I have a news bulletin for Horsey.  Suicide isn’t illegal. Taking your life with a gun doesn’t make suicide any more tragic than by overdosing on pills, hanging yourself, or sticking your head in a gas oven. It’s just that suicide-by-gun includes an implement that the left loves to hate.

As to an “assault weapons ban,”  is Horsey aware that , such weapons are used in only 1-2% of all murders.  What’s more, fully-automatic and select-fire weapons are illegal for civilian ownership. Assault weapons as they are called are just semiautomatic versions of military-issue weapons. They are perfectly sensible for sporting purposes (firing range competitions) and come in real handy in a chaotic rioting or looting scenario.

What’s more, more “sensible gun laws” would not have stopped Holmes in the first place. Holmes had no history of mental illness, nor criminal record at the time he purchased his weapons.

Colorado is an open-carry state, but it permits businesses to bar concealed carry on their premises, safeguarding the private property rights of business owners. The theater which Holmes shot up, was, you guessed it, a gun-free zone.

Lastly, Horsey lambasts conservatives for arguing ”this is not the time to have a discussion about guns.”  Apparently it’s never too early to jump into politics when you have a fresh tragedy to capitalize on.

Horsey even admits that, as former former FBI agent Peter Ahearn told the Associated Press, “there’s no way you can prevent it. There’s absolutely no way.”

Even so, Horsey can’t shake the liberal impulse to do something, anything, even if it’s a symbolic and ineffectual “assault weapons” ban that, if it were in effect, would still have left Holmes with other deadly weapons that he, as a law-abiding citizen, had every right to have.

            Attkinson was told that she was being “unreasonable.” She was also told that other news organizations knew that “Fast and Furious” wasn’t a story. All of this being shouted, and in the case of Eric Schultz, also included swearing. There goes the new tone, but then again, the White House has never even tried to live up to their mandates, no matter how simple, obvious and expected from moral, civilized people.

This incident also puts into question, yet again, whether the Obama administration is really committed to transparency. The answer is, obviously not. The administration seems to think their job is to tell the press what is and is not a “story.” If they don’t agree, it is their job to shout at, swear at and intimidate those who feel differently into feeling the way they feel. Historically “Fast and Furious” makes Watergate and Iran Contra look like child’s play, the idea that it isn’t a story is purely ridiculous, yet that is the White House line.

Besides these two blatant inconsistencies, another disconcerting issue is highlighted by this recent incident. If the Newspapers mentioned by Eric Schultz view the deaths of innocent Americans and Mexicans as non-stories, have they done that at the behest of the Whitehouse, or are they just simply incompetent. The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post were all mentioned in the vein that they “understood” that Fast and Furious was a non-story. Considering how obviously newsworthy of a story Fast and Furious is, it is logical to question whether those decisions are made by the Whitehouse as opposed to the newsrooms of the newspapers in question. This incident needs a highlight, and it should never be let go. It calls into question both the Whitehouse and the Media, and whether they have the best interest of the country, or the best interest of the Obama administration in mind.