Posted on 03/12/2010 9:16:11 AM PST by neverdem
If you want to know how obsessed The New York Times is with gun control in Virginia, take a look at the Web version of its story on John Patrick Bedell, the ill-fated Pentagon shooter.
In one of its first stories on the subject, the writers shoe-horned the gun control issue into it to no seeming purpose. Of course, the Times did have a purpose: slapping the backward yahoos down South.
“Virginia, which has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation and has been pushing to expand gun rights, has been criticized lately by gun control advocates,” the Times declared. “The state’s General Assembly approved a bill last month allowing people to carry concealed weapons in bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and the House of Delegates voted to end a 17-year-old measure barring people from buying more than one handgun a month.”
Problem was, the story didn’t report where Bedell bought his guns and ammo. Nor did the story reveal whether the reporters asked and couldn’t find out. And it didn’t report that Bedell was from California until after it fired its shot about Virginia’s gun laws.
The Associated Press divulged that Bedell purchased guns and ammo at a gun range in Sacramento. The Washington Post found a store in Silver Spring. Geography lesson for the Times: Those cities are in California and Maryland, which have “some of the most strict gun laws in the nation,” to borrow the Times’ phraseology. They also have some of the nuttiest liberal public officials in the nation. Anyway, the Times published information about Bedell’s purchases in California a day or so after it misfired on Virginia’s gun laws.
The Times writers may not have known where Bedell bought his guns and ammo when they filed their report. But that invites the obvious question of why they mentioned Virginia’s gun laws. Answer: To pin blame for the shootings on the state’s gun laws, which aren’t strict enough either for the Times or New York City’s liberal mayor, who has spent the last several years blaming crime in his polyglot and benighted city on Virginia.
Here, for instance, is a recent salvo from the Times editorial page: “Richmond lawmakers have callously rejected a gun control proposal sought as a memorial to the 32 students slain in the Virginia Tech massacre. Once more, state senators proved more beholden to the gun lobby’s propaganda and campaign money than to public safety.”
So, because Virginia’s lawmakers do not agree with the Times’ seize-the-guns ideology they are “callous.” And now, this latest little dig: Those crazy Virginians want to let law-abiding citizens carry weapons! No wonder a maniac shot up the Pentagon.
Virginians aren’t “callous” or crazy, of course, and the Times deserves to be called a few things itself. “Left wing” would be a good start, followed by “hopelessly biased.” That is why it publishes ridiculous editorials, and why it permits reporters to editorialize about subjects they know nothing about.
Of course, the Times is perfectly within its rights to editorialize about guns in Virginia. It can permit reporters to editorialize by inserting slickly worded anti-gun propaganda into their stories. But they shouldn’t call the latter news.
And maybe the Times should holster its rhetorical revolver. Virginians who actually know something about guns and crime can debate the issue without its help.
If you want to gainsay the NY Times, don't make the Washington Post's story about John Patrick Bedell your first link.
Hey NooYawk, just build a wall around your rotting mess and go to Hell! Don’t blame your barbarian problems on decent Americans!
How does the Times feel about being owned by a billionaire from Mexico? I hear Mexico has stringent gun laws - but interestingly, no one follows those laws. From what I’ve heard, pretty much all of the laws in Mexico are not followed.
We in the Commonwealth of Virginia do not have “lax gun laws.” The State of New York is “lax” on protecting its citizens’ Constitutional right to keep an bear arms.
Hence it is much safer to live in Virginia than in New York, where armed criminals are quite safe in assuming that their law-abiding victims will be unarmed.
“We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the
first step is necessarily - given the political realities
— going to be very modest .
So then we’ll have to start working again to strengthen
the law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and
maybe again and again.
Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf
but with a slice.
Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the
United States — is going to take time .
The first problem is to slow down the increasing number
of guns being produced and sold in this country.
The second problem is to get handguns registered.
And the final problem is to make the possession of *all*
handguns and *all* handgun ammunition — except for the
military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed
sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally
illegal.”
— Pete Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc.
( “The New Yorker”, July 26, 1976 )
Pete Shields is dead and so is his dream.
***— Pete Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc.***
Why did Pete Shields rage? Because his son was murdered with a handgun by black muslims (Zebra killers) in San Francisco. The muslims also hacked people to death with a machete and eventually murdered about 280 people in the area.
When and where were the muslims murdering with machetes? Any links would be appreciated as I just posted a related thread:
***When and where were the muslims murdering with machetes? Any links would be appreciated as I just posted a related thread:***
Well, it was right here but the page has disappeared.
http://thelastcrusade.org/2009/11/07/280-christians-killed-by-muslims-in-california/
***When and where were the muslims murdering with machetes? ***
Years ago I read a book on the ZEBRA KILLERS. It told how some homeless people were hacked to death and never identified because of the violence of the attacks.
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.