Wednesday, 18. October 2017

Visitantes

1220479

Búsqueda

AGON en Facebook

Compártenos

Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Share to Linkedin Share to Myspace Share to Delicious Share to Google 

Compartir

The Rocky II Strategy.

The desperate Left: From “The Dark Knight” to “The newsroom.”

m7fkja-b78983270z.120120719160621000gqf195tbu.1

I. “The Dark Knight”

 (Continue reading part II here).

 

The Aurora shooting during Thursday’s midnight premiere screening of Christopher Nolan’s “Dark Knight Rises,” the third and final film in his acclaimed “Batman” trilogy, has sparked several controversies in the U.S. The shooter, hair dyed bright orange James E. Holmes, who referred to himself as the Batman villain from the second movie, “the Joker”, sneaked in through the theater’s back door and, armed with an AR-15, an 870 Remington 12-gauge shotgun, and two .40-caliber Glock handgun, killed 12 and wounded 58. Unfortunately, as expected, immediately after news of the Aurora shooting, gun-control advocates and other leftish groups started to politicize the tragedy, warning about the dire consequences of gun ownership: after all, James E. Holmes had legally purchased them in the last 60 days. One wonders, where were these groups when Nidal Malik Hasan entered a shop and legally purchased the gun he used to slaughter 13 innocent people and wound 29 in cold blood. Or, maybe, the question we need to rise is why, if a Muslim justifies his violence with Quranic verses and Muslim jurisprudence with a PowerPoint presentation, those same critics of the Second Amendment and private gun ownership will just say that this one was some crazy guy whose motivations have nothing to do with the so-called Religion of Peace. James Alan Fox, professor of criminology at Northeastern University in Boston, thinks stronger gun control will harm mostly only safe law abiding gun owners: “Mass murder is regrettably one of the painful consequences of the freedoms we enjoy”[1].

But more good news. In another related front, and disregarding those Twitter Liberal connoisseurs of the Limbaugh connection[2], Mitt Romney has become the foe of Nolan’s super-hero. Does that make Obama an unmasked Batman? Or is he more like Harvey Dent, a.k.a. “Two-Face”? According to some media, not only Republicans, the Tea Party, and the NRA are to be blamed for the tragedy[3] but also, on top of everything else, the name of the “Dark Knight Rises” villain, Bane, sounds like Bain, the venture-capital company co-founded by Mitt Romney, a company which was at the center of recent criticism from the Obama administration. And this pun between Bain and Bane, Democratic advisor and former Clinton aide Christopher Lehane says, may “reflect the national mood” [4].

Hilarious leftish despair aside, since the wicked Bain/Bane capital outsources jobs to other countries and harms American citizens, maybe we should expect the President and those morally superior Democrats to return the evil $340.750 they took from Bain for the present election cycle[5]. But as it happens, presidential candidates showing socialist tendencies like to think that “it is not Fascism, when we do it”. Which leads us to the big question: Why should we be more outraged by what Mitt Romney does with his money than what Obama does with ours?

However, after watching “Dark Knight Rises” one wonders where did all this nonsense come from. Tip: The Rocky II Strategy. The bad Bane guy looks more like some radical Commie guy who surrenders Gotham city to a bunch of anarchic and chaotic citizens for it to be “everyone's house”. Well, not “everyone’s house”, but of those “everyones” who consider free-speech a crime punishable by death. And like any other Dear Leader, consistency is not part of his ideology, but destroying the symbol of civilization –Gotham, the new Rome– is. Bane’s empty speeches owe more to Obama than either Romney or any other Republican[6]. Indeed, Batman does not use guns, but he never prohibits police or hot black leather heroines from using them for self-defense.

 Why are the Colorado shootings irrelevant to gun control? Last Sunday, Mark Steyn recalled media‘s bias against guns, remembering the Appalachian School of Law shooting in Virginia ten years ago[7], where only three people died because the shooter was pin-down by two armed citizens, and how the worst mass shootings usually take place in countries or states with strict gun control, such as Germany, England, Washington, D.C., California or Chicago[8]. Quoting Cesare Beccaria’s Crimes and Punishments (1764):

 

“Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? And does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons.”

 

This tragedy was about people: the victims, their families, and the shooter. Everything else is irrelevant, not only because “blaming guns is like blaming forks for obesity,”[9] but also because how an individual chooses to abuse his liberty should neither change nor dictate how others should enjoy it [10].

- César Guarde