Second Amendment Supporters Guilty of Murder in Colorado?

In a July 21 column by the editorial board of the New York Daily News, there is fault assigned for the massacre in a Colorado theater. The fault is not just assigned to killer James Holmes, but absurdly to Obama, Romney, the NRA and every American that wants to protect the Constitution of the United States. That’s not too much hyperbole, is it?

This extreme, even silly, piece can be considered no less than a screed, an attack on nearly everyone but the man who pulled the trigger on that horrible night. The blame is cast so broadly as to seem idiotic, making the whole editorial something to dismiss instead of something to ponder.

To the editorial board of the NY Daily News, not only is Obama “standing at Holme’s side” as he “sprayed bullets and buckshot into a crowded movie theater” but so was Mitt Romney, the NRA and its President, and every American “zealot” for the Second Amendment.

“In a vain claim of innocence,” the NY Daily News accuses, “the fanatics will say Holmes is a monster and a maniac, that he fired and fired and fired as a man possessed. Each protestation clamps their fingers with his around the trigger.”

Any American interested in the Constitution and the Second Amendment is a gripped by “conscienceless extremism” that dismisses mass killings as if they are but a “fatal highway pileup,” the editorial cries.

The Daily continues the hyperbole with, “The day-to-day mayhem of street-crime shootings, responsible for more deaths than all the mass carnage combined, makes it to the police blotter, the courts, the newspapers, the emergency rooms and the cemeteries.”

But according to the FBI’s crime stats, 2011 crime is down from 2010 by .08 percent. And it’s down more year-to-year between 2007 and 2011 (FBI Preliminary 2011 Crime Stats).

And speaking of “highway pileups,” about 37,000 Americans die every year in auto accidents while only about 8,700 are killed with firearms. So, why don’t we see the NY Daily News saying that every car dealer and driver “has blood on their hands.”

Again the Daily’s absurdity is on full display when one reads its dramatics over less than 9,000 deaths a year when compared to the almost 40,00 killed in automobile accidents. Why are auto deaths at a rate four times more any less outrageous, New York Daily News?

This all smacks of a political agenda as opposed to the NY Daily News’ anguish over large numbers of dead Americans.

Now, is it 8,700 too many Americans killed with firearms? Nearly, yes. But the hyperbole of the NY Daily News does not tend to help the situation. This over-the-top blather about how everyone and his brother is at fault makes any argument for change the paper may want to seriously propose become so easily dismissible as to make their effort clownish instead of setting them as worthy players in the discussion.

Worse, the NY Daily News wants to use this tragic crime as a political tool in order to bring back the lamentable, but not lamentably ended, 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, a law so fraught with mistakes, confusion, and over generalities that few worried over much about its sunset provisions when they went into effect on 2004.

If the New York Daily News wanted to enter into a serious discussion of gun control in America, it would have been well advised not to sound like a child outrageously blaming everyone but himself for getting caught stealing a cookie from the cookie jar. With this one, the paper made itself look entirely foolish.

What Inconvenient Truths and Demonstrable Lies Tell Us About Their Authors
Solyndra Republicans, Why the GOP Cannot be Trusted
  • Commander_Chico

    Yes, we would not want any hyperbole, would we?

    • Chico, are you referring to the hyperbole of another post by the above author?

      • Commander_Chico

        Which one are you thinking of? There are so many . . . although the Gitmo trial one takes the cake.

  • Hugh_G

    Hyperbole – no says Huston.

    Mass murder. Eh…. says Huston. Lets just talk about it a little.

    • Constitutional rights? Eh…says Hugh_G apologist.

      • Hugh_G

        Yup. You rightwing nut jobs have the Constitutional right to carry weapons to commit mass murder any time you feel like it.

        • retired.military

          really? Name one right winger (nut job or otherwise) that has committed mass murder in the US? We will wait.
          The truth is it sounds good (to the left) in political sound bites and ABC news but facts are that it is just a bunch of hot air.

          • retired.military

            And naturally Hugh does a drive by posting. Provides no proof of this statements and doesnt respond when his statements are questioned. In other worlds a typical leftie troll on Wizbang.

        • jim_m

          Funny how crime decreases when you pass CCW laws then. I don’t suppose any amount of evidence would ever make you think about your position. You are right no matter what.

          We made major cities gun free zones and they became hell holes run by street gangs armed with illegal guns. The UK made their whole nation a gun free zone and saw violent crime skyrocket.

          And with the increase in crime your answer is to make peaceful, law abiding citizens criminals. Your answer is to keep these people from defending themselves against the predators your are enabling.

        • What does “the right of the people” mean when it’s not in the Second Amendment?

    • jim_m

      Chicago had a total ban on guns for over a decade. It was a center for violence and crime. The same with DC. Legally owned guns ultimately reduce crime and make people safer.

      More gun control laws do not make us safer. Criminals do not give a damn what the law says about gun ownership. All you do is penalize the law abiding citizen.

      Gun control has never been about reducing crime it has always been about consolidating power for the government and giving the government control over the people.

      • Hugh_G

        Yeah yeah yea, wingnut rationalization so you can slaughter people with machine guns.

        • retired.military

          The theatre was a gun free zone.

          The school at columbine was a gun free zone. Gun free zones are kill zones for criminals.

        • herddog505

          What do you mean, “you”? Are you trying to imply that the rest of us want to kill people?

          • jim_m

            He’s projecting. It’s what he would do.

        • jim_m

          Fully automatic weapons are illegal and are not available for sale (unless you have a special license that is virtually impossible to get), Your comment just shows your hysterical ignorance.

    • 914

      I dare say starts with a D and ends with an !

  • herddog505

    Yes, because the answer to a lunatic committing a crime is to curtail the rights of all the other Americans who haven’t done anything wrong. So predictable…

  • jim_m

    I’m really not worried so much. http://www.cnbc.com/id/48283510

  • GarandFan

    The idiots on the editorial board would have written this headline that appeared in a northern California newspaper:

    “Out of control SUV kills child”

    See, an SUV woke up, gained consciousness, then went on a rampage, killing a child.

    However, if you read the article, it appears that a DUI (illegal alien) driver was the real culprit.

    But those facts don’t fit the liberal mantra.

  • I read that NY Daily News editorial, and it gave me the urge to vomit.

  • GarandFan

    On another note, I doubt the Daily News reported on the 71 year old, armed with a CCW, who foiled an armed robbery by 2 thugs last week. I’m surprised the Daily News didn’t reprint the smug op ed by Roger Ebert. He wondered why no one fired back – seeing as Colorado is a ‘shall issue’ state. Evidently Ebert is one of those intellectual elite who doesn’t realize that businesses can REFUSE entry to anyone carrying a CCW – as was the policy of the theater involved. Showing, once again, LAW ABIDING citizens complying with the wishes of others – and suffering the consequences.

    • If a business or other entity declares themselves to be a “gun free zone”, they are morally and perhaps legally obligated to provide armed security to protect their patrons whom they have disarmed.
      Go get em personal injury lawyers.

      • herddog505

        Oh, the judge would simply declare – as they have done for years regarding the police – that “they can’t be held responsible”.

        I thought about this yesterday when I read (Ebert?) that the police can and DO protect us. Not to bash on the police, but where the hell were they when clownboy went into the theatre, guns blazing?

        The police are good at cleaning up the mess. They are usually pretty good at finding the criminal. Stopping the crook BEFORE he hurts people… not so much.