Previous Post
Next Post


Gun control measures might very well have identified Mr. Holmes as an unfit person. Proper laws about multiple sales or 100-round magazines might very well have stopped him before he acted.

What you guys fear is that your personal precious rights might be interfered with. You are so concerned with that that you would rather have guys like Holmes and Loughner buying guns legally.

Shame on all of you.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Maybe or maybe not. People like him always find a way. He could have stolen guns from law enforcement, locked the doors and set the building on fire, drove his car through the crowd after the show let out, etc. The NFA didn’t stop him from getting the gas grenades.

    • +1

      Mike, I don’t know how anything you’re calling for would help, unless “Big Brother” was watching all the time – and we know that’s not gonna happen. Laws are already in place to keep the mentally deranged from purchasing firearms. If they let him buy the stuff then they would only show up at his door if they still had questions just ask to see if he still possessed said items. Are you calling for a specific demographic of the US, that has done nothing wrong, to have their rights infringed upon? That sounds like segregation to me…

    • Found “a way?” Set the building on fire? The guy was a wack job with extensive explosive and demolition experience. He seems to have manufactured any number of explosive devises and rigged an entire room to detonate if any of dozens of trip wires were set off.

      The guy could just as easily have brought in a massive duffel bag of PETN or whatever else he was going to cook up and blown the building up. People who are set on killing tons of people can’t be reasoned with, they need to be dealt with forcibly and the theater’s “Gun Free Zone” policy ensured that possibility would never come to pass.

    • Mike and his anti self-defense cohorts will always just blindly blather on, refusing to deal with their underlying assumption that criminals and psychopaths will suddenly obey a new gun law.

    • We cannot be assured of disarming 100% of the nuts and wicked souls. We can be assured of creating a substantial likelihood that someone will happen to be armed in a setting such as this and able to respond with force. Florida, for instance, has concealed carry licensees at about 1/20 0r 5% of the total population. Any randomly selected individual has a 95% probability of being unarmed, but in a group of 50 or more the probability is over 93% that at least one of them will be armed.

      The more “selective” and restrictive you get in permitting criteria the less random you make the occurrence of weapons and therefore you REDUCE the actual likelihood of someone armed being around to deal with a lawless shooter. Arming a significant, though small percentage of the population is feasible and effective, and is occurring. 100% success rate in keeping dangerous things from crazies and evil people is not possible — and it only takes one.

      Do the math.

    • nope. well, only that if circumstances relating to gun control were different, the circumstances related to this event might or might not be different. Technically, that is true. Even though it has no practical meaning.

  2. Mike Keep dancing in the bloodshed. If guns were taken out of this he could have built a large bomb and set it off, he could have driven his car through the crowd waiting to get in, he could have paid admission and firebombed the theater. The depraved mind knows no lack of ways to commit their crime. To blame loose gun laws is highly idiotic. This is the act of a sick and twisted individual, much like a suicidal person the means is independent of the desire to cause harm.

    • It’s not so much blaming loose gun laws as it is facing the fact that tighter requirements would screen out some of the worst individuals. And the rest of you would not be affected.

      • Pop psychology myth alert! Ever watch Gattaca? If you let someone devise a method to screen you out for one thing, they’ll screen you out for all sorts of things. That ‘screen’ is all science fiction that makes for interesting movie plots but would be used to the same effect as the gene experiments devised by Hitler in Nazi Germany.

      • Maybe you are right. I don’t think you are. But the ones not screened out by your “common sense gun laws” would still abuse their 2A rights and kill people. Then you would want another level of “common sense gun laws.” Where would it stop?

        The slipery slope to NO gun rights is the only place gun grabbers want it to go. You are either a liar like the rest of them and too chicken to admit it or you are mentally deficient.

      • Stop Wiggling and backtracking Mike. Ben Franklin “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” This story reeks of a undiagnosed schizophrenic break. 24 y/o old drops out of college a few months earlier and goes on this kind of rampage? 23 is for unknown reasons a very common age for onset of schizophrenia. No amount of screening would have prevented this. but you did not answer to the other possibly more damaging methods he might have chosen. do we ban cars? gasoline? house hold chemicals? Where does it stop mike? Where can Nanny government finally let go of our hands and let us walk on our own?

      • The screening would not have worked in this case, because this evil man is much smarter than the screeners. This guy studied human behavior and he would passed any of their silly tests with flying colors. So you’re wrong again.

      • Mike,

        Gun ownership for me (and most other Americans) is an issue of Freedom, period. And Freedom will not tolerate infringement upon it’s self. There are NO ideas you or your type can come up with that had not been tried and failed all over the globe.

        We are America and we are free.

      • Right, because a PhD student who’s broken no laws would TOTALLY have been blocked by your magic laws.

        Oh, wait…

        • Oh now your grasping, so there is never a need for hard metal shin guards or light weight composite shin guards that might also stop or slow a bullet? I mean Its good to know that lumberjacks, and perhaps someone who uses a gas powered weed wacker should lose their gun rights because they do not want to accidently cut off their legs.

    • A simple fertilizer bomb would have been much more effective, death toll would have been 20 or 30 times what it is…. should we ban fertilizer? Or do a medical records check on all purchasers?

    • Yep. Mike is the typical gun hating liberal who wets his pants wishing for things like this to happen so that he can get on his high horse and dance in the blood of the victims.

  3. “Gun control measures might very well have identified Mr. Holmes as an unfit person.”

    What “gun control measures” might those be? He purchased all 4 weapons at retail establishments, filling out the required paperwork and passing an “instant background check” each time. So far, I’ve seen no information reported that would indicate he might ever be identified as an “unfit person”. That is, he’s not a felon, a mental defective, a drug addict, or subject to a domestic violence restraining order.

    Even in California, with that state’s rather strict “gun control measures”, Holmes would’ve been able to acquire the same (or comparable) arms in the same time frame. In 40 days, he could’ve had two semi-auto pistols, a shotgun, and an AR-type rifle (the latter very slightly neutered for CA). The sole exception would be magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

    • How about if people who buy several guns in a short time are checked out? Would that ruin your life? How about checking out people who buy large amounts of ammo? If they’re legit, they’d have no problem. If they’re raging lunatics like this guy and so many others, maybe something could be done to stop them before they act.

      Why would you oppose that? Sometimes I think you guys need to grow up and get over your resentment of authority. You just hate the idea of the police or the government having power over you. Well, guess what, so do I, so does almost everyone, but most of us realize it’s a small inconvenience to put up with in order to save lives.

      • There’s a term we used in my debate class: Slippery Slope. Once you begin something where does it end? With “checking out” people buying guns and ammo, who makes the judgment call? It is a path that most of us don’t want to travel down. It has nothing to do with authority.

      • Really? A simple check? So you would give up your 4th amendment rights so easily? Why bother with warrants at all, if you have committed no crime why should you care if the police search your person, house and effects. You have committed no crime and have nothing to worry about. It’s just a temporary inconvenience….right?

      • Until the shooting, where was the evidence of him being “a raging lunatic”? Every thing I have seen described him as an intelligent, shy, polite person.

        Yes, I do hate the idea of the police or government having power over me. I am a free man. I know where government power always leads. Your government power caused the deaths of over 100 million people in the 20th century. What sane man would want the government to have any power over him?

      • I’m glad you live in another country mikey, where you allow other power hungry fools to run your entire life. Now here in the U.S.A. we believe in running our own lives, and we don’t need a bunch of no good COMMIES telling us how to live.

        • Agree Joe: Better to live in a country where 3.5% of GDP is in the hands of N’dragheta, a country where the Comorra and La Familia control another 5%, and the government is worse without Burlesconi, bunga bunga, than with him? 12 dead is 11 days on average in Chicago, which is also gun-control central. Perhaps Mikey dislikes the effect armed citizens have in decent districts where crime is stalled by the risk of getting shot. I note that Justified Homicides are up 2200% over the decade in Detroit. How is that going in Napoli? Laugh. Italy’s going down the tubes, Sicily has just received notice that Rome is taking control of it once again. The governor of Sicily has more employees in his Palermo offices than Downing Street, London has. Italy is in worse shape than Spain in terms of GNP growth-rate return on national debt. Give the US advice? The gravy train is about to end and your wife’s pension will lose 50% of its value. Good luck with that one.

      • Checked out for what? I don’t think anybody would have described this guy as a raging lunatic until he booby-trapped his own apartment and shot up a movie theatre.

        It just goes to show you that for every problem, there is a simple solution which doesn’t work.

      • Why? Because there’s no reason for the Gestapo to harass people buying things they’re legally allowed to own.

        Should the government be checking out anyone who buys or borrows a copy of Mein Kampf from the library? What about someone who picks up a copy of Karl Marx’s works? What about checking up on members of the Cult of Scientology?

        Just because you don’t value your rights doesn’t mean everyone should live as a slave.

        • That’s the thing. You should not be legally allowed to own the guns and ammo and equipment that he had so easily accumulated, at least not without raising some suspicion. That’s not freedom.

        • Mike that’s the definition of freedom, If I want to collect pink power puff memorbelia then I am allowed, If I want to go super mall ninja and buy black tactical gear, I can do that too. Admit it you want a nice security blanket Police State.

      • MikeB, tell me how we are NOT checked out today? Tell me how you would have figure out this particular shooter?

        He had no record, he was a Ph. D student, he had no history of mental history?

        How would suggest we figure this out?

      • … the government having power over you … it’s a small inconvenience …

        For some the solution to most problems is more government, more laws, etc. Since I probably can’t disabuse those folks of that belief rather let me challenge them to think outside the box.

        Instead of trying to devise new laws so clever that criminals will actually obey them, rather devise new programs to train the ‘sheeple’ in practical things like situational awareness.

        That should save many more lives than e.g. reducing the legal capacity of a magazine.

        However this would empower the people, something that statist would resist because it enfeebles government. Better for them is to enfeeble the people which empowers government.

        Everyone can do their own reductio ad absurdum of where an ever more and more empowered government might lead.

      • would you be opposed to being checked out and having a permit to get access to the internet? after all we have to insure that you’re not one of those predatory people we hear about in the news. how about a permit from the government to have a blog, after all you could foment rebellion on the internet. how do you stand on needing id to vote? restrict my rights and i’ll work overtime to restrict yours.

      • “You just hate the idea of the police or the government having power over you. “

        You’re fucking right, I do.

        I’ve never given anyone authority over me. I’ve ceded my sovereignty to no one, entered into no agreements, nor signed any contracts.

        • James, unless you live in a cave in the Idaho panhandle, you’re grossly exaggerating your autonomy. In any society of men, there’s give and take.

        • Says who? And why?

          I didn’t agree to that. I’ve ceded my sovereignty to no one, entered into no agreements, nor signed any contracts.

          • Isn’t wearing a seat belt in the car an act of ceding your sovereignty? You sound fanatical enough to believe that. How about a helmet while riding a motorcycle, or stopping at red lights or any other of the hundreds of things that you do each day? How about the way you dress or the way you talk, the way you shave or don’t shave?

            Face it, you’re a regular wuss when it comes to cooperating with the authorities, but you give us that tough talk here on the blog.

      • The problem lies with implementation. If they are legit, you ask. Whose standards? Who checks? What will be considered legitimate purchase of ammo, guns, or anything?

        I recently purchased some 900 rounds of .223/5.56. What purposes? Well, aside from the fact that it’s nobody’s business, say the clerk asks me what for. If I’m this Holmes, will the answer be “It’s a fair cop gov’nor! I was planning on killing as many people as I could in a dark theater” or will he find out in advance what the “correct” answer(s) is/are?

        Devil is in the details. To all involved in the debate, don’t just spout out one-liners. Work through your arguments to their practical application, much like legislators do (or should)

      • Let me ask you something Mike!!! I have purchased in the last 6 months the following firearms:
        ATI FX Titan 1911
        Auto Ordanance Commemorative 1911
        Sarsa12 12ga shotgun
        Heritage Rough Rider Civil War Commemorative .22 SA Revolvers(x3) 2 were gifts.
        Mauser 1914 Pocket Pistol
        Mosin Nagant 91/30
        S&W Model67 .38Special
        Now my question: Should I be held back or unduly gone over with a fine toothed government comb for purchasing all of these weapons because there might be a one in a million chance i might shoot someone??
        A little of my background: Started shooting/hunting at age7.
        Volunteered for Military se4rvice at 18.
        Spent 15 yrs in the US Army. Airborne, Ranger School, LRSLeaders Course, Sniper School, Blackhawk Crew Chief/Maintenance Repairman.
        Married, 4 kids, 5 grandkids, working man, taxpayer.
        Volunteered so others in our great country could live in a truly free world.
        Served in the European and Middle East Theaters 1983 – 1988 in West Germany. 1991 to 1993 in Kuwait, and Bahgdad. Buried 3 of my teammates in 15 yrs for people like you too be free to do and say as you pretty well please!!!
        So should i be wrung out to dry because of my background, or just be allowed to abide by the current gun laws and left to live my life??
        No amount of gun law changes and greater restrictions would have caught this guy. Sorry I know that is not what you want to hear but it is the truth!!!
        And no I don’t have a problem with authority, just gross stupidity!!!
        People who use tragedies such as this and so many others to forward their socialist agendas are no better than the criminals themselves!!!
        Just my honest opinion!!!

        • “Should I be held back or unduly gone over with a fine toothed government comb for purchasing all of these weapons because there might be a one in a million chance i might shoot someone??”

          First of all the chances are not a million to one. Secondly, no one said anything about a fine tooth comb or grilling you over the coals or any of that other exaggerated nonsense. I say you should receive a visit from the local authorities and be subjected to a few polite questions.

        • “Mark, may we come in?”
          “Not without a warrant, Officer.”
          End of polite questions.

        • Really? The chances that someone who accumulates tactical gear and weapons is NOT a mass shooter is not a million to one? You’re full of crap as usual. Although in away you’re correct. When one considers the fact that millions of people in the U.S. do exactly that, the odds are actually far slimmer. As usual your phony math makes no sense and underscores your dishonestly.

        • mikeb,

          “those that give up essential liberty to receive little or no temporary safety deserve neither” -Ben Franklin

        • There is no delusion on this end. Your assumption just underscores the fact that you are neither part of our culture nor do you understand the demographics. There are a TON of tactical junkies out there. Many have better armor and weapons than the police.

          I think you’re getting a little wrapped around the axel on the whole ballistic shin guards thing. Shin guards and other accessories like that are more for scary looks and cell extraction than practicality. I’ll focus on body armor/tactical nylon instead. I f there are roughly 80,000,000 firearm owners in the US (anyone please feel free to provide a more accurate number) and only five percent of those are tactical gear junkies that’s 4,000,000 bubbas with body armor, tactical nylon, etc. Don’t believe me if you like but I personally know a bunch of guys with chest rigs and armor, non LE types. I have run into countless more than that at ranges across the country. The tactical nylon business is HUGE, and honestly I could see 2-4 million having propper chest rigs and armor.

          But for the sake of argument let’s say it’s only 100,000. Your claim is that this is this is a pattern of violence that occurs more often than one individual per million. Can we go with 100 per million? So using 100,000 as an estimated number of these tactical junkies in existence shouldn’t we be looking at 10 of these heavily armed/armored mass shootings, not one? I mean just the fact that these types of shootings are so memorable highlights how rare they are: LA Bank Robbery, Columbine and now Aurora. Screening for those purchasing protective and tactical equipment is therefore not a reliable litmus test for detecting mass murderers.

        • “I say you should receive a visit from the local authorities and be subjected to a few polite questions.”

          Why did I just picture the opening scene from Bladerunner?

      • How many rounds of ammunition is a “large amount”?

        Is a guy that goes to his local sporting goods store every week to buy 200 rounds of ammo buying a large amount of ammo?

        What about somebody that buys a thousand round case of ammo once a month?

        What about somebody that buys a 5,000 round lot of ammo every 6 months?

        Where would the law enforcement resources come from to check out these people? What questions would they ask to differentiate our grad student psycho from somebody that is taking a 2 day training class?

        How many guns is “several guns”? And what is a “short time”?
        Would somebody that bought 3 semi auto .22lr rifles in a two month period qualify? If not, what would?

  4. I know that the equal voice idea is a popular thing, but this post is pointless. It should not have been allowed. There is not one fact or truth in this post, only what might have happened…and therefore by definition, might not. Its just an annoying, irresponsible, and pathetic attack. He seeks to (some how) make those in favor of individual rights and responsibilities responsible for another person’s decision.

    Yall moderators are not responsible for mike’s opinion, but you choose to post it. I ask that you (mods) reconsider allowing similar baseless posts in the future (I will continue to visit the site either way). I ask Mike to try to bring more substance next time rather than trying to manipulate people with mere emotional and senseless attacks.

    • +1000 I agree wholeheartedly that this post should have been moderated into the wastebasket. We all know what MikeB302000, and none of us see any sense in it. FLAME DELETED

      • Maybe you guys need to frequent one of the real echo-chambers. There are plenty of them.

        My point is a good one. Would stricter controls stop some of the lunatics like Holmes without interfering with the good guys?

        But, some of you don’t like good questions like that.

        • No it wouldn’t stop them. If they’re determined, as Holmes was, there are many alternative (read illegal) methods to obtaining firearms and ammo. You cannot stop people like Holmes. All you can do is prepare yourself and others to deal with them.

        • Mike have you ever heard the expression give an inch take a mile.

          If we let them restrict gun law a little bit now they will later come back and try and take more and more until we aren’t allowed to own guns any more. The government has proven itself time and time again that they just keep taking and taking and never give anything back.

        • because it is childish and ignores 100 other consequences of the kind of gun control you support. I dont like to wast my time examining fuzzy “what ifs” at the expense of what I already know.

          I know that we cant legislate away crime (violent or otherwise). We can only legislate away our ability to protect ourselves from it (and legislate the consequences for after the fact).

          It is foolish to think that you can sanitize the world from all the dangers of life and free will. It is arrogant to think that you can determine for us the “line” where we should trade our individual liberty for the common welfare. If you are wrong, I could (more responsibly) use your argument and say that the blood is on your hands for taking away my ability to protect myself. Hopefully, I will never get the opportunity to say “Shame on you” for preventing me from lawfully defending another’s life.

          When in doubt, I will always side with liberty.

        • My point is a good one. Would stricter controls stop some of the lunatics like Holmes without interfering with the good guys?

          I have no problem with measures that would stop lunatics without interfering with sane, law-abiding citizens.

          Also. wouldn’t it be great if there were a brand of ice cream that tasted great and also made you physically fit instead of fat? Wouldn’t it be great if you could buy a car that had 500hp and got 55 mpg for under $15,000?

          The problem, in case you haven’t figured it out, is that nothing of the sort is in the offering. Coming up with such a thing is not trivial; much smarter people have been trying to come up with such things for generations. So, if you have some specific new ideas, I’m all ears. All ears, that is, except for one jaundiced eye.

        • Mike, I don’t see how putting such measures in place could possibly NOT effect law abiding citizens while actually stopping people like James Holmes. Holmes would have been smart enough to lie about any thoughts he may of had about harming people, or any conditions he may have suffered from such as depression, anxiety, uncontrollable rage, bed wetting and constant masturbation (just kidding). Even so, There are millions of Americans that are genuine “good guys” with great morals and values that suffer from depression and other mental issues that require treatment but are no threat to themselves or others. Do we ban these people from firearm ownership? I would hope not. The process of weeding out the James Holmes of the world out from the good guys would be very tricky, and I just don’t see how such a process could not effect every law abiding American who wants to legally keep and bear arms. Mike, what is it you think that the government could do with out effecting the good guys what so ever? because I am not seeing any real possibilities.

        • How? The man planned his attack. He built IED’s and boobie trapped his home. He purchased ballistic armor and probably $3000 worth of weapons and ammunition. The guys mind was made up. Put limits on the amount of ammo he could buy and we would have purchased what he could, waited then purchased more. Same thing on weapons purchases. His mind was made up. Only dumb luck on the part of LE could have stopped him.

        • how many stricter controls do you want on a freedom guarenteed in the bill of rights. waiting periods , limits on the number of pistols i can buy and i have to have a hsc for handgun purchases and give a thumbrint for each purchase. let’s apply those standards to the whole bor and watch you scream rape.

    • More page hits because of people refuting MikeB’s idiocy result in more ad views, which results in more revenue for TTAG. As with most things in life, it all comes down to money.

  5. In a similar vein, you might well one day be involved in a car accident that might very well kill someone.

    Better to be safe than sorry: Your keys, please. Better to be selfless, right? All that nifty moral high ground and such?

    I’ll gloss over the difference between a privilege and a constitutionally protected right, as I suspect the cognitive abilities in play won’t even get that far.

  6. Mikey! Oh, I missed him. Always nice to start my day with a laugh.

    As with any of mikey’s posts, this doesn’t even dignify a proper response – and frankly I don’t know why it warranted a blog post – but I’ll say…no, mikey, I’m not ashamed at all. Not the slightest bit. I have the utmost confidence in my stance, and no amount of emotional hand-wringing and irrational fear-mongering from your ilk will ever change that. Sorry if it hurts your tyrannical sensibilities knowing that there are many who won’t bow down to your whims.

    When it comes to guns, the only shame I ever feel is knowing that I and people like you are the same species. I have no clue how you filth can stand looking at yourselves in the mirror.

    • Also, it’s pointless to argue with anyone who mockingly calls basic human rights “precious.” Why would we even try to get across the sanctity of the Constitution’s protection of natural rights to someone who has absolutely no understanding of exactly how precious they are? People like that are slaves at best, sociopaths in likelihood, and tyrants at worst.

      The sad fact is that some people are born with the mental defects mikey has, and no amount of reasoning or morality will change it. And, unfortunately, they have access to the same “precious” rights that we have, like that double-edged sword, the 1st Amendment. Can’t wait til mikey says the wrong thing in the wrong country and the secret police haul him off to the gulag; I wonder how precious his rights will be then?

      • It’s not a basic human right any more than wanting to own a toaster for your english muffins. Therefore, I sarcastically refer to it as “precious,” meaning that you’re more concerned with it than avoiding the Holmes and Loughner situations. God forbid you’d be even slightly inconvenienced.

        • The defense of ones self, others and property is a basic human right.

          Just because you don’t believe it doesn’t make it any less true.

        • what about it mike? which rights are you willing to give up other than 2a. again, i did not shoot anybody in that theater. you trying to restrict my rights when i’ve done nothing puts you right up there with histories greats. stalin, mao, hitler.

        • jwm, what rights of yours would be restricted if multiple weapon purchases and extended drum magazine purchases got you a visit from the local authorities? None. If people like Holmes didn’t abuse the freedom he has we wouldn’t be having this discussion. But, unfortunately, this is the world we live in.

        • Mike, again you want nanny government to do it for you. And Holmes will pay for abusing his freedom. Colorado has the death penalty and It will likely apply with all he has done here.

        • Holmes didn’t make any multiple weapon purchases, he bought them over a period of months.

          Just like he would if the laws were changed to your liking.


  7. Yes our rights are precious, and no I am still not willing to sacrifice any for the sake of the greater good. Gun grabbers are ambulance chasers, who won’t let a tragedy go to waste.

    People like you [Mike] disgust me. Five minutes after this horrific tragedy occurs you are pushing your agenda down our throats, is that the first thing you think of as soon as something like this happens? Oh boy now we can finnally get their guns! Sickening.

    We can debate whether or not a CCL holder could have helped til we are blue in the face. But there is at least one undebatable fact here. The laws you so cherish that disarm CCL holders, didn’t give anyone a fighting chance in that theatre.

    Shame on you!

  8. this is just more”what if,” speculation but I agree with your point Mike. I would rather defend my innate right to self-defense with a firearm, even if it means that sometime a crazy person does a crazy thing, than surrender that right to someone else.

    In the same way I defend our innate right to free speech even though some people say irresponsible things. 😛

    Gun control is based on the fallacious assumption that you can predict who will commit a crime before they commit it.

    I think Philip Dick wrote a story about why that doesn’t wok…

  9. Hey Mike I do not need to be talked down to by someone because I choose to own firearms …. Shame on me for what? If gun control works so well why is Chicago the murder capital of the USA? Stop with the knee-jerk reactionary bullshit…. When a psychopath/sociopath is hellbent on murder and mayhem does the vehicle of the crime really matter? What if he used poison gas, an incendiary device or a motor vehicle? The gun is the vehicle the psychopath is the problem…. shame on you for blaming a whole group of citizens because they choose to own firearms legally….

    • Please spare us the Chicago line.

      Some of the lunatics that own guns could be identified and disarmed without interfering in your life one little bit. But you won’t have it. Why?

      • You are wrong in your assessment. Your logic is fouled. It will not stop where you say it will.

        Take your pick.

      • I assure you the many restrictions we have in this city do interfere with your life, but dont seem to be helping us much. My two cents.

      • Some of the lunatics that own guns could be identified and disarmed without interfering in your life one little bit.

        How about, oh, I dunno…providing some actual evidence to support your bullshit?

        • As usual TrollB, you lack any basis for your claims other than the fact that you’re a sniveling coward who thinks a “benevolent dictator” will save him.

          • No, I’m not that and I don’t think that.
            Why are you so defensive when I suggest better restrictions on who can own guns? I’m really talking about slightly stricter standards which would not affect the responsible.

        • hmmm, still no evidence. totenglocke is right. usually when people jump on their stupid soapbox they at least have something to back them up.

          Interestingly enough, mikeb has nothing. no evidence to support his “hypothesis”. From where I hail, that is called “talking out of your ass”.

      • Instead of bypassing “the Chicago line” why not address it? You’re so sure gun regulations work and being Chicago is the shining light of gun control you should jump on the Chicago narrative. Anyone supporting all these “reasonable” regulations the rest of the country isn’t saddled with should logically choose the most restricted city in the Union.

  10. “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

    “What you guys fear is that your personal precious rights might be interfered with.”
    Heck yes. My personal rights are precious. I am willing to die for those rights, and I honor those that have, so I don’t have to. Gun control isn’t the answer because it only affects the honest. If a “bad guy” wants to commit an atrocity like this one, gun laws would be mere bumps in the road. On the other hand, without restrictive gun laws, responsible people are able to protect themselves. Had one person had a gun in that theater, how the results COULD (not would) have been differed? How many lives could have been “spared”? Had those individuals’ RIGHTS not been infringed, what could have changed? My rights, and those of my neighbors, are worth fighting for.

  11. Given the way he rigged up his apartment, not sure he really needed a gun to cause a massive incident like he did.

    Sorry, not even airbags or backup cameras prevent every death. Sometimes stuff just happens. There is no 100% solutions — history has list of determined killers and not all of them killed with guns. Recall the cult with the cyanide cool-aide and the Racine gas in Japan. We just saw the needles in the sandwiches its just a matter of time before the poison the food supply.

    Nothing would have stopped this guy and it will happen again regardless of any law. Look at France and their shooter or Sweden – My brother lives in China and they have whack jobs that have hacked up a crowd with swords, the difference is China does not make that info public.

    This guy did everything legally – hey! It was even a gun free zone AND the police where already there working crowd control – how could this possibly happen?

    It was a soft target, and this guy was smart enough to know that – legal gun owners if there were any, were prevented from bringing in arms but STILL did not stop the BG!

  12. The most precious right is, of course, the right to life. The corollary right is the right to defend your life. Defending yourself is not limited to using your bare hands, any more than someone wishing to harm or kill you is limited in their method or weapon. For defensive purposes, the firearm seems to be a useful choice. Maybe Mikeb302000 knows of something more effective?

  13. Shame on FLAME DELETED for reacting to a tragedy with hysterics and calls for rash actions aimed at stopping an infitesimal percentage of homicides.

  14. Shame on you mike, for using this tragedy as a political tool to advance your useless agendas. Somewhere on earth, a train or bus crashes, armed gangs attack defenseless civilians and many die. Yet if there’s no political points to be gained, there will not be as much widespread media coverage. (South African farm attacks as an example)
    Also based on what little information is available, you’re making quite a few assumptions. Better to wait until the complete picture is presented before going about blaming others for the actions of a single deranged individual.
    If I were to go to the same level as the anti-guns, then: Since the shooter purchased the guns quite recently, there’s almost a 0% chance of him being a “gun rights advocate”. Since the shooter is from California, where the majority is anti-gun, there is a higher chance of him being an anti-gun advocate. So: 75% chance the shooter is Anti-gun, 25% Neutral and 100% human trash.

  15. He built a destructive device in violation of federal law, so no, MORE laws won’t help. Well, maybe if they has gas control laws, he wouldn’t still be keeping a few government agencies outside of his apartment instead of inside where they want to be.

    • He shot people in direct violation of the law. Criminals don’t follow laws.

      In order to be in favor of gun control you have to replace fact and logic with feelings and fantasy. Aren’t those defining characteristics of a mental illness? Mike, get some help for yourself.

      • “you have to replace fact and logic with feelings and fantasy. Aren’t those defining characteristics of a mental illness?”

        Guns aside, I know lots of um people in America who operate on those mental illness defining characteristics.


    If you wish to comment on TTAG’s editorial stance or style, please send an email to [email protected]

  17. Using this tragedy to peddle your ill-informed, snake oil opinions is nothing more than a pathetic and shameful attempt the influence the scared and gullible of our society.

    Shame on you.

      • I support the 2A, so am I one of the scared and gullible? I mean, do you honestly believe that more restrictions will stop maniacs like this guy? You can pass all the legislation in the world and if a lunatic wants to kill others, he’ll find a way. But what you advocate does nothing to improve safety, all it does is disarm the general public. It leaves us defenseless against thugs like him. You call for sales restrictions, high cap mag bans. Why? Will the criminals follow those laws? They are effin criminals, of course they don’t care, they never have! But now if we pile on even more gun control, oh now they’ll all suddenly start obeying the law, right? What a joke.

    • I’m proud of the Rabbi for calling it as he sees it, and he’s right on target as usual. I can’t wait for Ralph to jump in on this.

        • So how come you’re only replying to some posts and not others? Did some people make too good of an argument against your case and now you have nothing to say?

          I would really like to see you elaborate on what you said in the original post. What laws do you think should be changed / added and how exactly are they to be executed? Experience shows that more gun control ends up restricting the law abiding citizens and does very little, if anything, to prevent crimes or criminals getting their hands on guns. So what do you propose, exactly, to “fix” this? I’d like details, not just generalizations.

          • No, Mr. P. experience shows that in the UK, where they have very severe gun control, they enjoy an intentional homicide rate 4 times lower than ours.

            Of course, your bias won’t allow you to look at that little fact.

        • The UK’s gun control has nothing to do with its lower murder rate. correlation does not equal causation.

          for one, the UK has always had legislation against private ownership of arms, dating back before the gunpowder age.

          I think you need to do some homework on the poverty rate in the United States vs the UK and get back to us.

          Despite your ridiculous conclusions that access to “drum magazines” and “assault weapons” contribute to tragedies like this, violent crime is still at historic lows and dropping. Why would it drop with the major resurgence of private civilian firearms ownership in the late 90’s/21st century?

          Your “assault weapons” are also used in 1/5th of 1% of all crimes. Sounds like a huge problem to me LMFAO!!!

          Shame on us? no. Shame on you. Shame on you for trying to pass that bullshit on law-abiding citizens that own firearms. God forbid, i mean god forbid, you actually blame the shooter for the tragedy.

  18. MikeB, you disgust me. How dare you dishonor the memories of those lost by using their pain and deaths as a fulcrum to maneuver your intellectually bankrupt cause. Do not bother to respond to this post, as I will not deign to address someone so dishonorably callous as yourself.

  19. Only a moron and a moral invert would blame gun rights advocates for the actions of a deranged killer. It is possible, even likely that stringent gun control laws would have done nothing to stop the killer, except for one: a ban on all guns. I’d rather live with the risk that a deranged individual will kill me in a public place than to surrender my rights for the little bit of personal security it might bring. At the very least, in a free society, we can defend ourselves. Mike should run into the arms of an authoritarian state where all men are slaves. What a fool.

  20. A near complete ban on guns in a country with no fourth Amendment-type protections and one of the lowest crime rates in the world didn’t stop this guy from killing 7 and wounding 10.

  21. Mike-it’s too bad people here are trying to argue logically with you.As far as I’m concerned you and like minded people can go piss up a rope.

  22. “How about if people who buy several guns in a short time are checked out? Would that ruin your life? How about checking out people who buy large amounts of ammo? If they’re legit, they’d have no problem. If they’re raging lunatics like this guy and so many others, maybe something could be done to stop them before they act.” (mikeb30200)

    Based on what has been found so far, this guy had no criminal record, no history of mental disorder, PhD candidate, no internet rantings, etc. Nothing there to discover as far as we know as yet. At what point does such a person jump from being “legit” to being illegit? To you and your ilk, the mere fact that someone buys a number of guns and a bunch of ammo in a short period of time (or ever, for that matter) makes them a lunatic unworthy of the ability to do so. Based on my purchasing record over the last few months, according to you I should be in an asylum.

        • Please Mike! As if you would do ANYTHING besides whine online and picket for your convictions?

          Hypocrite. I’m laughing at the amount of money that you’re making for Robert Farago right now.

          • Hal, I’m laughing that you think that. You don’t know very much about on-line marketing if you think this post translates into “an amount of money” for Robert Farago.

        • That was not what I said nor is it what I believe, but I am thoroughly enjoying your smug but delusional sense of superiority.

          What I AM saying is that you’re a lightning rod that draws readers into the site to Either attack or defend you. Like it or not, you’re one of the Second Ammendment’s most useful Trolls on several levels. I hope you live forever.

          Oh and I make it a point to NEVER visit your site. I know that that would help you in an incredibly minor, almost irrelevant and intangible way. I just can’t bring myself to give you even that much.

  23. WHY would I be ashamed of the logical side of my brain prevailing over my emotional side??

    Functional humans know that arms protect us from government, general criminals and wild animals. They don’t blame an object for their societies’ problems.

    To attempt to use emotion to guilt people into a cage (oppress) reveals that persons’ very low level of intelligence.

    Removing the lawful (and human right) possession of arms will mathematically lower the probability of mass murder during a single event. However in general it will simply disperse the total number of murders. In other words, the murders will still occur in the same numbers, except there will be a lower probability of occurring in the same place. Although the murder rate is more likely to become higher because there is no resistance from the general population.

    It is hard to say that having your human right to arms will decrease or increase a troubled societies’ level of violence. In contrast it is not very hard to say that the level of violence in a troubled society will remain the same or is much more likely to increase without it.

    • Great find! Thanks for the post!

      Seems like mikeB is ok with felons as long as they are his friends to have guns, but not anyone else

      • Bob S. is nothing. You should check out what Linoge has written about me.

        Of course, it’s all along the lines of personal attack. When you can’t handle what I say and ask, that’s all you’ve got.

        • “Of course, it’s all along the lines of personal attack.”

          You wish.

          In reality, your statements were demonstrated to be wrong to the point of stupidity. If you can’t defend “what [you] say and ask”, you try to play the victim. That’s all you’ve got.
          The “personal attack” you complain about, and which is the only explanation or defense that you offer for the statements you made — are your own words. You have assassinated your own character. Others have only pointed that out.

          I consider you incompetent, a hypocrite, and a troll.

        • MikeB, you forgot to mention that what Bob S. and Linoge has written about you is mainly in response to personal attacks from one of your cobloggers. There is at least a dozen or so blog entries on Linoge alone on your site. Since you allow and condone that behavior, you are not going to be getting much sympathy from me or anyone else around here.

        • No, I’m not all that “new around here”. I’m not new to the tactics of trolls either.

          The repeating of your “ideas” is not defending them. You may not consider your false categorization of your own admissions and statements reflecting your character as “personal attack” as a complaint, but you try to use it in place of any real defense. If you falsely, or even truly, claim ‘ad hominem’ attacks you have not answered the legitimate objections made to your statements, and try to pass everything off as just “personal attack”. Anything for a distraction. That’s all you’ve got.

          I will waste no more time with you than it pleases me to do so. For now, DNFTT.

        • Hey Sparky,

          You forgot a very important point — what I wrote about you wasn’t very much.

          MOST OF THE words came from your very own self; from your blog, from your comments.

          So exactly how is it a personal attack to quote you?

  24. Millions of responsible, peaceful and law abiding gun owners being responsible, peaceful and law-abiding equals… nothing happening (nothing worth a headline, anyway). One monster (and a good monster knows how to not look like a monster until it’s time to) creating a tragedy and we get what is the essence of terrorism:

    Terrorists actually do relatively small acts of violence (shall we ban cars or quarantine everyone who gets the flu?), but they count on the impact being blown up in the media so they can hurt millions, and in turn impact entire societies (usually not for the better, because folks do dumb destructive stuff when they’re pissed and scared).

    Good terrorists also find brilliantly simple ways to defeat ANY kind of prevention you can imagine (and said prevention often dearly costs said societies–the terrorist wins again).

    Unless you can figure out and effective way to profile, indentify, track and intercept monsters like this (and doesn’t that sound scary) you’ll probably not only fail to prevent harm, but do some yourself trying. Even the most oppressive societies have atrocities like this (remember Beslan?), but you tend to think of their worst (and most frequent) atrocities as being the ones they perpetrate on their own people.

    Breathe. Mourn. Heal. Then think of something constructive to do.

  25. Shame on you Mikey for being 100% WRONG!!! I’ll leave it at that because I’m sure RF would ban me for life if I went any further.

  26. To all my fellow TTAGers, I have a confession to make — I like mikey. There, I said it. I like my two cats, too. However, having a conversation with any of the three is a real challenge, since they all have such a limited vocabulary. But though I can’t converse with any of them, I still understand what exactly they’re saying.

    When my cats say “meow,” it could mean that they’re hungry, or happy, or want a scratch behind the ears, whatever. I have to figure it out, which I can usually do even if it’s difficult sometimes. But whatever noise mikey is making, he’s saying “you guys suck, ban all guns,” so there’s nothing to figure out at all. Which means, I guess, that mikey’s thought patterns are a lot less complicated than my cats’.

      • I think you like me a lot more than I like you.

        Of course I like you, mikey. I like you because you make us look good. On the other hand, it’s understandible that you hate us when we make you look like a horse’s patoot.

        • My problem is I don’t like obese and mendacious lawyers who feign superiority while disseminating false ideas about the need for guns. But, the sense of humor takes the edge off that.

        • Mikey, my man! Great use of the online thesaurus! Now run this through Roget’s: intercourse thyself.

    • I’ve had a cat smart enough to teach himself how to open the screen door. I had another with the IQ of a turnip.
      Either was more intellectually stimulating than Mikey’s posts.

  27. This wouldn’t have happened if we had really strict gun laws…like Norwegian gun laws for example.

  28. Mike, you don’t understand. Yes, I’m sorry it happened, but if 12 people have to die every single day for my rights then so be it. You see the framers of the Constitution of the United States of America believed that we were citizens, who are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights. If you don’t like individual rights, that’s fine. There are places in the world where people do not have rights. Those people are called subjects. It’s fine, some people are happy to live that way. I am not. I would prefer death to being a subject.

    As Ben Franklin said, “Those who would sacrifice their liberty for security deserve neither.”

  29. Mr. Bonomo returns. I thought WITSEC had moved you after you blew your cover.

    You might be surprised that I bucked the trend and suggested that if we met your ultimate goal of total lawful disarmament that we would reduce the number spree shootings from a number of less than 1% of total murders to smaller number less than 1%. That’s first order.

    Now you might not have thought about this but did you ever ponder why transnational criminal organizations like MS-13, the Russian Mob or the Mexican drug cartels are not also shipping weapons into the US? (Now no snarky comments about ATF off books exporting to Mexico) Let me spell it out to you. Since guns can be legally sold in the US there is no money in it for the TCOs. Now we get second order. Ban private possession and sales of firearms and ammunition presto! we have a market. So now the criminal element which would never comply with the law — after all that what makes them criminals — would have a ready supply of weapons to chose from. They get to gunup so to speak. So when considering all the factors in equation, disarming the law abiding just to prevent 50 murders a year will not result in the rest of country looking like low crime high gun ownership Virginia but instead Virginia and other low crime areas will begin to look like DC, NYC, Chicago and LA. (By the way what is body count look like in Chicago this weekend?) That means there will be more women raped, more people robbed and beaten in the street and in their homes, and when you turn the low crime areas into NYC you will more than make up for the 50 people not murdered by spree killers. Please don’t protest that you aren’t against total lawful citizen disarmament. We both know that you are.

    Oh, yeah did you see that James Holmes booby trapped his apartment with homemade explosives? Maybe if he couldn’t easily get guns he just would have decided to build a bomb. He certainly had the skills. So instead of 12 killed by guns we end with 50 killed by a bomb.

    The social-cultural makeup of the United States ultimately determines how many murders we have. Over half the total is a result of gang violence. I bet 75% of all murders are criminal on criminal events. At the margin you will get more bang for your murder reduction buck by dealing with the gang problem than you would by making it impossible for spree shooters to get guns.

    • I agree 100%. Drugs are illegal for everyone and yet still flow like urine in a public swimming pool so why do people think it wouldn’t happen with guns as well.

  30. What sort of “stricter gun control measures” are you talking about? Psychic screeners?

    “How about if people who buy several guns in a short time are checked out?”

    He was already checked out for each individual firearm purchase, what more do you want?

    “How about checking out people who buy large amounts of ammo?”

    What would that accomplish that the previous background checks hadn’t already?

    “Would stricter controls stop some of the lunatics like Holmes without interfering with the good guys?”

    No. The only way to prevent spree shootings is a “magical, all guns disappear” hypothetical scenario. They still happen all over the world, in countries with far stricter laws, like Norway and Germany.

    “Therefore, I sarcastically refer to it as ‘precious,’ meaning that you’re more concerned with it than avoiding the Holmes and Loughner situations.”

    Self-defense use of firearms occurs far, far more often than spree shootings.

    “Some of the lunatics that own guns could be identified and disarmed without interfering in your life one little bit. But you won’t have it. Why?”

    Some? Maybe. But usually, people have to do something to get noticed first. If they don’t, what the hell are you going to look for in your background check? “Oh, the neighbor’s say he’s a nice, polite, kinda shy guy.” HOLY CRAP I CAN’T EVEN BEGIN TO COUNT HOW MANY SERIAL KILLERS’ NEIGHBORS USED THAT DESCRIPTION, THE MAN MUST BE A LUNATIC!

    Or maybe he’s just a nice, polite, kinda shy guy. The dangerous nutcases are the ones that seem normal.

    “Sorry, Rabbi, influencing the scared and gullible of our society is what you do.”

    Funny, considering that you’ve bought the notion that something must be done (in the form of stricter gun control) without a second thought. You don’t even know what could be done, but you want something stricter. You chastise us for opposing your demands that the government do “something” to protect you. You don’t even know what “something” is, but you’re so scared of spree shooters that you’ve decided that anyone who opposes this stricter “something” is a self-absorbed, gullible, fear-monger.

    If you want to know what a credulous coward looks like, Mike, just look in the mirror.

  31. If I thought it would help I might be entertained.
    mikeb302000 have you actually read the bio in this person?
    I would say no because if you had you would know this was no wack job. What he did was crazy in ideal and many of us would say he is crazy, but he is far from it. He knew what he was doing was wrong, he knew how he was going to do it, with through planning.
    He was not as far as we know ever committed against his will. He was a brilliant mind who studied at that salk institute for biological studies. He was raised by middle class parents in a nice area of San Diego. He has no known run in’s with the law. He did not leave much in the way of a trail in regard to what he was planning on doing.
    In many ways he is exactly like you or I on the surface.
    No amount of gun control would have stopped this and gun banishment is not an option.

  32. Narratives like this are designed to build momentum for a cause. No need for rationality, facts, nor logic. If you think it was bad for legal gun owners before before, wait till the mourning period is passed. I think this incident may well prove to be the cross gun rights will be nailed to.

  33. If he has the ability to build the bombs he did, he could easily have simply loaded up a truck with explosives and done his killing more efficiently with a bombing like Oklahoma City. Rather than doing this he chose to bring guns and get personal. But Mike you are asking the wrong question. Why did he choose a gun free zone? Could it be for the easy targets? Rather than ask why we resist gun registries and limits on our rights to defend ourselves against predators with two or more feet as well as defend ourselves against our government (who you would trust to determine which of us can have a tool to defend ourselves against in the first place). The question should be – “Why do we allow gun free zones in America?” This is where the mass shootings have been occurring, after all.

    So since you want to ask the wrong question. I will ask the right one. “Why do we allow gun free zones in America. Why do we willingly disarm ourselves to become targets of opportunity for criminals?”

  34. Wow. Just wow. Perhaps I am a bit slow, or maybe I missed something altogether, but what would more gun control have accomplished here? Short form answer: Nothing.
    The guns were legally purchased by a man without a criminal record and taken to a place that is obviously posted as a gun free zone with the intention of malice in mind. (Side note, how come there is never wholesale slaughter like this at a gun show or competition meet?) At what point did we who did not take our weapons into public and shed blood go on trial and get convicted for the actions of a criminal? Once again the opportunistic troll has resurfaced and let his blow hole spout on about something that he knows nothing about as he dances in the blood of the dead for a cause that will do nothing more than empower more tragedy.
    If gun control works so well, why is Mexico City not a bastion of bliss and harmony?
    I do so love it when that waste of perfectly harvest-able organs pops up like a pimple on prom night in the swirling chaos of tragedy.

  35. This entire post should be marked as “FLAME DELETED”. Shame on the editors for allowing this uninformative, factless, useless garbage to be posted.

    • I made that point. It was deleted.

      As will this one, and my reply.

      The Truth About Guns (and censorship) has lost me as a reader today.

      • Same here, unsubscribing from this site. I’ve got other gun feeds to read that wouldn’t stoop to… whatever this is. To allow this post was to invite a useless moot discussion from two sides who refuse to see the other’s point, a pissing match. (Robert: You’re really going to let a guest poster tell your readers ‘shame on you’?)

  36. The only way to stop a lunatic with no criminal record from doing what this lunatic did would be to create a society of snitches. In that society, anyone who believes a neighbor, family member, co-worker, or stranger is a little too weird could report him to the authorities who would then investigate him, follow him, detain him, search his home and possessions, and generally do whatever they want until they’re satisfied that he poses no threat. In other words, it would be a society with no right to privacy, no due process, and no right against unreasonable search and seizure. I have no doubt that’s the society Mayor Bloomberg, AG Holder, and President Obama would force us into but that’s not a world where any sane person wants to live.

    • We already have that, the society of snitches, but when it comes to gun ownership you guys want a pass. When the feds prevent other 9\11 attacks, you’re all for it. But not with gun rights. That’s an indication of how self-centered and biased you guys are.

      • Mike would you be happy right now If I called the FBI and said you were a nutjob building an arsenal and where going to shoot up the local airport? would you be okay if they needed no warrant to breach your home and workplace and search, and bring you up on charges on anything they might find? perhaps pirated MP3’s on your computer? (woops forgot about those from the 90’s did you? well to bad, there not relevant to the complaint? oh well.) Mean while you are proned out on your front lawn, your coworkers and boss think you are a criminial as the police tear apart their buisness and fire you. but I mean society would be safer right?

  37. While I disagree that those measures would have made a difference at all given that the shooter apparently planned well in advance it’s refreshing to read posts that diverge from the mainstream opinion here, they could in this case have been a bit more in depth and better thought through. It’s a good thing if a community isn’t just an echo chamber.

  38. MikeB,

    Shame on gun control nuts like you. Your types keep people from being prepared mentally and physically with the tools and attitude to defend themselves. You’d rather have people naively rely upon a police rescue after they are dead from some attack.

  39. The day when a little inconvenience & hassle are already here… have you flown lately? Does that TSA screener now need to be “screening” all movie goers? There are numerous laws which were already violated. What is to be gained by legislating more unenforceable laws? In addition to federal gun laws imposed by the National Firearms Act (1934), Gun Control Act (1968), Firearms Owner’s Protection Act (1986), Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (1993), the 1994 Omnibus Crime Control Act and other laws, most states and some local jurisdictions have imposed their own firearms restrictions. “Common sense” firearms laws are already on the books, in case you didn’t know. I suppose in the name of public safety we should all submit to a frisk, pat down, metal detector sweep, & how about a deep cavity search when going to the movies?? The issue is that this individual was a deranged maniac & that type of village idiot does not care what laws he breaks or who he hurts or kills in the process. Owning several guns, a stockpile of ammo, being a car owner with cases of beer in the refrigerator doesn’t make someone a drunk driving gun toting drive by shooter… it is the choices they make. This individual is a disgusting example of evil plain & simple. I hope that in the name of public safety we are not expected to give up any more of our unalienable rights so that an illusion of safety & control can be given to the naive among us. Finally, my thoughts & prayers are with the victims & their families & friends.

  40. Seriously, if I wanted to read what mike spews I have plenty of resources available to me. He’s alright as a commenter simply because I enjoy the endless ways to destroy his arguments. However I will not subscribe to a feed that enables this statist mentality. I already have a whole folder titled “libtards” so I can keep track of the insanity that is called liberalism. I can’t really put a gun feed in the libtard folder now can I?

    Remove him please. I’ve had enough. Comments from mike are fine and sometimes entertaining but I don’t come here to read nonsensical liberal posts.

  41. Great to see you’re becoming more and more hateable over time Michael. Cheers.

    Your post made me smile. Being relegated to the trash bin as a D-list spokesman (spokesperson is more accurate)for a dead issue is clearly making you angry and insane. I like it. You reap what you sow bud.

    Have fun when Europe collapses. Don’t come back.

  42. “Gun control measures might very well have identified Mr. Holmes as an unfit person.”

    About as likely as:

    “Two cups of green tea per day would have soothed Mr. Holmes, and prevented this tragedy.”

  43. If nothing else, I’ll give you credit for having the courage to post such a stupid, inept argument on a forum where you must have known it would be ridiculed and decisively rejected.

  44. Another blood dancer spewing ignorance. Like the gun laws in Norway? Did all those laws stop Anders Behring Breivik from killing 69 people?

  45. Notice how mike selectively replied but will not answer further questions to develop and defend his positions.

    • I suspect that Mike has “editorial rights” on this blog and has the ability to delete posts.

        • I fail to see how my post was a flame. I just suggested that it would be worth big money to see the look on his face whenever his family is victimized. I wish no ill will on him personally (ok, I lie), but for someone who talks big crap on this blog and condemns us, I think everyone would like to be the proverbial fly on the wall to see how he reacts when crime strikes him up close. I believe his opinions would change. quickly