Posted on 11/30/2005 8:35:54 AM PST by dead
On Monday, a 27-year-old crackhead loser, Allen Cameron, shot his second cop in two weeks. The first cop, Wiener Philippe, shot November 19th, lived. The second cop, Dillon Stewart, died six hours after he’d been shot.
The common thread between these two shootings was the 27-year-old crackhead loser, who despite a long career record of traffic violations, high speed car chases, assault, resisting arrest, and failure to appear in court, was walking the streets a free man.
Within hours of Officer Stewart’s death, the NY Post launched a massive anti-gun campaign. Despite having worked unsuccessfully for hours in an attempt to save Officer Stewart from his injuries, Dr. Robert Kurtz (co-director of trauma and critical care at Kings County Hospital) was able to whip up an impassioned editorial begging the Federal Government to tighten gun control laws.
“Hopefully, the death of Officer Stewart will reignite the people's passion to bring the gun lobby to heel,” he wrote. The NY Post printed his position, with a brief overview of his medical career. The Post neglected to mention Dr. Kurtz’s political side – he is a founding father of “Doctors Against Murder,” a ridiculously-named anti-gun lobbying organization.
Today, the campaign went into overdrive, with a front page picture of an 8-year-old boy who died after being shot in the crossfire of drug dealers’ turf war. While such tear-jerking tragedy is pretty normal fodder for the front page of the Post, this one was a bit unusual, considering that the poor young boy was shot and killed two years ago!
Still, nothing like a dead kid to get the juices flowing. The front page also featured the debut of the Post’s flashy and scary new “The Gun Menace” logo, which will now identify all stories that highlight the evil nature of this monster. Just for fun, it also featured another monster with a long history of terrorizing the citizens of NYC.
Inside the paper, the mother of the young boy killed two-years ago gets a full page editorial, with a sad picture of her happy son in a graduation cap. It is titled, “Let's Get Rid Of Guns That Stole My Son Away.” You’d think she’d be furious at the criminals who brutally murdered her boy, but you’d be wrong.
I don't have bitterness toward those young men who took my son from me. I even know two of them. One of them grew up with me in the neighborhood. It was just a bunch of young men with no direction trying to prove themselves. The real problem, I think, is the guns. If those kids hadn't had guns, they could have had their fight without killing my son.
Among the many other articles on gun fun in the Post today, you can find Fed Law Shackling NYPD Bid To Track Weapons, which has some interesting points. The article cites the opinion of Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He thinks that a law which prevents the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) from using federal money to provide information on legal gun purchases in one state to another state is responsible for shootings like Officer Stewart. The BATF spokesman, Joseph Greene, also doesn’t like the fact that there is some federal money out there that is not coming his way.
“Straw purchasers buy guns in states where laws make it easy, and then resell them to criminals in such places as New York, which has stricter laws,” Greene said.
Not mentioned though, is how utterly unrelated to the case at hand his opinion is. Another article exposes the contradiction, without tying them together. It’s the Tragic History of the Evil Gun What Killed Officer Stewart.
This article exposes the utter futility of the very gun laws they are advocating! The gun was purchased legally by a law abiding citizen in Florida. Three years after he purchased the gun, it was stolen from his car, which is a crime in Florida and elsewhere. The gun laid low for five years after that, just looking for the opportunity to start firing upon innocents everywhere.
It got the chance in June 2005, when the guy it owned was asked to put out his cigarette in a nightclub in Brooklyn. The guy, Damian Henry, obviously not looking for trouble, blew smoke in the manager’s face and was thrown out of the club. Seeing its long-awaited opportunity, the gun jumped from his pocket and shot out five windows of the club. His unsuspecting owner, Damian Henry, remains free on bail.
This was, apparently, not the only uppity gun Damian Henry owned though. A 38-caliber revolver found in Henry’s apartment shot a cop in 2002. Damian was acquited in a trial, being innocent and all, but the gun was sent away forever.
We still don’t know the background of the gun Allan Cameron used to shoot Officer Phillipe, but it was not the same one he used to kill Officer Stewart a couple weeks later. I have no proof, but I’m suspecting that it too was obtained outside the framework of legal gun purchases and was not legally carried by the crackhead scumbag. There ought to be a law against breaking the law.
I have no idea what is really behind the NY Post's sudden push for additional federal gun control laws. They seemed awfully prepared to get it rolling just hours after Officer Stewart's death. Editorials, graphics, research, all ready to roll at the right opportunity.
I suspect we are looking at a revival of the recently moribund gun control issue. It's pretty disappointing to see the NY Post leading the charge though.
Sickening that the Post would go left on this issue.
They already have the Sullivan Law. Out here we have lots of guns and we don't shoot each other.
And don't forget what Rupert Murdoch did last week on Faux News for the greenies. One biased left-wing slant on global warming for an hour with NO rebuttal.
Oh.., G-d, Da**!!! This is why I no longer believe in democratic representation. What kind of drugs is THIS woman doing to end up so twisted and mentally confused? These people are emotional children and should not have any input into important matters.
Murdoch paid a couple of million to help sponsor the Democrat convention in 2000. He also directly donated to Gore. And he reined in his conservative writers through most of the summer and fall. It was also noticeable that the London Times favored Gore during that period.
After election day there was a noticeable switch. I would attribute all this to the fact that clinton used the regulatory agencies to block Murdoch's satellite plans and access of Fox News to many cable outlets. He must have been threatened that Gore would do the same unless Murdoch backed him.
That news is now old, but since you missed it, here's a Newsmax article which mentions Murdoch's support of gore and the Dem convention, based partly on a Newsweak article:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/12/161017.shtml
Re: Your tagline. If unwanted babies become rare enough (as a result of successful abortion practices), should they then deserve federal protection under the "endangered species" act?
Is this J. Ruppert Moloch's paper? A "conservative" newspaper speaking??
The NY Post never, ever came out in favor of Al Gore in the 2000 election.
The fact that conservatives have benefitted from his business decisions is likely of little concern to him.
I don't know what business considerations have lead him to this anti-gun crusade. I'd imagine he thinks it will help him sell newspapers in NYC.
Since the NY Post endorsed Schumer for re-elction, whose American Conservative Union lifetime rating is 6, and with gun control being at least first among equals of Schumer's far left political positions, I'm not surprised, just disappointed that it's become another birdcage liner. The question is why.
Since Lachlan Murdoch left, they have gone left.
The New York Post isn't conservative by any serious definition of the word. It is actually "neo-conservative" at its core (much like the rest of Murdoch's media empire) -- which means it is rooted in the same quasi-Marxist New York City political philosophy that is espoused by so many of the prominent neo-conservatives over the years (Leo Strauss, Irving/William Kristol, Richard Perle, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Norman/John Podhoretz, etc.).
I wasn't aware of that.
It's not all that unusual for newspapers with one political bent to endorse a candidate from the opposing side of the aisle -- especially in races like Schumer's last one that are basically uncontested.
Did you read any of the news back then? Did you read the article I linked? (The relevant part is just above the middle of the story.)
Murdoch sponsored a big fund raiser in NYC for Gore. He donated several thousand personally. He spent several million to help support the DNC convention that year.
No, technically the Post did not endorse Gore. And they retained their mostly conservative writers. But somebody put a leash on them, so on balance the newspaper wrote more favorably of gore that summer and fall than they did about Bush. You couldn't miss it back then if you were watching.
It was also around that time that Murdoch sent his son on a mission to China, to negotiate a deal. As a result, when the US spyplane incident broke, the Post was largely silent. They won't criticize China for business reasons.
Sure. Murdoch is a business man, first, last, and always. Money is the name of the game.
But the Post has often been useful, because they will print stories the left-wing press would prefer to ignore. In other words, they aren't reliable, but they have often been helpful, if and when they feel like it. Certainly a lot better than the Times and the Daily News.
Sure. Murdoch is a business man, first, last, and always. Money is the name of the game.
But the Post has often been useful, because they will print stories the left-wing press would prefer to ignore. In other words, they aren't reliable, but they have often been helpful, if and when they feel like it. Certainly a lot better than the Times and the Daily News.
You need to lay off the crack.
I think the Post's ciculation is up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.