Should we take this kinda’ stuff seriously or not?

capemanIt’s pretty amusing reading in a way, but I also wonder if it was written to be that way in order to obscure  what is really going on;  the New York Daily News is as mainstream a media outlet as they come, and we all know what that means, don’t we?  Nevertheless, this article on one Daniel James Murray, aka the Capeman, threatening President Obama after insisting in a bank if he didn’t receive the money he wanted to withdraw (read that steal) without producing the necessary identification would result in someone’s death reads almost like a comic book.  Capeman claims he was on a mission to kill the President, and thankfully he was caught gambling his heist away in a Nevada casino before accomplishing that mission.

Two things about this; first the kook nature of it.  I believe all murderers are kooks, mentally unhinged, unstable, but the tendency to consistently portray those who plot to kill a president or actually do so in that way is conspiratorial in my view, because murderers are also calculating, and methodical, two characteristics that embody saneness.  That said, why make references to this guy muttering while walking down the streets of his upstate New York neighborhood with a cape on in order to underscore that point, and why is he withdrawing money from a bank in Utah an area which houses unsavory movements some of which vehemently oppose a President Obama and a continent removed from his home state of New York?  Had he moved there to become a part of the community of like minded people in Utah?  That relationship has not been explored or revealed by the corporate, read mainstream, media.   Finally the reference in almost all news stories on this to how Murray owns guns is telling, all too predictable and typical.  It is media’s attempt to get people to recoil at the idea of private gun ownership; anyone who owns weapons must by nature be suspicious and plotting towards a violent goal.  My retort to the anti-gun bias in Murray’s story is if he is as mentally unbalanced as some assert in news reports, how was he able to legally possess so many firearms?  In many municipalities sound and emotional well being are key in order to legally purchase firearms.  Was the guy mentally unbalanced or not and does the area where he purchased his firearms prohibit people who are unbalanced from owning guns?  If yes, someone else is also responsible for his illegal procurement of  weapons.  Perhaps this isn’t the lone gunman plot we are so accustomed to reading about when it comes to attempts against politicians as it may seem?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: