Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The Oregonian speaks out against your rights

The following commentary has been previously posted on the blog "Chuck for . . ." in response to a biased, uninformed and misleading Op-ed piece in The Oregonian calling for keeping CHL records available to the general public.

The Oregonian piece can be found at this link, where currently about 95% of the comments are taking them to task for shoddy journalism and general ignorance on the topics of firearms and gun rights.
--------------------

From Chuck for . . . :

"THE OREGONIAN IS AN ASS, ONCE AGAIN - ABOUT GUNS"

As a blogger and as a citizen I am a vast fan of printed newspapers. I am also a willing critic when they engage in assholedom. The Oregonian's Editorial about keeping concealed weapons permits public record is such an engagement - possibly wedding. They assert that their opposition to restricting access to these records allows Sherriffs to be reckless and unaccountable. First though they strike out at an Oregon Representative.

Indeed, Eugene Democrat Chris Edwards said of the measure, House Bill 2727: "It's about protecting the rights of the good guys. This is not about protecting the rights of punks, of hooligans, or meth tweakers."

There is a word for this sort of overblown rhetoric. Pandering.

"Pandering?" Well now, suppose we wait a bit and see about pandering...
In the 20 years that concealed-carry permits have been public, no violence has been committed against an Oregon concealed-weapons permit holder -- by a punk, hooligan, tweaker, cuckolded spouse, gulled lender or any other kind of bad guy -- because the victim's name was on a gun permit.

Does it pass muster as pandering to make an entirely unsourced and most probably unknowable assertion like this? That might be a reach so we'll move right along. Oh wait, there's a loon waiting in the wings.
In fact, the only recent connection we've noticed between crime and gun permits was the recent news item mentioning that Jiverly Wong, who murdered 13 people in Binghamton N.Y., last month, e-mailed his back to the police department before going on a shooting spree. Among other things, it makes you wonder what would prompt a police agency to give Wong a permit in the first place.
More importantly, there is the matter of just how good a job Oregon sheriffs actually do in properly enforcing even this lax law. State Sen. Ginny Burdick, D-Portland, and an outspoken advocate of stronger gun laws, said that a recent rough cross-comparison between a list of permit-holders and a list of jailed criminals showed hundreds of apparent matches.
There is no mention of any single actual instance of this in the entire editorial. Note, they talk about possibilities not facts. It would be a simple enough matter to bring forward a fact - they don't and neither does Ginny - serial 2nd Amendment infringement offender.

Citizens ought to be able to easily check whether their sheriffs are doing their duty properly, or whether they're giving out concealed carry permits to every Jiverly Wong who strolls up to the front desk.

The big closer, pandering in its most offensive and lying form. You cannot stroll up to any desk anywhere in Oregon and just get a concealed weapon permit, not even close to it, not even in the same universe as it. You can take a state mandated course conducted by a state approved instructor in order to qualify to apply, then you will pass an extensive background test and provide recommendations from known responsible citizens and then have a photo and fingerprints taken. You will be provided no legal relief for any crime committed while carrying, in fact they will be enhanced.

A load of tripe suitable for lining a hamster cage, inhabited by more evident brain power than the author of this. Which other pieces of information will they push to have public, driver's licenses? There are very good reasons for some pieces of personal information out of general hands. This thing is evidence of the wisdom of keeping keyboards out of some people's hands. Ah well, The Oregonian is failing pretty fast - lack of talent and relevance?

[]

No comments: