New York Times: Shoot First … And Ridicule First
November 24, 2006 at 11:54 pm
Sen. George Allen (R-VA) has introduced a bill that would let visitors carry a concealed firearm into a national park.
Perfect fodder for ridicule by the Big Media Left, right? You got it.
Here’s some belittling language the New York Times scared up in its Wednesday editorial:
“a last little gift to America” … “we hope it will die the miserable death it deserves. America’s confusion about the Second Amendment is now nearly total” … “armed paranoia” … “zealots who believe that the Second Amendment trumps all others, the parks are merely another badland, like schools and church parking lots”
Everything there but any facts or arguments which might make a sensible or reasonable case for Allen’s side.
For that, we had to wait two days — and search local coverage.
We learn these interesting facts and points of view in today’s Richmond Times-Dispatch.
- “In a twist, an Oct. 30 campaign letter by Jim Webb — the Democrat who narrowly defeated Allen — shows that he promised to introduce similar legislation. ‘And I intend to get it to the floor for a vote,’ added Webb, who also noted his possession for many years of a concealed-carry permit and his regular shooting activity.”
- “some parks that authorize hunting do permit firearms use during open hunting season.”
- “A champion for Allen’s bill, Mike McHugh of Front Royal, is president of the Virginia Gun Owners Coalition. ‘It’s odd that you can carry in the General Assembly in Virginia, but if you’re out in remote areas, like the Appalachian Trail, where two women had their throats slit … you can’t defend yourself,’ said McHugh, referring to the slayings of two hikers in 1996.”
Whether Allen’s bill is good policy should make for robust debate. But is it too much to ask the New York Times to put facts first and mockery second? Probably.
Prospector said,
November 25, 2006 @ 11:17 am
I recommend full-automatic weapons.
Prospector's an idiot said,
November 25, 2006 @ 12:10 pm
No one recommends anything like that; heck, in most situations FMJ handgun bullets are suboptimal because they’ll go thru the average residential brick wall.
Les Nessman said,
November 25, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
What type of FMJ handgun bullets go thru the average residential brick wall? 9mm, .38 spc, .45ACP, ?
Sounds like hyperbole.
Vulgorilla said,
November 25, 2006 @ 4:03 pm
I can routinely put FMJ .44 Rem Mag slugs through brick walls. Not much of a feat at all.
Walt Verrill said,
November 25, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
Well, a 44 magnum, 260 gr. jaketed bullet will go through a wall, so what? A person using a 44 magnum for home defense could kill somebody besides the bad guy. All gun owners are not idiots, most realize a soft tip hollow point from a 38 special or 45 apc (low velocity) is what they need in the home. The shotgun with # 7 bird shot would be better, but I use a 45 loaded with 230 grain Hydra-Shock ammo. You are always going to have the “outer fringe” people in any scenerio, that just don’t get it.
Les Nessman said,
November 25, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
Vulgorilla is right. I guess that was my point. That’s why I listed the most common calibers that I did. Ditto the .22, .25, .380, .40, etc….Other than some big ol’ magnum monsters, a ‘handgun bullet thru a brick wall’ (and then thru insulation, lath, wallboard, plaster etc..) with enough force to harm is pretty remote. I probably shouldn’t have even brought it up.
Walt is right, don’t use fmj for home defence.
And I will be looking for future NYT articles about Webb’s 2nd Amendment stances. I’ll not hold my breath, tho.
David Sherman said,
November 27, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
Mike Mchugh was quoted as saying :
It’s odd that you can carry in the General Assembly in Virginia, but if you’re out in remote areas, like the Appalachian Trail, where two women had their throats slit … you can’t defend yourself,’
I appreciate this clarification and now I am whole heartedly in favor of this bill. Silly me, I thought the bill was designed to allow criminals and bad guys to carry concealed weapons into our parks. Now I see that its OK for the good guys to bring their weapons along as well.
alan richard said,
November 27, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
who cares what the nytimes says… ny supported the KING during our revolution and has been communist ever since… bloomberg would do good to be shot but i guess he would rather be tortured like he gets in gay clubs in ny… seriously though, tens of millions of gun owners have NOT shot anyone today, what a headline that would make if they had… imagine… tens of millions…
richarda said,
November 28, 2006 @ 1:52 pm
Virginia and other states (FL) that allow background-checked, safety-trained ordinary folks to carry concealed weapons for self-defense have found this NOT to be a problem. Not allowing people to even transit parks with weapons is typical gov’t. mentality; endorsing ALL anti-gun actions by gov’t. is typical Evil Media mentality, driven by urban bias & pig-ignorance.