ABC News, Bloomberg, Moyers, and left politicizing Batman massacre

July 25, 2012

American Minuteman

From Brian Ross and George Stephanopoulos first trying to pin the Tea Party flag on the Batman movie shooting to Bloomberg’s asinine “cops should go on strike” until gun control legislation is passed comment, the left has been stampeding all over itself to blame the tragedy not on the nut job who actually did the shooting, or on the society and the culture that actually breeds such nut jobs, but on that age old scapegoat, the guns.

And there’s no better whipping boy for the media than the National Rifle Association. After every tragedy, after every failed effort to restrict the 2nd Amendment, it’s always the same old line: it is the NRA, not the shooter that has blood on its hands. That it is not the monster who actually does the killing that’s responsible; it’s the NRA and its “extreme” agenda.

To Bloomberg, the left and the minion media, the Batman massacre occurred not because of a lone, mentally unstable monster, it occurred because the NRA is the most powerful lobby in Washington and no politician dare cross it.

One of the worst of the worst, Bill Moyers of tax supported PBS, recently spewed this:

The killer in Colorado waited only for an opportunity, and there you have it – the arsenal of democracy transformed into the arsenal of death and the NRA — the NRA is the enabler of death — paranoid, delusional, and as venomous as a scorpion. With the weak-kneed acquiescence of our politicians, the National Rifle Association has turned the Second Amendment of the Constitution into a cruel hoax, a cruel and deadly hoax. ( and

Moyer’s et al are all quick to label the NRA as some mystical, all-powerful “lobby” but they never seem to include the fact that the NRA is only as powerful because of its MEMBERS. Millions of United States citizens, individually donating to the collective cause of keeping the 2nd Amendment as strong today as it were in 1789.

The narrative is all the same:

Nobody hunts deer with an assault rifle. Nobody needs large capacity magazines. No “reasonable” person needs more than one or two guns for personal protection. America just has too many guns, and the only “responsible” thing to do is reduce that number of guns. There is just “no legitimate need” for all the guns and ammunition available today.

To the ignorant of our history and the framing of the Constitution it all sounds “reasonable” enough.

They let themselves be lulled into believing that they really aren’t needed and therefore, there is absolutely no reason for not passing “reasonable” and “responsible” gun control legislation for the “safety” of all.

Except, there IS a reason and while you won’t ever hear the left admit it, it is THE reason we’re still not British subjects today.

It’s known as the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and it reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When those 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence went up against the largest military power of the time, they did so knowing they had no navy and the army was anything but a well-trained, professional enterprise. They did however have faith in the knowledge that from New Hampshire down to Georgia in virtually every cabin, house, shack or mansion there was at least one musket, pistol, rifle or shotgun loaded and ready to do its part in the upcoming battle for freedom.

I could put you to sleep for days with citations from that time and the context surrounding the framing of our Constitution and its Bill of Rights, but the only thing pertinent to the Bloomberg’s and Moyer’s of today is that the 2nd Amendment is anything but some innocuous “self defense and hunting” after-thought.

The Founders knew that their newly crafted Constitution and its Bill of Rights was unique in the annals of human history.

They also knew how fragile it was and that no matter how many checks and balances they wrote down, government, by its very nature, was the constant predator of liberty.

They gave us the 2nd Amendment to keep the predator at bay.

That should some future generation once again find itself facing “repeated injuries and usurpations” from a non-responsive government, the “right of the people to alter or to abolish it” would not be infringed by finding itself unarmed and unable to right the wrongs.

The left and the minion media want you to believe that keeping the 2nd Amendment unrestrained today because of some 18th century idea of keeping government at bay is “unreasonable” thinking.

The so called “enlightened”, would have us believe that the Founders were just paranoid for their time and that the Federal government as it has “progressed” to today would never go against the Constitution and the Bill of Rights so there is no longer the need for an armed populace. That we would “all” be “safer” if we only banned guns.

That these “radicals” of the past just didn’t know of what they spoke. Or did they?

A bit of historical perspective from

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. —Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

A sampling of the debate of the time:

The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

Henry sneered,

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone…Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation…inflicted by those who had no power at all?

Tenche Coxe, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress had this to say:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.—Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Noah Webster weighed in:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.—Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

More from the Virginia convention:

[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually…I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…—George Mason

Roger Sherman, Connecticut delegate to the Continental Congress:

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.

(From14 Debates in the House of Representatives, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3.)


“Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not.”  Thomas Jefferson

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8

“There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. ”  Noah Webster, American Lexicographer

“The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.”  Edmund Burke, British Statesman, 1784

“They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Ben Franklin

Call such talk irrelevant today if you wish, but before you do, you might consider these words as well:

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” —Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

“To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.” —Alexander Hamilton

Common sense, “you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre”, approaches to the 2nd Amendment can and should be debated among the populace.

But the blanket bans and the “gun free citizenry” as being hyped again by the far left, not only are proven not to work (Chicago, D.C.?) they are the Founder’s worst nightmare.

Tags: , , , ,

4 Responses to ABC News, Bloomberg, Moyers, and left politicizing Batman massacre

  1. A Nonny Moose on July 25, 2012 at 8:12 am

    You know, I’ve changed my mind. The second should be abolished, because who needs a militia these days? And let’s not stop there!

    The first should be abolished too, because seriously, who could possibly want to restrict speech these days? Are there any people religious enough to think of founding a religion, or any atheists militant enough to actually prevent the free exercise thereof? Bah. Antiquated words and ideas thrown together by rich, white slave owners. We’ve “progressed” past that. Get rid of it.

    The fourth should be abolished. Do you really believe that the benevolent government would ever perform a search or seizure that could qualify as unreasonable? C’mon, man, it’s the government! So long as it’s headed by Democrats, everything it does is reasonable. Antiquated words and ideas from rich, white slave owners. We’ve “moved on”. Chuck it.

    The fifth should be abolished. If you did something, you should have to tell about it. So should your spouse. Protection from self incrimination? Pffft. Unnecessary in these days of liberal enlightenment. Antiquated words and ideas from rich, white slave owners. Jettison it.

    The tenth? Anything the constitution doesn’t expressly say belings to the feds instead belings to the states, or the people themselves? Oh puh-lease. The federal government is god (especially now that we’ve eliminated the first and second amendments). Try to tell them they can’t do something. I dare ya. You will have the IRS auditing you faster than you can say “commerce clause”. Antiquated words and ideas from rich, white slave owners. Ridiculous.

    Really, is there any need for the Bill of Rights at all? They just get in the way of government trying to help you, to assist you, to take care of you cradle to grave. Anything that limits federal power is wrong, wrong, wrong, and should be done away with. How can they help you make better decision on how to live your life if these annoying “constitutional” things are in the way? We need to get rid of all those things, and just replace them with one that says “because we’re liberals and we’re better than you, that’s why”. Then perhaps we can finally achieve the utopian society that this Bill of Rights crap has prevented us from enacting for the past 200+ years. Seriously, how much further do we need to “progress” before you see the inevitable truth?

    How’d I do? I’ll admit I didn’t breathe through my mouth while typing that. I can’t change everything at once.

    • Geoff Caldwell on July 25, 2012 at 8:22 am

      I was having a really shi^^y day until now, THANKS!

      Obama and the modern Democrat party is what 40 years of liberal control of the public school system gets you.

      A country full of morons who have not a clue to how, what, and why this nation was founded and the REASONS those RESTRICTIONS were put on the federal government.

      Now that the libs have successfully “dumbed down” two full generations and turned them into jealous, selfish, envious, “give me mine because it’s not “fair” that Johnny has more” piles of mush the American “experiment” is finally on the verge of failing.

      They gave up their liberty for a little safety and now all we have left are a bunch of ignorants that don’t have a clue as to what “freedom” truly means.

  2. anson burlingame on July 25, 2012 at 8:27 am


    Here we go again. Everytime we have a “mass killing” or other highly publicized event envoling the use of weapons, the argument comes up again over should we even try to control hand guns.

    We have a very high murder rate in America due to the use of guns, mainly hand guns by citizens one against the other. The NRA says no way can government hope to control such violence and thus citizens must be armed to protect themselves, their families and property. Said another way “bad” people try to kill “good” people, or “bad” ones try to kill other “bad” ones and citizens’ possessing weapons is the only way to protect “good” people.

    Put the situation today in the perspective of early America. Guns were not authorized for all American citizens to protect such settlers from other American citizens, primarily. The 2nd Amendment was used to ensure protection against “foreigners”, the British, but don’t forget the “damned Indians” as well.

    Well today “damned Indians” are not a threat, but how about all sorts of “gangs” many with ehnic criteria to join and flourish as a member? As well “we” the settlers were the “drug dealers” of yesteryear spreading booze all over “Indian territory” to quell the ability of those folks to fight effectively against “us”. And of course those old “drug dealers” needed protection against their “customers”.

    In a way the NRA today calls for only allowing “good” folks to have guns and rejects selling guns to “bad” guys, sort of. Well tell me how any democratic government can decide who the good guys and bad guys might be, BEFORE guns are used to shoot other people.

    I imagine the ACLU would have been all over any government agency that tried to restrict the ability of the recent CO killer to obtain “some guns”. To do so government would have to prove before he ever actually shot a purchased gun that he was LEGALLY, a “bad” guy.

    Hell we can’t even tell the good of bad guys to whom we give $Billion to in food stamps, much less hand guns!!

    So here we are as a nation, in another stalemate. Our murder rate due to guns is what it is and will remain around that number given the condition of our laws. Every two or three years another 1, 5, 10 maybe even 25 or more people, some good and some bad are going to be gunned down untill we change the way we enforce current laws (don’t give guns to “bad” guys).

    And even if we decided to really do something about the use of guns by citizens to kill other citizens in America, well you better be ready to change the 2nd Amendment, in my view.

    Now consider this situation. An OWS mob somehow becomes a fully armed mob with thousands of those folks carrying AK-47s as we see all over the Arab Spring today. I wonder what the NRA position might become went such events become more and more part of our public actions??

    Now look at the cartoon in today’s Globe and tell me if “that guy” pictured should have a legal right to “carry” an AK-47 or such?


  3. Geoff Caldwell on July 25, 2012 at 8:45 am

    What is more interesting to me is that the “guy” in the cartoon is the American “culture”.

    What I find the most disgusting is that all the liberals running around now for gun banning are the VERY SAME liberals who have created the cesspool culture shown in the cartoon.

    What the hell did they expect to happen when for half a century you bathe a nation in filth, sex, violence and “anything goes” mentality?

    What did they think would happen when the media and the left openly declares war on religion and any sense of morality or personal responsibility?

    What else could be the outcome of telling millions of citizens that they were not their own problem, that they were “victims” of others and therefore “entitled” to one government program and payment after another?

    I have been labeled a “radical” for years now for railing against the societal decay in America yet here we are. (And I’m ANYTHING but some prude sitting around thumping his Bible.)

    A nation 15 trillion in debt and counting, an economy on the verge of another retrenching, and a President and his party who just keeps pumping the anger, the resentment, and the envy for political gain.

    What the hell are we thinking indeed.


December 2021
« Jul