Can't they just reprogram the drones already patrolling American cities?

To do what? Make preemptive strikes on retarded rightwing gun nut pussies?

Would it have been too crass for Warner Brothers to change the promotion to: "The Senseless Violence...The Impotent Rage...Who (Batman punches a guy in the throat) Will (Catwoman on her Big Wheel) Vicariously (Explosions of all kinds) Fight For You?! (Music swells, Dark Knight Logo, fade to black.)"?

To oversee citizens and get rid of any who are causing problems, just like they're there for with terrorists. That's why the President put them there.

It makes more sense than introducing a new class of federal employee to disarm the citizens. Why make a fuss about taking away Americans' freedoms (guns) when you've already taken away their right to not be spied on by death-dealing drones?



If you have some evidence to the shooter's motives, I'm sure the Aurora police would appreciate you sharing it. Otherwise, you might heed the examples of the Gabby Giffords shooting, the death of Bill Sparkman, the Fort Hood shooting and the guy who crashed a plane into an IRS building and not force everything into your narrow-minded views just so you can hurl baseless accusations.

You want to, obviously. It's what you do, and you're not noted for impulse control. All the same, it's pretty stupid, and only a difference of degree from accusing people of being Trotsky sympathizers.

So again, we already have a tool in place to protect the citizenry - death-dealing drones patrolling our nation's cities - so why not use those instead of whining about how you want new laws now like a three-year old?

Thank god somebody's willing to point the finger at the real villain in all this: President Barack Obama.

Seriously though Weemie, you are such a fucking incoherent lunatic.

Ha ha, no it won't.

Neither party has any interest in pursuing gun control. So there'll just be some impotent teeth-gnashing on one side, some raving lunacy on the other (see above, re: Weemie), and then our walking sugar high of a country will catch sight of something shiny and forget the whole thing ever happened.

The only thing that might be "baseless" in my description (I've made no accusations) of "The Joker" was whether or not he's a right-winger. Much like the thong guy who shot Gabrielle Giffords, Republicans really want to distance themselves from this new douchebag. He's only 24, so maybe he hasn't yet fully formed his political affiliations, but I can guarantee you he's no lefty.



Please point to where I have ever elicited the need for strict gun control laws. For that matter, please point to where your Commander-in-Chief ever has.

It's murkier than that, though, isn't it?

Batman has been a children's entertainment character for 70 years, but there are now many different versions of Batman.

There are kiddie-friendly animated shows -- most recently, Cartoon Network's "Batman: The Brave and the Bold" -- and kiddie-friendly comics, books and toys. Lawson Jr. is a fan of these. And there is darker, grittier stuff, some of it ridiculously dark and gritty, including movies, comics and video games, little to none of it appropriate for young children.

While I'm always happy to bash DC Comics management, at some point parents must take responsibility for what they expose their children to. Lawson Jr. loves Batman, though I sure as hell won't hand him this month's Grant Morrison comic or let him watch one of the Christopher Nolan films.

I've been surprised, in the news accounts of the Colorado shooting, to learn that so many people brought children to a midnight screening of "The Dark Knight Rises," which is rated PG-13 and apparently includes a lot of loud violence. There were infants, toddlers and children under the age of 6 both among the shooting victims and those who barely escaped. It's certainly not the parents' fault some lunatic shot up the theater, but speaking as a parent myself, I don't think young children needed to be there, watching that, at 12:20 a.m.

The parents learned their lesson, then.

Charles, I'm absolutely not suggesting the parents are responsible for their children being shot or shot at. It's irresponsible to take your children to a late-night PG-13 movie; but nobody expects a gunman there. It's not like they took the children to a crackhouse.

I know you're joking, but ...