to be me – and it isn’t/ I never wrote ““if you think Americans are supposed to be able to have guns you just dont understand the contituiton you ignorat moran”
        You are the moron.

      • tiredoflibbs July 20, 2012 / 5:13 pm

        Yeah, velma whatever….

        Your name, your rhetoric – it’s obvious it’s not you….

        Ok. drone. Since you have all the answers, what CONSTITUTIONAL measurements could be taken that would have prevented this tragedy????

        Please keep your hypersensitivity, your insults, your rhetoric and the dumbed down talking out of your answer(s). I want logic.

        Answer me or predictably run away and hide.

      • tiredoflibbs July 22, 2012 / 1:29 pm

        Velma? Velma?

        Again, you run and hide when challenged.

        BTW (and I know you will just ignore this too), Aurora already has several gun laws in place making it illegal to transport guns, carry guns on your person and discharging guns unless you are law enforcement or at a shooting range (amongst others).

        So, I’ll ask this AGAIN, tell us what Constitutional laws could be put in place to prevent this incident from happening???

    • Amazona July 20, 2012 / 1:56 pm

      Velma, you can’t even keep your rants straight.

      YOU are the one who thinks “…12 dead innocent individuals are dead because our gun laws are so lax that any fool ……. can go out and buy an automatic weapon.” Nobody else is that dumb.

      And, speaking of DUMB, do you really think anyone can go out and buy an automatic weapon? Hmmm. Better let the ATF in on this little nugget of info, because they, and the rest of us, know that there is already a federal law prohibiting not just the sale but the POSSESSION of automatic weapons.

      And BTW. Velma, we already know you’re flat-out nuts, so you really don’t have to go out of your way to remind us, as you do with this:

      “……but you cannot convince me that our forefathers envisioned the kind of killing of civilians that has occurred in the past 10 years as something they would have supported.”

      Though you do add an interesting new element to the term “blithering idiot”.

      Of course the Founding Fathers did not support mass murder. A big fat DUH! for you there, Vel—add it to your undoubtedly already extensive collection.

      The Founding Fathers did understand that the right to self-protection, from individuals as well as from the government, was an inalienable right of every U.S. citizen, and therefore included it what they made a point of calling the Bill of RIGHTS.

      I’m pretty sure they understood that some people are crazy, some are killers, some will prey upon others. After all, they were very smart people, and the entire Constitution reflects their awareness of the fragility of human integrity and the need to protect ourselves against its corruption. For example, this is why they added the 10th Amendment, to tighten up their efforts to protect against the abuses inherent in large and powerful central government.

      So they made sure that no citizen could be legally deprived of the ability to protect himself, his family, his home, his country, and his freedom. (Which is what you advocate.)

      Your statement is so bizarre, even for you, who has graced us with so many utterly goofy statements over the years, that it defies reason and simply has to be tossed into the quite impressively sized pile of Velma’s Insanity Evidence.

    • Amazona July 20, 2012 / 2:04 pm

      Oh! Oh! Oh! Another big chunk of loony to add to that pile of evidence of Velma’s insanity!!!

      “But hey, they are just government workers, members of unions, and so it really isn’t a big deal if they get shot and killed by some lunatic. ”

      Yes, folks, Vel has descended into the level of insanity where she is actually accusing people who believe in the Constitution of being perfectly willing to sacrifice the lives of government workers and union members.

      I wonder if she envisions this callous disregard for human life based on identity to be similar to, oh, I don’t know, the Obama administration’s decision that sacrificing few hundred or thousand lives in the interest of giving it ammunition (no pun intended) in its battle to circumvent the 2nd Amendment was OK if the lives lost were only expendable Mexican lives.

      After all, it is only the Left I see evaluating the worth of human life based on identity and age—-within a year or so of conception, not worthy of protection, just a bunch of Mexicans, who cares?

      What’s insane is claiming that people who believe in the Constitution engage in the same kind of vicious moral triage, saying who should live and who can die.

      A little too much projection there, Velma, and also a contribution to that ever-growing pile of evidence that you are not just nuts but mean nuts.

    • Irisaerospirit July 20, 2012 / 2:05 pm

      No you stupid conservative moron you I am way way post menopausal and my hormones are just fine especiallywhen somebody is biting me that really gets them going. You people are all just crazy, guns kill kill kill, conservatives like this because they like to kill kill kill and are all nuts and crazy not sane and normal like me. everybody knows right wing extemeists are gun nuts don’t care about human life or understand Barack Obama is a SAINT and so sweet to his wife and his father was not a poligamast and if you think Americans are supposed to be able to have guns you just dont understand the contituiton you ignorat moran i am sick sicksicksick of you all

      • Compassionate Conservative July 20, 2012 / 1:15 pm

        Better switch to decaf, sweatie

      • irisspirit July 20, 2012 / 1:30 pm

        compassionate conservative is an oxymoron. And most of the posters here fit the moron definition. And Amazon woman – it must suck to be you.

      • Compassionate Conservative? July 20, 2012 / 1:39 pm

        Iris sweatie, when did you define “moron”? I read your screeds and didn’t see a “moron definition” anywhere.

        Was the voices in your head, or did you just forget and let your thoughts spill out all over your computer again?

      • tiredoflibbs July 20, 2012 / 2:10 pm

        “you people are all just crazy…”

        Well, we will thank your proggy friends for changing the laws that enabled our release from the asylum, made it more difficult to have us committed, until we indeed commit violent crimes.

        You should thank them too!

        /sarcasm off

        Get a life you loon!

  6. bardolf July 20, 2012 / 1:19 pm

    “Crazed lunatics with access to the Thompson sub-machine gun (a fully automatic weapon firing a murderous .45 ACP round at 600 rounds per minute…and anyone could buy it in the 20′s or 30′s…didn’t even need a permit) did not go on murderous rampages in the 1930′s.” – Mark

    Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre comes to mind but I’m sure Al Capone had a good family.

    How about a dose of reality, FBI: Violent crime rates in the US drop, approach historic lows.

    No need to curb guns, no need to put more cops on the streets, no need for more homeland security, no hand wringing about he decline of Western values… crime is going down. Legalize drugs according to libertarian principles and statistically we would be living virtually crime free.

    My heart goes out for the Aurora victims and I expect a life sentence for the criminal without the chance at parole but these crimes are an aberration in modern life and shouldn’t be treated as typical.

    • Velma DuBois, Sunny Drama Queen July 20, 2012 / 1:34 pm

      As I read ‘dolf’s post I first thought,

      Please say something stupid so I “can disagree with you.”

      And there is was; the part about “legalize drugs”.

      What you mean is decriminalize drugs, that’s the libertarian position. and as long as I’ve constructed a fine Straw Man, if we decriminalize all crime we’d be crime free … too.

      Other than that, I *choke* agree with you.

      • bardolf July 20, 2012 / 3:51 pm

        Decriminalizing drugs is nothing like decriminalizing stealing or killing … those things were never legal in the US and directly involve other people. Drugs are illegal because people don’t like the behaviors of other people, it is on par with making laws that people go to a house of worship on the weekend.

        George Washington and most of the founding fathers used drugs including opium. The current nanny state prohibiting self-medication in the name of safety is just crony capitalism.

        You’re pretty stupid to want to find something to disagree about. I blame the breakdown of modern society LOL.

      • bardolf July 20, 2012 / 4:22 pm

        “And there is was”- Velma

      • Velma duBois July 20, 2012 / 4:25 pm

        Ok, decriminalize (no legalize which requires a positive action), victimless crimes and crime rates will drop precipitously. Prostitution, gambling, statutory rape, jaywalking, marrying your hound-dog, marrying your sister/brother/the Olsen Twins/or the Green Bay Packers Defensive line, selling patent medicines, attempting suicide, succeeding at suicide, selling suicide kits, proselytizing suicide, holding slaves, being a slave, practicing law without a license, fur trading on the western frontier, practicing dentistry without a license, practicing proctology without a glove, wife swapping, fox hunting, coon hunting, blind-man’s-bluff (with a real blind man), buggery, muggery, and painting Richard Nixon’s face on the Capital Steps.

      • Velma duBois July 20, 2012 / 4:26 pm

        And being the Grammar Nazi is my gig!

      • bardolf July 20, 2012 / 4:39 pm


        I wouldn’t say holding slaves was a victimless crime. Statutory rape might have a victim too. I wouldn’t be against decriminalizing most of the rest.

        One thing that is unique about drugs among these categories. Criminalization drives up the price of drugs and makes cartels more likely. There isn’t an analog for people robbing grocery stores to afford proctology gloves. Similarly, the fast and furious operation wasn’t to combat pimps in Mexico. There are >100,000 people in prison for marijuana alone, the scale dwarfs the number of people in prison for attempted suicide by >100,000 people.

      • Velma duBois July 20, 2012 / 5:02 pm

        In the US in 2006 there were:

        33,000 deaths from Suicide

        38,000 deaths from “Drug induced” causes and

        0 Deaths from attempted suicide.

        Death is more permanent than prison.

      • bardolf July 20, 2012 / 5:28 pm

        Death is more permanent than prison.

        Firstly 7000 die per year in prison.

        Secondly, car crashes kill 40,000 per year but we don’t outlaw driving.

        Thirdly, if I take 20 years from the lives of 4 different men in their twenties I have done more than the moral equivalent of killing one of them. The fact that the prison system dumps older inmates onto society instead of letting them die in prison is hardly an act of charity, especially since it saves the state health care costs.

        Diabetes and heart attacks are the cause of millions of deaths but we let people eat all the carbohydrates they want. People get to decide what to do with their own bodies.

      • Count d'Haricots July 20, 2012 / 5:37 pm

        Wait … what?

        One thing that is unique about drugs among these categories.

        Is? What?


        George Washington and most of the founding fathers used drugs including opium.

        Salacious innuendo, George grew hemp at one time and recorded the processing. BUT, there is no evidence that he ever smoked it other than the ramblings of self-serving revisionists.

        Opiates were used in medications of the day like Laudanum UNTIL the dangers of the drugs was documented. I took Percocet and washed my hands with Hexachlorophene; do you think it’s a grand idea to bring those products back now that we know about the dangers, simply because someone in a by-gone era used them?

      • Count d'Haricots July 20, 2012 / 5:49 pm

        Why do all your arguments contain false dichotomies?

        The “drug culture” that I have personally witnessed involves much ancillary crime to facilitate the use of the illicit drugs. The need to steal or engage in other criminal behavior has nothing whatever to do with the legality of the drugs; they are sold openly on street corners and in neighborhoods throughout South and East LA. They destroy families, lives and communities.

        There is not one good reason to introduce this into neighborhoods where it currently does not reside; there is no benefit to society to facilitate the destruction of entire groups of citizens.

        A society has an obligation to protect itself from as much harm as is possible; let drugs stand on their own and convince me they are god, I am unconvinced by the argument that it’s not worse than another evil. And neither is anyone that’s ever witnesses a drug saturated community.

      • Count d'Haricots July 20, 2012 / 6:02 pm

        Should read “they are “good“. Sorry for the blasphemy.

      • bardolf July 20, 2012 / 6:17 pm

        Count as the nanny state

        Washington grew marijuana which people smoked even if there is no record of him doing so. He is documented as using opiates which were criminalized for anything but safety reasons.

        Being from California you should know about anti-Asian bias, but since you seem ill informed, I would advise Thomas Szasz’ book
        “Ceremonial Chemistry: The Ritual Persecution of Drugs, Addicts, and Pushers”. Here is one example which also plays to your anti-union mentality.

        Labor organizations played a big role in anti-Oriental feeling. The leader of the AFL was particularly fond of bringing up fears of Chinese opium peddlers raping young American boys and girls:

        According to Hill, “Gompers [Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor 1886-1924, except for one year] conjures up a terrible picture of how the Chinese entice little white boys and girls into becoming ‘opium fiends.’ Condemned to spend their days in the back of laundry rooms, these tiny lost souls would yield up their virgin bodies to their maniacal yellow captors. “What other crimes were committed in those dark fetid places,” Gompers writes, “when these little innocent victims of the Chinamen’s wiles were under the influence of the drug, are almost too horrible to imagine… There are hundreds, aye, thousands, of our American girls and boys who have acquired this deathly habit and are doomed, hopelessly doomed, beyond the shadow of redemption.”

        Some of the original laws are particularly telling. In 1887, Congress forbade *Chinese* to import opium, but not Americans. In 1890, they extended this law to allow opium manufacture only to Americans. In 1909, they banned *smoking* opium.(9) Smoking the drug (rather than drinking it) was considered “Chinese”.

        AS for the drug culture, I have witnessed more than you and can guarantee that when a business is broken into and a computer stolen or your house is robbed for your TV screen, it is to get money to buy drugs.

        FINALLY, your argument would favor exactly the evils of carbohydrates and sugars that are killing millions.

      • Count d'Haricots July 20, 2012 / 6:39 pm

        Chinese? Seriously?

        Correct me if I’m wrong, we no longer have an Asian-specific anti-drug law do we?
        False dichotomy.

        Carbohydrates? That’s all you’ve got?

        Let me try again, read slowly; “A society has an obligation to protect itself from as much harm,b> as is possible”

        Since all food converts to sugar it is not possible to outlaw sugar; carbohydrates only convert faster than do proteins or fat, but that is the purpose of food, to convert to sugar.

        let drugs stand on their own”

        Still no argument for adding another evil? Didn’t think so.

        Since I actually worked for years in South Central Los Angeles; specifically Compton & Watts, and in East LA, I doubt you, in your isolated Yuppified community college saw what I did, or worked with the people I did. And, yes, you can tell if your house was burglarized by an amateur looking for drug money; it’s really very easy. Start with the drawers; if they are all open it was a professional who opened the bottom first. If only the bottom is open it was an amateur that opened the top and had to close it in order to open the next, etc.

        You can also tell by the items stolen and the items left behind. If you really experienced the drug culture in the bowels of society you’d know that.

      • Count d'Haricots July 20, 2012 / 6:57 pm

        Washington grew HEMP as a crop with many uses. Smoking it was the least profitable and most work and not a wise business decision. Consumers bought the processed-cut plant from the Washington farm; they didn’t buy “buds”.


        Laudanum; Tincture of Opium became controlled because of the well documented misuse; death and overdose. It is now still available by prescription. Not available to the Chinese but the Japanese can still buy it in California if they can “pass” for Mexicans.

      • Count d'Haricots July 20, 2012 / 6:59 pm

        We like our Mexicans in California.

      • Amazona July 21, 2012 / 12:15 am

        “Washington grew marijuana which people smoked even if there is no record of him doing so”

        Just when I think you can’t get any sillier….

        So Washington grew MARIJUANA, did he? And you have it on some excellent authority that some people smoked it?

        Ignorant/silly whatever.

        As the Count pointed out, Washington grew HEMP, which was a valuable crop and quite common till around the time of WW II. Hemp rope was far better than the sisal we have now. Hemp was quite a legitimate crop, providing fiber for rope and clothing, and oil for medicinal purposes.

        Where do you GET this crap?

      • Count d'Haricots July 21, 2012 / 11:01 am


        He gets it from Self-Serving Revisionists who use innuendo and logical leaps to give credence to their specious arguments. You know, dangerous drugs were used by common folk ignorant of the consequences; so, by golly let’s bring them back. Cocaine for infants who are teething; as my nana did in Germany in the 1930s. Sparkling!

        We’re planning an Ether Party at my house; I’m bringing in some south American Teenage girls for the occasion; ‘dolf’s grandparents did it, it must be a grand idea.

    • Mark Edward Noonan July 20, 2012 / 1:49 pm


      The St Valentine’s Day Massacre was a gang hit – evil and wrong but UNDERSTANDABLE. Criminals wanted to make money and so they offed their competition. This is an entirely different sort of action from a lunatic entering a random school, mall or theater and just shooting whomever happens to be there. If you can’t see the difference, then I’m sorry for you – the difference between run of the mill crime and those crimes which are vastly more prevalent today than before and are clearly the result of moral breakdown.

      • bardolf July 20, 2012 / 4:10 pm


        Your lack of UNDERSTANDING of the human condition is pitiful. Criminals wanted to make money so they could have more stuff to obtain a measure of infamy or notoriety or prestige or respect or whatever you want to call it. Nowadays, with the 24 hour news cycle there is a direct method for this kind of infamy. The rarity is part of the novelty and why it is news.

        We can contrast this with common massacres which are thus not newsworthy. In 2008, 15,960 women obtained abortions in Colorado which means on average, every 8 hours, every day, 365 days per year there are 14 infants put to death in Colorado alone.

        The inherent sinfulness of mankind is working in all cases and fortunately for you the odds of being killed as an innocent bystander are much better nowadays than the 1930’s.

        *once you make it out of the womb of course

      • Mark Edward Noonan July 20, 2012 / 4:43 pm


        The sinful nature of Man is a given – what we do is inflame that sinful nature at every turn and we do it so that a few greedy hucksters can make money. That is what needs to be changed.

      • Cluster July 20, 2012 / 6:07 pm

        That’s not entirely true stool, hit men wi the mob did not want any notoriety, and they primarily took out only specific targets, however that would sometime include the family – lol.

  7. tiredoflibbs July 20, 2012 / 2:01 pm

    “No you stupid conservative moron you I am way way post menopausal and my hormones are just fine especiallywhen somebody is biting me that really gets them going. You people are all just crazy, guns kill kill kill, conservatives like this because they like to kill kill kill and are all nuts and crazy not sane and normal like me. everybody knows right wing extemeists are gun nuts don’t care about human life or understand Barack Obama is a SAINT and so sweet to his wife and his father was not a poligamast and if you think Americans are supposed to be able to have guns you just dont understand the contituiton you ignorat moran i am sick sicksicksick of you all”

    Sadly, this is all we need to know of the hyper-emotional velma. IF this is her definition of normal, there is no reasoning with a person like this.

    “Barak Obama is a saint” – whao…… then she just goes off her rocker with the rest of her rant.

    Again, if you are so sick, then why do you come here to be such an unreasonable and non-thinking drone, who is so loyal to regurgitate the dumbed down talking points to distract away from your “saint’s” failing record, which cause desperate people to do things like this?

    • irisspirit July 20, 2012 / 2:20 pm

      You idiot Tired. I didn’t write that. Whoever is using that sign on is playing you for a fool. Not that hard to do apparently. I have never said Obama was a saint. Never would. Doesn’t mean I don’t have respect for him and his position, but no one that I know of is a saint. But you are an idiot. That is a given.

      • tiredoflibbs July 20, 2012 / 2:34 pm

        Well, vandregg, freethinker, irisspirit, etc. etc. it is hard to keep track of all of your aliases. Of course, after embarrassing one alias you do need to invent another.

        it is also too easy to duplicate your illogical rants and undying loyalty to the pResident.

        So if it makes you fell better ranting and insulting continue to do so. It is not my fault you are so easily impersonated!

  8. casper July 20, 2012 / 2:12 pm

    “Crazed lunatics with access to the Thompson sub-machine gun (a fully automatic weapon firing a murderous .45 ACP round at 600 rounds per minute…and anyone could buy it in the 20′s or 30′s…didn’t even need a permit) did not go on murderous rampages in the 1930′s. ”

    Of course most people couldn’t afford a Tommy gun. They were way too expensive.

    GMB July 20, 2012 at 11:01 am #

    “One person with a legal concealed weapon could have put an end to this mans rampage.”

    That one one of my first thoughts too, however, since the gunman used teargas, I’m not sure if he could have been stopped. It’s hard to shot someone when you can’t see.

    • Caveat Emptor July 20, 2012 / 2:27 pm

      “It’s hard to shot someone when you can’t see.”

      James Holmes did.

      • bardolf July 20, 2012 / 4:20 pm

        James Holmes didn’t necessarily see the people he shot.

      • neocon1 July 20, 2012 / 4:21 pm

        craven empty

        so did GZ

  9. dbschmidt July 20, 2012 / 2:38 pm

    Man, has the looney left flapped in on this one. I could give plenty of examples including right to carry states have lower violent crime rates than those few that do not yet allow it. The drop in the violent crime rate is also to Bardolf’s “historic lows” exactly because of the right to carry. Just look at Miami, Fl. in the years following Concealed Carry Permits (CCP) where the crime rate, including violent crime dropped an average of 10+% per year. BTW, Mr. Capone was a criminal to his end of days.

    I surrendered my Class III firearms (dealers) license years ago but that is the base minimum to even hold a fully automatic weapon these days. They have not been available to the general public since 1934. Others misconstrue the “Wild, Wild” West from what they have learned from TV which has no basis in reality either. The list goes on and on attempting to attribute evil intentions to a piece of steel, wood and/or plastic. How many people have been killed via other means? Do I need to be checked on because I may own “too many kitchen knives?” Or a golf club, hammer, or other potential lethal device? Including my fists which has also be documented means more than you realize.

    I have owned firearms since I was a wee pup and me and my friends used to sling our rifles / shotguns on our backs to ride our bicycles to head out to plink targets or hunt rabbits. This was in Miami, Florida in the 70’s. None of my guns have ever shot anyone or robbed a convenience store, gas station, etc. Until recently, with government becoming “Daddy” for a great deal of our youth has the killing “all possible witnesses” become the norm. I carried a S&W Model 29 during my stint as a skip tracer (bounty hunter) and never had to pull it even in some knock down drag out recoveries. Still have it and several others (that I keep in a gun safe except one) and none of them have ever committed a violent act.

    There are too many misconceptions already displayed here by the lunatic fringe of the left to accurately dispel even if they could process facts. Nevertheless, never forget that the Police are minutes away when seconds count.

  10. dbschmidt July 20, 2012 / 2:45 pm

    Then again–since Liberals like to compare Apples to Oranges let’s take a look at Switzerland (a neutral country) that requires every male from age 17 to 54 (IIRC) to have a weapon and rounds in their house or possession. These are issued by the Government.

    • dbschmidt July 20, 2012 / 2:52 pm

      After you look that up–look up the crime rates.

      • neocon1 July 26, 2012 / 7:29 am


        after that look up demographics there.

  11. dennis July 20, 2012 / 3:20 pm

    I read Bob’s essay on morality, as I have read a good many of Mark’s over the years. Bob at least approaches the heart of the matter. With all due respect Mark, you confuse the symptoms of the breakdown of morality for its cause.

    Two centuries ago our world was visited by Divinity in the person of Jesus Christ, who came here for the express purpose of making God’s character known to our fallen race. He distilled every requirement of moral law down to two commandments: 1.) Love God with all your heart, soul and mind and 2.) Love your neighbor as yourself. The great underlying principle of morality is Love. All the rest is details.

    Jesus began his formal ministry by reading a passage from the prophet Isaiah aloud in the synagogue. It was a proclamation of good news to the poor, freedom to prisoners, recovery of sight to the blind, freedom to the oppressed and the time of God’s acceptance. Jesus told his listeners that this prophecy was about to be fulfilled in their hearing. The skeptics turned on him immediately. He responded that as in the time of the prophet Elisha, it wasn’t the elect of Israel’s class structure who would received divine favors, but social outcasts. His hearers were enraged, and this was the first time we read in the Gospels where Jesus’ life came under threat.

    So many parallels can be found today in this, but I don’t want to digress too much. Mark and others here speak at length about the general breakdown of morality in society. Evidently Mark construes morality as adherence to a set of enforceable rules, and the more stringent their enforcement, the more morality we will have as a result.

    I disagree and contend that morality is a reflection of God’s character of holiness, as revealed in the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. And it was Christ who gave us that confoundingly simple truth that Love, not the enforcement of behavior, is the fulfilling of the whole moral law.

    Jesus also said “Let your light shine before men that they may see your good works and praise your heavenly Father.” From this I would infer that what America (and our entire world) needs is not enforcement of moral behavior per se, but more people who actually live and breathe this kind of love, who are living examples of it. These values certainly aren’t shown by our religious or political leaders, by and large. Even defining this kind of love is a problem for many. The apostle James gives a big hint: “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world” (ch. 1:27).

    Rather than being redundant I’ll just say this theme is repeated countless times through the Bible, both Old and New Testaments: Caring for others, particularly the downtrodden and less fortunate, and personal humility before God are of great importance if one believes the Bible to be true. Melodramatic displays of moral outrage, a focus on external piety and controlling the behavior of others, on prosperity and material wealth, harboring hostility and a punitive spirit toward one’s enemies, are not marks of morality or spiritual integrity – but may be quite the opposite.

    On the other hand loving God supremely and all others equally with ourselves, and above all doing good for the “least of these” – both by personal acts of kindness and by the policies we support, are consistent with biblical morality. If this was the kind of morality our leaders upheld by precept and example, we would be a much more noble country today.

    • neocon1 July 20, 2012 / 4:14 pm

      was this one of Ochimpy and holders automatic rifles funneled into the hands of criminals?
      seems they are all for this……

    • bardolf July 20, 2012 / 4:18 pm

      I assume you meant 2 millennia ago and not 2 centuries ago!

      • neocon1 July 20, 2012 / 4:19 pm

        I assume

        ASS – U – me

      • bardolf July 20, 2012 / 4:40 pm


        Were you that old guy in the Florida internet cafe?

      • Caveat Emptor July 20, 2012 / 4:53 pm

        What’s a millennia going for these days?

      • dennis July 20, 2012 / 6:36 pm

        Yes, my mistake.

      • neocon1 July 22, 2012 / 12:19 pm


        No, neither would have lived if it was me….

    • neocon1 July 20, 2012 / 4:18 pm


      If this was the kind of morality our leaders upheld by precept and example, we would be a much more noble country today.

      then WHY do you donks keep electing liars, cheats, adulterers, perjurers, commies,muslims, and homosexuals?


      • neocon1 July 20, 2012 / 4:24 pm

        RUT RO

        Shhhhhhhh cant tell the dirty lil “family” secret now can we…….

        Firearm injury in the US [Firearm and Injury Center at Penn]
        According to the FBI the demographic characteristics of homicide victims and offenders differ from the general population

        Based on data for the years 1976-2005 –

        Blacks are disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders.
        The victimization rates for blacks were 6 times higher than those for whites.
        The offending rates for blacks were more than 7 times higher the rates for whites.

        Males represent 77% of homicide victims and nearly 90% of offenders. The victimization rates for males were 3 times higher than the rates for females.
        The offending rates for males were 8 times higher than the rates for females.
        Approximately one-third of murder victims and almost half the offenders are under the age of 25.
        For both victims and offenders, the rate per 100,000 peaks in the 18-24 year-old age group.

        Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, 1950-2005 []

      • neocon1 July 20, 2012 / 4:37 pm



        Radical Left-Wing & Registered Democrat, Obama Supporter, *********Occupy Black Bloc Member******** James E. Holmes Shoots Up Aurora Co Movie Theater:

        the TRUTH shall prevail and set you free

      • neocon1 July 20, 2012 / 4:38 pm

        Florida Private Investigator Blames Occupy Anarchist For Batman Killings

      • neocon1 July 20, 2012 / 4:40 pm

        Sarasota private investigator Bill Warner told Ingraham that suspect Holmes fits the profile “to a t” of a member of the Black Bloc – a little known group of violent, black-clad and gas mask-wearing anarchists who piggy-back on the non-violent Occupy movement during anti-Wall Street protests.

      • neocon1 July 20, 2012 / 4:45 pm

        So What Is A Black Bloc?

        The Black Bloc is a tactic that has been used in demonstrations for years. It is used as a security and safety measure. In it’s essential form, each participant of a Black Bloc wears somewhat of a uniform (see the Clothing section). The idea of wearing this uniform is that if every single person in the Bloc looks relatively alike, it is hard for the police to determine which individual did what. For instance, if a Black Bloc participant throws a brick at a store window and runs into the Bloc, she will easily blend in with everyone else. However, if a person wearing normal street clothes happens to throw a brick and run into the Bloc, chances are that she will have been filmed or photographed and later caught by the police.

        Also, since Anarchist presence has been a very hot issue in the past few years, law enforcement has been known to film and take photos of random activists and keep files on those individuals. This can lead to problems in the future. It’s better to be safe than in jail.


        The clothing worn by Black Bloc participants is very easy to acquire. You may even have these clothes in your own home. Any logos or patches must be removed one way or another to have any effect in using the Black Bloc tactic.

        Black Hooded Sweatshirt-The black hooded sweatshirt offers great protection in many ways. It protects the back of the neck and sides of the head from pepper spray and other chemical agents. Police often occupy rooftops and use helicopters in order to gain overhead perspective when filming and photographing the Bloc. The hooded sweatshirt helps protect you from these perspectives by covering your head and therefore making it difficult to draw any distinctions. Again, all logos, patches, or anything else that can help the police distinguish you from anyone else should be removed or left at home.

        Black Pants-Average black workers pants are fine. Black military-style cargo pants are extremely recommended. The cargo pockets can hold any items of use that you may have. Also, the ties on the side are great for de-bloc’ing (see de-bloc’ing section). All distinguishing characteristics must be removed.

        Running or Tennis Shoes-A good pair of sneakers are the best investment here. Big heavy boots may be difficult to leave the scene in. However, this is just a recommendation.

        Masks-One of the most important aspects of the uniform. The mask you wear should show nothing more than your eyes. We advise that you DO NOT wear a mask that will give you tunnel vision, like a cat; that is, a mask that will cut off your vision from what is beside you. There are many different kinds of recommended masks:

        Ski Mask-A simple, inexpensive find at any sporting goods or army-navy store. We recommend the masks that only have holes for your eyes. However, if you can only find the kind with the three holes (two for the eyes, one for the mouth) then that will work. Just take a black piece of cloth and fill the hole.
        Bandana-An average black bandana that is tied around your mouth will work too. When choosing this mask, please wear something over the top part of your head, such as a beanie or another bandana. If your hair and rest of your upper head are exposed, it is not hard to tell who you are.
        Gas Mask-A slightly more expensive mask, yet a useful one if you plan on engaging in some heavy street combat. Tear gas is a widely used deterrent in street battles, and we should not be forced to turn away from our goal because of some gas. However, we feel that in most cases the ones wearing the gas masks are the ones throwing the gas cannisters back. Wearing a gas mask is an illegal practice (like we care!) and should be worn with caution.
        Homemade Mask-Homemade masks are easy to construct. You can use an old black t-shirt and wrap the fabric around your face. You can also cut off the sleeves and put those around your face. Be creative!

      • neocon1 July 20, 2012 / 4:46 pm

        sort of SHOOTS velmas BS out of the toilet.

      • Count d'Haricots July 20, 2012 / 5:11 pm


        James Holmes was an Honors Student here, Phi Beta Kappa and Lifetime Golden Key. He couldn’t find work after graduating in 2010 from the neuroscience department at CNAS,

        Hopeless unemployed over-educated and young in 2012… it’s Obama’s fault.

      • Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F. July 20, 2012 / 8:12 pm


        Radical Left-Wing & Registered Democrat, Obama Supporter, *********Occupy Black Bloc Member******** James E. Holmes Shoots Up Aurora Co Movie Theater:

        the TRUTH shall prevail and set you free

        Okay that is just stupid. A Florida PI is the source of this wacko black bloc conspiracy theory crap? Okay whatever. Flush.

      • Amazona July 21, 2012 / 12:24 pm

        Let’s take a look the latest dismissive sneer from another of Hell’s finest: “A Florida PI is the source of this wacko black bloc conspiracy theory crap? ”

        Uh, no, Diane. It is not “conspiracy crap” and no “Florida PI” is the “source”.

        For an “editor” you sure seem incapable of doing any research. Or at least not inclined, but then why WOULD facts be allowed to intrude on yet another aspect of your weird fantasy life?

        However, your infantile “Whatever” is pretty much what we would expect from someone like you, and typical of the absence of actual content in your pseudo-responses as well.

        As for “Flush”, well, that’s always the most appropriate way to handle the crap you dish out.

        Black bloc

        From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        “A black bloc is a tactic for protests and marches whereby individuals wear black clothing, scarves, ski masks, motorcycle helmets with padding, or other face-concealing items. The clothing is used to conceal marchers’ identities, allow them to appear as one large unified mass, and promote solidarity.

        The tactic was developed in the 1980s in the European autonomist movement’s protests against squatter evictions, nuclear power and restrictions on abortion among other things. Black blocs gained broader media attention outside Europe during the 1999 anti-WTO demonstrations, when a black bloc damaged property of GAP, Starbucks, Old Navy, and other multinational retail locations in downtown Seattle.

        When used in the plural, black blocs refers to groups who have adopted the tactic.

        This tactic was developed following increased use of police force following the 1977 Brokdorf demonstratio by the German police in 1980, particularly aimed at anti-nuclear activists and squatters. Key areas for this development were Hafenstraße, Hamburg, and Kreuzberg, Berlin. These were social spaces occupied by dissidents who preferred to create their own social institutions based on communal living and alternative community centres.

        In June 1980, the German Police forcefully evicted the Free Republic of Wendland, an anti-nuclear protest camp in Gorleben, Wendland. This attack on 5,000 peaceful protesters led many former pacifists to become willing to use violent methods. By December 1980 the Berlin City Government organised an escalating cycle of mass arrests, followed by other local authorities across West Germany. The squatters resisted by opening new squats, as the old ones were evicted. Following the mass arrest of squatters in Freiburg, demonstrations were held in their support in many German cities.

        The day was dubbed Black Friday following a demonstration in Berlin at which between 15,000 and 20,000 people took to the streets and destroyed an expensive shopping area. The tactic of wearing identical black clothes and masks meant that the autonomen were better able to resist the police and elude identification. The German media labeled them der schwarze Block (“the black block”). In the Netherlands, similar militant resistance developed, but the wearing of ski-masks was less prevalent and the phrase Black Helmet Brigade was used/”

    • Mark Edward Noonan July 20, 2012 / 11:45 pm


      Much wisdom in that but you’re missing out the fact that we are to hate sin – “Let love be sincere; hate what is evil, hold on to what is good.” – Romans 12:9. We are to hate what is evil…and then, what? Leave it alone? Allow it to grow? Hope that it won’t drag too many people in to destruction?

      I don’t think so. In fact, various passages in the Bible clearly indicate that we are to admonish those who sin, seek their repentance and do what we can to bring them back to their senses…but also to separate ourselves from them if they persist in sin. To me, this gives us a responsibility to try – without judging the person and only condemning the act, our duty is to lessen as far as practicable the amount of evil which goes on in the world. Including the evil of those who are destroying themselves and, more importantly, those who are leading others to destruction. How can I show love for you, Dennis, if I see you heading for destruction and yet do nothing to try and stop you? Even at the risk of offending or angering you, shouldn’t I at least speak up before the crisis is reached and try to sway you?

      The good works we must also do – faith without works being a dead thing – are just part of our process of helping one another to holiness in unity with Christ. If I bring succor to the poor then it only makes my admonishment of the sinner that much more effective…much more effective if I were to pass by a beggar ignoring him and then try to admonish a person about being more generous.

      You can’t do this by halves – it is, really, all or nothing.

      • dennis July 21, 2012 / 12:52 am

        We are to hate sin. Okay, how about the sins of exploitation, greed and lack of compassion, so profusely documented both in the Old and New Testaments?

        Like cages full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; they have become rich and powerful and have grown fat and sleek. Their evil deeds have no limit; they do not seek justice. They do not promote the case of the fatherless; they do not defend the just cause of the poor. “Should I not punish them for this?” declares the Lord. “Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this?” Jeremiah 5:27-29

        Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Ezekiel 16:48, 49.

        Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. James 5:1-5.

        I could go on at length, but maybe you get the idea. You seem to have little patience with liberals who concern themselves with social justice. Has it ever occured to you that a religious conservative should find importance in all the matters that our Judeo-Christian tradition holds to be of eternal significance? Jesus in Matthew 25 offers just one single criterion which will determine whether a person is saved or lost: How they treated Him, in the person of “the least of these brothers of mine.”

        Meanwhile you spin your wheels here on things like affordable health care, gay marriage and liberals’ “socialism” – what a waste of valuable influence and time.

      • Mark Edward Noonan July 21, 2012 / 2:54 pm


        The trouble with the liberal concern for social justice is that it isn’t based upon true, Christian charity but upon a desire to compel people. Have you ever read the History of Hudge and Gudge? Go ahead and read it.

        That done, the problem with liberalism in this area is that they don’t actually help the poor – they build up massive bureaucracies, but that helps the upper class. The poor, if anything, are worse off – even if they might have technically better housing and health care than before, they are so demoralized that they are a dead loss to society as a whole.

        To be sure, there is a blind spot on the right – too many on the right don’t realize that just as we can’t have freedom with a Department of Education hanging ’round our necks, neither can we have it with Bank of America.

        But getting back to the issue at hand – to deal with the immediate problem (people arming themselves and massacring people at random) the solution is easily identified once a person frees himself from the various prejudices and bigotries built up over the past 50 or so year. Walk away just for a moment from the idiot notion that the First Amendment allows pornography but prohibits prayer in school and it all becomes clear as a bell.

  12. bardolf July 20, 2012 / 5:59 pm

    The Bath School disaster is the name given to three bombings in Bath Township, Michigan on May 18, 1927, which killed 45 people and injured at least 58. Most of the victims were children in the second to sixth grades (7–12 years of age) attending the Bath Consolidated School. Their deaths constitute the deadliest act of mass murder in a school in U.S. history.

    On the morning of May 18, Kehoe first killed his wife and then set his farm buildings on fire. As fire fighters arrived at the farm, an explosion devastated the north wing of the school building, killing many of the people inside. Kehoe used a detonator to ignite dynamite and hundreds of pounds of pyrotol which he had secretly planted inside the school over the course of many months. As rescuers started gathering at the school, Kehoe drove up, stopped, and detonated a bomb inside his shrapnel-filled vehicle, killing himself and the school superintendent, as well as killing and injuring several others.

    Again MODERN TIMES are not to blame.

    • Velma duBois July 20, 2012 / 6:21 pm

    • Cluster July 20, 2012 / 6:45 pm

      That does it – we need more bomb control laws.

      • Count d'Haricots July 20, 2012 / 7:02 pm

        Do you mean to say James broke a law prohibiting the use of smoke bombs in crowded theaters?

        But, he’d be sure to follow a new law prohibiting guns, right?

    • Mark Edward Noonan July 20, 2012 / 11:58 pm

      From a Wikipedia article on it:

      The bomber was school board treasurer Andrew Kehoe, 55, who was ostensibly enraged about a property tax levied to fund the construction of the school building. He blamed the additional tax for financial hardships which led to foreclosure proceedings against his farm. These events apparently provoked Kehoe to plan his attack. He died in a car bomb he set off after he drove up to the school as the crowd gathered to rescue survivors from the burning school.

      He was taking specific revenge for what he considered a specific injury caused by the target. He did not randomly blow up a school for no discernible reason. It is not the same – search all you want, but I don’t think you’ll find a mass shooting prior to the 1984 San Ysidro Massacre. These things are new; these things are caused by something which has changed in our society over the past few decades. The crucial changes are:

      1. The decline of religious belief.

      2. The end of the ability of a middle class family to consistently keep one parent full time at home.

      3. The breakdown of the family by the ease of and lack of opprobrium attached to divorce.

      4. The increasing use of gratuitous sex and violence in popular culture.

      The collapse of morality (decline of religion) is co-extensive with the primary means of inter-generational transmission of morality (the family) and this leaves people wide open to a different moral code, that which is provided by popular culture which explains – incessantly and with very slick marketing – that violence and sex are cool.

      Garbage in, garbage out – we’ve filled our society with garbage and now we’re getting all that garbage right back out.

  13. mitch July 20, 2012 / 8:36 pm

    Leave it to Neo to come up with an outrageous conspiracy. Black Bloc, Sounds like a wrestler. Of course, Neo thinks Zimmerman is innocent and that the President is a Muslim.
    This shooter is sick.Mentally sick. His disease has nothing to do with his politics (if he even has any) nor does it have anything to do with morality. His brain is diseased and he acted on uncontrolable impulses.
    But to the daily hate fest here, he just HAD to be an anarchist. Or worse. An Obama supporter.

    • tiredoflibbs July 20, 2012 / 8:43 pm

      “His disease has nothing to do with his politics (if he even has any) nor does it have anything to do with morality. His brain is diseased and he acted on uncontrolable impulses.”

      We’ll hold you to that mitchie.

      • mitchethekid July 21, 2012 / 12:43 pm

        Please do. If anyone is exploiting this horrific event for political gain, it’s those who are attempting to claim his motivation WAS political. It wasn’t. The man is sick in the head. Period.

      • Amazona July 21, 2012 / 1:51 pm

        “If anyone is exploiting this horrific event for political gain, it’s those who are attempting to claim his motivation WAS political.”

        Well, you need to take this complaint to Brian Ross and ABC.

      • tiredoflibbs July 21, 2012 / 3:44 pm

        Yes, mitchie you need to take your complaint to Brian Ross and Georgie Stephanopoulus.

        George let Brian Ross immediately claim that there was a Jim Holmes at a TEA party web site. So, Ross immediately tried to make it political and that he was a conservative. Look above, velma tried to paint him conservative as well because he owned guns.

        Now we have Democrats trying to use this for more gun control. You need to look at your own party for making this political, but that would force you to face some unpleasant realities that you can’t handle.

    • Amazona July 21, 2012 / 12:07 am

      Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty.

      Why do you have such a hard time with this concept?

      And why are you so deeply invested in the idea of him being guilty? This really seems to matter to you. Yet you refer to OTHERS as haters. You need a mirror.

      • mitchethekid July 21, 2012 / 12:41 pm

        Let me axe you a question Ama. Do you think Zimmerman’s behavior is indicative of someone who is innocent? (i.e. Having his bail revoked because he lied to the judge and having his wife arrested. Demanding money and a months stay in a 5 star hotel to give ABC an interview. And, last but not least, going on Fox and saying the killing of a teenager was “gods plan”.)

      • Amazona July 21, 2012 / 1:05 pm

        Aks away, mitche.

        I think everything Zimmerman has said and done is quite consistent with his account of what happened. You seem to have some simple-minded concept of absolute truth, when any policeman will tell you that the most honest and forthright witness in the world will often be a little confused. It is often the person whose story is tight and unchanging, full of consistent detail, who is lying, because he is not recounting what happened and trying to make sense of events that happened quickly and sometimes violently, but is repeating an invented story, a script.

        I think that what happened that rainy night stands alone as what happened that rainy night. I do not think that a later example of bad judgment, which by the way involved no violence, no assault, no attack, and no harm to anyone, can be determined to retroactively color the events of the evening in question.

        The arrest of Zimmerman’s wife had absolutely nothing to do with what happened involving her husband, where she was not present, was not a participant, was not a witness, and which centers on events after the fact.

        I think that not only does the actual physical EVIDENCE support Zimmerman’s claim of being attacked, the very foundation of our entire judicial system says he must be considered innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, I find this insistence on condemning him, based on nothing but what is, to me, incomprehensible rage and hatred for a man none of you knows, to be quite disturbing.

        I think that anyone who has no money, who has been driven from his home by vigilantes and a bounty placed on his life, is justified in trying to find a way to have a place to hide out. While you claim he “DEMANDED” some form of compensation for an interview this is your own biased take on it. I see nothing wrong in asking someone who wants something of you if there will be anything given in return.

        And there is no evidence that the story of him asking for compensation for an interview is true.

        Zimmerman’s life, story and time are his own, and he is entitled to do with them whatever he wants.

        You distort his comments on Fox. He was asked if he would change anything and he gave a response quite consistent with the beliefs of anyone whose faith includes the belief that nothing happens without a purpose even when we do not understand what that purpose might be. Millions and millions of people share the belief than an omnipotent God shapes our lives and that while we seldom understand the reason at the time, faith demands that we at least believe there IS a reason.

        He didn’t say he didn’t care that the boy was dead. He was asked if he would do anything different and he replied, with complete candor, that he thought what happened was part of a bigger plan.

        While you may sneer at faith and people of faith, it is foolish to claim that belief in God’s plan and reluctance to second-guess God, look Him in the eye and say “God, you made a mistake here and if I had another chance I would correct it” is proof of some malignant motive or characteristic.

        I answered your questions, so will you answer mine? Why is it so important to you that Zimmerman be guilty of a crime? Why are you so emotionally invested in seeing him as guilty of murder when there is not one piece of evidence that supports this? Why do you feel the Constitutional mandate of “innocent until proven guilty” should not apply to Zimmerman, and why do you feel justified in mounting personal attacks on people who DO believe in this mandate and apply it to this case? Why do you dismiss the evidence that Zimmerman was attacked?

      • neocon1 July 22, 2012 / 1:32 pm


        GZ guilty of innocent was a good shot, one round one dead drug addled, assailant.
        good for him good for the community and GREAT for TM’s “parents” Cha Ching $$$$$$$

        Thanks for reminding me to send in my check.

    • Amazona July 21, 2012 / 12:41 pm

      Awwww, the poor shooter was just “sick”. Probably had low self-esteem, too. He just has a DISEASE .

      He just had uncontrollable impulses. For about a month, these “impulses” reigned supreme, with nary a break during which he might have thought “I ought to get some help before I actually hurt someone”. No, he was the VICTIM of UNCONTROLLABLE IMPULSES for several weeks, during which time he planned, bought guns, ordered ammunition over the Internet, bought extensive body armor, and booby-trapped his apartment building.

      Let’s take a look at that last item, OK? BOOBY-TRAPPED HIS APARTMENT BUILDING. A place where other people also lived, which means that while his UNCONTROLLABLE IMPULSE was to kill or maim law enforcement officers who might come to his house, his IMPULSE was also to kill his neighbors, too.

      Hmm. Well, the Free Dictionary defines “impulse” as ” A sudden wish or urge that prompts an unpremeditated act or feeling; an abrupt inclination.” So the careful and methodical premeditation involved in carrying out this attack seems to pretty much destroy the claim that he just acted on “impulse”.

      The Free Dictionary also defines “Impulse Control Disorder” as
      “A psychiatric disorder characterised by a failure to resist an impulse, drive, or temptation to perform an act that is harmful to the person or to others.”

      Not INABILITY to resist such an impulse, drive or temptation, but the FAILURE to do so.

      Sorry, mitche, but Holmes knew what he wanted to do, knew what he was doing while he planned it, knew what he was doing while he carried it out, engaged in precise and methodical planning, and is fully culpable for his actions.

    • neocon1 July 22, 2012 / 1:29 pm


      and you think OJ is innocent….so what is your point?

  14. casper July 20, 2012 / 9:15 pm

    One of he things that’s always bothered me about the Entertainment industry is that they always want to have it both ways. People will buy products due to advertising, yet violent content in games, shows and movies has no influence on anyone.

      • Amazona July 21, 2012 / 1:52 pm

        Did he do it because he is a Republican?

        Then what’s your point?

    • Mark Edward Noonan July 21, 2012 / 4:26 pm


      Product placement in films totally destroys any assertion that what people see in movies has no effect upon them.

      • bozo July 23, 2012 / 10:26 pm

        Purveyors of filth and proud owner of AMC Entertainment movie chain:

        Also known as free market capitalism, depending on if you are profiting from it or not. Are you calling for regulating it?

      • Amazona July 23, 2012 / 11:40 pm

        freakzo, please tell us which Bain officers were in control of content at AMC Entertainment.

        While you’re at it, do let us know just what kind of controls venture capital investors usually do have over the businesses in which they invest.

      • bozo July 24, 2012 / 5:56 am

        Ammo, you just don’t read Mark’s original post and bloviate away with impunity, don’t you. You’re going to make Mark sad…

      • bozo July 24, 2012 / 6:14 am

        But you’re right. Other than complete unmitigated control over the very lifeblood of a capitalist venture in which they willingly participate, and the ability to infuse cash into one enterprise over another based on any criteria they choose, including morality – well – not much control at all. I hope you remember that when I invest heavily in the “Holocaust Denial” theme park coming to a town near you. It’s out of my hands…

      • Mark Edward Noonan July 24, 2012 / 9:00 pm


        As far as I can tell, only myself and one other person have (a) figured out what caused this and (b) have advocated the proper steps to combat it. I don’t blame Bain – or any other person or entity – who has invested in the entertainment industry. I blame all of us – we’ve all been too cowardly. Now, though, is a time for deep reflection and a clean break with the past. If Bain continues to invest in such entities as make filth going forward, then you’ll have a gripe to make. Still won’t have one to make about Romney, of course, because he’s no longer part of Bain…but you would have a gripe about Bain. So will I. So, we can join together in it…

      • Amazona July 25, 2012 / 1:03 pm

        Is AMC Entertainment known for making “filth”?

        If a bank loans money to a company based on its prior success in producing a desirable product and marketing it well, does the bank also go onto the production floor to oversee the manufacture?

        If a bank invests in a company that has been successfully selling widgets for years, and then the company makes a defective widget that causes injury or death, what is the culpability of the bank?

        The claim here seems to be that Bain knew something that has not been proved—that AMC Entertainment makes “filth”—and knowingly invested in it to contribute to the making of more “filth” and therefore has responsibility for the “filth” created.

      • Amazona July 25, 2012 / 1:05 pm

        “Purveyors of filth and proud owner of AMC Entertainment movie chain: ”

        Bain OWNS AMC Entertainment? Really? Owns it, eh?

        Not only owns it but is damned proud of it, eh?

      • Amazona July 25, 2012 / 1:13 pm

        I recently saw “Moonrise Kingdom” at an AMC theater. Does this make me a purveyor of “filth”, a supporter of “filth”, perhaps even a PROUD purveyor and supporter of “filth”?

        And here I thought I was simply enchanted by a sweet, quirky, movie about sweet, quirky people. Who knew that getting a kick out of Bruce Willis’ high-water pants and white socks makes me a “purveyor of filth”?

        OK, so I didn’t “purvey”. But I added to the bottom line of the company, enabling it to purvey away, though they seem to do their filth-purveying in theaters other than my 14-screen cineplex, as none of the titles I had to choose from seemed very “filthy”.

        Maybe I need a filth expert to point out and explain filth to me. Bozo, do you plan to be in Colorado soon? You seem like an ideal guide to filth.

      • tiredoflibbs July 25, 2012 / 3:51 pm

        Ama, perhaps creepy assclown is referring to an AMCtheater possibly showing “Atlas Shrugged”.

        Who knows in his deluded mind…..

    • neocon1 July 22, 2012 / 12:27 pm

      syrah bloooooch forker exe

      bwany fwank DEMOCRAT marries a goat, or a guy …….what is your point?

  15. Jeremiah July 20, 2012 / 10:00 pm

    I think the reason we continue to see these types of crimes played out, is because the punishment for crime is not severe enough. A lot of people say, “Oh, prison is an awful place to be.” Lol…then why are our prisons overflowing? If it was such a bad place to be, there wouldn’t be so many people in prison. And all the people in prison, are just more burden on the taxpayers…I’m guessing they’re included in with the 40% who pay no taxes.

    But no, if these criminals who do these horrible things, that shoot other people…if they had to suffer before they were executed while thousands of spectators paid to see them suffer and die…I really believe it would make people think before they committed murder, or whatever the type of crime.

    • dennis July 20, 2012 / 11:14 pm

      “If they had to suffer before they were executed while thousands of spectators paid to see them suffer and die…I really believe it would make people think.”

      Who would pay to see them suffer and die, Jer? Would you? You know Americans did a lot of lynching from the 1890s to the 1920s, and even into the mid-20th century, except I don’t think they charged admission. How does that square with Philippians 4:8? Can you imagine Jesus Christ buying a ticket?

      But hey, it would be better than the movies, right? Sounds to me like your religion has more in common with the Roman Colosseum than the early Christian church. But somehow that doesn’t surprise me.

      “Prison is an awful place to be, Lol…” Yes, laugh out loud, it’s pretty awful. Keep on laughing. I just hope you never get arrested for something you didn’t even do. But in your vision of America things like that don’t happen, do they? It’s just bad people who get arrested and executed while the good law-abiding people should get to see them suffer and die. Just like all those law-abiding people who watched Jesus nailed to the cross. I’m sure plenty of them felt like he deserved it, too.

      Do you ever stop to wonder why more people aren’t flocking to your religion?

      • Jeremiah July 21, 2012 / 1:15 am

        Sounds to me like your religion has more in common with the Roman Colosseum than the early Christian church.

        No, not actually. It has more to do with me, and my idea of criminal justice, than anything else. Yes, I like the Colosseum…it exemplifies God’s might, and the judgment that He metes out. It shows people whom we should first respect before we act, and that any qualms we have with a brother, or others should be dealt with in a manner that would save us the awful punishment that comes if we act upon our feelings of rage.

        This man that just murdered 12 and injured 70 others, I would throw to the lions.

        Romans 13:3 – “For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,”

        You see, God has authority in my life, but He doesn’t have first place in the life of the man who just murdered 12 and injured 70 others in Aurora, Colorado.

        On another note,,,Did you know, Jesus never kicked on the games at the Colosseum. Not one word bad about them.

        Administering justice to those who do bad things is what God expects of a nation, and it’s not to be misconstrued to include those who are innocent, such as Jesus Christ, or the child in the womb.

        Genesis 9:6 – “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

      • dennis July 21, 2012 / 2:14 am

        That’s what I thought. It’s your idea of criminal justice, you like the Colosseum. You actually believe it exemplifies God’s might. How telling. To me it only reveals man’s cruelty, depravity and the arm of flesh – nothing of God at all.

        “Did you know, Jesus never kicked on the games at the Colosseum. Not one word bad about them.”

        Does his silence mean he condoned them? Remember, Jesus never kicked on gay marriage. Not one bad word about it. On the other hand, he very plainly said it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.

        You cite Genesis 9:6, and I would point out that Jesus specifically negated the Old Covenant eye-for-eye law. I also would cite Ezekiel 16:49, whose underlying principle never was negated, but only reaffirmed in the New Testament: “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.” See also James chapter 5 for a New Testament view on social justice.

    • dennis July 20, 2012 / 11:53 pm

      Patriotdad, meet your American Taliban compatriot. Just like the woman who got executed (presumably) for adultery before cheering spectators outside of Kabul a week or so ago, our resident religious fundamentalist Jeremiah would have American moral violators publicly executed for a spectacle.

      Tha Pharisees dragged a woman accused of adultery before Christ two thousand years ago, and it is instructive to remember what he told them: “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

      • Amazona July 21, 2012 / 8:56 am

        “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.””

        Go ahead and finish this phrase, as you seem so sure Jesus would have.

        ““Let him who is without sin cast the first stone, but let him who has less stone the one who has more.”

      • Amazona July 21, 2012 / 9:20 am

        Envy and pride are two of the Cardinal Sins, yet the One True Christian not only exudes toxic envy of “the rich”, he is constantly exhibiting his pride in his knowledge of the heart of God and of the Scriptures.

      • neocon1 July 22, 2012 / 12:33 pm


        the wolf in sheeps clothing continues to cherry pick and interpenetrate the bible for his leftist political views…a JW dennis boy?

        do TELL us what the OT and the NT tells us about sodomy denny?

      • neocon1 July 22, 2012 / 12:47 pm

        maybe we should DISARM these guys eh?

        NY Police Officer Shoots and Kills Son He Thought Was An Intruder

  16. Cluster July 21, 2012 / 8:36 am

    Dennis, you and Jeremiah have a lot in common. Both of you pontificate with certainty about God’s will, and how His will fits with your agenda. I don’t see any difference in Jeremiah lecturing that God would want the gunman thrown to the lions, and your insistence that God wants the rich to pay higher taxes to take care of everyone. There is no difference whatsoever, you are both using God, and your interpretation of His word to further your agenda.

    I am supporter of a limited death penalty and this case would qualify. I don’t believe that the death penalty should apply to those who kill in the fury of passion, or certainly if it can be proven to be not premeditated. I do think that the death penalty should apply to people like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, the Columbine killers and certainly this kid, and the sooner the better. As a society, we tend to give a lot of notoriety to mass killers, and I think that is part of the attraction for them. What we should do, is put a bullet in their head as soon as we are done extracting information and only refer to them anonymously from that point forward.

    • Amazona July 21, 2012 / 8:54 am

      Cluster, you may have noticed that when you see a post from The Only True Christian (who posts under the name of dennis) you will see only vicious surly resentment of those more wealthy than he, accompanied by his conviction that this is not a sick pathology, oh no, but just God telling him to hate the rich.

      Oh, and by the way, the reason “Jesus never ‘kicked’ on “gay marriage” is because the idea of “gay marriage” was so outlandish, it took centuries, including one of Leftist undermining of both religion and the family, to erode culture enough to make it possible to say it.

    • dennis July 21, 2012 / 4:14 pm

      Cluster, one of several critical differences between Jeremiah and me is that I take no pleasure in the death or suffering of anyone. Not even a mass murderer, although I would bow to justice in a death sentence in such a case. To make death into a spectator sport to me would be to make a mockery of the gift of life.

      I don’t pontificate with certainty about God’s will, and certainly don’t interpret it to fit my agenda. That’s your own personal prejudice talking. If anything I’m constantly trying to figure out what God’s will is. One of the ways I do this is by referencing authoritative sources – the prophets, the record of the Old and New Testaments. I try to order my values – personal, social, political and otherwise – according to what I learn there. Not what human organizations tell me, not what culture dictates, but what the record says.

      As for pontificating, Mark often writes at much greater length than I ever have here on moral topics. In his post above he advocates the enforcement of morality, as he defines it. A couple points:

      1.) I believe free will is the primary gift of God to the human race. Above all things I would resist any entity attempting to enforce personal morality on any person. Just laws that keep the peace and allow the orderly functioning of people and nations are one matter, but making a clear distinction between the legitimate purview of government and personal moral conscience is essential – that is the line between the state and the church.

      Regarding taxes, I believe there is a strong case to be me made for a progressive tax schedule; it is in our nation’s long-term interest to not allow the economic divide between working people to become so great that the poorest cannot survive no matter how hard they work. But that’s another topic, and doesn’t rise to the level of religious dogma for me. As I’ve said here before, my religious values inform my civic values, not the other way around. But there is a heirarchy of importance and I do not elevate civic matters to the level of religious obligation.

      2.) Mark brought this conversation around to the topic of morality. In my first post above I explained the basis of my understanding of morality, and the basis of many of my political opinions, by referencing sources that are considered authoritative in a Judeo-Christian context. That would be the Torah, or Old Testament, for the Judeo part, and the New Testament for the Christian part. This should hardly be a novelty, especially in a forum where many people have expressed a strong affinity for Judeo-Christian values.

      Ama and others here often reference the Constitution and hold it to be sacred in much the same way I do the Bible. I’m not the authority – the written Word is the authority. I make no apology for referencing it, especially in the context of a discussion on morality. You, Ama and others here make no apologies for referencing the Constitution in discussion of legal or political matters – why would you? I’ve never sarcastically refered to you, her or anyone else as “The One True American” or any other such snide appellation for making these references. It would be ignorant and childish to make ad hominem attacks against anyone for such a reason. I find it curious that you, Ama and others here resort so easily to baseless ad hominem attacks (one reason I don’t hang out or post here much).

      When Mark and others here who explicitly identify as Christians express opinions or values that directly contradict teachings that are not just peripheral, but foundational to core Judeo-Christian values, should it be noted, or not? I understand few people here are fans of the Bible. This of course explains why passages are taken out of context, blown out of proportion and otherwise used creatively (to be euphemistic) from time to time. However because my schooling years ago taught me principles of exegesis, I try to use Bible references in a manner consistent with their context and intent (much as others do here with the Constitution). For this Ama feels free to call me prideful in my “knowledge of the heart of God”.

      No, Ama, I’m just a student. I’m not even an outwardly religious person in my daily life, but I do have a degree of reverence for these things that runs pretty deep. You still try to play the clairvoyant, but you keep failing. When you accuse me of “surly resentment of those more wealthy” than me it just shows the depth of your ignorance. I’m hardly envious, and it’s not really me your issue is with. It’s those ancient Judeo-Christian scriptures. You might want to study them, and work out your conflicts there instead of spitting in my face because I respect what they say.

      • Amazona July 21, 2012 / 4:46 pm

        Yeah, dennis,YOU don’t have a problem with “the rich”—you are just a passive observer, just a guy quoting the Bible. It just so happens that the parts you focus on are antagonistic to “the rich” and it just so happens that most of your lectures are on the duties of “the rich”.

        Yeah. Just a coincidence, I am sure. And we are not to link what you say with how you think or what you believe.

        It’s not really YOU I find so objectionable, it’s those pesky SCRIPTURES I have a problem with. You are just the messenger, right?

        What a crock.

        Take a look, and you may see that the Bible is a big, big, book. Lots of lessons, lots of references, lots of words. You just happen to stumble, almost at random I guess, upon the very parts that can be used to support dislike of and resentment of “the rich”. And when I comment on your odd and, according to you, inadvertent focus on the bits about “the rich” you try the feeble old tactic of trying to shift the discussion to me, claiming that I “try to play the clairvoyant”.

        You just pile weaselly dishonesty upon weaselly dishonesty, not even being enough of a man to own your own words. Claiming that my observations on your pious pomposity, your self-righteous judgmentalism, and your obvious antagonism toward “the rich” are really proofs that I need to study Scripture more is really quite a vile little squirm, there, denny. Yeah, your annoying egoist pontificating REALLY means I have a conflict with the words of the Bible,


        Lying is another cardinal sin. You’re really racking them up, here, denny.

      • Eagle Eye July 21, 2012 / 4:52 pm

        Dennis is the kind of guy, you ask him directions to the store and he tells you how to build a car and thehistory of the internal combustion engine and what kind of underwear Ford used to wear and why it was too hot.

      • dennis July 21, 2012 / 8:54 pm

        Ama, my initial post here didn’t have anything to do with economics. The reason the discussion circles around to it so often on this blog is because protecting the advantages of the wealthy is such a fundamental part of the GOP agenda. It’s at the heart of much of the political dialog right now and the GOP claims strong connection to Judeo-Christian values. There’s a disconnect there – as I have noted over and over, justice and compassion for the poor is not a peripheral, minor topic but a constant theme woven all through both the Old and New Testaments. It’s fundamental to historical Judeo-Christian values; it’s a big deal in Scripture.

        I’ve never said my focus on wealth is “inadvertent”. Jesus addressed the issue of personal wealth in the Gospels repeatedly so it must be important. As I pointed out to Mark earlier in this thread, in Matthew 25 Jesus offered just one criterion that will determine whether a person will be saved or lost: How they treated Him, in the persons of “the least of these brothers of mine.” Think whatever you want about me, I’m not important. But for anyone who claims to respect Christianity, the teachings of Christ should be. For one of a thousand points to ponder, see

      • tiredoflibbs July 21, 2012 / 9:12 pm

        “compassion for the poor”

        Again, denny thinks that the only way to show “compassion for the poor” is through government. I guess that is why the charitable contributions on tax returns of Democrats are so low to non-existant. They are free with other peoples’ money but not their own. And Republicans are just the opposite based on their tax returns.

        So, who is “greedy” in this case? A “rich” man who gives from his own pockets – his sacrifice. Or another “rich” man who is free with other peoples’ money, just not his own??

        Hmmm. denny?

        The others have you pegged! You quote chapter and verse to fulfill your agenda. Remember, ENVY is one of the seven deadly sins – and you have plenty of it.

      • Amazona July 21, 2012 / 11:23 pm

        “protecting the advantages of the wealthy is such a fundamental part of the GOP agenda.”

        Thanks, dennis, for yet another illustration of your bigotry. You manage to cram it into everything you say.

  17. Amazona July 22, 2012 / 11:02 am

    The Hollywood elites love to whine and complain about how America is hated ABROAD, how poorly Americans are perceived ABROAD—yet they remain oblivious to the reason for that. They certainly don’t take credit for it.

    A few years ago a friend invited a foreign man, a college graduate in his 30s, here on a professional visa, to go back to Ohio with her for Thanksgiving. When I saw him, I asked how he had enjoyed his holiday, and he was so enthused, so excited. He said “I never knew Americans DID things like that!”

    ???? “Things like WHAT?”

    “Whole families getting together, having big meals, visiting…..”

    This prompted me to ask him a lot of questions about his perceptions of America, and it was very interesting. He had been here a few years by then and had not seen women walking around half naked, met married people who were having affairs, experienced violence or seen people carrying guns, or been exposed to any of what he had been led to believe is just our way of life here, but he thought it was just because of where he had been living, and it was all going on all over the REST of America.

    True, the people he had met here were just like the people back home. They worked hard, loved their families, went to church, were involved in their children’s schools and went to school events, washed their cars on weekends, cooked outside in the summer, took vacations—but because of a lifetime of indoctrination from Hollywood, he thought THESE were aberrations and that “real” America was what he had been told it was, through movies and TV.

    Another man I met, this one from South America, once asked me why Americans pretended to be upset at Clinton’s multiple sexual escapades, when American men all had mistresses and girlfriends. “Oh?” I replied. “They DO?” He had learned this from watching shows like “Dallas” on TV.

    And so on. We used to have interns at our ranch from the Royal Windsor Veterinary School in England—it was quite a treat to intern at a REAL WESTERN RANCH !!! and we loved having them. One of the young men came back just to visit, and we started talking about the Columbine shootings. He, of course, knew ALL there was to know about the massacre—too easy to get guns, kids from underprivileged families, etc. So when I took him to the airport we left early so we could drive past the school and through the neighborhoods of the kids who attend the school. He was stunned. It looked just like home, a lovely upscale suburban neighborhood, no blight, no signs of dissolution.

    We reap what we sow, and thanks to the utter moral decay represented by Hollywood and exported to the rest of the world, what we reap ABROAD is disgust and contempt and hatred. And fear.

  18. bozo July 23, 2012 / 10:25 pm

    I don’t get why it’s always “all or nothing” with gun debates – either confiscate everything, or anything goes. I’m a raging liberal, but advocate gun ownership by responsible, well-trained, home-owning, taxpaying, child-rearing American adults. Crazy, unstable troublemakers need to be weeded out as much as possible. Why is this so controversial?

    I own one gun, a “Baby Browning” PSA .25 six shot. I had no trouble buying it, but I have zero criminal record and a long history of good citizenship. Why shouldn’t I want every gun owner to be like that? That “slippery slope” argument is just childish, like claiming that when Claritin went off-prescription, pretty soon oxycontin, and then morphine, would follow suit.

    This guy was crazy. You can’t predict crazy. But there had to have been dozens of people within a hundred feet of this guy who could have passed a stringent background check and could have responsibly been packing. I think the stink of NRA radicalism drives otherwise boring people away from the sensibility of carrying personal protection.

    • Bob July 23, 2012 / 10:40 pm

      Do you want to have a shoot-out between several armed citizens in a crowded dark movie theater? I think that it is probably going to be more difficult to provide for one’s “personal protection” in a society that does more to promote violence and a general disregard for laws and life.

      • bozo July 24, 2012 / 6:00 am

        Point well taken. That should be a major consideration when training for the responsible use of personal protection. “Well regulated” as it applies to arms means “well trained” and I think should be a prerequisite for concealed carry. Let the NRA howls of tyranny begin…

      • tiredoflibbs July 24, 2012 / 11:03 am

        creepy assclown: “That should be a major consideration when training for the responsible use of personal protection. “Well regulated” as it applies to arms means “well trained” and I think should be a prerequisite for concealed carry. Let the NRA howls of tyranny begin…”

        The NRO won’t howl. They are the ones who have set up gun training courses across the country, from simple firearms handling to concealed carry training.

        Proggies claim to want “responsible” gun ownership but they have done nothing to promote it. Their efforts have been strictly limited to restricting and hindering your/our 2nd Amendment rights.

    • Amazona July 23, 2012 / 11:38 pm

      For a few short sentences, freakzo flirted with sanity, but evidently it was too great a strain, though he did redeem his goofy cred with “I think the stink of NRA radicalism drives otherwise boring people away from the sensibility of carrying personal protection.”

      ‘Cause the NRA is so RADICAL, you know, so much it STINKS, and this for some reason makes otherwise reasonable people decide not to carry guns.

      Ahhhh, the STINK of Liberal “logic” in the morning……….

      • bozo July 24, 2012 / 6:03 am

        Wouldn’t want to disappoint…

  19. Amazona July 25, 2012 / 5:06 pm

    The other recent Aurora, CO shooting — the Liar Media will not tell you any more about it

    Posted by ColdWarrior (Diary)

    Sunday, July 22nd at 6:17PM EDT

    “Curiously, the Huffington Post reported on the shooting, republishing an AP report. As you’ll see, a man with a “gun” (the crack AP investigative reporters were apparently unable to discover what kind of gun it was or deemed that unimportant) drove into a church parking lot, crashed into another vehicle, and as people came to his aid, started shooting at them. He shot and killed the mother of one of the pastors at the church and then, apparently, proceeded in the direction of the church entrance. Thankfully, luckily, an off-duty Denver police officer, a nephew of the victim, had his gun with him and shot the assailant before he could fire at anyone else.

    Parker sped into the parking lot of New Destiny Center church in Aurora, crashed into a car, then fired at people who came to his aid. The shooting killed Josephine Echols, the mother of a pastor at the church, police said. Echols’ nephew Antonio Milow, an off-duty Denver police officer who was attending a church service, then shot and killed Parker, authorities said.

    The story is here (including a link to a video report from one of the Denver television stations):

    While details are somewhat sketchy, if you watch the news report, you’ll see one of the congregants say it sounded as though the gunshots were moving closer to the church and that at one point the assailant was inside the entrance of the church.

    Aurora police spokesman Frank Fania summed things up nicely:

    “Who knows what would’ve happened if the officer had not been there. It certainly could have been a lot worse,” Fania said.

    Thank you,


Comments are closed.