Thursday, June 08, 2006

We're the Only Ones "Not Right" Enough

He spent his whole career enforcing the law. Now a former Bethlehem Police Captain is on the other side of it for allegedly holding a loaded handgun to the head of another officer...

A short time later, it's alleged McLaughlin pulled it out again and held it to the back of Fryslin's neck...

He then returned with an empty shotgun.
Good thing he was a trained LEO. Imagine how much more whacked out a mere citizen woud have acted in this situation...

[More from "The Only Ones" files...]

We're the Only Ones Visionary Enough

Two San Francisco police officers who shot and killed an unarmed man in the darkened attic of an apartment mistook him for a trespasser with a gun, police officials said Wednesday.

Asa B. Sullivan, 25, had his arms outstretched and was holding a "cylindrical object" when the officers confronted him Tuesday night in the apartment near Lake Merced, prompting them to open fire, said Police Chief Heather Fong. The object turned out to be an eyeglasses case.
Ah, the City by the Bay, where the cud-chewing electorate thinks only "the authorities" are responsible enough to be armed.

And the winner of "most-predictable line" from this article is:
Police refused to release the officers' names...
[More from "The Only Ones" files...]

This Day in History: June 8

On this day in 1776, Canadian Governor Sir Guy Carleton defeats American Patriot forces under John Sullivan, who were already in retreat from Quebec toward Montreal.

“Justifiably-Maligned Assault Rifles”-Part II

Opinion articles are easy to write. All you need is an opinion and a basic grasp of language.

Well-writen, informed and correct opinion articles are another matter.

Yesterday, I responded to an anti UN gun-grab editorial where its author, Bob Confer, made a good case for defending gun rights with one key exception: he claimed "assault weapons" were "justifiably maligned."

I contacted Mr. Confer and invited him to justify maligning them. He responded, and parts of his response were troubling: he believes they're only made for killing, although he is open to being "swayed."

It's troubling because, via published opinion pieces and radio appearances, he has established himself as a liberty leader of sorts, someone who influences the course of public debate, and thus, public acceptance of political actions. To do this with such a fundamental lack of knowledge as he has displayed is irresponsible. His "assault weapon" stance is essentially identical to that of the Brady Campaign.

We've run into "sportsmen" who call for "reasonable gun laws" before. I don't think Mr. Confer is overtly one of these guys, but if he maintains and continues to promulgate the Fuddite concept that "sporting purposes" guns are good and ugly, cheap, too big, too small, too hot or too cold guns are bad, his effect will be twofold:
  • It will misinform the general public.
  • It will continue dividing the gun owner community, with the sporting crowd protecting their turf, but abandoning "shall not be infringed."
I haven't seen any indication from Mr. Confer that he's been swayed, despite many discerning responses from WarOnGuns contributors. Particular kudos go to regular correspondent straightarrow, who never fails to impress me with his insights and ability to articulate them.