Here we go again: Media and the Chicago Area Shootings

J

Joe Portale

New member
Just a short one, and sort of a heads up. Did anyone else hear on the news the comment that the crazy guy who shot those people used an "assualt weapon"? The national news broadcast that I caught stated that the perp (forgot his name) used a "semi-automatic assualt pistol". Okay, I give, I believe that the bad guy used a run of the mill, semi -auto like a Ruger or Glock. So, now they media is calling auto-loading pistols "assualt weapons". When will these lies stop?

Joe P.
Tucson, Arizona Territory
 
Joe. This may be a bit off thread, but maybe it'll make you feel a bit better. This is from the Arizona Daily (RED) Star, Mon. July 5, 1999.
I'm just going to put small parts on because it is too long for my two blind fingers.

AMERICANS SAY PRESS SHOULD PUT A LID ON IT
NASHVILLE, Tenn (AP)
There is further evidence that the American public is getting fed up with the news media.
A majority, 53 percent, of those questioned by the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University believe the press has too much freedom. That's an increase of 15 percentage points since 1997.....
....The poll indentified freedom of speech as one of the most cherished of constitutional rights, followed by freedom of religion and the Second Amendments right to keep and bear arms.....
....Freedom of the press took the hardest hit in the survey, which McMasters said indicates "the news media is in deep trouble with the American public."....
Here is the scary part.
Only 65 percent sais newspaper should be able to publish freely without government approval of a story-down from 80 percent in the 1997 survey. Dumb a$$ sheeple. Can you believe that? 35 percent of the people surveyed want government control of the press? We are in deep do do folks. Can the net be next?
Paul B.
 
Paul B.,
While I dont know what the questions on that poll were, Id lean toward the possibility that the abuses and lack of honesty by the press has brought this change in view. Id also think that the people would like an ability to curb the presses abuses and the capability to redress grievances and that is thoughts of that nature that they are voting for, not necessarily government approval of reporting.....at least I hope so....fubsy.
 
Back to the topic as posted. I just got finished reading a reuters dispatch from Bloomington Indiana where this Smith first came to police notice a year ago for handing out racist literature around Bloomington and the Indiana University campus. The did not arrest him because he did not "seem to present violent tendencies."

They also quote the mayor of Bloomington with the same inaccurate garbage about using "an assault weapon"..."a semi automatic pistol". His weapons were later described as a 380 and a 22 pistol. The new spin has begun. Any nutcase on a killing spree is caused by "free access to assault weapons" and apparently anything that can shoot more than two shots without reloading is now an assault weapon.

Divert the public's attention away from the real issue of a dangerous, racist young man with no moral compunctions against cruising around Illinois and Indiana killing people from his car because he hates their races. Pin it on the guns.

By the way, since many of the assaults were from his vehicle, wasn't he using a lightly armored, mobile weapons platform. Shouldn't the government save us from those "mobile weapons platforms" used for these drive by shootings?

Rant mode off!

Jim in IN


------------------
-- TANSTAAFL
 
The national media is spinning this as way to push hate crime laws. The Chicago media is spinning it toward gun control.
 
On the news tonight I was pleased to hear the wife of the murdered coach say "It's not about guns, it's about hate."
Thank God for a little common sense. What a shame people have to die and get injured for such a stupid reason.
 
You're correct, the media spin is focusing on the "hate crime" issue.

Forgive me, but isn't a murder still a murder when it involves race, religion, sexual orientation, or ANY other motive?

If you were white and murdered your wife's lover, who was black, could this constitute a "hate crime"? If it was, could your life sentence all of a sudden be extended (or bumped to the death penalty) because of the "hate crime" status? And what about the black punk who carjacks a white couple and pops them with his nine? Isn't that a "hate crime"? And what about a Catholic guy who murders a Jewish guy, couldn't that be construed as a "hate crime" too?

The plain and simple truth is that murder is a capital crime with laws and punishment long since established. Allowing special designations of such crimes can lead to some interesting dominos to fall. But this special designation is where the socialists are taking us.

You already see it in the media, after Waco, Ruby Ridge, OKC, Columbine, and the latest Smith murders. Focusing attention not on the criminal actions of the individual, but the group (or root cause) that may have provoked this criminal thinking. Be it Freemen, militias, white supremicists, or whatever.

Remembering that all men are created equal, and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, this "hate crime" designation could lead to more demonizing of more recognized and established (and legitimate) groups like the NRA or GOA (for example). Then give reason to go after the members of such groups as potentially dangerous to society

If the specific group does not abide by the socialist thinking or play by the socialist rules, why not make scapegoats out of them? Make people hate them by association? Isn't this the intention of the socialist's agenda on making "hate crime" an issue? The media has already demonized the NRA for the Columbine incident by association (guns=murder), haven't they? What could be next? What if a murderer just happened to be a dues paying member of NRA or GOA (which wouldn't seem likely), couldn't he be labeled, "fanatical pro-gun"? Giving way for a different attack on gunowners...hmmm.

Are we following this trend closely enough to protect our individual rights from a fronted attack, just because we may be associated with someone or something that has been labeled bad by the media? Keep your eyes wide open, and watch your backs too.
 
The only way we can counter attack the media's assault on our commen sense is to speak up when the opportunity presents itself. When you hear a conversation going on about gun related incidents make sure you add a little common sense to it. Continue to email your politicians. Not just when there is an issue but when you think they've done a good job.
The media can only be effective if the general public is uninformed. It's our job to inform them.
On a side note: As respectable gun owners we need to present a respectable immage. I have seen so many gun owners that look like they haven't shaven our washed since the Viet Nam war. I don't want to offend anyone but if we look like degenerates the public will associate gun ownership with bums who are ready to kill.
We also have to watch what we say. If someone asks what you would do if someone broke into your house don't answer "I'll blast his ass into next week". Always let people know that shooting someone would be the last thing you do. When people are comfortable with our princibles they will respect our opinions.
Most people are suprised when they learn that I CCW. The ussual comment is "you don't look like the type who would carry a gun". When I ask what does someone who carries a weapon look like they kinda shrug their shoulders. By the way, I ussually dress casual (dockers, polo shirt, etc...)

The bottom line is we need to be concerned how people view us before we share our idea's. The media is only effective if it's audience is uninformed. Let's spread the word and be heard.
Please forgive my spelling.

------------------
"It is easier to get out of jail then it is a morgue"
Live long and defend yourself!
John 3:16



[This message has been edited by leedesert (edited July 06, 1999).]
 
Paul B. and All,

Yes, I saw that article about people believing that the Freedom of the Press should be limited. As much as the press ticks me off of late, I can't agree with it. Freedomn of the Press is rooted in the idea that the press is a open forum for political discourse and dissidence. It was also established as a watch dog of the courts. To keep trials open thereby keep judges honest. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. What would take to get the press back on track as guardians of the Constitution and stop trying to form social policy?

I also have a very low opinion of people, (did someone call them sheeple?) that keep looking to the government to solve their problems? Jeez, have we sunk so low that we need a big brother to hold our hands for everything? Keep an open eye.

Joe
 
This was the lead in (before commercial and subsequent story) on the news at lunch:

White racist killer got guns from gun dealer
cut to commercial (and knowing they lost some listeners due to commercial)..
back to story..

"Thompson, the white supremecist Illinois gunman tried to buy guns from a licenced gundealer last month, where he was turned down. A week later he bought 2 guns within 3 days from an unlicenced gundealer."

Ok, so now we have "gundealer" associated with this clown's evil actions. My question is: What is an unlicenced gundealer?

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
My question is: What is an unlicenced gundealer?

Anyone who sells any gun without the benefit (heh) of an FFL.

Just one more step towards banning private transfers, IMNSHO. Instead of "individual sellers," we're now "unlicensed dealers."

------------------
You can't get something for nothing,
You can't have freedom for free.
--Neil Peart
 
Is a drug pusher an unlicensed pharmacist?

Not knowing the circumstances of the transaction that transpired between Smith and this "unlicensed gun dealer", the question of whether or not anything illegal took place is still open.
But facts and truth seem to be a commodity that is in short supply with the media today.
 
In any event, no gun law would have prevented him from doing what he did. If he couldn't have gotten the wimpy guns that he (apparently illegally) did, he could have done much more damage by just running people down with his car. At least he didn't have one of those Suburban Assault Vehicles :)
 
A hate crime is a terrorist act calculated to suppress the group of which the direct victims are members.

No, shooting your (white)wife's (black)lover is not a hate crime. Shooting blacks at random just because they are black is a hate crime. The important thing is that there are two victims; the person actually shot, and each of the individual people now afraid to leave their houses because they share the target characteristic with the first victim.
 
EWOK: I would like to offer a slight correction to your defination of a hate crime...

I was raised to believe that ALL crimes are HATE crimes... Somebody will always get hurt either financially, emotionally or physically!

To debate which category a specific act of terrorism can be placed in is just the same as debating the effectiveness of a poison (Dahmer), a knife (OJ), or a rope (Hillside Strangler) vs an "Assault Weapon".

[This message has been edited by antiUSSA (edited July 06, 1999).]
 
http://www.starnews.com/news/citystate/99/july/0706ap_guns.html

One weapon is reported to be a Bryco .380, a cheap semi-auto handgun. The other is a .22 pistol.

I told my wife "this is why I have a handgun." She says "but why it wouldn't have made any difference." It took this idiot how many miles and how long to reign his terror on the public. What could any of us have done if we were nearby and in a place where we could have done something?

Shot out the tires, then him as he got out. Maybe, maybe not. But I certainly would have defended my life and those around me instead of standing their or ducking for cover.

Also I did see on the news, the mayor of Bloomington, IN was saying how this was done by someone with easy access to semi-automatic assualt handguns. There's a new one for ya... He was having a hard time getting any words out though, you could tell he was genuinely chocked with emotion.

------------------
Peace...
Keith

If the 2nd is antiquated, what will happen to the rest.
"the right to keep and bear arms."

[This message has been edited by KAM_Indianapolis (edited July 06, 1999).]
 
We have no free press. Except for the Spotlight Newspaper, the press is controlled by the corporate state . The investigative reporters of the period through the sixties ,with their blue collar roots and desire to find the truth, have disappeared. A few are found on shortwave radio, Chuck Harder is a good example. A free and independent press is as important as the second amendment.Proof? Look how the corporate media lambasts gun owners and firearm ownership. THe media is killing our cause every day.The sheeple follow the party line in every newspaper in the land and , except for a columnnist like Charles Reese,the majority of columnists are hacks. On this latest shooting(s),the govenment run media will use the subject of race hate to further their aims of more control on the already dumb down masses of all races in this country.T he irony is that the elites of Western Europe and America could care less about any race of people. THese evil leaders all use the Hegalian- Communist Doctrine of creating a problem and then finding a solution(theirs) for a problem. Voila! I think we all know what their solution for this "racist" society will be. Welcome to the Global Plantation!
 
This incident will only strengthened my resolve to keep my guns no matter what. There are heavily armed racist a$$ holes out there who will blow me away just because I look different than they are. I will not give them the satisfaction to take me out without a fierce fight! They want to push me to the ocean? They'll have to speak to my buddies first: Colt AR-15 and .357 S&W; these guys talk with FMJs and HPs, not useless words.

Johannes
 
Ewok, help us explore the 'hate crime' spin, please. That is what I am hearing around here - that Clinton is now using this incident to push for more 'hate crime' legislation. It simply looks like more pandering for votes.

I think I can understand how you might differentiate between being attacked just because you are, say, green. And, that is different from being attacked for your money.

But, so what? I'm Caucasian, as is my family. How do you think I'll feel if someone from another race attacks my son for money and injures him, but is punished to a lesser extent than someone from that race who attacks another Caucasian because he is white? Either attack is despicable. And, certainly, we should denounce any violence, and certainly absurd violence just to strike out against a class of people.

But, to create an entirely new class of crime? Which, to my mind, trivializes other violence only because of the perceived state of mind of the perpetrator?

We should ostracize racists, no matter what color they are. But, at least at this point, I see little or no logic supporting the calls for more 'hate crime' legislation. Help me out here, please.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top