My thoughts.
I've heard that the theater had a "no weapons" policy, but have been unable to find any support for this. If so, another "gun free zone" and the persons responsible for it are as culpable as the shooter.
Every major print story I have read mentions "the gunman". Why are guns singled out when a nutcase commits an evil act? You never hear of the "baseball bat man" or "the switchblade man" - but almost without fail, the "gunman" gets print.
There's no way to prove that the presence of one or more armed moviegoers could have stopped the rampage, but they surely couldn't have made things any worse.
The media instantly jumped on a Tea Party member with a similar name. Not coincidence. It's happened too many times that a conservative is instantly conjured up as the evildoer, and often it it shown later that the perpetrator was actually a leftie-liberal of some sort, if not a card-carrying Demonrat.
Rumors are starting that there was some sort of a "government plot" involved here. I wouldn't put it past the liberal left's command cabal to try and set up something like this - is the technical term "black swan"?
Eyewitnesses say a second party was involved, opening the exit door from inside after using a cell phone.
Of course, the "usual suspects" are out there screaming for more gun control, and isn't it really curious that a vote on that UN small arms treaty is being considered?
No comments:
Post a Comment