WASHINGTON — Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Friday that the shootings that took place in an Aurora, Colo. movie theater hours earlier were a result of “ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs” and questioned why nobody else in the theater had a gun to take down the shooter.
During a radio interview on The Heritage Foundation’s “Istook Live!” show, Gohmert was asked why he believes such senseless acts of violence take place. Gohmert responded by talking about the weakening of Christian values in the country.
“You know what really gets me, as a Christian, is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and then some senseless crazy act of terror like this takes place,” Gohmert said.
“Some of us happen to believe that when our founders talked about guarding our virtue and freedom, that that was important,” he said. “Whether it’s John Adams saying our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people … Ben Franklin, only a virtuous people are capable of freedom, as nations become corrupt and vicious they have more need of masters … We have been at war with the very pillars, the very foundation of this country.”
Ernest Istook, the host of the show and a former Oklahoma congressman, jumped in to clarify that nobody knows the motivation of the alleged Aurora gunman. Gohmert said that may be true, but suggested the shootings were still “a terrorist act” that could have been avoided if the country placed a higher value on God.
Where is Pat Robertson when we need him? Someone asked for the blame game to start. Well, here it is. I offer your Louie Gohmert. Gohmert also wondered aloud why no one took down this gunman. Does he really think a shoot out would have been the answer?
I would suggest that massacres like this happen more frequently because gun advocates think they have a right to buy assault weapons. The other day we talked about sacred cows. Its time for the 2A people to realize that there is no unlimited right to any of our rights. I am very tired of the NRA and like organizations shutting down all conversation about responsible gun ownership. I will not be silenced any more. I don’t really give a flying flip about someone’s 2A rights at this point. I think people have a right to go to a movie without being gunned down. I believe people have a right to go to class without some crazed F*** blowing their brains out. I believe a congresswoman has a right to a townhall meeting in a parking lot without her and her staff being targeted for murder.
The answer is not for everyone to pack heat. This isn’t the wild west. Its time to start having adult conversations that revolve around some of the real dangers of the status quo. I won’t participate in any more sound byte and bumper sticker debates. The American people are fed up. Obviously not everyone agrees with the loud mouth of the block, the NRA. If everyone agreed, then some folks in that theater would have been armed and prepared.
The conversation is going to now be about how we balance 2A rights and right to go in public without fearing for our lives. I keep hearing about arming people to protect themselves. It isn’t happening. All the bs and blather is purely abstract. I am all for responsible gun ownership but with that must come some demonstration of mental stability and knowledge of gun safety. Assault weapons need to be in the hands of a very few. The average person doesn’t need an assault weapon to use on Bambi.
This lunatic bought the firearms through the proper channels. He had an AR (not automatic), a 12 gauge, and two pistols, and an explosive gas device. He had a background check. He was not known to be crazy.
I don’t see anyone shutting down conversation about gun ownership. We might disagree but no one is shutting down discussion. And if gun sales and lessons are valid evidence, ownership is up.
So, tell me. What do you want to do to “balance” rights? What’s reasonable? What’s responsible to you? LET’S discuss it.
The people in that theater were disarmed because the theaters were posted: no firearms. LAW ABIDING people follow those signs even when the only outcome is being asked to leave. It was not illegal to carry, but the property owners decided to ban firearms. That’s their right. I’ve already discussed this with more than one LEO that wished there HAD been people armed.
That lunatic broke the law. No laws would have stopped him. He brought bombs. Thank God he left the incendiaries at home. The last two mass shooters were insane. We don’t know if this nut actually is. Demonstrably yes, legally, ??
Gohmert is reaching for answers too. Perhaps if that lunatic HAD been more Christian, he wouldn’t have killed. Who knows? MOST Christians tend to be very peaceful. He is right, though…only virtuous people are able to retain freedom.
I just bet that was a thorough background check. This IS Colorado we are talking about.
Background check amounts to, is he breathing.
I saw shutting down after Tech. I don’t have the answers. I am tired of NRA bulllies shutting down the conversation. You tried to do it on the other thread with your rights. You have a right to bear arms. Nothing is said about what kind of arms.
NRA types have declared survivor Colin Goddard the enemy. He wants restrictions on what can be purchased. Silly him. In fact, he has responded to this incident.
@Moon-howler
Actually it was a federal background check.
I’m not shutting down a damn thing. Just because I support my position, which may not agree with yours, does not mean that I’m “shutting you down.” I have NEVER tried to shut down ANY DISCUSSIONS HERE. In fact, I tend to push them farther than most. I’m HAPPY to discuss ANYTHING.
Colin Goddard wants people to be as defenseless as he was and wants to restrict my rights. Why should I not consider him an opponent? Just because he acted the way he did, got shot, watched and waited helplessly and refused to act, he wants the rest of us to be in the same exact boat.
No thank you. At school, as a student, I cannot carry. I do carry a knife. I know the exits, windows, etc. I have a plan. I will not lay under a table, waiting, hoping that someone else gets shot instead. And if you think that’s harsh…it’s basically his description of the occurrence. And he had the nerve to claim military training. Being a victim does not make you an expert.
So, you want to discuss what type of arms….we can go there. There are writings suggesting that all should be armed with the same arms as a soldier. Or would you like to use a printing press for your blog? My possession of an AR harms no one. My possession of ANY firearm harms no one.
Yes, this was a horrible, horrible, thing. But taking away rights because of it is the first step on a downward slippery slope. I guarantee that if that happens, other rights will be looked at as too dangerous. I’ve already seen talk about restrictions on the 1st coming from Chuck Schumer.
Here’s the beautiful thing about the left trying to use this to curb gun rights…….try it! I double-dog dare you!
Pokie, don’t be an AH. I double dog dare you to act like an adult. there needs to be discussion. This isn’t the wild west.
Some day you will realize that you can’t be with your kids every second. You might like to think you can send them to the movies, to school, or to college without them getting blown away by some sick MOFO. How are you going to keep the sick MOFO away from your kids? Young adult kids? Adult kids?
Come on in and sit down with the grown ups. This is a conversation that is going to have to extend beyond arming everyone in the movie theater. Many of us don’t want to be armed.
Again, who has threatened to take away your precious rights? No one. You are getting hysterical over the mere thought.
Most people who do not think that their 2A rights are limitless simply won’t try to talk to die hards because it isn’t worth the aggrevation. We are going to have to start doing it and challenging unrestricted rights for all, the halt, the lame, the crazed. We are going to have to start challenging the politicians who want to get elected but who have all sorts of laws in place to see that THEY don’t get shot in the work place.
Cargo, while you might think, rightly or wrongly, that you are sane and of good judgement, strangers don’t know that. I think that having an exit plan and knowing where the windows are is a good move where ever you are. You are luck there even are windows.
Why must the conversation automatically go to you losing your rights. Aren’t MY rights the same as yours? What if I don’t mind going through an extensive background check if I want to buy an automatic or semi automatic weapon? What if I should have to demonstrate some competency?
There will eventually have to be some compromises. There are too many sick you know what’s out there to simply do it your way.
Why do you object to having to prove competency for purchasing a weapon that has the capacity to kill many many people within a minute?
@Cargosquid
I think what you said about Colin Goddard was hideous. He was attending class. Period.
He was shot 4 times. Did you expect him to hop up and run the mile? 🙄
He was in ROTC. His objective is to keep guns out of the hands of crazies and felons.
I didnt say you specifically shut anyone down. I was speaking, in general, of the 2A people and its very true. They do try to shut everyone else down.
BTW, repeat guns sales says nothing to me other than people who like guns want more of them. That’s fine. I don’t have a problem at all with that. It doesn’t say that more A mericans want unrestricted gun ownership for every crazed AH who comes down the pike.
As I said, you see Colin Goddard as your enemy, even though he doesn’t really quote the party line for the Brady campagin.
Being a survivor of Tech makes him an expert on what its like to be in a massacre. That’s a starting place.
If you oppose him, then you oppose someone trying to keep guns out of the hands of felons and crazies. We can go binary or we can have a discussion.
Like Popeye, I yam what I yam. And I also have inexplicably large forearms with a boat-anchor tattoo….coincidence?
Cuz you eats your spinach…..
How is Olive Oyl this morning?
@Moon-howler
He waited, under a desk, aware, for 10 minutes before Cho entered the classroom, and watched while a girl got shot. Yes, he’s a victim. But I lost all sympathy for him when he became an activist opposed to my freedoms. He has advocated policies that ban guns. That’s his right. He opposes keeping guns out of the hands of felons and crazies by advocating laws that infringe upon rights. He is associated with groups that advocate the same.
He uses his status as a victim as a shield from criticism. How about the victims that have advocated for more access to firearms? Don’t they have just as much “expertise?”
However, I did not use the word enemy. He is not my enemy. He is my opponent.
The gun banners lie. They use made up statistics, lie about laws, lie about their intentions, etc. The gun banners refuse to discuss true compromise. Every time we’ve tried, they advocate for more ineffectual laws that only affect law abiding people. Registration leads to confiscation. This was a horrific tragedy. And yet, it happened in a “gun free” zone. Just like the 10 people killed and 50 wounded in Chicago recently. They just happened to have be shot over a period of time. Both cases…gun free zones. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in America. Shouldn’t it be a place of peace?
You specifically stated that I tried to shut down discussion on another thread.
But, you brought up cars. Ok. Give me a permit that shows that I am not adjudicated to be dangerous to myself and others. That permit good in all 50 states. Though, if truly treated like a liscence and car…ANYONE can get one. I can buy whatever my wallet allows me to. On private property, I won’t need the permit nor do I have to register them.. I can buy, sell, trade as many guns I want to. I can build one. The federal gov’t doesn’t get involved at all.
You say that no one is trying to take away my rights. Actually, they are. Every damn day. But the 2nd Amendment rights people, ie, millions of us, have worked for decades to claw back the freedoms that we had in previous years. Politicians across this country advocate the outright removal of the 2nd amendment. We’ve watched at gov’t agencies have made it harder and harder for FFL’s to operate. We watched the gun banners scream about “the wild west and shootouts” for years….things that NEVER happen. I’ve watched as members of the Brady board imply that all gun owners are criminals just waiting to happen….except for herself…since she too owns a gun. I’ve watched the spokespersons for these organizations lose their credibiltiy because they lie in public. Over and over and over.
It may be abstract, but it is still valid. I have a right to keep and bear arms. All humans do. I have a right to self defense. Registration, gov’t background checks, various permitting schemes, other pie in the sky Brady bunch schemes, all have the power to restrict my rights to lawfully exercise that right. The powers to record, tax, and permit are the powers to destroy. You cannot treat a right as a privilege and still keep it as a right. I have a right to exercise my 1st amendment rights without being constrained. I will have to accept responsibility for my words. I want that to be the case with all of my rights.
Notice, I am limiting this discussion. I am not going into the purpose of the 2nd amendment. That would be useless as I feel that you would just simply disregard it.
Moon, I’ve been involved with this fight for over a decade. I’m not trying to “bully” anyone. But I’ve got my arguments already arranged. I know where I stand. I know what the law states. I know what the evidence shows. And I know what history has shown.
Its a conumdrum. Laws do not stop bad people. Laws only punish them.
“Gomer” is an embarrassment to his party, his gender, his race, and his religion. First of all, the guy had fully body protection, I doubt a gun would have done anything, unless they had those bullets that pierce bod armor.
Very balanced assessment!
as for cars, Cargo, you said “On private property, I won’t need the permit nor do I have to register them.” You might want to check that out in Virginia. You also have to declare them junk to get out from under the obligation. You can be fined for not having a car registered on private property.
Try having a car in your driveway without a license plate or registered. That’s one I wouldn’t put to the test.
As for discussion, you know in your mind what you are going to say for everything and a lot of it ends up sounding like a bumper sticker. I honestly don’t consider that discussion.
Something has to be done to but back on crazies getting weapons. Who disagrees with that and why? Is the answer for the crazies to GET weapons?
Cargo, where would you draw the line? Should you be able to buy an atomic warhead if you wanted one?
I know what I’m going to say…so that means its a bumper sticker? So what do you want? Confused ramblings?
You keep mentioning crazies. NO ONE wants them to have guns. So, we have to make sure the procedures are in place to stop them without abridging rights. The latest nut jumped through all the hoops. No one thought he was nuts. You say that something has to be done. OK, what are your ideas? I know that Va reformed its laws. What else?
Where would I draw the line? Well, the right is “to keep and bear arms.” To bear an arm is one that you should be able to carry and use, alone. This does not rule out crew served weapons, as those too are legal. But, in general use….it means individual weapons.
However, modern weaponry would include in this category….rockets and missiles. Cost is prohibitive. Be aware that with proper permits, civilians can get access to automatic weapons, cannons, recoiless rifles, and explosives, and tanks. So, let’s limit it to what has been released for general use WITHOUT permits….. I would state that the arms allowable to police and soldiers as individual arms are reasonable. Semi auto since we are talking about those weapons unencumbered by excess gov’t regulation, but auto would be fine too. 99% of Americans would still not get auto weapons as they are highly expensive. But they are legal to own. The original meaning put no limit on the type of arm. Cannon, armed ships, etc were commonly in private hands.
I saw a great essay (wish I could find it again.) on the treatment of keeping and bearing of arms as a property rights and responsibility condition. In a nutshell, the more that you cannot control the outcome of pulling the trigger against a lawful target, the more restrictions will be added.
For the car thing….I was talking in very general terms. If you drive on private property, you don’t need a license or tag. Its not a perfect analogy.
Do you see a problem with people owning rockets and rocket launchers? That sort of thing?
I don’t think civilians need those kinds of weapons.
I guess if enough people get killed then people will vote to curtail some of this nonsense.
I see there is no compromise so it will be settled in court. Probably not in my lifetime but eventually and I would not count on winning. that just isnt the way the cookie is crumbling. Ordinary Americans arent obssessed with weapons in that great of number and people don’t like being shot and killed or having their loved ones shot or killed.
Enjoy it while you can.
@Elena
Elena, as one that has worn body armor….I still wouldn’t want to get shot by anything. It may not kill him, but it will mess up his aim, his day, and maybe save some lives. If you get him to stop shooting, you then have a chance to close, if you are on the attack. If you are running….so much the better.
@Moon-howler
I don’t know…..what are they doing with them? People own tanks. Machine guns. Anti-tank weapons. I don’t know if they can own actual guide missiles. It would be VERY expensive.
If enough people get killed? You think that will make people change? How many traffic deaths are there? I don’t see people slowing down.
You keep thinking that Americans are upset about guns. But gun sales are increasing and shall issue is becoming more common.
Gun sales increasing certainly doesn’t mean new sales to people who were not former gun owners. Americans aren’t upset over guns but Americans are upset over a gun lobby that is too powerful and doesn’t represent the will of most people.
Most people want the right to own guns but not without some limits. That is the part that you all seem to not be able to wrap your heads around. You want to call us the anti gun people. That is very inaccruate. Almost everyone I know who has commented here or to me in person is a gun owner. Not all gun owners do binary thinking. We just aren’t all or nothing people. To many of us, guns don’t define our life-style or our politics. They are objects that people have for whatever reason. It varies.
How did we go from handguns and rifles to rocket launchers? Again, rocket launchers are so unbelievably expensive that your average college student likely can’t afford one.
Where do you draw the line on weapons? If the Afghanis can afford them, we should be able to. Those hand held things….shoulder to air things….
We spend billions on elections. A nything is affordable. I am simply trying to see where you all would draw the line as to what is permissable for an individual to own as far as his 2A rights are concerned.
Please don’t tell me this is a “whatever the market will bear” answer because I am going to go back to muskets and starrt yelling foul.
@Moon-howler
The problem is determining those limits. Since you are limited in your selection of respondents, ie, US, you will get a more zealous answer. You asked US what OUR limits are.
Most people are satisfied with what they have. Most people aren’t activists about ANYTHING. We DO “wrap our heads around the idea” that other people may want restrictions. However, the problem is determining those restrictions. And towards liberty has always been a good way. My possession of certain inanimate objects and their lawful does not infringe upon anybody else’s rights. My bearing of same does not either. I seek to extend that liberty to all Americans. Criminals will always get firearms. Laws do not prevent crimes, they only provide penalties. Prohibition laws do not prevent any crimes, whether its alcohol, drugs, or guns. Restricting alcohol from minors does not prevent teen drinking. Total prohibition of drugs does not stop drug use. Banning guns will not stop criminals from using guns in crimes. But it will stop law abiding citizens from obtaining them.
As for stopping “crazy people” from obtaining them….other than adjudication and institutionalizing them, I don’t see a way. Who determines the sanity of another? What do we do to determine that before gun purchases? How do we prevent political ideology from slanting the results either pro or anti gun?
“Whatever the market will bear” IS a regulating mechanism. The gov’t added a $200 tax to the purchase of automatic weapons and suppressors to make them more expensive. They did this back when $200 was prohibitive. Not so much now. Now what is prohibitive, kinda, is the paperwork, registration, and allowing the gov’t to inspect at will.
@Cargo,
Perhaps you need to start thinking of laws as setting boundaries. Many people do not commit crimes because the laws tell them what their boundaries are.
Do laws stop all criminal behavior? Of course not. But they do tell us what society expects from us, for the most part. Most people try to aim in the right direction.
Restricting alcohol from minors cuts down on a lot of teen drinking because they cannot get hold of it as easily. Will it eliminate teen drinking totally? Of course not. Many kids get booze right in their own homes. Vendors know that the punishment is severe if they are caught selling to those under 21. Penalites also extend to other areas …as in restriction from driving, even if you aren’t any where near a car.
Just out of curiosity, what virginia laws gun owner laws changed because of crazy? Were those the same laws that got cut back a year or 2 later because the tea party charged into town with the stop spending edicts? Thought so.
I forgot…the Afghanis can afford them because assorted militaries give them equipment. They make the AK-47s in “backyard” shops. Those are made with stamped steel. They were designed to be made and serviced in the “third world.”
You should be able to buy them on the open market from the Afghanis then. No excuses why we dont have shoulder to air missles. I would say those should be restricted.
Where are you getting the information about a gun lobby that doesn’t represent the will of the people and that people are upset about it?
If you are talking about the NRA…the NRA FOLLOWS. It does NOT lead. It had to be dragged kicking and screaming to support the recent court cases Heller and McDonald that supports increased 2nd Amendment protections.
Because there is absolutely no popular outcry against guns. While some of the increase gun sales are to previous owners….we’re talking MILLIONS of guns. And the increase in concealed carry classes and permits have skyrocketed exponentially.
And all the NRA’s “800 lb gorilla” force would be worthless if the citizenry didn’t support its agenda and vote. All it does is keep track of 2nd amendment votes.
And it IS bi-partisan. It supports both parties as long as they are pro-2nd amendment.
There are few organized outcries against some of the absolutely absurd gun laws might be what you mean.
No one ever said it was not bi partisan. You can be pro second amendment and not be a rigid, inflexibile ideologue. There are lots of pro-2nd amendment people out there (like who is really against amendments????) (ooops I forgot about all you people opposed to the 14th) who do not mind moderate gun control rules like…oh…background checks etc.
Your attempts to not make the NRA look like a pack of mad dogs is falling on deaf ears. Their president is a liar and many of their members are people with whom I would not associate. They have a huge board of directors comprised of many people I consider gag-maggots, starting with its presdient and working on down to Oliver North, John Bolton, and a bunch of other people I wouldn’t allow my dog to piss on if they were on fire. ewwww.
Cargo, do you really obsess over any causes that I might think are normal? I really wish I had never looked at that board of directors. Tom Selleck is ok. I like his cop show on Friday nights and I don’t hate Jim Gilmore but other than that….geez.
For instance, do you want to protect any animal groups like dolphin or buffalo? How about Park Lands like..the Grand Canyon, Yellowston, Shenandoah National Park, the Manassas Battlefield, or is that too much government interference for you? I am beginning to think you spout some of this stuff just to stir people up.
Actually, I don’t OBSESS over anything, really. I am addicted to surfing the blogs and arguing politics. Right now I SHOULD be studying.
Of course, nothing I say will make you like the NRA. That wasn’t my intent. But that also doesn’t change the fact that many current control laws were written and passed with help from the NRA, including the background check law.
And if I’m not mistaken, I’ve written in support of background checks on this very blog, in this thread, even.
Um.. there are quite a few against the actual 2nd amendment and want it repealed. Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer, members of the Violence Policy Center, members of the Brady’s, etc. As for the 14th, I don’t ever remember being AGAINST it, just wanted it clarified. Then I actually found evidence supporting YOUR position and posted it in a thread, which I think you ignored.
I’m all in favor of protecting park lands and wildlife. I don’t even hunt. Nothing against it, it just seems too much like work. Yosemite is a favorite place and Muir Woods is a church. I even think that, if its a good idea to pay farmers not to grow, why isn’t it a good idea to pay fishermen to restrict their catch. Of course, that conflicts with my libertarian ideals…so sometimes its noisy in my head. Realpolitik vs ideals. Usually I side with liberty because once government is involved…you have to watch it closely or it grows out of control. One can ALWAYS make NEW laws. Its really hard to get laws repealed.
I’m supported keeping the faux Disney Civil War stuff out of Virginia, thinking that while it would bring jobs, it would be detrimental in the long run to the real history of Virginia.
I don’t spout stuff on the blog to stir people up. Well, except Starry, maybe….
To do so would be to lie or exaggerate. I try to be very precise and logical with my writing. I try to be intellectually consistent and honest. You may not agree with me, but if you read what I write, you’ll have to admit that. I argue from basic principles. That’s one of the reasons that I don’t want the ACR. It offends basic principles. Just like I’m not taking unemployment right now. It would be wrong even though it would be advantageous. I could get it, if I’m still eligible, in a heart beat and could play the system till it runs out.
The reason that you got this much reaction from me on this is that this is one of the areas that I blog about. While I haven’t put much down lately, I do debate on the internet about this a lot or cover this topic in reading and commenting. You brought it up and so I’m discussing it. If you have specifics that you think would make good laws, I’m happy to discuss it. I read or hear the words “reasonable” or “commonsense” and my first reaction is who is deciding on what is reasonable or commonsense? What exactly do they mean?
And so, I go to the worst case scenario and try to prevent that. Anything gained is a plus.
I do have a lot of exposure to both the pro and anti sides. I read both. I’ve talked to both sides. I’ve looked at real world results as to laws and regulations. I’ve seen what can happen from “good intentions” from politicians. I’ve been covering this for years. I’ve been following politics on a national scale for years. I’m good at remembering what politicians say and do. Its a quirk. That’s why I’m majoring in history and may double that with a poli/sci degree. While I don’t have the depth of knowledge of Cato and Morris on some subjects, I’m a decent jack of all trades.
When I talk about reducing government interference and growth, I’m not talking about removing it. I’m actually a moderate in that. Because I’d be happy with the size of gov’t that we had in the ….heck…lets go the 90’s. While ol’ Billy’s gov’t had problems…..it was smaller and less intrusive than the current gov’t. And I don’t blame only Obama for that. Bush wasn’t a small-gov’t conservative either. The problem is that the gov’t, unless checked, will ALWAYS GROW. It has too. Bureaucracies are alive. Like cancer. All agencies need to grow and take on more responsibility or they will have funding cut and the bureaucrats will lose funding. Politicians will always grow gov’t unless checked by voters or ideology. And that ideology never lasts long. Because most politicians are in it to “help” people. So they can’t imagine not doing “something.” Unfortunately, many programs are invented to solve problems created by previous gov’t ideas. In the military, we call that evil thing…the good idea fairy. It shows up and tells officers some “good ideas” to implement…that usually go horribly, horribly wrong until fixed by a senior noncom or it just dies and we survive it, or God forbid, a senior officer thinks its a good idea and it gets implemented service wide.