Also claims that the body count in the theater would not have been reduced if someone else in the theater would have shot and killed Holmes before he was done his rampage. [Yes, you read that right]
by Larry Simons
July 24, 2012
It is one thing for liberal blogger Andy Ostroy to contradict himself in his articles just days apart [as I have previously highlighted], and it seems impossible that Ostroy could ever outdo himself in regard to his frequent ridiculous comments, but unbelievably, he has again.
In Ostroy’s latest attempt at journalism, his article, “Get Rid of the Damn Guns” [July 23] contains several of his most asinine comments ever uttered. Speaking on the Aurora, Colorado shooting and the need to do something about guns, Ostroy bellowed:
“When the hell are we going to actually do something, other than regurgitate empty sermons, to ban these weapons and get them off the streets and out of the hands of these violent monsters who commit such diabolical acts?”
Notice Ostroy offers no solution himself. It is most likely because there is no solution. Guns are legal. The right to bear arms is in our Constitution, so you cannot make laws that reverse this and disarm the American people. Unfortunately, you also have crazed maniacs who get access to these weapons. Instead of calling for the ban of guns, Ostroy and his ilk should be asking more appropriate questions. For example, what merchant or online store sold just an average Joe-Schmoe a shitload of tactical protective gear? Why are there not laws proposed and passed that make it illegal for average citizens to buy and own protective gear that only the police and military personnel are authorized to use?
The answer to my first question seems to be partially answered. It appears that the website tacticalgear.com sold James Holmes several items. An article admits that Holmes bought “an urban assault vest, two magazine pouches and a tactical knife spending a total of $306.79” on July 2. Tactical gear CEO Chad Weinman states, “We have been falsely accused of selling Mr. Holmes firearms and ammunition over the Internet illegally without conducting the mandated background checks. Some members of our customer relations team have been brought to tears by people insisting that we have “blood on our hands.”
After Weinman states that his company has been falsely accused of not conducting the mandated background checks, he then does not offer any proof they did.
Weinman continues, “We reiterated that TacticalGear.com primarily serves the law enforcement community and that we are proud to supply these heroes with the tools they need to keep our communities safe. During the course of these interviews, we were repeatedly questioned about what steps we were taking to prevent the general public from acquiring tactical gear in the future. In response to this line of questioning, statements were made that some have perceived as anti-gun and anti-2nd amendment.”
Here Weinman admits that his company “primarily” serves the law enforcement community but then fails to mention why anyone who is not law enforcement would need tactical gear. He admits being asked what steps are being done to prevent people like Holmes from acquiring tactical gear in the future, and his next sentence fails to answer the question.
Weinman then says, “tactical clothing and equipment should not be put in the same category as firearms and ammunition. Firearms and ammunition are subject to considerable regulation, and the notion that tactical gear should be as well is outrageous”.
He claims it is “outrageous” that tactical gear should be put in the same category as firearms and ammunition, then, once again, fails to provide any reason the general public would need tactical gear. It is outrageous for Weinman to think it should not be the other way around. Firearms and ammunition could be purchased and used by anyone [hunters, gun clubs, etc..], but what reason would the average person need tactical gear? What average American citizen needs to be protected against gunfire unless they are about to engage in a bloody shootout in which they would need such strong protection?
I do not blame Weinman’s company for selling tactical gear to Holmes. I blame the lawmakers in Washington for failing to pass laws making it illegal for companies like Weinman’s to sell tactical gear to average, non-law enforcement citizens. It is disgusting that Weinman uses the 2nd Amendment as his defense when the amendment only grants the right to citizens to own firearms. Tactical gear is another story.
The government’s refusal to make laws banning non-law enforcement and non-military personnel from owning tactical gear is what Andy Ostroy should focus on, not guns, which are legal.
True, Holmes could have carried out his rampage without tactical gear, but the fact remains that if the government had made it a law banning civilians from owing tactical gear, his name would have popped up on a database where he could have been checked out first. This may have scared him into not committing the act. It may not have, but it would have been better than the current system.
Ostroy then criticizes Republican Senator Ron Johnson for saying something that cannot be refuted. Ostroy states:
“Johnson also suggested that if someone else was armed in that theater then maybe the killer would've been shot before he committed his carnage. This is another typical gun lobby spin. Yeah, that's exactly what we want. Let's have Old West-style gunfights in movie theaters, malls, parks, schools, offices, stadiums, supermarkets, libraries, etc. That'll reduce the body count, right?”
Here, Ostroy is attempting to paint a picture that if a psychopathic killer is about to open fire on a crowd of people, and an armed individual sitting nearby attempts to shoot the killer, total pandemonium will ensue and more people will end up dead than if the killer just had his way and shot countless victims uninterrupted. This is complete, 100%, absolute bullshit, and even Ostroy knows it.
Ostroy is also implying that the body count would not have decreased in Aurora even in the context of his exaggerated scenario. If an armed moviegoer would have shot and killed Holmes even after he had already murdered eleven people, the body count would have decreased [from 12 to 11]. Once again, Ostroy is so full of shit that he could defecate just by coughing.
Ostroy then utters what could be one of the top three most ridiculous things he ever said:
“This is a simple issue, people. It's a choice between allowing serial killers to easily purchase assault weapons and ammunition or not.”
First of all, it has been reported that James Holmes had no criminal record, in Colorado or in San Diego County [California], where he previously lived. So, in Ostroy’s delusional world, what would have stopped Holmes from committing this act even with laws preventing serial killers from purchasing assault weapons?
Additionally, is there not already a law [Brady bill] that states a person must wait five days to purchase weapons so a background check can be conducted? I am quite sure that if the background check revealed that a person is a serial killer, that possibly may prevent the sale of weapons to that individual. Ostroy should know about the Brady bill. His hero, Bill Clinton, signed it.
But Ostroy wants us to believe that James Holmes was already a serial killer before he was a serial killer. If that were the case, then, once again, the government would be to blame for their incompetence of giving the green light to Holmes in his firearm purchase.
It is articles like these that cause me to wonder who is more deranged, James Holmes or Andy Ostroy.