Gun used in San Francisco pier shooting confirmed to be stolen federal agent’s ... The unnamed federal agent reported the weapon stolen after someone broke into his personal vehicle and stole a bag with his service weapon inside... [More]
Why is he
still unnamed? Especially
after reading:
The gun turned out to belong to a Bureau of Land Management officer who reported it stolen after leaving it in the front of his vehicle.
My original concerns stand:
It’s not like there’s no legitimate public interest in identifying the agent or ranger (depending on the story you read). Who is this person, what were the circumstances that led to a gun being left in his/her car and stolen, and are there any prior indicators in this individual’s employment record? Oversight seems especially relevant in an anti-gun town like San Francisco, where aside from a handful of connected elites, traveling around the “sanctuary” with a gun is the exclusive province of “Only Ones” ... Do you doubt, had a gun been stolen from your car and then used in a murder, that not only would your name be widely spread (and smeared by gleeful antis painting you as a typical, irresponsible ammosexual), but that you’d be lucky to escape serious criminal charges, and crippling civil ones as well?
The media, which has no interest in being a government watchdog on gun issues, is not going to do its job and find this out for us. That means if there's any chance, it's dependent on pressure coming from somewhere else --
like me and maybe you.
David, congratulations on your new gig and landing on your feet after the Examiner debacle. A suggestion if I may? Let's all come out as Out and Proud Ammosexuals. We should own the term and run with it. How about an Ammosexual Pride Rally some day where you, me and and others like us, can march with our heads held high, OC of course.
ReplyDeleteA guy can dream right?
Own it folks, I GUARANTEE it will drive the Bolshies crazy
I don't do social media but I sent this question to the California BLM contact page at http://www.blm.gov/ca/forms/feedback/ and I also sent the question to the National BLM Director at director@blm.gov
ReplyDeleteI know...I don't expect an intelligent response, if any at all.
I urge you and everyone to reconsider-- not for social or recreational purposes, but as a vital component of a communications and force multiplier capability. It allows you to bypass communication forms to govt. officials that exclude non-constituents and to share information with wider groups of the like-minded. The enemy uses it to great advantage-- if you do not, you are ceding an entire ideological battlespace for their exclusive use.
ReplyDeletePlus, selfishly, I want everyone who comes to this site and ostensibly gets value from it to share my column links to help me achieve wider readership. FB and TW provide quick and easy ways to do that.
Comm forms to gov't officials that exclude non-constituents are easy to get around.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt you are right with regard to the enemy using it to great advantage, but I will leave the ideological battles to those of you better suited to that endeavor. I no longer desire to argue with the ...stupid.
And I have no desire to support the socialists behind social media, nor allow them the opportunity to whore themselves to the enemy with my data.
But I do like your site and promote it when the opportunity arises.
I never argue with them -- I state my case and the hell with the antis. As for sm, one can share very little, even wholly fictitious data. The fact that you're on the internet shows that horse is already out of the barn anyway and as for supporting socialists, you can bet your cable provider is just as much a tool as the sm guys-- and with the latter, it's on their Reichsmark.
ReplyDeleteIn re ammosexuals, that feeds the Markley's Law pinheads -- note radical homosexuals diverted from that term and came up with an alternative descriptor to hijack from the language: "gay." I like the idea of templating off that "successful" approach -- so what word could we hijack? Right now we have "gun owners" and various clumsy or unimaginative alternatives that I gotta believe could be improved upon.
ReplyDeleteSM addendum-- just seen on Mike's site: "As social media helped topple regimes in the Middle East and northern Africa, a senior colonel in the People’s Liberation Army publicly warned that an Internet dominated by the U.S. threatened to overthrow China’s Communist Party."
ReplyDeleteIt's a tool. It can and is used as a powerful weapon. Don't be unarmed in that battle. Your enemies won't be.
OK, you convinced me. I'm now on Facebook. Thanks David for giving me a valid reason to do this.
ReplyDeleteExcellent-- "friend" me?
ReplyDelete