Sunday, March 22, 2009

An indictment of our society, on multiple levels


There’s news out of California today about a “routine traffic stop” Saturday that escalated to the point that three police officers were dead and a fourth was clinging to life. The confrontation began when the driver of a 1995 Buick stopped by Oakland police opened fire on officers, killing one and severely wounding another before fleeing on foot. The AP reported that people lingered at the shooting scene, with nearly two dozen bystanders taunting police. With the help of an anonymous tip, police tracked the suspected gunman to a nearby apartment building. When a SWAT team entered the building, the suspect opened fire on them with an assault rifle, killing two officers. Police returned fire, killing 26-year-old Lovelle Mixon of Oakland, a parolee who was described as having an “extensive criminal history.” A few questions: Isn’t it about time that we quit listening to the wailing and screeching of the NRA and ban assault rifles that often end up in the hands of criminals? There is no legitimate purpose for a civilian to have an assault weapon. Next question: Why was Mixon even on the streets? Police say he was on parole for a conviction on a charge of assault with a deadly weapon. This guy should have been behind bars for life. We need to build more prisons. And, finally, what kind of scum taunt police officers at a scene where one policeman has been killed and a second gravely wounded? Where’s an out-of-control gasoline tanker when you need one?

Labels:

11 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What do you expect from people who live in Oakland, Calif. It's one of the worst cesspools in the country as far as crime goes.

As for the NRA, these are the types of stories they don't present at their conventions.

March 22, 2009 at 10:10 AM  
Blogger amom said...

Another question: And people wonder why police officers react as though every random traffic stop could be their last! It's situations like these.

March 22, 2009 at 10:35 AM  
Blogger {cher} said...

about a week or two ago, a guy here in town set off 20 rounds from an AK-47 into his exgf's home. seriously.. these types of weapons are needed for civilians why??

i think the people standing around taunting the police should be arrested for obstruction of justice in my opinion. if you're not helping, your hurting society, so get outta the friggin way!

March 22, 2009 at 11:42 AM  
Blogger pop pop said...

Do a little research. Assault weapons are banned in California, have been for 10 years or so. He was a convicted felon, and banned for life from guns and ammunition. What other law can we pass that people like this will follow? More gun laws fix nothing, gun laws like any other law only apply to those willing to follow the law.

March 22, 2009 at 12:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Typical liberal rant. First Brant, define "assault rifle". Brady 2 defined it based on appearance. 2nd, the right to bear arms dealt with a line of defense against the government. Not hunting, not other recreation, not home defense. It was a counter as part of the checks and balances.
The law did not permit the owner to have it. More laws will not stop the problem. Tougher judges and tougher sentences would.
Also many of these problems stem from two things:
1 Drugs
2. Mental illness
You of course want to legalize some drugs
BTW the NRA and other gun groups DO talk about such matters and have fought for TOUGHER enforcement on the individuals that break the laws.

March 22, 2009 at 3:48 PM  
Blogger Brant said...

You sure don't have to throw down much bait to flush out the right-wing gun crowd. I've said before that I'm generally against gun control. Want to buy a hundred handguns? Why not. Fifty deer rifles. You go, guys and gals. But assault rifles? C'mon. Pop Pop, I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there are 49 other states besides California, most of which allow the sale of assault rifles. I'm in favor of a ban on assault rifles AND much greater penalties for those illegally possessing and misusing guns. As for the right to bear arms, the people who cite this generally forget to include the part about the necessity of a well-regulated militia for the security of the country. Those were immensely different times, and the weaponry in those days consisted of single-shot muzzleloaders. I have no idea what practical application there is today for a weapon that can shoot a thousand rounds per minute. You guys must have one helluva groundhog problem. I know some of the gun-rights folks live in fear of hordes of minorities showing up on their doorsteps to take their white women and gas-guzzling SUVs. But let's remember that Davy Crockett and the fellas held off Santa Anna's gang for quite some time with only very primitive firearms and some Bowie knives. Yes, eventually they were all killed, but we're talking about a $%^&load of Mexicans, probably a lot more than would bother to make a trip to Burgettstown, Washington or Waynesburg. If you're looking for some like-minded people with whom you can shoot the breeze - don't get all aroused now, that's just a figure of speech - you should maybe join a militia, if you haven't already.

March 22, 2009 at 4:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

First you show your ignorance of military history. The Alamo was defended by weaponry comparable to the enemy. The defenders were of higher morale and in a more defensive position.

Second, even artillery (cannons) were allowed to be owned by private citizens till after the civil war.

Third, the Federalist papers clearly defined the intent of the 2nd and the purpose was known for years before courts attempt to play with the language. The weapons that our founding fathers had were as good as the weapons their military opponents had. That was the point, that the government would not have sole access to the use of force. If it did, it could be tempted to use.
Even Gary Hart wrote a wonderful book discussing that if we were to ban military firearms from the public, we must insure that the draft has been reinstated. The reason is simple, then the military would be composed of the whole of the population, not the small pro government part.

March 22, 2009 at 5:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course this will inspire the anti-gun crowd comments or those that fail to understand the use of power and those that would abuse it.

March 22, 2009 at 5:18 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

I am curious as to whether the various anonymous' would be in favor of the citizenry being armed with tanks, stealth bombers, nuclear weapons, and daisy-cutters...

Because if you want to rely on the argument that the second amendment is there to ensure that the people have the tools to usurp an out-of-control government (which I DO believe was the intent, btw)--- then you are going to have to have a lot more than a couple of automatics when the revolution comes.

The fact is, the intent of the amendment was prudent for the day. It is completely unreasonable in its original incarnation today.

Either open the flood gates and let me get that hellfire missile that I have had my eye on... or scrap the whole damn concept and make gun ownership a privilege that you have to earn by proving you aren't that guy.

March 22, 2009 at 6:25 PM  
Blogger pop pop said...

This case has nothing to do with right wing gun nut. This did happen in California, not one of the other 49 States. It was already against the law, and yet it happened, as sad as it was. Outlaw whatever you want, as long as we live next door to Mexico it will be as easy to get assault weapons in California as it is now. Why would you think they can bring drugs in, end of story. We know that the drug cartel in Mexico has drugs and guns, why would we think they are only interested in bringing in their drugs?

March 22, 2009 at 8:14 PM  
Blogger Ellipses said...

So, should all those drugs be legal, too... since they are going to get there anyway?

March 22, 2009 at 8:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home