Image 01 Image 03

News Team Murdered on Air–Gun Control Advocates Swarm (Updates)

News Team Murdered on Air–Gun Control Advocates Swarm (Updates)

Here we go again

This morning, Virginia reporter Alison Parker and photographer Adam Ward were shot and killed during a live broadcast near Moneta, Virginia. The shooter, Vester Lee Flanagan, shot himself approximately five hours after the murders.

Flanagan was previously employed by WDBJ as a reporter, but was dismissed after anger management issues boiled over between himself and the other members of the news team. WDBJ is currently using their live broadcast to talk about Flanagan’s time with the station, and why he was fired.

ABC News received this morning a fax from a “Bryce Williams,” which a professional alias Flanagan used:

Analysts speculate that Flanagan didn’t “snap,” but that he planned the murders. Screenshots from his Twitter account show that he was actively posting to social media while he was running from police:

bryce 1

bryce 2

As always happens when these tragedies occur, gun control advocates swarmed on the opportunity to exploit the public’s reaction. They put their top people on it:

NFL writer and columnist for the New York Post Bart Hubbuch seized the opportunity to offer his condolences hoist up the dead as justification for more gun control:

He then got into a weird exchange with Blaze contributor Dana Loesch about—of course—the origins of the 2nd Amendment (as we always do):

bart hubbuch gun control tweets

…and so it went:

mark popham tweets

You have surpassed unfunny, Rob.

Here’s a dog whistle from a Dem operative:

This post will be updated. Pray for the WDBJ family.



Apparently the confirmed reports of the shooter’s death came too soon—both local and national outlets are reporting the correction:

GOOD NEWS! The third shooting victim, interviewee Vicki Gardner, had surgery but is doing alright:

Note: I chose not to embed the video recording during the shooting. Let’s remember the victims like this, instead:

OVER: Local police are reporting that the shooter has died.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I’m at a loss here. On what grounds, exactly, would the shooter have been denied the right to purchase a weapon? The color of his skin? The fact he’d filed an unsuccessful racial discrimination lawsuit? What, given the facts known, at all justifies the notion a background check would have/ should have disqualified him from possession of the weapon he used to conduct a personal uprising against his white oppressors?

    They’re going to claim the sale should have been denied on the grounds that the dealer knew or should have known the gun may, at some point, be used in a way that could be seen as illegally, at the time of the sale or at some other time in the future, and that passing a background check only means the buyer hadn’t been caught doing anything illegal.

    That ALL legal gun sales fall under this vague definition is a feature, not a bug.

    To “gun control” vultures, any even that can be used to justify any further restrictions on gun ownership, will be used to justify further restrictions.

    As that paragon of “Progressive” virtue Rahm Emanuel said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

    Shane in reply to JBourque. | August 26, 2015 at 4:05 pm

    J … you are missing the thinking, if all guns were banned then this could have never happened. See? No guns no death. Because if he couldn’t have gotten the gun then he could never have carried out the attack. It was the gun that caused the death, and the simple solution is to remove it from the equation and then we will all be safer. See? It’s that simple nothing more to know.

      I’m not missing the thinking, but as it has not one thing to do with what they’re actually saying, it’s jarring.

      As I write this, it’s been confirmed by the ATF that the assassin purchased his firearm legally, having passed a standard background check, as I expected he would, since only blatant racism would have been grounds to block the purchase.

Wow. If only the killer had to use a $10 machete. Everyone would be tots alive!

Thank goodness this nation elected that Great Racial Uniter Barack Obama and ushered in this era of racial healing.

To the WBDJ family: Our thoughts and prayers are with you.

To the “gun control” vultures: Name one new gun law you propose — ONE! — that could have or would have prevented this. The shooter had no prior convictions, no mental health history (anger management doesn’t count), and in all likelihood passed a background check and registered his gun (if required by law). I somehow doubt he had a CCW license to carry that gun legally, but since when has that ever stopped someone who is determined to break the law?

So some physco kills somebody but the prog libtards want to blame someone/something that did nothing in this tragedy? Now that’s the real tragedy. Stupid people having stupid kids. Also failed to mention press lives matter. Stupidity runs rampid on twitter once again.

“Note: I chose not to embed the video recording during the shooting. Let’s remember the victims like this, instead:”

I am glad, Amy, that you know what is best for us to view or not view. No point in forcing us to make a choice on our own.

    Caver37 in reply to Anchovy. | August 26, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    Okay, let’s walk this dog down the hall.

    This site puts out a news and opinion product and you are unhappy because they are not willing to show you the snuff film you can swoon over some other place. You seem to think the site has to cater to your every fetish.

    Sorry I have seen too many dead bodies and have seen the life leave too many people to want to even watch something like what you are b!tching about.

    Not happy with their product? Take your butt somewhere else to get your thrills.

buckeyeminuteman | August 26, 2015 at 1:31 pm

Because progressively-developed countries like France never have issues with gun violence…

Leftists need only look at themselves as the cause of this tragedy. Liberal ideology promotes a culture that denies the importance of responsibility (“It’s Bush’s fault”), self-restraint, discipline, and delayed gratification. And it encourages this ideology particularly in the black community because it constantly excuses the actions of black Americans, accepting any behavior, including unlawful, violent behavior, as a justified reaction to perceived “racism.”

Also typical of the left’s reaction is its knee-jerk condemnation of the NRA and authentic American gun culture. With almost zero exceptions, criminals are not target shooters, hunters, competitive shooters, or NRA members, and they aren’t “good ol’ boys” or ranchers with shotguns and rifles in their pickup trucks. Progressives and the media fixate on authentic American gun culture in response to these events (and denigrates it with terms like “gun nuts,” as if merely smearing a group of people somehow validates the criticism), yet an attachment to authentic American gun culture is the very thing that is ABSENT from the connections linking most gun crimes. Calling people names will not alter this fact; it only makes those calling names look intellectually dishonest for attempting to manufacture a connection where one does not exist.

Before someone says that guns are the connection (I realize it’s unlikely any readers here will make such an inane statement) – do automobiles connect responsible drivers to drunk drivers, conflate their driving with DUI, or make the vast majority of drivers responsible for the careless and criminal acts of a relative few? Who would honestly make such a connection? What separates the two types of drivers, in spite of the fact that the groups both own and use automobiles, are the actions of the drivers, with one group acting responsibly and the other irresponsibly. No right-thinking person would ever accuse law-abiding drivers of being complicit in the drunken, irresponsible, and criminal behavior of those who drink and drive. These same differences separate members of American gun culture from the acts of criminals who use firearms in the commission of their crimes. Ownership and use of a particular manufactured object is insufficient to link two groups of people who differ in their attitudes, conscientiousness, their comportment with regard to the law, and their respect for the lives of their fellow citizens.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to DaveGinOly. | August 26, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    A bit off the subject, but you mentioned cowboys, etc. One of the things that I love about living in MT is that you do meet real cowboys, but most everyone has a gun or so in their vehicles, though more handguns than long guns.

    The diversion is that I was driving along today, about 20 miles east of here, and saw a sign that said “ammo”. After lunch, on the way back, the other side said “guns”. So, I stopped to see what they had. Guy running it is a real cowboy. He was wearing a classic six shooter on his belt, and that, along with lever action rifles, were the type of guns he had for sale. He mentioned that he raised long horns, and eventually we went out back where a couple were lounging. They weren’t fenced, but his horses were. We spent most of an hour doing what he called “telling lies”. Great fun, and another reason why it will be a long time before I move back to a big city.

Who is Bart Hubbuch? A tenth-grader (or at least a tenth-grader when I was one) could tell him that “well regulated” modifies “militia,” not “the people” who have a “right to keep and bear arms,” nor the right itself. And yes, “well regulated” means properly equipped, disciplined, and trained. What does Mr. Hubbuch think Bach meant when he wrote his pieces for the “well-tempered clavier”? Does he think this means the instrument was stress-relieved by heat treatment? Obviously, words were used differently in the past, and one cannot understand what is meant by the authors without taking into account their intent and the meanings they ascribed to the words they used.

(For the record, from Wikipedia: “Well tempered” means that the twelve notes per octave of the standard keyboard are tuned in such a way that it is possible to play music in most major or minor keys and it will not sound perceptibly out of tune.)

Char Char Binks | August 26, 2015 at 1:52 pm

Fighting racism! That’s what those scummy motherfloggers call murder, at least right kind of murder.

Besides a gun what is the common denominator in most crime? We aren’t allowed to say it but we all know what it is. So as a trial program let’s get rid of all that unmentionable group and see what happens to the gun crime in America! No way! Libs would rather take away the rights of all rather than only from one group. That is the liberal mantra.

    great unknown in reply to inspectorudy. | August 26, 2015 at 5:36 pm

    Why aren’t we allowed to say it? Every successful or attempted presidential assassination involved a shooter who was a Democrat. Most “mass murders” involvd a shooter who was a Democrat. And the brutal number of shootings in inner-city areas involve people who [supposedly] vote Democrat.

    To eliminate the vast majority of shooting murders in this country, I have “A Modest Proposal”:Simply ban Democrats from owning guns.

    It can be done under the mental-health restrictions in Federal gun laws.

NC Mountain Girl | August 26, 2015 at 2:33 pm

Look at the shooter’s work history and listen to his former co-workers. We don’t have a problem in this nation with too little gun control. We have a major problem with undiagnosed and thus untreated mental illness.

    healthguyfsu in reply to NC Mountain Girl. | August 26, 2015 at 6:30 pm

    Beyond that, we have a problem with selling the victimhood mentality to the weak-minded scumbags that lap it up and believe every word.

    This guy was one of the liberal ijuts that believes every little thing must be his way or its racism/homophobia.

      Yes indeed. Say that ten times! We have a problem of malicious people pushing a dishonest ideology of victimhood and resentment. They are ultimately responsible for much of the violence.

Is it a far reach to believe that we will be seeing proposed legislation that tries to remove our right to keep and bear arms in the near future? Based on someone’s subjectional OPINION of someone else’s mental state? Can anyone else see this error riddin narrative coming soon? I do. Hide and watch.

Lowering the Confederate flag (i.e. symbol of slavery) and raising the Rainbow flag (i.e. symbol of selective exclusion) averted a potential disaster. The PP flag (i.e. symbol of indiscriminate killing) continues to wave and claim popular support.

2nd Ammendment Mother | August 26, 2015 at 3:43 pm

This guy was a known threat to the station employees. He was going to attempt this deed whether it was with a firearm, a kitchen knife, a tire iron or a moving vehicle.

Even without the disgruntled employee issue, local media types tend to attract stalkers and the whereabouts of most of their staff is actively broadcast to every Tom, Dick and Harry. I want to know if any of the staff had CHL’s and were allowed to defend themselves at work?

    I want to see a bulge under the shirt of everyone I meet, or see on the media. (But not looney liberals, the most likely perps of these crimes.)

    An armed society is a polite society.

      2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to LWP. | August 26, 2015 at 5:42 pm

      I’m being a bit of a smart a$$ with my question about station employees being able to defend themselves from stalkers….. because of my PR gig, I had many very young female reporters ask me to take them out to the range to learn how to handle a firearm before taking a CHL class and purchasing a firearm. None of them could carry on the job, but everyone of them did in their personal routine and at home.

      Per station policy (and their very thick contracts and no small amount of intimidation), they were not allowed to keep any type of self defense item on their person – not mace, pepper spray, tasers, much less a firearm.

      Every single one of these young women started their careers in small markets on overnight shifts – 2 to 3 people on duty at the most. These young women were frequently the targeted by stalkers because the stations PR efforts. All of them had been sent out to remote locations by themselves on breaking stories frequently in rough parts of town (although any part of town at 4 am and deserted can be nerve racking). Live shot locations are easy to find (just listen to a PD scanner), dark and relatively abandoned.

      DaveGinOly in reply to LWP. | August 26, 2015 at 6:25 pm

      “Do you appendix-carry, or are you just happy to see me?”

Humphrey's Executor | August 26, 2015 at 3:54 pm

That was a remarkably crazed and cold-blooded act.

I say we start regulating what news comes out about the Charleston shooting and those of its kind. After all, that was the critical moment.

Guns don’t kill people, reporters do. These catchy, nifty fake correlation arguments are too easy…maybe I should switch to liberalism.

I think that the frustrating thing here is the false assertion that things are getting worse, that more people are dying of gun violence than ever before, etc. Just ain’t so. Esp. if you ignore the inner cities where gang bangers rule.

    2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to Bruce Hayden. | August 27, 2015 at 12:39 pm

    Great point. I still follow breaking news feeds for most of the stations I used to work alongside. From the time of the shooting until late yesterday evening, I counted a total of 15 traffic fatalities in 6 markets – 2 involved pedestrians. On the list of things that I occasionally worry about, being involved in a traffic accident is much higher than the possibility of needing to use my Conceal Carry firearm (or my really big fire extinguisher).

So Barack and Hillary want to use this atrocity to unconstitutionally infringe our Second Amendment rights.
Why not infringe their rights instead? After all, turnabout is fair play, right? If things go far enough I am sure that more and more Americans will come to regard leftists as existential enemies with whom one cannot live in peace.