Defining terrorism @Mashood

At about 12:20 am on Friday 20th July 2012 , a figure dressed in full body armour entered Century 16 theatre in Aurora, Colorado, releasing two gas canisters before proceeding to shoot at the panicked and confused audience watching the latest Batman movie, killing 12 and injuring dozens more. Minutes later, James Eagan Holmes, 24, was arrested in the car park without incident. He is currently being held at the Arapahoe County Jail to await formal charges to be filed on July 30, 2012.


In the ensuing media frenzy, a number of people have debated Holmes's motives for such a shocking attack. Some have said he was addicted to computer games, others have claimed he is schizophrenic and/or mentally ill, some have even gone on to state that secularism, his being single and evolution being taught in schools are valid reasons that explain the event. Of course, some have alluded to his acts being synonymous with being an act of terrorism. But what is terrorism, and is it a fair appraisal of Holmes's actions?

Quick thoughts on the right to bear arms and patriotism in America

All rights are limited by law - and in the US, this is based on the Constitution. The right to bears arms is limited constitutionally by the well regulated militia.


Tell me, did James Holmes - who legally bought a heavy arsenal - belong to a well regulated militia?


Laws - at least in principle - are instituted not to limit freedom per se, but to protect the citizenry as a whole from anti-social and deleterious behaviours. Walking into a theatre and letting loose on an unsuspecting and wholly innocent group of movie-goers is anti-social and deleterious behaviour, which is why laws regarding accessibility to firearms needs to be regulated - if not banned outright - to non-regulated militia.

This is a no-brainer, folks. You may well disagree with me - as might the hugely influential gun lobby - but in defending these groups, you tacitly undermine not only people's rights to live in as free and safe a society as is demanded by you and your fellow citizens, but you have no respect for the Constitution under which your nation was formed.


I hear, all the time, from the pro-gun people, how patriotic the right to bear arms is (see final image on this post to see a perfect example of how that 'right' is cherry picked from the actual text in the first image), however, upon even a fragment of constitutional understanding, the patriotism these types espouse is wholly undermined by their narrow views of what the Constitution means to themselves and society as a whole.

There are a lot of these very types - shall we call them Libitarians and Republicans as a general rule of thumb - that have no regard for either the Constitution, nor the communities in which they live. If this is patriotism, you can keep it.


It is indefensible by any right-minded, socially functional and truly patriotic American.