The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old April 6, 2009, 03:09 AM   #1
MissouriShooter
Member
 
Join Date: December 8, 2008
Location: Eastern Missouri.
Posts: 51
In the past couple weeks ...

Four men used weapons, some of which were legally purchased handguns of .45 and 9mm caliber and a few long guns and all of which were of referred to as "assault" or "high powered" weapons by the media but none of which were actually, legally, of that type, to kill more than two dozen innocent victims, including seven police officers.

-- Lovelle Mixon, a career criminal in Oakland CA, used an illegally acquired weapon to kill three police officers when they tried to apprehend him for a rape. He has been praised by Oakland citizens as a hero because he resisted his arrest. They even held a parade in his honor. God Bless America, huh?

-- Robert Stewart entered an unsecured elderly rehab center in North Carolina and murdered eight people and injured others, then was shot by a brave local police officer who ended the rampage. Subsequent investigation revealed that Stewart had been hunting for his ex-wife, who had gone into hiding at the home where she was an employee.

-- Jiverly Wong, an ethnic-Chinese from Vietnam, who had difficulties learning English although a US resident since the 1990's, went on a shooting jag at an immigration center in New York State, killing 14 people taking a citizenship class. Wing had also had difficulty holding a job and had been quoted as hating America. Wong killed himself before police could get to him.

-- Richard Poplawski, a 23-year old washout from USMC boot camp for fighting with a DI, a member of Stormfront, a neo-Nazi group, and who had a paranoid delusion that the government was going to take away his weapons, got into an argument with his Mother, with whom he lived, about his dog peeing on the carpet. Mom called the police and Richard shot three of them dead with his rifle. He used an AK-47, a battle rifle sold to anyone who can pass a NICS check in the US and afford the freight, but not in any semi- or full-auto configuration. That's been illegal for sale in the US since 1934.

That's 75 years ago. Trust me: Poplawski didn't have an assault weapon.

FYI, AP reported "hundreds of rounds fired" but the police, who should know, say "maybe 70". Guess who's got an agenda?

Let's look at this recent spate of idiocy.

First is the assignment of the term "assault rifle" to any gun, if it's black. That's BS. An assault rifle has to be able to fire more than one round with a single trigger pull. That's the law. You cannot buy one legally in the US without going through an intense and ongoing personal investigation, that includes a check on your inventory anytime BATF wants, 24/7/365. None of the guys above could have passed, nor could they have afforded the special license it requires.

Therefore, if they used automatic weapons, it's 100% likely they acquired them illegally.

Second is the way the MSM reported the weapons as "high powered"...if I could throw a rock at 1200 fps, my arm would be illegal, if the MSM had their way. I am hard-pressed to think of any weapon that fires a projectile at less than that velocity, including most BB guns.

Which is why some BB guns, including those used in the Olympics, were on the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban.

Third, all of these guys were NUTS! They're no more representative of the vast numbers of gun owners in the US than were Charles Whitman or Lee Harvey Oswald. And if the USMC had not done Poplawski the favor of giving him a Discharge for the Convenience of the Service instead of a DD or a BCD, he wouldn't have been allowed by law to purchase a firearm. He'd have never gotten past the NICS check.

No, there's no way that you can tell when someone will flip and do something stupid, kill with whatever's at hand. That includes a butter knife. Better make your silverware illegal, too, huh?

ABC TV recently ran a report that claimed there's 250,000,000 registered guns in the US. Well, since there's no gun registration in the US, with the exception of three states, that's a questionable statement.

But if it's true, in the past two weeks, 249, 999, 993 legally acquired handguns and rifles in the US did NOT kill anyone.

Will ABC report it that way? Bet not.
MissouriShooter is offline  
Old April 6, 2009, 05:53 AM   #2
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
I think the press should do a better job with the terminology. They are after all, reporters. The fact that they act like they dont know the difference between a semi, and automatic..is distressing. They were around when the Clinton ban was debated, they talk to cops, they read reports. They KNOW the difference. Geraldo and Rather and Greta....know the difference.
So i assume it's to sway public opinion. Coupled with the recent loose 90% statistic which was obviously doctored, and perjurious testimony out of those we should respect, on capitol hill regarding same 90%...I have to think public opinion is being swayed purposefully for some reason. It's a bit sad to watch. But what's worse, and what i take as totally hypocritical...is that since the 90% number had been admitted as misleading, the news has almost totally stopped talking about cartel violence in Mexico, and it spilling into the US. As if the shell game about guns from America, was the only reason the story was being pushed. And the violence is only violence, if it can be used to some political gain.:barf:
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old April 6, 2009, 12:30 PM   #3
chris in va
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 26, 2004
Location: Louisville KY
Posts: 12,527
Quote:
I think the press should do a better job with the terminology. They are after all, reporters
Most aren't reporters, but embellishers (if there's such a word).
chris in va is offline  
Old April 6, 2009, 12:40 PM   #4
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,788
Quote:
Therefore, if they used automatic weapons, it's 100% likely they acquired them illegally.
Not true. There are many people in many states with legal full-auto weapons. Oddly enough, I've never heard of a crime perpetrated by one of these evil people with their completely unnecessary and demon possessed automatic weapons.


Quote:
Third, all of these guys were NUTS!
Of course they're nuts. I don't think anybody disputes that point. The dispute is about how you screen the nuts without banning guns all together. The "antis" will say that you can't and so you should ban guns. Never mind that the criminals don't care about the illegalities of their activity.


A lot of that other stuff that you're concerned with amounts more to "creative license" than an organized agenda.

Sure, there's an organized agenda to ban guns but an awful lot of things that get ascribed to those within that agenda are simply some local news guy trying to make a story sound more dramatic. A large portion of it is also based on the descriptions of "witnesses" who are notoriously unreliable in the first place and most have probably never touched a real live gun.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old April 7, 2009, 09:33 AM   #5
preston
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2009
Posts: 12
in the PA shooting the police and reporters referenced the shooter as an "actor", what is up with that? does each jurisdiction have their own terminology? and as far as the press or "reporters" go I think they have become more or less just script readers and publishers. there seems to be a huge willingness to just "report" whatever is fed to them by authorities. the "press" has become hollywood. more of the press seem to be concerned about how they look on camera than exactly what they are saying on camera.
preston is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07580 seconds with 9 queries