More Hysterics

This time from the Washington Post, because Virginia is considering lifting its gun rationing law. They tell us to “get ready for mayhem” and say:

We hope reason prevails, and the state Senate kills the repeal. Because if Mr. Lingamfelter’s bill is enacted, here’s what police and prosecutors expect: Crack dealers in New York will pay 21-year-olds with no criminal records to buy dozens of Glock pistols at Virginia gun shops.

And to top it all off, we link to the queen of screaming, raving, mad hysterics, Abby Spangler.

Unbelievable Article in the Philly Inquirer

One of the sad facts, as we approach the day that the ban on firearms in National Parks expires, is that we have to listen to the hysterical machinations of the media. I’ve seen some bad ones, but this one from the Philadelphia Inquirer takes the cake:

Whatever the gun rights of law-abiding park visitors, having loaded firearms in the national parks certainly will change the experience for everyone.

Every day could seem like the start of deer hunting season with people strolling the parks armed. That has to be a frightening prospect for families and others who aren’t accustomed to being around guns. And there’s also the risk of accidental shootings.

Like the start of deer season? Because we’re just going to shoot our guns all over eh? Does the Inquirer staff not wonder why this isn’t a problem in state parks, where people can legally carry guns, and have been able to for a few years now? How many times do they have to make dire predictions, only to have them turn out to be gravely wrong? I think this more than anything has destroyed the credibility of the gun control movement in the eyes of the public.

Mixed Media Reaction to Virginia Rationing Repeal

The Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk seems to be having a cow at the idea that the Virginia legislature might repeal their one-gun-a-month law:

Taken together, the gun show loophole and repeal of one handgun a month could easily be called something else: The Strawman’s Bill of Rights.

Except that straw purchasing will be just as illegal after this bill is repealed as it was before it was repealed. How many people have been prosecuted under the one-gun-a-month law anyway? And for all their talk about the “iron pipeline,” I don’t hear East Coast mayors complaining any less loud about Virginia being a source of crime guns. The law is useless and infringes on a constitutional right. Get rid of it.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch seems to be OK with the idea:

One-gun-a-month served a practical function. But it also compromised important principles by infringing on the right to bear arms enshrined in the Constitution. Like Del. Joe Morrissey, who asked whether the law truly inconviences anyone, advocates of the measure stress that one gun a month should be enough for anyone; no one “needs” to buy more than that. Perhaps. On the other hand, rights are not supposed to be constrained by what some people think other people need. It could be argued that newspapers do not need to publish more than once a week, that nobody needs to buy more than two books a month, that the faithful do not need to attend church more than twice a year, or that no woman should need more than one abortion in her lifetime. Those are not decisions government should make.

Wait a minute, this is from a MSM news source? Do I need to go read that again? I’m going to guess their editorial board won’t be on the Brady Christmas Card list after that one.

It Takes Some Nerve

The Philadelphia Inquirer is noting the growing momentum of the anti-gun movement in Pennsylvania, and taking shots at the only man who ever went after straw purchasers in a big way in Philadelphia: Tom Corbett.

So they are willing to cast aside someone who’s actually tried to do something about criminal misuse of firearms, by actually prosecuting criminals, and advocate replacing that person with someone who will just pass more laws the City won’t bother to enforce. Brilliant!

Due Process

The Editorial Board of the Philadelphia Inquirer would presumably be against denying suspected terrorists of their fourth amendment rights, fifth amendment rights and sixth amendment rights, without due process of law. But they are absolutely fine with, and even advocate, denying American Citizens their Second Amendment right without due process.

Debate over Home Protection in Western New York

While the rest of the country is busy giving homeowners more leeway, it would seem the Buffalo, New York media is trying to stir a debate about whether home defense with deadly force should be allowed at all:

Cherry, a soft-spoken and polite Army veteran, said he was protecting himself from a home burglary at about 11:20 a.m. Jan. 21, when he fired 15 shots from a military-style assault rifle at the vehicle of a fleeing intruder.

OK, that’s a legitimate prosecutable offense, and the fact that it was his step-daughter probably isn’t going to play well in front of a jury. But this shouldn’t be a debate, and I see no reason to drag other, legitimate home defense cases in with this one:

• Willie J. Carson, 52, shot Parrish C. Spencer Jr., 22, in the chest Jan. 20, after the younger man broke into Carson’s 25th Street home and went upstairs, Niagara Falls police said.

No charges have been filed against Carson, but police have said the case has been turned over to the Niagara County district attorney’s office for further investigation.

• An 82-year-old Niagara Falls man, apparently scared and confused after a group of teens attempted to break into his home Jan. 15, fired one shotgun blast at police after they entered the home and found him hiding behind a closed door.

No one was hit, and the elderly man was not charged.

• Charles E. Gidney Sr., an off-duty Buffalo police officer, shot and killed one intruder, Reno D. Sayles, 36, and seriously wounded another inside his Buffalo home last April 22.

In his statement to police, Gidney said he grabbed his handgun, pointed it at the two men, one wearing a ski mask, and ordered them to “freeze.” Instead, they rushed at him, and he fired several shots, he said.

With the exception of the old man mistakenly shooting at police, all of these look pretty legitimate, even for New York. Fortunately, the Buffalo News goes on to describe the legal distinctions when it comes to using deadly force to defend the home. I think it’s OK for papers to cover this, but it’s not really a “debate” per se. I would find it hard to believe juries even in New York will convict people for shooting home invaders. Shooting at someone fleeing is a different matter.

Anti-Gun Paper Has Fantastic Success With Subscriber Model

Jacob points out that New York Newsday, a Long Island based paper that is very anti-gun, is having some stellar success with their new online subscriber model. A revenue busting thirty five members have subscribed to the paper so far. Hell, I could probably raise more revenue than that for this blog if I put up a tip jar and begged for donations. Maybe they should have just started a blog.

Problems of Amateur Journalism

Freedom of the press is not absolute. Professional journalists generally know their limits. Apparently the guys behind the ACORN sting operation didn’t, and are now facing felony charges.

The FBI, alleging a plot to wiretap Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s office in downtown New Orleans, arrested four people Monday, including James O’Keefe, a conservative filmmaker whose undercover videos at ACORN field offices severely damaged the advocacy group’s credibility.

FBI Special Agent Steven Rayes alleges that O’Keefe aided and abetted two others, Joseph Basel and Robert Flanagan, who dressed up as employees of a telephone company and attempted to interfere with the office’s telephone system.

A fourth person, Stan Dai, was accused of aiding and abetting Basel and Flanagan. All four were charged with entering fedral property under false pretenses with the intent of committing a felony.

While I’m sure Landrieu has skeletons in her closet she’d not like seeing the light of day, there are good reasons why it’s unlawful to tap a Senator’s phone or bug an office. Senators, particularly those who sit on some key oversight committees, have access to information that’s sensitive for national security purposes. O’Keefe did good work taking down ACORN, but he went too far here. He’ll be lucky if he beats a felony rap on this one.

Unfiskable

Bitter and I were talking yesterday about how the media seems to have largely moved away from the gun issue, and how much harder it’s getting to find media articles that are interesting, establish a pattern, or otherwise lend themselves to commentary or fisking. It’s actually making finding things to blog about more difficult, unfortunately. But every once in a while, I still see an article that may not follow a pattern, or be interesting, but that is so badly written, ignorant, and just overall poorly written that you can’t even really fisk it, because you just don’t know where to begin.

This is one such article. It’s just wrong in so many ways I don’t even know where to start. It’s not even on the same planet the issue is on at the moment. I’ve seen good arguments made against us, this is not among them.