In the aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado film critic and lefty douche Roger Ebert wrote an article for the New York Times that manages to miss the point beautifully, in it he states that the gun-free zone of the Cinemark theater proves self defense does not work. "That James Holmes is insane, few may doubt. Our gun laws are also insane, but many refuse to make the connection. The United States is one of few developed nations that accepts the notion of firearms in public hands. In theory, the citizenry needs to defend itself. Not a single person at the Aurora, Colo., theater shot back, but the theory will still be defended." In the words of the genius that panned Gladiator.
Are we sure this guy is even capable of following the point any more? Maybe his articles actually get written by the American Dad creative staff and they thought they were writing a screed by Roger the alien, not Roger Ebert? Nah, the tone of the article is a lot closer to the smug condescension of Haley. Either Ebert is willfully ignorant of the facts of the case, namely that Holmgives performed his attack in an area he could reasonably expect there to be no armed resistance, or he is being intellectually dishonest for the sake of his own anti-2nd amendment politics. Either way he should stick to what he is supposed to know and get me a frakking review of Expendables 2 to ignore when I go to happily Stallone, Statham and the rest more of my money.