Posted on

The Aurora Massacre: It’s A Cover-Up, I Tells Ya!

Is everybody done talking about that shooting in Colorado now? I’m a little late to the par – erm, I mean … discussion?

Anyway, for those of you who haven’t been keeping up with the news cycle there was a bit of a, well, massacre in a quaint little Colorado city called Aurora. Now, I know what you’re thinking. Whose idea was it to name a township after that princess from Sleeping Beauty who apparently has some form of chronic fatigue syndrome? Oh, wait. That’s the last thing on your mind, you say? Um…

Maybe it’s time for me to get serious here.

So, what happened? Well, as everybody who isn’t a woodland hermit already knows, a man with no criminal record to speak of rushed into a crowded theater, on the opening premiere of the Dark Knight, and shot over fifty people, killing twelve and wounding the rest. (I think the death toll is up from that original figure, if I’m not mistaken.) Calling this a “downer” would be a vast understatement.

And, no, dinosaur, old-guard media, the killer didn’t have an “assault” rifle. He had a semi-automatic shotgun. And it is not – nor has it ever been – categorized as one of those “scarily” colored (after all, that’s where the distinction usually lies) assault weapons you seem to hate so much. Way to pull the wool over our eyes with your Brady Campaign-inspired political propaganda. Get your facts straight.

Unsophisticated Americans, With Their “Right to Self-Defense” Nonsense

I almost committed myself to the padded paradise of straightjackets and human tranquilizers hearing all the hopelessly Progressive, Establishment intelligentsia (and, well, Marx-loving Reddit readers) use this heartbreaking series of events to whine about how the right to keep and bear arms is a “bane” on our existence – an archaic, outmoded institution that doesn’t belong amongst civilized, sophisticated peoples such as ourselves. America’s “gun obsession,” they righteously proclaimed, is to blame for these senseless acts of violence. Twisted, mentally screwed up psychopaths don’t kill people. The NRA does.

What freakin’ ever, you college campus brats and ivory tower elitists. Way to ignore that other Aurora shooting that happened a few months back. We didn’t hear a peep about it, though, because a narrowly averted tragedy doesn’t bring TV stations the ratings that, well, a pile of corpses does. Sadly, one person did go down with the bullet (I send my deepest condolences to the victim’s family). On the bright side, though, things could have been much worse.

The gunman in this case had just been released from prison and was attending a church sermon, when, seemingly out of nowhere, he fired into the pews. One member of the congregation tragically perished before an off-duty police officer grabbed a gun out of his pocket and stuffed the would-be mass executioner with lead. Had he not been there to pull a fast one on this guy, saving everybody’s skin in the process, who knows how many more heartbreaking candlelight vigils and funeral ceremonies there would have been. This doozy of an episode just goes to show how even just one person primed with a personal weapon for self-protection can head off a homicidal nutcase bent on mass murder.

But again, all we hear from the mainstream media is crickets. It doesn’t fit their politically convenient (and rather juvenile) narrative that our national firearms “fetish” is somehow culpable for these gruesome, spine-chilling bloodbaths. Fortunately for us, though, not every player in the political advocacy arena buys into these oversimplified explanations.

The president of Gun Owners of America summed up the alternative, and seemingly forbidden, perspective that perhaps the killer saw this – ahem – gun-free zone as a “fish-in the barrel” opportunity. The movie watchers, after all, had no means of retaliating or fighting back, since they were, well, unarmed, defenseless, and impotent. That, of course, made them easy prey for this vile, wretched excuse for a human being. The gun-wielding assassin had absolutely nothing to fear. He had the ammunition. They had their popcorn buckets. How were they to stop him? There was little they could do but scramble all about in a panicked frenzy, as I’m sure most of us would have done given the circumstances.

If the scenarios had been flipped – that is, everyone in the gun-free zone survived the massacre and everyone in the church went the way of all flesh – you can be sure the talking heads would be thumping their chests and shouting, “Aha! We told you gun control saves lives! We told you civilian possession of firearms is a relic of the distant past! We told you we need to do away with gun ownership!” But when precisely the opposite occurs, it’s tumbleweeds and frogs croaking, because they fear that their righteous, anti-gun crusade will lose its momentum. The Progressives’ absolute refusal to re-examine their premises, as is always urged upon us Tea Party “purists,” is strange.

Ignore the Gas Mask, SWAT Gear, and High-Tech Explosives … Nothing To See Here, Citizen

What’s even stranger, though, is the killer’s get-up, ammo, accessories, and, well, bizarre intellect, to say the least. For a “lone gunman” or “deranged lunatic” who was just on some kind of random psychotic rampage, the evidence doesn’t seem to add up. Virtually everyone with an internet connection knows these things, but try to discuss them out in the open, and you’re instantly maligned as a tinfoil hat-wearing wingnut.

All of the unanswered questions, piled together, could tower over the Empire State Building. Don’t you think it’s just a little bit, erm, suspicious that Holmes was wearing SWAT Team gear, a gas mask, and using methods, uh, the government traditionally uses, to disperse, distract, and confuse the crowd, like, I don’t know – tear gas? Authorities had to deactivate the bombs he planted with robots, for heaven’s sake. How the hell do you unlatch an emergy exit without super-advanced tools that aren’t, erm, normally available to civilians? How did he get back in? Why didn’t security guards raise any suspicions – and if they did, why in the world didn’t they intervene? Why didn’t this man put up a fight with the police officers? Why did he warn them that the apartment was booby-trapped … unless, say, the FBI didn’t want to be responsible for drawing the blood of fellow government agents?

Holmes was dead broke and collecting jobless benefits. How could he afford all of this grade-A military equipment, SWAT gear, tear gas, and explosive material? Where does he get all the money to buy this stuff? Clearly, something is wrong with this picture. Police officers, upon entering the booby-trapped apartment, said they had never seen anything like it before. How did he set up all of those high-tech explosives in his apartment without blowing himself up? It usually takes years of training before someone can even think of pulling off a stunt like that.

Nothing about the guy fits the textbook description of a bona fide serial killer. On the surface of things, he seemed like just another ordinary – if somewhat socially awkward – college kid. He didn’t really have that many personality traits that would raise any kind of red flags. At least from what we can deduce, he wasn’t overly paranoid about anything in particular. He didn’t harbor a grudge against society – at least to the point where he’d want to charge into a theater and blow some brains out. This young man had no criminal record, a bang-up academic career, and more than a handful of people who cared about him. He wasn’t on antidepressants, some kind of psychiatrist-prescribed medication, or anything else that is used to treat severe psychological problems.

It is noteworthy, however, that when the kid appeared for his court proceedings, he was blinking in slow-mo and struggling to keep awake. It’s as if somebody dunked his head in a pot full of medication and told him not to come up to the surface until he had swallowed every last pill. So, what in the world is going on here?

No, Seriously, the Government…

For the record, I’m not some raging conspiracy kook who listens to Alex Jones religiously. Sure, I tune in once and awhile, but only because I sympathize with his libertarian-leaning worldviews and sharp analysis of the issues – although I do think he goes off the deep-end when he says the “globalists” have already hatched plans to eradicate, like, ninety percent of the global population or something I’m not some 9/11 truther who spits in everyone’s face at Christmas dinner saying the government blew up the Twin Towers (although I most certainly don’t take the 9/11 Commission Report at face value). But have there been government cover-ups in the past, where federal agents or military officials killed a bunch of innocent people, blamed someone else, and then exploited those deaths to crack down on civil liberties or stifle dissent? Sure. And it wouldn’t be a far-fetched proposition here to – gulp – suggest that perhaps this was some kind of false-flag attack.

I know it sounds crazy. But before you call the local insane asylum on me, hear me out. First, consider the eerily coincidental timing of this ill-fated shooting. Hillary Clinton and her gun-grabbing comrades have been trying to get the U.N. Small Arms Treaty passed for quite some time now. Again, for those of you who’ve apparently been living on a lunar colony all these years, this agreement would, in essence, ban private gun ownership in all member states. Despite repeated assurances, exemptions only apply to governments, not citizens. The international elites were on the precipice of getting a majority of nations to approve this law, but (at least for now) it has suffered a temporary blow.

Is Washington planning to use this and other such ghastly incidents as a catalyst for tighter gun control measures? It’s not like the FBI doesn’t have a history of using government-orchestrated murders to promote Washington’s aggrandizement in the past. Undercover agents have been known to deliberately set-up “foiled” terrorist plots by goading shady characters into hatching convoluted schemes, most of which are penned into the calendar and set for a certain date. This “guinea pig” of sorts undergoes months of intense training and experimental drills. He or she is loaded with a host of lethal devices, bombs, weapons, suicide bomber vests, and the like. When the day of reckoning approaches, the government either swoops in to “save the day” – and then, upon evidence of terrorist collaboration with intelligence agencies, claim they didn’t think the “goading” would be taken “this far” – or people actually die, and then the tragedy is exploited (as in Operation Northwood) for political gain and the whole thing is kept a deep, dark, confidential secret for decades on end. Either way, it’s pretty sick. Call me crackers, but me thinks this sequence of events is repeating itself.

Shame That All I Have For Proof Government Kills People Is … Current News Headlines

Why this kind of theorizing should even be out of the “mainstream” anymore is beyond me. Everybody who isn’t in complete self-denial, including MSNBC’s Democratic diehards, knows that the feds are perfectly capable of supplying menacing folks with weapons and then claiming that any subsequent collateral damage automatically means that private citizens can’t be trusted with firearms. The fact that the Justice Department, under the direction of Attorney General Eric Holder, spearheaded Operation Fast and Furious is no longer in dispute. After hundreds of Mexican citizens and not a few federal marshals died at the hands of savage, cold-blooded Mexican drug cartels, Holder and his comrades took the opportunity to call for “tougher” restrictions on the purchase and distribution of firearms. But then – oops! – whistleblowers revealed the Justice Department’s dirty little secret: many of these weapons were transferred through the U.S. Government as a part of a special, top-secret operation. Congressional investigations, leaked documents, and evidence collected at the scene of the crime will confirm this.

Holder is on camera lying under oath, the ATF chief stepped down, and the Justice Department still refuses to release documents to elected lawmakers, even after a judge issued a subpoena. On top of all this, the new ATF top-gun wants whistle-blowers thrown behind bars. The government’s attempts to hide their fingerprints is laughable, and not even Obama supporters are buying it.

I Had A Clever Title For This Section, But That John Lott Dude Already Took It

This whole gun confiscation obsession isn’t about reducing crime rates. If it was, years of research and a whale’s worth of comprehensive studies wouldn’t show that homicides and assaults are declining in states where concealed carry laws have been adopted. Trigger-happy gang bangers, it turns out, are less likely to even think about jumping random victims if the odds of those victims returning fire is greater.

Cracking down on medical marijuana dispensaries doesn’t stop people from getting weed. Making it illegal for minors to watch pornography or shop in the “adult” section at the video store doesn’t stop them from searching for explicit material on Google. “Click It or Ticket” hasn’t stopped people from “forgetting” to strap on their seatbelts. Bike Helmet laws don’t stop folks from cycling around without any sort of protective gear to speak of. Alcohol prohibition didn’t stop bootlegging or Al Capone. Why do modern-day Nanny Statists think gun bans would be any different?

I highly doubt a man of this caliber – assuming it was some deranged psycho, which is doubtful – would have dutifully fell in line with federal orders had they been in place. Do phrases like “back door,” “under the table,” or “black market” ring a bell? The only thing these gun control measures accomplish is disarming peaceful, law-abiding citizens who try to go through life with as little confrontation with police officers, busybody “do-gooders,” and federal agents as possible. Yes, there would be some resistance from authentic freedom-lovers everywhere, but that octogenarian couple down the street more than likely pride themselves in following the rules as closely as possible. Criminals, on the other hand, don’t give a flying hoot what the law says. That’s why they’re called criminals. If they’re willing to stab you in the guts, bash your head in, steal your identity, or sneak into banks guarded by high-security devices, ear-piercing alarms, and surveillance cameras (all of which carry heavy prison sentences) – why would they care about some stupid rule that says, “Don’t buy a gun, citizen?” I mean, it just defies all common sense.

Think about it: Which person takes more lives? A criminal in a gun-free zone who has more time to cock the barrel and re-load? Or somebody who preys on victims that have the means to fight back and defend themselves? You don’t need a fancy Ivy League pedigree to figure this one out.

What Jefferson Really Meant By A Government That “Fears” the People

Ultimately, though, the justification for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms doesn’t just boil down to self-protection or security from gun or knife-wielding ruffians. It’s also one of the final barriers to complete and utter totalitarianism, and Thomas Jefferson realized that when he stated that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants from time to time. When all other options are exhausted, the only way our freedoms can be preserved is, well – if those who administer the State fear their corpses will be lying in a pool of blood if they start hanging rabble-rousers in the street, exterminating those they disapprove of, killing infants, or committing any number of cold-hearted atrocities.

Take that away, and where does that leave us? In total subjugation to our self-anointed emperors, of course. “What can they do? They’re helpless to fight back. We have tanks. We have nukes. We have AK-47s. We have fighter jets. We have bullets, ammunition, and tear gas. And what do they have? Their fists.”

No, the Aurora tragedy doesn’t justify more gun control. If anything, it justifies arming every man, woman and child in the country.

Especially if the government had something to do with it.

About Phil Van Gheem

I’m a 19-year-old boy who, after escaping the public school system, came to realize how truly brainwashed I was. For over twelve excruciating years, my educators conditioned and programmed me to worship the State and all of its “wonderful” programs and initiatives. I was truly convinced it took a big, compassionate government to take care of the poor and needy, and that we’d all die instantly if any of the State’s regulations, taxes, or programs were abolished tomorrow. Now, after discovering the wisdom of the American Founders, I realize that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take away everything you have. Increased State control in the name of “security” comes at the expense of personal freedom. And the State, more often than not, is an enemy rather than a friend. It siphons off resources from the wealth-producing private sector, constantly infringes on the rights of private property owners, divides us into pressure groups who constantly loot each other for our own self-serving interests, holds back the living standards and prosperity we would otherwise enjoy, and worsens the problems it purports to solve. As government grows, liberty contracts. And I’m no longer willing to stick my head in the sand and ignore the State for the monstrous and diabolical institution it is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s