Previous Post
Next Post

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. He said he was not seen, he so could have taken him out and saved lives if he was armed. Makes me sick to hear they were helpless and defenseless!

  2. Why didnt anyone throw something big and heavy at the shooter, like the grabbers suggest. Maybe because the pull of a trigger and the projectile hitting its target is faster? I dunno.

  3. I would have done what those idiot college cops told women how to handle a rapist. Pissed on him and if that didn’t work I’d have screamed really loud and thrown something at him like a pen or pencil.

    Works everytime. . . . I can squirt about 3 feet on a good day if my bladder is full or is that too close to the shooter?

  4. Curious fact. One of the guys that works at the Navy yard OWNS a gun store. You can imagine how he was feeling during this.

  5. Anyone else think this guy might be an actor or making stuff up? CNN does that all the time.

    His timeline doesn’t really make sense, the details just seem wrong… And all of the military people I know are very good at explaining past events in a logical mannor but this guy is all over the place and focusing on details that I wouldn’t think someone would focus on…

    *removing tin-foil hat now*

    • “Anyone else think this guy might be an actor or making stuff up? CNN does that all the time”

      You really need to back that up with some citations, please.

      • Maybe “All the time” was a poor choice of words… that said:

        was the latest article I read about it… Granted I’m too busy/lazy to look into any of these things, so this article could be complete crap… :/ That said, anybody who watches this:…0.0…

        and says “OMG THEY ALMOST JUST DIED!!!” is sucker…

        *puts tin-foil hat back on* anybody remember Robbie Parker laughing before his Newtown interview, or Gene Rosen’s psychotic rant about a bus driver dropping kids off at a random house? This particular video reminds me of that… It just… doesn’t… feel… right… The details aren’t right, he doesn’t talk like a navy guy, he doesn’t act like a navy guy…

        Does it strike anybody else as odd that somebody in the military who is trained to use guns would go onto TV to talk about being shot at and not say the words “I wish I could have shot back at this dirtbag!”? Not a single person (that I know of) on these comments was there and it is blindingly obvious to US that things would have been better if these people were armed, why wouldn’t somebody who was actually there recognize that same fact and declare it on the leftist MSM? Unless he wasn’t there, and is one of Cooper’s puppets… *takes tin-foil hat back off*

        The whole ‘interview’ still doesn’t feel right to me…

  6. Call me cynical, but if this guy was carrying a piece during the Navy Yard shootings, he probably would have peed on it.

    You need more than a gun to defend yourself — you also need the will.

  7. I always feel a certain reluctance to get behind the idea that if only someone had been armed the maniac could have been stopped. Factually true, I guess, but the idea lacks a certain flavor. Sort of like rice cakes. Nutritious, but you don’t want to have to rely on them.

    I guess my problem is that I see a dysfunctional society eating itself (in many areas), and just taking up arms and shooting back doesn’t do anything about the bigger picture. I know, the bigger picture is irrelevant on the killing floor.

    I’m not going to ignore the big picture. The entertainment industry, the drug culture, the sexual revolution, the demise of the nuclear family, have all brought this and greater sorrows down on our heads.

    It is you social liberals and your perverted idea of freedom that are to blame. To paraphrase a certain old politician that most liberals would admire if he where alive today:

    Would that liberals had but one neck!

  8. This is what happens when you disarm the public. One person with a gun can slaughter people at will without any fear of someone shooting back. Leave it up to all those prima donna idiots like bloomberg, feinstein, obama, biden, etc. who think they can stop violence by getting rid of guns. That is like trying to stop people from getting fat by banning forks and spoons. If you want to get rid of violence, get rid of the video games like call of duty, grand theft auto, etc. That is where the violent attitudes start.

    • The video game industry is a favorite target of people who can’t present a reasonable argument. They love to point at “Call of Duty”, which is about good guys killing VERY BAD people, “Medal of Honor” which has a title that pretty much says it all, and many others, and lump them all into one group that supposedly causes people to go out and murder innocent people. I detest the plot theme of “Grand Theft Auto” that glorifies crime and killing by putting the player in the role of the criminal and rewarding him for being as evil as possible, but how many players ever really go out into the real world thinking this is proper behavior?

      The video game business, especially the First Person Shooters aimed at younger men, is a MULTI-Billion dollar a year industry. This means that many millions of people are playing these games every day, sometimes many hours every day. What miniscule percentage of those millions of game players ever go out on the street and shoot anybody, much less mount a spree killing rampage?

      Give it a rest about the video games already. You cannot provide any more documented evidence that violent video games cause people to commit spree killings than I can provide evidence that people pre-disposed to spree killings like to play violent video games.

Comments are closed.