Unless you have been living under a rock somewhere, you most likely know about the tragic events that have taken place out in Aurora, Colorado on Friday June 21, 2012. The magnitude and scope of this horrific event have not even begun to settle in with the Nation, not to mention the world. The families of the dead are just now being notified, and the crime scene is still gone over by the police department and the FBI, ATF and many others. This horrific tragedy will forever be associated with this Batman Movie. Because of the tragic events in Colorado; no one, not matter who they are; myself included, will never be able to walk into a movie theater and feel safe ever again.
As many of you know, I once was a Democratic Party voter. I voted for that party from the time I was eligible to vote, until 2008. I am 40 years of age, so that should give you an idea of how long I have been voting. So, when I see someone who is supposed to be a respected movie reviewer, exploiting this horrific and tragic event to further his own political agenda — I have to wonder, has the left gone that mad?
I am of course, referring to Roger Ebert, of whom, at one time, I actually respected as a film reviewer — posting an opinion piece in the New York Times, which is supposedly the paper of record, on this event in Aurora, Colorado. In this piece, Roger Ebert condemns the right, condemns those who own guns, and dismisses the notion that anyone really should own a gun at all. This is typical boilerplate progressivism and liberal Democrat gruel from people like Ebert and I usually do not get bothered by such things.
However, when I see Ebert and people like him, actually resorting to the distortion of fact, I really have to wonder. Case in point, Ebert writes the following in his piece:
That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended.
Okay, this is where I actually have to correct a man, who is supposedly a respected writer and film critic. Here is the truth from the media:
Via USA TODAY:
James Eagan Holmes, 24, legally bought the four weapons he allegedly used. Police said he opened fire in a suburban Denver theater with four sold-out showings of the premiere of the Batman movie Dark Knight Rises. He was dressed head-to-toe in black bullet-proof gear, including helmet, vest, leggings and a groin and throat protector. He wore a gas mask, goggles, and black gloves.
You see, Roger Ebert omitted the fact that this man was wearing armor to protect himself from being shot at in the theater. Therefore, it would not have mattered at all, if someone would have shot back at him or not — that is unless someone was shooting armor piercing ammunition, which is generally not available to the public, unless someone happens to have an old stash of it. This is because of our over reactionary Government decided to outlaw those types of bullets after the North Hollywood Bank shootout that happened in 1997. This resulted in the outlawing of automatic assault rifles and armor piercing bullets. The ban on the assault rifles expired, but the ban on armor piercing bullets never did. This would leave someone unable to defend himself or herself against an attacker wearing body armor.
I do not believe this attempt to cover this little known fact up is an isolated incident. I believe as time goes on, the fact that he was wearing body armor is going to be buried by the media for a reason. The United Government does not want the American people to know that if someone in that theater, had been armed with armor piercing bullets, this killer could have, and would have been stopped dead cold in his tracks. Not to sound like an devotee of the “Alex Jones school for mental awareness” or anything; but, the fact is that we are living in a bit of a police state, where even the simplest of calls for things like domestic violence can get a swat team sent to someone’s house.
I believe this not to be an accident, our Government wants to have an upper hand on its citizens, and they are doing this by restricting access to those kinds of bullets. Because logic would tell one, that if an law enforcement officer knew that someone had this sort of ammunition, that they would be less inclined to perform some of the unconstitutional acts against the citizens of this Country that has been documented on various websites, including this one here.
This is what, we as Constitutional Conservatives, must fight against, the seizing of our freedom to own and possess a firearm. If left unchecked, laws that diminish our freedoms will be passed. If it were left to the “Liberal left” in this Country, we would be much like Europe, where there are no guns at all; and the only ones who own them would be criminals. This is our mandate going forward, even if Mitt Romney is elected, we must fight against those who would pressure the President to restrict gun ownership.
As Conservatives, we all know that love for this great Country of ours is imperative. However, blind, child-like trust of our Government is a futile mistake —– just ask Randy Weaver.