PDA

View Full Version : AP News Wire: Entitled to Fire Weapons


bulgron
04-07-2009, 4:09 PM
Yet more crack reporting (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090407/ap_on_re_us/legal_gunmen_1) from the AP:


They had more in common than unleashing carnage nearly every gunman in this monthlong series of mass killings was legally entitled to fire his weapons.


Actually, no one is legally entitled to fire a weapon in an offensive, murderous way. Just like no one is legally entitled to drive their car in an offensive, murderous way, no matter what license they might have. But why split hairs now, when there's propaganda points to be scored?


So what does that say about the state of gun control laws in this country? One thing appears certain: the regulations aren't getting stricter. Many recent efforts to change weapons laws have been about easing them.

Despite eight rampages that have claimed 57 lives since March 10, "it hasn't sparked any national goal to deal with this epidemic. In fact, it's going the other way," said Scott Vogel of the Freedom States Alliance, a gun control activist group.

Even President Barack Obama has felt that sway. Last month, 65 House Democrats said they would block any attempt to resurrect an expired federal ban against assault weapons.

The pro-gun Democrats, led by Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas, wrote Attorney General Eric Holder saying they opposed not only a ban on military-style guns, but also efforts "to pass any similar law."

Gun control issues would only produce "a long and divisive fight," they said, at a time when Congress should be focused on the roiling economy.


That's right. Because gun owners know the difference between illegal, murderous usage of firearms, and legal usages of firearms which includes the right to self-defense. The press can't seem to tell the difference between self-defense (legal) and murderous rampages (illegal). Nor can they seem to admit that people intent on murderous rampages will do so with whatever tools are at their disposal.

Would the AP have been happier, I wonder, if Jiverly Wong had decided to simply mow people down on a crowded sidewalk with his car? No doubt, if he had, they'd right now be calling to ban all the cars, right?

Right?


A few states are trying to loosen gun restrictions. In the Texas Capitol where legislators can carry guns bills easily passed the Senate in recent weeks that would allow employees to bring weapons to work as long as they leave them locked in their cars, and let those packing heat off the legal hook if they walked into a bar that didn't have signs saying guns weren't allowed inside.

The state also is considering allowing students licensed to carry a concealed weapon there are about 300,000 such adults in Texas to bring guns on campus.

Kansas plans to put a measure on its 2010 ballot that would rewrite the state constitution to make gun ownership a personal, rather than collective, right. In Tennessee, lawmakers made progress this month toward allowing guns to be carried in state and local parks.

"I think you're seeing a continuing change of culture," Vogel said. "I think the gun lobby wants to take away any stigma to gun ownership. I think they feel emboldened, like who's going to stop them?"


First of all, there should be no stigma behind gun ownership. Vogel might not get it, but it's a constitutional right. Should I feel ashamed for exercising, say, my right to peaceable assembly? Or my right to free speech? How about my right to exercise the religion of my choice, or not exercise it at all?

Second of all, there aren't enough cops in the country to stop us from owning whatever arms we want to own. And it's time that idiots like Vogel figured that out. Prohibition flat-out does not work. Quite the opposite, it makes things way worse. Just ask the crack heads in any major urban center in America. Just ask the Mexican police who are dealing with an increasingly well-armed drug cartel.

If they want to make American society truly, out of control violent, they should just go ahead and try to ban all the guns.

I'm glad the AP news story didn't pick up on AB 357, btw. I hope that means the opposition still doesn't have it on their radar.


The National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful gun lobbying group, declined to comment this week on gun control laws. "Now is not the time to debate politics or discuss policy. It is time for families and communities to grieve and to heal," it said in a prepared statement.


Classy. The NRA refuses to play politics over the shooting tragedies. Too bad the Brady Bunch can't learn a few manners from them.


Groups such as Vogel's, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, say existing laws are already too weak just look at the men who received gun permits, legally bought high-powered weapons, and then mowed down family, friends and total strangers in these past few weeks, they say.

Joining their outrage was the U.S. Conference of Mayors. "How many more gun-related acts of violence must we experience before the nation's leaders will decide that it is time to act?" asked president Manuel Diaz, mayor of Miami.

Gun enthusiasts say there is no way to prevent human beings from committing insane acts. Whether they have a gun permit or not.


How many more gun-control outrages must we endure before we kick those mayors out of office, anyway?


On Friday, a depressed and angry Jiverly Wong used a 9 mm and .45-caliber handgun to kill 13 immigrants and service center employees in Binghamton, N.Y., police said. Earlier that day, the ethnic Chinese immigrant from Vietnam mailed an envelope to a Syracuse television station. In it were his gun permit, photos of him smiling while hoisting shiny, big handguns, and his driver's license.

Questions have been raised over the upstate New York gun permit issued to Wong in 1997. Two years later, he was reported to state police by an informer who claimed Wong was planning a bank heist to feed a crack-cocaine habit. Unlike other areas of the state, including New York City, Wong's Broome County permit did not have to be renewed.

Local authorities, however, have broad discretion in reviewing and revoking such permits, according to legal experts. Especially when it comes to drug use, criminal behavior and violence.

"In retrospect, this is probably not a guy who should have had a gun," said attorney Jeffrey Chamberlain, a former Rochester prosecutor and chief counsel to the New York State Police. "No one likes to see things fall through the cracks and it looks like this guy fell through the cracks."

Binghamton police chief Joseph Zikuski said Tuesday that no robbery occurred and there was no merit to review Wong's gun permit.

In New York City, gun permits are reissued every three years.


Wong was issueda permit in upstate New York, which means it was not valid in New York City. I suppose it's asking too much for the AP to mention that Wong was not in legal possession of his guns when he illegally set out to murder a bunch of people.


Yet, regulations differ only slightly between states, Chamberlain said. "They're fairly typical don't be a felon, don't be a drunk, don't beat your kids or your wife. Don't be so mentally unbalanced that you need be in an institution."

To Chamberlain, the answer to gun violence lies not in stricter regulations, but in answering the question, "Why are we so tolerant of having guns in this country? The answer to that is historical. We've had guns for a very long time.

"I can't think of any sweeping law change that would address that."


See? There's balance in this story. You just have to read all the way to the end to find it. I don't imagine the average reader will do that, but hey, the media tries. :rolleyes:

Tries to bury the truth, that is ....


To Vogel, the answer to why atrocities happen in places such as Binghamton, and before that Washington state and Santa Clara, Calif., lies in sheer numbers.

The number 280 million, to be precise, the estimated total of every gun in this country.

"When you have that many guns, those guns are going to be used in horrific ways," Vogel said. "There's just too many. Inevitably, somehow, some way, those weapons are going to be used in an egregious way."


When you have that many guns, you can't possibly get them out of society. It ain't gonna happen. What Vogel should be doing is wondering why mass murders like Wong go around shooting up places where people are guaranteed to not have weapons with which to defend themselves.

But, again, rational thought seems to be eluding the gun control fanatics.

Sorry for the rant. I just had to get that off my chest.

evan69
04-07-2009, 4:18 PM
My heart burns with rage when reading articles like this, and then it longs for people like you to have a louder voice when the points in the article are so easily refuted. Good stuff.

DDT
04-07-2009, 4:19 PM
Wong was issueda permit in upstate New York, which means it was not valid in New York City. I suppose it's asking too much for the AP to mention that Wong was not in legal possession of his guns when he illegally set out to murder a bunch of people.


The shooting didn't happen in New York City.

7x57
04-07-2009, 4:43 PM
Despite eight rampages that have claimed 57 lives since March 10, "it hasn't sparked any national goal to deal with this epidemic. In fact, it's going the other way," said Scott Vogel of the Freedom States Alliance, a gun control activist group.


Remember, folks, this is the smell of victory. Culturally we seem to be stronger than we have been at any time in my lifetime (born pretty near the '68 GCA act). These stories are about gun banners being mad because the public isn't terribly impressed by the same arguments that have been working for half a century. The people are not listening to their philosopher kings.

And *that*, ultimately, is how we win. We're nowhere near sailing the big Mo' into Tokyo bay with surrender papers, but we may be just after Midway when the strategic tide turned from defense to offense.

7x57

CowboyShooter
04-07-2009, 5:04 PM
Would the AP have been happier, I wonder, if Jiverly Wong had decided to simply mow people down on a crowded sidewalk with his car? No doubt, if he had, they'd right now be calling to ban all the cars, right?

no, if he'd used a car, the focus would be on the state-provided mental health care that he DIDN'T get and how as a society we let him down and drove him to act out in frustration and anger.

because he used guns to kill, that changes everything and there is no other circumstance that would divert the media's attention away from the guns.

guns = bad therefore they must be taken away by the "state" since the "state" knows best how to care for us all.

the brady bunch et al will never understand that you can't legislate "crazy".
crazy people are going to do crazy s**t from time to time and you can't make it not happen. we already have plenty of laws on the books to keep violent or unstable people from LEGALLY owning guns, but criminals are going to get their grubby paws on guns by hook or by crook. give us back the right to protect ourselves and we'll show you how to reduce or at least minimize the murderous rampages.



:D

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 5:06 PM
Remember, folks, this is the smell of victory. Culturally we seem to be stronger than we have been at any time in my lifetime (born pretty near the '68 GCA act). These stories are about gun banners being mad because the public isn't terribly impressed by the same arguments that have been working for half a century. The people are not listening to their philosopher kings.

And *that*, ultimately, is how we win. We're no where near sailing into the big Mo' into Tokyo bay with surrrender papers, but we may be just after Midway when the strategic tide turned from defense to offense.

7x57

+1 Winning hearts and minds is important.

yellowfin
04-07-2009, 5:11 PM
Remember, folks, this is the smell of victory. This article certainly stinks, so could it be the rotting of the antis?

SwissFluCase
04-07-2009, 7:19 PM
This article certainly stinks, so could it be the rotting of the antis?

I would fully expect the anti's to lash out like a wounded animal at this time. Expect one heck of a fight until it finally dies. This means two things:

A) We have a major fight ahead of us.
B) When we win we will most likely be able to put he ridiculous gun control myth to bed for once and for all.

Regards,


SwissFluCase

bulgron
04-07-2009, 8:10 PM
The shooting didn't happen in New York City.

Yes, sorry, that one slipped by me.

But it does raise the question, why did the article bring up the permit process in New York City?

cassius
04-08-2009, 12:20 AM
"journalism"

bulgron
04-08-2009, 10:01 AM
Did they purposefully omit any reference to all of the positive things that have happened because of guns? Such as CCW citizens breaking up robberies? Individuals protecting themselves and others?

Also, the guy in San Francisco who killed the cops, he supposedly had an illegal AK-47, yet he also had a legal pistol. He was in illegal possession right? This article is BS.

Wasn't that guy a felon? In which case, no weapon that he was in possession of was legal.

nicki
04-08-2009, 11:31 AM
The reason there stories are failing to get attention IMHO is that people are worried about the economy and many people are seeing these as a side effect of the economy.

In fact, if I was as low as our opponents I wold blame Obama for the murders of those cops in Pittsburgh because he is the one that was saying about how he wanted to ban guns.

In fact, if we wanted to be shrill like our opponents, we could accuse Obama of wanting to start a civil war just like the British did in 1775 at lexington and Concord.

Nicki