Categories
Politics

Gun Control Manure?

Well, imagine for a moment that what you see on TV is a carefully orchestrated, Chaos, that is designed to make you think one way or the other, here is a story that is very interesting not because it is a horrible news story, (sorry with today’s media its all about the bad news) check this out.

The following article appeared in the January 1, 1992 Los Angeles Times.
This is the story you saw on the evening news:

At lunch hour on Wednesday, Oct. 16, George Jo Hennard of Belton, Tex. smashed his Ford pickup through the plate glass doors of Luby’s cafeteria in Killeen, injuring some patrons immediately. While other patrons rushed toward the truck believing the driver was a heart-attack victim, Hennard calmly climbed out of his pickup, took out two 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistols, and started shooting people in the cafeteria’s serving line.

Hennard continued shooting for 10 minutes, reloading five times. One of his pistols jammed repeatedly, causing him to discard it. There would have been plenty of opportunity for any of the cafeteria’s customers or employees to return fire. None did because none of them were armed. Texas law forbids private citizens from carrying firearms out of their home or business. Luby’s employee’s manual forbids employees from carrying firearms.

Police officers were inside Luby’s within minutes. But before they were able to corner Hennard in the cafeteria’s restroom, where he turned his gun fatally on himself, Hennard had killed 15 women and 8 men, wounded 19 and caused at least five more to be injured attempting to flee.

The Killeen massacre was ready-made excitement for the media: a madman with a gun, lots of gruesome pictures. CBS News devoted an entire “48 Hours” Dan Rather report to it. Sarah Brady of Handgun Control Inc. capitalized on it in a nationally published column to call Congress cowardly for voting down more stringent gun laws the next day.

Now here’s a story you probably didn’t see:

Late at night on Tuesday, December 17, two men armed with recently-stolen pistols herded 20 customers and employees of a Shoney’s restaurant in Anniston, Ala., into the walk-in refrigerator, and locked it. Continuing to hold the manager at gunpoint, the men began robbing the restaurant.

Then one of the robbers found a customer who had hidden under a table and pulled a gun on him. The customer, Thomas Glenn Terry, legally armed with a .45 semi-automatic pistol, fired five shots into that robber’s chest and abdomen, killing him instantly.
The other robber, who was holding the manager at gunpoint, opened fire on Terry and grazed him. Terry returned fire, hitting the second robber several times and wounding him critically.

The robbery attempt was over. The Shoney’s customers and employees were freed. No one else was hurt.
Because Terry was armed, and used his gun to stop two armed robbers who had taken a restaurant full of people hostage, there was no drawn-out crisis, no massacre, no victims’ families for Dan Rather to interview. Consequently, the story hasn’t received much coverage.

Among those who rely on national news media for their view of the country, the bloody image of Luby’s Cafeteria is available to lend the unchallenged impression that guns in private hands serve only to kill innocent people. The picture of 20 hostages walking out of Shoney’s refrigerator unharmed, because a private citizen was armed that night, is not.

As we celebrate the bicentennial of the Bill of Rights, it’s worth noting that the Framers wrote the Second Amendment so the people’s defense would be in our own hands, and we wouldn’t have to rely on a “standing army” or “select militia” for our security. Though no police departments existed in America then, there’s no historical doubt that the Framers had considered centralized public defense, and considered it not merely ineffective, but itself dangerous to public safety. Recent vigilante-type police attacks, such as the beating of Rodney King, lend credence.

Yet, it’s fashionable to relegate constitutional protections to the dustbin of history. Judges sworn to defend the Constitution ignore its clear provisions, as do legislators. Virtually every major organ of society – both political parties, the media, the American Bar Assn., the ACLU – urges them to do so.

Today’s “consensus reality” asserts that private firearms play no effective role in the civic defense, and that firearms must be restricted to reduce crime. The media repeat these assertions as a catechism, and treat those who challenge them as heretics.
Yet, we have before us an experiment showing us alternative outcomes. In one case, we have a restaurant full of unarmed people who rely on the police to save them. The result is 23 innocent lives lost, and an equivalent number wounded. In the second case, we have one armed citizen on the scene and not one innocent life lost.
How can the choice our society needs to make be any clearer?

It’s time to rid ourselves of the misbegotten idea that public safety can be achieved by unilateral disarmament of the honest citizen, and realize that the price of public safety is, like liberty, eternal vigilance. We can tire ourselves in futile debates on how to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Or we can decide that innocent lives deserve better than to be cut short, if only we, as a society, will take upon ourselves the civic responsibility of defending our fellow citizens, as Thomas Glenn Terry did in Alabama.

My account of Thomas Glenn Terry’s actions in this article was based on an Alabama newspaper account. I later interviewed Terry for a weekly radio program I was hosting and discovered that the account was mistaken on several points.

Postal clerk Terry was finishing a late-night dinner with his wife when the robbers came in and took over the restaurant. Terry hid his .45 Colt Government Model under his sweater, not seeing any immediate opportunity to use it. Terry’s wife was captured with the other customers and herded off to the cooler, where one of the robbers proceeded to collect wallets and jewelry.

Terry did not hide under a table; he had separated himself from the other customers and managed to get to a back door in the Shoney’s to see if it was open so he could escape and call the police. The door was chained shut. At that point one of the robbers discovered him and when the robber drew on him, Terry pulled his own handgun from under his sweater and returned fire, incapacitating this robber, who ultimately survived. The second robber heard the exchange of gunfire and also drew on Terry; it was the gun fight between Terry and this second robber which resulted in the robber running out to the parking lot, where he died from his wounds. It was at this point that Terry told the store manager to phone the police, informing them that an armed customer was present; Terry then proceeded to the cooler and released his wife and the other customers.

Both robbers whom Terry shot had previous armed robberies on their record, and one had murdered a motel clerk just a few days earlier. A third robber escaped as soon as Terry exchanged gunfire with the first robber.

The only national media outlet to cover this incident as news, just two months after the Killeen restaurant massacre, was the Christian Science Monitor. -JNS

Categories
Politics

Media Lies Media evil?

[kc_heading_pac_9_headline_4 size=”40″ color=”#5dac25″ ]Are they sick and twisted..[/kc_heading_pac_9_headline_4]

 

Can anyone, beat both the media and a political opponent and is that fair?

Can we expect to have fair elections and more importantly can we expect to find methods that make sense in this brave new world
where the media have apparently gone to supporting only one party and not reporting the news when it comes to one side of the news,
one question that seems even more valid is “Can you really call it news any more?”

 

Can you trust the media to tell you the truth?

And is it OK if they lie to you if its for your own good?

Should the media tell the truth or lie so that you can feel better?

There are some serious questions about what is being presented as fact in today’s media and that is something that should concern everyone, when a free society no longer has a free press and that press now is either controlled by large corporation that might perhaps allegedly even be manipulating by using news stories to cause panic in the stock market, should that be allowed to continue?

Example number one.
Last night on a local Fox news channel, a news story was run that claimed that prescription medications were resulting in more deaths than illegal drugs, including heroin, and other very serious drugs, they claimed that without any supporting facts, nor any other evidence that what they were saying was true, they cited no clear compelling evidence that would suggest that this was even true.
Now, the result is that some people will actually believe this trash, and it is false, because street drugs still account for the larger over dose deaths by an alarming percentage, so what are we to learn from this type of news story?
That you can buy street drugs and your safer than going to a doctor?
Of course not, that would be stupid right, I mean really stupid, who would do such a thing anyway? Hopefully no one would but the point seems clear, The war on drugs has now shifted to the war on the people, and this is what they plan on doing with the help of the media?
Sounds crazy, but if that is not the plan then what are they doing telling lies on the air?
Everyone knows that using street drugs is far more dangerous than going to a doctor to get legal care, yet the fox news story, seemed to tell a different story.
A story that is incredible, a story suggesting that there are thousands and thousands of people dying from taking prescription medications, every second of every day?  Really, and what statistical model are you using to get that information?  Do you use the mortality tables?  How about the Coroner reports and statistics?  or did you only check one county in one large city?
What makes more sense, that the news can be manipulated for an agenda or that so many people are dying at the hands of doctors than say your average street thug?