Wash. Times warns readers Pelosi will "try to confiscate" guns
SUMMARY: A Washington Times editorial stated that congressional Democrats will "go[] after the guns of law-abiding Americans." The editorial echoed the rhetoric of other media conservatives who have warned that President Obama or congressional Democrats intend to confiscate guns.
Joining the ranks of media conservatives who have warned their audiences that President Obama or congressional Democrats intend to take away their guns, The Washington Times stated in an April 13 editorial, "Now that Democrats are in control of the legislative and executive branches of government, even the will of the people won't keep them from going after the guns of law-abiding Americans." Noting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, "We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered," the editorial nonetheless asserted that Pelosi's "next move will be to try to confiscate them," and that "[d]espite Mrs. Pelosi's assurances to the contrary, Americans' fear that registration will lead to confiscation is well-founded."
The Times website advertised the editorial with a subhead that read, "Democrats are going after guns":
From the April 13 Washington Times editorial:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, announced last week that she wants to register guns. Her next move will be to try to confiscate them.
The speaker picked a television show with a viewership of 4.6 million to float the Democrats' coming gun-control push. Questioned on ABC's "Good Morning America" about the prospect of new gun-control laws now that "it's a Democratic president, a Democratic House," she responded, "We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered."
[...]
Because registration doesn't help solve crime, it is important to ask why government wants to register the people's firearms. History provides the answer. In countries from Australia to England, registration has been used to create lists of guns that later were confiscated by their governments. Despite Mrs. Pelosi's assurances to the contrary, Americans' fear that registration will lead to confiscation is well-founded. Indeed, Mrs. Pelosi's own state of California already has used existing registration lists to confiscate so-called assault weapons just a half-dozen years ago.
The speaker claims registration won't lead to gun confiscation because of the Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down the District's handgun ban last June. She knows full well that this judgment was based on a narrow 5-4 decision that could be reversed when President Obama gets his opportunity to appoint an additional liberal justice to the court.
A Gallup poll released Wednesday shows that support for gun control is "at an all-time low" since the issue started being surveyed nearly 50 years ago. According to Gallup, just 29 percent favor handgun bans. Now that Democrats are in control of the legislative and executive branches of government, even the will of the people won't keep them from going after the guns of law-abiding Americans.
Cars kill more people every year than guns do in ten. And every car is supposed to be registered, every driver liscenced. And they haven't come for our crs yet, despite how dangerous they are. (Guns are better for the enviornment as well!)
Please don't take my car away Madame Speaker!
YOU CAN PRY MY CAR KEYS FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!
If you drive at all, you are very likely to have "cold dead hands" sometime soon. (More likely than from any other activity or from any disease.) When are the liberals in our gov't going to put a stop to this menace of the roads?!
(LOL)
You are five times more likely to run over a member of your own family than you are to run over an intruder.
One might think that after the scumbag who killed those cops in Pittsburgh because he was so convinced by Glen Beck and other right-wing lunatics that the cops, via the Obama led government was coming for his guns... that compaines like the Washington Times might not want to spread this lie further?
I wonder... now that it is known that that guy had done what he did because of the lies from the right-wing... this is now after the fact... and this happens again by some other brainwashed soul... any chance that the Wa. Times can be held partially liable for the potential crimes of someone who is convinced that this lie about gun confiscation is the truth when in fact it is.... A LIE!!
Seeing as how there are people in cars that deliberately attempt to run people over, bicyclists for one, and show the same hatred and narrowness of thought as gun owners I advocate for the removal of cars. I know of several gun owners in the neighborhood that are trying to organize a defense team against the hordes of hungry unemployed they imagine will be breaking down thier downs very soon. Please I am a life member of the NRA but these types of the lunatic fringe make me cringe.
I need my uzi, baby. How else am I gonna keep the armadillos from tearing up mah purty lawn.
I find using a tracer round every 15th round of my FNFAL not only makes it easier to zero in on Bambi but it also helps with on the spot field dressing and cooking.
Yeah, that job may do the trick, ha! I may even git me some of them little neighborhood varnmits (kids) in the bargain :-)
You too snoop that was a good one
Right on JJ. And those possums out here explode so nahce like with an uzi.
I have so missed you guys
This seems like a new talking point, but the danger inherent in it has become apparent within the last month (with the multiple mass shootings). But the 500 Repubs in a room thinks it can "stir up" enough anger to keep an anti-Obama meme in the media.
Even 60 Minutes gave a dishwashery report on guns yesterday, letting a pro-gun advocate spew the same talking points. It never ends, even in the midst of tragedy.
"Because registration doesn't help solve crime, it is important to ask why government wants to register the people's firearms."
As a topic sentence, this deserves some examination. What reputable research has proven that "registration doesn't help solve crime"? I assume none.
And perhaps registration would be even more effective at helping solve crime were it not for the loopholes in the laws (little landmines planted by the NRA and their paid congressional touts).
I'm convinced that the Second Amendment gives us the right" to keep and bear arms". Nowhere in that amendment do I see an implied right to do so without the application of sensible legal limitations. And one of those sensible restrictions is the registration of firearms. No one in his right mind (here I go assuming again) would say that our right to free speech in the First Amendment should be absolute and unlimited. Correct me if we don't have federal obscenity laws.
As a matter of fact, the Second Amendment specifically states "well regulated militia," thereby implying laws. The exact language is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Many people remember that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and forget about the word "militia;" they totally ignore the concept of regulation.
The Supreme Court didn't ignore the militia when they ruled:
-- the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. --
What were you rebutting with your comment? Historygeek001 was pointing out the "well regulated" part, meaning there's some sort of implication of regulation or laws.
Your quote from the SCOTUS talks about the right to bear ams and and that one need not belong to a militia in order to exercise that right.
What were you trying to demonstrate with your cut and paste abilities?
I never said that the Supreme Court ignored the word "militia;" I said that many people did. Registration does not infringe any such rights, and arguments to the contrary are ridiculous.
Yes the right to have a FIREARM unconnected to service in a militia. In Emerson the SC also ruled that they TYPE of firearm CAN be restricted to connection with militia use so it isnt quite that simple. Hey I am all for you owning a gun if you want one. Reasonable restrictions are not too much to ask. That would INCLUDE what types of firearms you can have. No one ought to think the secons amendment means they can have a bazooka or a tactical nuclear weapon. So take the two extremes OUT of the equation since no mainstream politicians are after your guns NOR advocating anyone can have a bazooka and we are left with WHERE do we draw that line. If we could just stay away from the arguments at the extremes we MIGHT come to a consensus on something RELEVANT here.
"The Supreme Court didn't ignore the militia when they ruled..."
Nor did they ignore regulation:
"The Court (in a 5-4 decision with a predictable split) stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment."
The link below (from Library of Congress) includes a well documented history of the discussion and some important sources that should inform rational discussion.
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
well here is something to think about....and historygeek will back me on this.
when the second amendment was written....the standard weapons of the time were single shot, slow loading and unreliable flintlock muskets. so at the time it made sense cause the weapon did not have a high firing rate. (a really good soldier could fire 3 rounds a minute under non battle conditions)
never did anyone think that weapons would get more powerful, more deadly and have higher cyclic rates than a musket.
we now have guns that can fire 600 rounds per minute. why would you need something that can cause that much damage for home defense?
i think the second amendemnt needs a revamping. specifically it needs to somehow some way regulate or ban assult weapons from everything outside the military. and notice im saying assult weapons.
im not saying, a pistol, a rifle, or a shotgun. i have no problem with people having that, being that i own a shotgun and rifle myself for hunting.
You're right. Part of the genius of the Constitution is that it can be CHANGED; they recognized both that they did not have all the answers and that the world is not static, so they designed the document to be able to evolve over time. No civilian needs an assault rifle for anything.
No American citizen needs an Uzi or an AK 47. There are some guns that should not be in the hands of Americans. Registration of guns is not a step towards confiscating handguns and rifles.
And how exactly does the Washington post know that Pelosi will do this? Is Pelosi a dictator? The Washington Times reminds me of FOX.
it is the newspaper verison of fox. thats been well known
I will tell you something. If these gangs in cities and drive by shootings, and unbalanced people kill their neighbors and families with guns and the numbers continue to rise I would not be surprised if there is an electorate willing to ban guns. It is not Pelosei but how the electorate treats their rights and not abuse it.
With rights come responsibilities.
One would think that one of the responsibilities of owning a gun is not using it on innocent people.
"One would think that one of the responsibilities of owning a gun is not using it on innocent people."
A responsibility that seems to fall on the deaf ears of those of the right-wing persuasion...
CSL, you said, "One would think that one of the responsibilities of owning a gun is not using it on innocent people."
I agree. Prove that one person who has a permit has killed an "innocent" person.
It's pretty clear this is just the latest attempt to rile up something that isn't there. Remember the "fairness doctrine" stuff? No major Democrats actually wanted ti, but people liek Rush kept telling us it was coming. Same thing here. Someone talks about gun control laws and it becomes "they want to confiscate your guns".
It's far more dangerous this time since some of these gun nuts really are nuts.
People who show a propensity towards violence are the problem, not the tools they use...you want crime to go down?....start using sentencing that fits the crime! People need to know that if they commit a crime that they may face the ultimate penalty. And if knowing that they still commit violent crimes, then let them face the music. Issuing more laws and regulations to an already largely compliant law abiding group(gun-owners) only serves to aggravate said group and let criminals know that they are once again free and clear....
How does Canada and other Westernized nations control gun violence when they own just as many guns as we do per capita; yet have a fraction of the violence? What makes them so well behaved? Maybe it's the lack of right-wing radio....... jk
How does Canada and other Westernized nations control gun violence...
Maybe you've seen it, but Bowling for Columbine tries to answer that question.
Yes, I've seen B4C. Very good documentary. Especially when Heston couldn't defend himself.
'Are we a nation of gun nuts, or just nuts?' -MM
Law-abiding gun owners have nothing to hide, so why protest? Registering guns helps solve crimes. Knowing who bought what guns that were used in a crime would aid in catching the criminals. This has nothing to do with letting criminals know that they're free and clear; increased regulation would make it harder for them to get away with using guns in violent crimes. Your argument does not make sense.
-- increased regulation would make it harder for them to get away with using guns in violent crimes -- hgeek
Care to explain that one?
The Police can trace the history of a weapon used in a crime, find out whrer it came from, and possibly catch a criminal. It seems pretty straightforward.
Except for the fact that most criminals don't use weapons registered to themselves...and almost all gun crimes are committed by those with a previous criminal record.
So some cases should be more difficult to solve because gun owners don't want to register their weapons. That makes tons of sense.
Why lock your doors at night, since people can still bust in if they really want to? Because you don't make it easy for them. So let's make it more difficult for people to get guns for criminal purposes.
well then if that is the case, it will point to whom the gun was stolen from and perhaps narrow the suspect pool. and then they will get an extra charge slapped against them
"Law-abiding gun owners have nothing to hide, so why protest"
Same argument is used to support the Patriot Act. If you have nothing to hide, why would you care if the government listened to a second of your phone call?
Holy crap. Whether you're doing something illegal or not, there's all sorts of things you could say or hear in private conversations that you wouldn't want other people overhearing.
That's not nearly the same thing as saying that if you just want to own a gun for legitimate purposes, there's no reason to oppose restrictions holding people to those same purposes.
I deliberately used the same language, but the situations are not the same. One involves lethal weapons, the other involves free, unfettered, undocumented spying on the part of the government on whomever they like. The Fourth Amendment reads "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." There are already FISA courts, wherein they can obtain a warrant up to 48 hours retroactively.
The Second Amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Well-regulated implies laws. Arguments to the contrary are ludicrous.
I disagree, “well-regulated" in the late 1700s referred to the property of something being in working order, which would mean that “well-regulated” implies a strong, functional, and operational militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Why would they write “shall not be infringed”, if they wanted to protray regulation.
But we don't need a strong, functional and operational militia any longer. That phrase is the condition upon which "shall not be infringed" rests. In other words, if a well-regulated militia is not necessary, then the right to bear arms can be infringed. Now, as a pragmatic and political matter, guns can't be banned or confiscated altogether. But regulation and restriction are absolutely appropriate and Constitutional.
Those folks in the militias of the time were used as military forces. Doing so unarmed enters into the world of oxymorons. These militias were not just a bunch of swell fellows sharing a keg. And deciding somewhere midkeg that they should all get their guns and shot the taxman.
wow what a ridiculous new tack!
how did you possibly arrive at property regulation from a militia.......the way your mind works makes Vinzini from the Princess Bride look like a genius
You're really reaching.
do you want someone hearing your pillow talk with your girlfriend or wife? i sure as hell don't
"Registering guns helps solve crimes" --Please provide data, since I have never seen data that supports this idea and how it would tie into registering legal law-abiding owners, Also law abiding owners have nothing to hide and already provide an extensive amount of info to law enforcement(at least in my state) and should not be subject to further scrutiny.....by your argument I guess you supported the Patriot Act....
"Registering guns helps solve crimes." Prove it. Cite your source! You are a liar!
We've all seen the "Guns don't kill people, people kill people"bumper sticker.
But your admission that there are "people who show a propensity toward violence" prvides a great argument for registration that is tied to a comprehensive computer background check database. And I may be wrong, but I don't think warning a mentally ill person that he/she may receive the death penalty for using a firearm to kill another human being is going to prevent that mentally ill person from committing the crime.
I know that, if I were the parent of one of the victims, it would be of little comfort to me to know that the mentally ill person who killed my child had been warned of the legal consequences of his/her actions. I'd feel much better if the mentally ill person had , through background checks and registration, been denied legal access to a firearm in the first place. If that dismays "law-abiding. . . gun owners", well, so be it.
All right, I'll clarify- I live in one of the most heavily regulated states as far as firearms are concerned. Anyone in this state has to be checked via NICS, and fill out paperwork that questions ANY criminal background, so registration of guns is one more needless hoop owners have to jump through and does nothing more than create a database that can be misused or compromised. Privacy issues are my point, and anyone who has been the victim of identity/credit theft should agree.
The second point you attempted is not even valid since anyone who is judged mentally unstable/incompetent is not allowed to own firearms, and as always just wait ladies and gentlemen, the train of intrusion always comes full circle...eventually they'll come around to something that does affect you personally....
I believe in Va. a mentally ill individual can purchase weapons at a gun show without registering. If that's true, your statement "anyone who is judged mentally unstable/incompetent is not allowed to own firearms" cannot be. Bring on the NRA campaign to obscure the facts here--I'm not responding.
Plenty of real evidence linking identity/credit theft to credit card theft, lost checkbooks, carelessly discarded financial papers, etc. Any evidence that identity/credit theft is connected to gun registration? If there is, wouldn't that be more like a case of "Gun registration doesn't screw people; shady characters and poor record keeping in the gun trade screws people"?
Compared to the effort it takes to squeeze the trigger on an automatic weapon, how difficult is it physically to fill out a gun registration?
"and as always just wait ladies and gentlemen, the train of intrusion always comes full circle...eventually they'll come around to something that does affect you personally...."
Yikers! You mean that some day, likely soon, *they'll* want to register my right to drive a car? Make me fill out paperwork and stuff? I quake in my boots. I think I'll have to spend my days under my bed.
Of course you are also treating gun registration as kind of a "gateway drug" into identity theft. Why do I get the idea that someone (the NRA?) has pumped you full of pea soup...and now you are just flailing and flailing, in between bouts of trying to supress demonic voices.
Boy! That was almost funny(not quite though)!!! As usual in order to avoid anything resembling a coherent thought, sidestep the point and then make a personal attack.... The point you were trying(unsuccessfully) to make light of is that everyone seems fine in going for gun registration when enough info about the owners(law-abiding) already exists..registration is redundant and useless and adds another layer of gov't slop.
Next time stick to the facts and topic, don't try humor or churlish comments, they definitely are not your strong suit!
Well, blu, it's clear that you sense fear bunnies on your trail. Your original scattershot post I replied to in my nonlinear, but complete, fashion indicates that you are going into a dark place you may not be able to emerge from.
No doubt you will draw no comfort from being correctly informed that the things that are gnawing at your sanity, and at the sanity of those who are spoonfeeding you, are illusions you could easily shake if you but made up your mind that would be a wise thing to do. Should you wish to work through your situation, there are many here who would likely be willing to lend a helping hand. The bulk of posters on this forum are very generous and helpful.
As Larry the Cable Guy says:
"Guns don't kill people, husbands who come home early do!"
Now that's funny...I don't care who you are.
Tim Russert asked Obama in 2006 if he would run for president in 2008. He answered "I will not".
Russert also asked if he would serve out his full term as Senator. Obama answered "Absolutely. I will serve out my full six-year term.".
Hillary Clinton received this question from the NYPost..."Sen. Clinton, are you ruling out a run for president not just in 2004, but in 2008 and beyond?" Her answer was "YES".
"We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered," -- Nancy Pelosi
Yeah, right. Pardon me for shedding my usual pollyana demeanor about taking a politician's word about their future intentions.
Banning/restricting guns is politically lethal, kind of like drug decriminalization. Why would Pelosi or Obama do something self-defeating? They aren't that dumb.
But if the mass killings continue, that might change. Because the people might then desire gun restrictions, not because some politician wants to wield their power indiscriminately.
foghorn...in order:
I agree.
Politicians do it all the time.
It certainly might change...for the very reason you cited.
Regulation and confiscation are two completely separate concepts.
Righties don't care, Brab.
Regulation and confiscation are "dirty" words to Righties.
How the hell do you imagine that gun confiscation is going to be politically feasible? Do you really think that one's comments on their own personal political aspirations and a major gun control initiative are the same thing?
I don't really think you do.
Agree. Confiscating guns is just about as feasible as rounding up/deporting the 12+ million undocumented immigrants in our country.
Hey Wesley, pardon me for not giving a fat rat's a** whether or not you trust Obama's or Pelosi's or anyone else's word on anything.
Life's way too short to spend it trying to convince idiots like you of ANYTHING.
No hard feelings, I hope.
Nope...no hard feelings here...but the tender spot is duly noted.
Just glad I could save you some time and effort.
Your post is a complete non-sequiter. Because Obama said he wasn't going to run, and then did, he's going to confiscate weapons. You do know how crazy that makes you sound, don't you?
Politicians flip flop...and more importantly...they don't always say what their real intentions are.
Feel free to connect any dots...or not.
"Politicians flip flop...and more importantly...they don't always say what their real intentions are." - wesley
But sometimes they let it slip:
"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heckuva lot easier - so long as I'm the dictator." - George W. Bush
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." - George W. Bush
"Yeah, right. Pardon me for shedding my usual pollyana demeanor about taking a politician's word about their future intentions." - Wesley
That's good, Wes . . . means you weren't upset when Dumbya made the following bold statement:
"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."—Washington, D.C., April 18, 2006
.
Some people just can't let go...
Wesley, Bush campaigned against "using force" in other countries and "nation-building" in 2000.
you mean like bush saying there were wmd's in iraq?
Media Matters is wrong here again. Nancy Pelosi has an F rating by the NRA. Everyone with a brain knows she has a pro-gun control voting record and has made some statements in the past that would make people think she would confiscate guns. Now it’s not that easy because legally she can’t just do whatever she wants, we don’t have kings or queens here. How can you deny this?
Nancy Pelosi has an F rating by the NRA.
Good for her.
she has a pro-gun control voting record
Good for her.
You are making the illogical leap from restricting/registering to confiscating with no evidence to back it up.
I'm sure opposing cop-killer bullets knocked her down a notch on the NRA scale.
What evidence do you want? Liberals don’t come out and say what they mean. They always use code words. She wants to restrict or register guns. Another barrier between people owning a gun. They have to worry about registering the gun. We need to repeal laws and restrictions, not make unnecessary rules because they make people feel better and give government more power they don’t need.
If I said NeoCons use code words so when they say they are anti choice, what they are really saying is they want all women to be second class citizens, whould you find that a logical statement? I don't. It's just as dumb as the one you just made though. Please think before you type.
Your post has spittle on it. How can I say this politely.....mmmm....do you think repugs are the only ones with guns? Are you that stupid?
How do you feel about mental health checks or background checks? Those are also "barriers".
"They have to worry about registering the gun."
Why is this a hardship?
hey its Harold Hill....i mean Glenn Beck....i mean Rush Limbaugh!
Tee Hee - those loony Moonies at Wash Times messin' with Pelosi ? At some level they gotta know that their mess is splashing on themselves, and on the Righties, and oin the NRA - their hoped-for dumming of America hasn't worked (entirely). Anonymous gun ownership breeds irresponsibility and contempt for domestic tranquility - our recent multiple murders, Mexican drug thugs, Somali pirates, and on and on. Surely Republicans have some worthy suggestions - NOT !
I wish liberals and conservatives could make a deal. First, abortion is always legal to a woman and there is no way that right would ever be infringed on. Second, the right to own a gun. Period. Nothing to the contrary would ever be tolerated.
Nice try. Again with the psychotic gun nut nonsense.
This gun-confiscation boogeyman gets trotted out with so much regularity you'd think there were persistent efforts at confiscation going on. Let's get serious, when was the last time there was any sort of real effort to seize guns? You''d have to go back decades. It's not on anyone's agenda.
You're kidding, right? After Katrina in New Orleans, the democratic mayor went around to peoples houses demanding their guns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-taU9d26wT4
You're talking about unilateral action by one individual mayor, in extremely unique circumstances, that, predictably, failed to withstand legal challenge. I'm talking about formal legislative efforts to confiscate guns. There have been none. It's an alarmist smokescreen, with no foundation.
"democratic mayor" and Republican president if memory serves, plus action by the National Guard, etc.
I say, "You can have any gun you want SO LONG AS ITS PINK!"
The evidence is in yesterday's 60 Minutes episode when Philip Van Cleave, the president of Virginia's largest gun-rights group, when speaking to Leslie Stahl points to a pink gun and says.
"The good thing about a PINK GUN is a man will NEVER steal it from you."
Nor will posturing boys of all ages want one unless they need it to hunt or truly protect themselves.
I just wish GUNS and ABORTION would stop coming up as even debatable. Don't try and take guns away and don't try to take a womans right away. We have more important things to argue about. Economy, terrorism, poverty, education...
In general, I agree with you. The point is that, while there are genuine efforts constantly underway to terminate rights to an abortion, there are no real efforts underway to confiscate guns. That keeps the two from being equivalent.
If you need an AK 47 to shoot Bambi. You are doing it WRONG
your right. there is no skill with an assult weapon. no thrill of the hunt, which is the point. it allows a connection with nature
I think a lot of people buy these exotic killing machines because they are told they might not be able to buy them in the near future. Kinda like that Seinfeld episode where Elaine was told Today Sponges were going off the market so she stocked up on about 5 cases of 30. I know that's why I bought my Remington 30-06 semi-automatic hunting rifle, instead of a bolt action, because the guy at Wal Mart told me they were going to be banned soon.
so what? your going to use it to hunt? then your not a true hunter. it's the challenge, the skill to make it as bare bones as possible. that's the point. it's communiing with nature.
hell i even tried my hand using an old style flintlock and man did i have a time with it cause the three times i used it, it rained like hell and twice my powder was soaked.
Did Lovell Mixon, pillar of the community in Oakland Ca., watch Beck before he fought so valiantly to defend his right to rape a 12 year old girl, kill 4 police officers, sell drugs, rob, assault and just make a gosh darn nuisance of himself? What about those wasscally ACORN people, stealing the election and selling guns to mexican drug dealers? They killed Kenny!! Did they watch Beck too? Don't you know that only angry demented white men commit real gun crime? When mixon family members of the law abiding oakland community supplied guns to lovell, they were only concerned about his civil rights being violated by those racist police, and when those same upstanding citizens showed their support the next day for their righteous fallen brethren, those awful police finally saw the error of their ways. If only dick poplawski and lovell mixon had watched chris matthews and kieth olbermann instead. Eventually they would have gouged their own eyes out with plastic spoons and shoved c4 in their ears to stop the mind numbing smegma matthews and olbermann eruct (look it up). Problem solved.