Skip to main content

Three gun-related posts with a common theme

One: 70-year-old man defends himself [h/t Alphecca]

According to Plantation [Florida] police, two masked gunmen came into the Subway at 1949 North Pine Road just after 11 p.m. There was a lone diner, Mr. Lovell, who was finishing his meal. After robbing the cashier, the two men attempted to shove Mr. Lovell into a bathroom and rob him as well. They got his money, but then Mr. Lovell pulled his handgun and opened fire. He shot one of the thieves in the head and chest and the other in the head.

[…]

He is not expected to be charged authorities said. ‘’He was in fear for his life,'’ Detective Rettig said, “These criminals ought to realize that most men in their 70’s have military backgrounds and aren’t intimidated by idiots.”


The full story makes it clear [as the excerpt does not] that the 70-year-old former Marine was carrying his weapon concealed.

Two: Sacramento county Sheriff admits that more people need to carry concealed weapons [again, h/t Alphecca]

Sacramento County may be about to experience an increase in the number of gun owners with permits to carry concealed weapons.

Sheriff John McGinness called it a necessary move, given his department’s lack of resources to properly protect the public.

“I think in the interest of doing right by the public and the constituency, we had to make some acknowledgment of the fact that it’s a different environment out there,” McGinness said. “As things have changed, our ability to respond effectively and ensure their safety has been compromised. Therefore, I think it’s only appropriate that we look at these applications with a different thought process in mind.”


Three: pro-Obama health-care protestor shows up in Mesa AZ with weapon and ... virtually no one in the MSM except MSNBC reports the story [h/t Hube]:


Except for one counterprotester, apparently the only one within shouting distance. The man would only give his first name as he stood alone, wearing a Yankee baseball team shirt, a handgun on his hip, holding a contrary sign.

Josh, who explained he would only give his first name because of the type of work he does, said he was a Democrat among a sea of non-Democrats, touting health care reform, but not reforms over his right to bear arms.

"Part of my passion as a Democrat is the right to bear arms," Josh said.

A veteran, and from a long family history of veterans, the man who was very much alone in the small crowd of protesters said he believed in fighting for the less fortunate.

"I am a firm supporter of health care for every American," he said.


Looking at the picture, he obviously intimidated the hell out of the women waving her finger in his face.

Three points on a line: an elderly citizen defends himself with his personal weapon [it happens every day]; law enforcement in one of America's most populous counties admits that more people should be armed; and the rest of the media beyond MSNBC completely ignores an armed pro-Obama protestor in a Mesa AZ demonstration.

That last one is most interesting because it points out that (a) open carry advocates are not just fringe reactionaries; and that (b) it's difficult to run the presumed threat/intimidation angle in Phoenix if you don't run it in Mesa.

And--curiously--none of these gun related stories can be connected in any way, shape, or form to rightwing rhetoric or the militia movement. Which doesn't mean that Mark Potok of the SPLC won't eventually try.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I think the 70 year old has watched Gran Torino too many times.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...