Ignorant, misleading gun control reporting by Washington Post

Dan Lucas_July 2012_BW

by Dan Lucas

There is some ignorant, misleading reporting by Juliet Eilperin in her article yesterday in the Washington Post. She writes that President Obama is using the recent shooting in Oregon to justify “circumventing Congress with his executive authority and imposing new background-check requirements for buyers.”

Her article should have pointed out that Oregon ALREADY HAS background checks on ALL gun purchases!

Oregon (and the nation) have had required background checks on purchases from gun dealers since 1994, Oregon has required background checks from gun shows since 2000 (closing that so-called ‘loophole’), and “universal” background checks on individual purchases (that supposedly closed the ‘Internet loophole’) since August of this year.

So how can Oregon be used to justify President Obama’s planned executive actions?

The Washington Post knows about Oregon requiring background checks on ALL gun purchases, and so does President Obama – check out this Washington Post article from May of this year.

Ms. Eilperin herself mentions “Gun-control activists have made significant political headway on the state level since the Newtown shooting. In the past year, they prevailed on background check fights in Washington state and Oregon.” But she doesn’t bother to explain what that fight was – that Oregon now has background checks on ALL gun purchases!

And background checks didn’t stop the killer at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. The ATF has reported that all of those guns were “purchased legally” from a “federal firearms dealer” by the killer or a family member (his mom?) – which means they passed background checks to buy them. Just like the killer in the South Carolina church shooting passed a background check and the Virginia Tech shooter passed a background check, as well as many others.

Ms. Eilperin goes on to report about former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) and her husband, Mark Kelly meeting at the White House recently to discuss expanding background checks, but Ms. Eilperin doesn’t mention that Giffords’ attacker PASSED A BACKGROUND CHECK – something Mark Kelly has admitted on one of his trips to Oregon.

Why would all of that critical and relevant information be omitted from Ms. Eilperin’s reporting?

To read more from Dan, visit www.dan-lucas.com

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 10:30 | Posted in 2nd Amendment, Gun Control, Media, President Obama | 57 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • DavidAppell

    Elperin was writing for a national newspaper from a national persective. There’s more to the world than your little Oregon, Mr. Lucas.

    • Arele

      Why then would the shooting in Oregon be the impetus for extending background checks, since we already have universal background checks and the shooter passed them? Wouldn’t you then be looking for solutions that actually would have stopped this shooter? Like maybe getting rid of gun free zones? Or mental health solutions? Because if anything, Oregon shows that expanding background checks doesn’t stop shooters, so why do it nationally?

      • DavidAppell

        Many people on the UCC campus has guns, so it wasn’t a “gun-free zone.” Yet that made no difference.

        What “mental health solutions” do you propose?

      • Makeadifference

        You know what? You can’t fix stupid! This kid went to a HS for emotionally disturbed kids. Background checks need to be better! I don’t care if it takes me a month to get a new gun because it takes that long to do the check. Checks need to be more intensive!

    • Fire up the heat reducing him

      Lo, there goes the Big Appell dropping his core values into a cauldron of anti-second amendment boiler mockery.

      • DavidAppell

        I’m all for the second amendment. So tell me what well-regulated militia you’re part of?

        • Dick Winningstad

          You would have a point if you did not hve the meaning of the 2nd backwards., A militia was the reason the people’s rights to bare arms were not to be infringed.

          • DavidAppell

            And so where are the militas?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Doesn’t matter David.

          • DavidAppell

            It clearly does matter, if you actually look at the words in the second amendment.

            So where are the well-regulated militias? Or did we see one in Roseburg?

          • Chucks Pa

            David, Yugo go squat your morass in a Syria bender and tell ISIS they’re fulla squat, albeit Putin on a kibitz frat party, Allah anal House

          • Dick Winningstad

            Not if you read the text. It merely says so the States can have a militia, the national government cannot infringe on the people’s right to bear arms. “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.” Given this is the Constitution and intended to tell the national government what it can do this is a pretty specific instruction to the national government to not infringe on the people’s right to have guns regardless of whether the State has a militia.

          • DavidAppell

            It clearly says that keeping arms is to occur in the presence of a militia.

            And, in fact, a “well-regulated” militia — regulations which come from government.

            It’s far past time for both these clauses to be put into effect — unless you think the Roseburg gunman was acting as part of a militia. Do you?

          • Dick Winningstad

            How did you arrive at the conclusion? I suggest re-reading the amendment. There is no requirement to be in a militia. And if you consider what a militia is you would see the people were expected to bring their arms to a militia gathering. The Amendment, again, clearly tells the national government to keep its hands off the people’s arms. Lastly the national government only has jurisdiction over the militia when in national service.

          • DavidAppell

            I arrived at this conclusions, obviously, because “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” has a qualifying clause, “A well regulated Militia….”

            This interpretation is hardly mine alone. It says the right to arms exists in the context of a militia — and a well-regulated one. Regulations come from government.

            Was there a well-regulated militia in Roseburg?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Yes you interpretation is not original. But it is sourced from the latter 20th century. Look at any of the founders statements about arms in general or the 2nd in particular and you will find there is no requirement that one be in a state militia to bear arms. Again, a person was required to bring his own arms when called to the milita. And the 2nd is there to prevent the national government from disarming the people. You might ask yourself if the only reason for people to bear arms is for use when in a militia, why did the writers not just say “Congress can not prohibit state militias?

          • DavidAppell

            We’re interpreting the Constitution, not gleaning meaning from sacred texts written by this guy and that guy.

            Others have opinions other than yours, also based in history:

            http://www.theatlantic.com/past/issues/96mar/guns/guns.htm

            Guns can be regulated without anyone’s rights being infringed, just as cars are — licensing, registration, tracking, and insurance requirements.

          • CB

            “Guns can be regulated without anyone’s rights being infringed”

            I agree with that, of course, but gun ownership cannot be regulated without violating the 2nd amendment.

            …which is why the 2nd amendment needs to go.

            I’m not buying the “well-regulated militia” nonsense. It was nonsense in the 18th century and it’s nonsense now. If the people with the biggest guns get to decide what is and what isn’t a well-regulated militia, it makes the entire amendment meaningless.

          • DavidAppell

            Totally agree. If gun people want unrestricted access to firearms, let them have Revolutionary War-era muskets. The notion they should be able to own machine guns and assault rifles is insane, without an iota of Constitutional support.

          • zlop

            “The notion they should be able to own machine guns and assault rifles is insane”

            When a UN controlled swat team comes to forcibly vaccinate the community, what use will a handgun be?

          • DavidAppell

            Is that your big fear in life — UN SWAT teams coming to jab you in the arm?

          • zlop

            UN swat teams will wait until, after the population has been reduced
            and most will line up to be allowed inside FEMA FUN camps

            Are you. David Appell, prepared for the coming economic collapse?
            “V, the Guerrilla Economist-You Cannot Stop This Financial Collapse”
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pjMw91P_6M&feature=player_detailpage#t=558

          • DavidAppell

            And just how is the population going to be “reduced” if UN SWAT teams don’t first ask them to rollup their sleeves for a vaccination?

          • zlop

            Many are the ways of population destruction, often they interact, often
            in different time order. Specific populations are targeted, softened up.

            Many Serfs, trusting, without resistance, regularly line up to be injected.
            Regularly eat GMO, regularly consume government propaganda.
            Then, toxic overload. The Serf does not know what is killing him.

          • DavidAppell

            You — yes, you — have been regularly eating GMOs for 20 years. How have they harmed you?

          • CB

            That’s at bare minimum a more coherent argument than anyone on the supreme court makes, but the problem with that kind of originalism (that even Scalia abandons in this instance) is that the understanding of the society that generated the language was fairly primitive.

            If this is your approach, you have to say that amendment 1 does not apply to Blacks, because the people who wrote it thought Blacks were not people.

            If you interpret the 2nd as it’s written, on the other hand, you find the constitution guarantees thermonuclear arms to every citizen, far more impetus than the congress should ever need to get off their lazy asses and get rid of it.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Except there is nothing in the Constitution telling the national government not to infringe on the right to cars. That is properly a State matter anyway, see the 9th and 10th Amendments. And while you dismiss the founders, their intent was to keep the national government from taking arms from the people. Something, noted liberal, Sen Feinstein is on record advocating.

          • DavidAppell

            No rights are absolute. The First Amendment is much more clearly written than the Second, and yet courts have decided lots of speech is not allowed.

            The wording of the Second Amendment only makes sense in the context of a militia. Otherwise the authors of the Amerndment would never have included that clause.

  • thevillageidiot

    “The Unspoken Truth About Gun Control”
    http://www.garynorth.com/public/14355.cfm
    taking no credit but I love it.

    • Crackpot!

      “When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime (Ex. 21:17). The son or daughter is under the lawful jurisdiction of the family. The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death.”
      A typical Gary North quote.

    • .

      Holy smokes! Even crazy people think North is a wack job! Do you really read his stuff and DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS?!?!?!?!?!? If so, check into the nearest mental health facility right now!

      • (RR) Regulatory Review

        There’s more than one “.” commenting on this issue. To wit, whack the mole of your choice, yet be aware our 2nd Amendment Rights are being chopped to pieces and sent be’headied’ to a raunch site where animal pharmacology feeds obedience to the Devil hiss elf.

  • zlop

    Zios want to confiscate guns, so they can do a rerun of “Red Terror”
    “spiritual descendants of these satanist Bolsheviks run the world today”

    • Conservatively Speaking

      Well stated.

      • zlop

        Lenin and the Bolsheviks, killed off farmers, to create food shortages.
        Starving people are easy to kill. There is a present day similarity here;

        “V, the Guerrilla Economist-You Cannot Stop This Financial Collapse”
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pjMw91P_6M&feature=player_detailpage#t=558

        • DavidAppell

          The guy in the video is a kook. No wonder he’s afraid to show his face.

          • zlop

            “The guy in the video is a kook.””

            There are numerous others who also predict collapse. There is
            no precedent for this, enormously large, debt. However, when
            money becomes worthless, how long before things restart?

          • DavidAppell

            Others predicting collapses are also kooks. Our debt is perfectly managable. It has also been higher that it is now.

          • zlop

            This person also gets insider information. ( others say, collapse postponed till next year )
            “Jim Sinclair-Silver Will Be Gold On Steroids In Coming Rally”
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7tTdO6oxUA&feature=player_detailpage#t=79

          • DavidAppell

            Another kook. There is a nearly limitless number of them.

          • zlop

            Why are you dismissing? From numerous sources, look for ideas.

          • DavidAppell

            I’m dismissing these because the people are kooks. One ever made a bad prediction and you still believe him….

            My suspicion is that people like you WANT there to be a massive crash of the economy. Cause, you know, it will teach us all a lesson…about something.

          • zlop

            “you WANT there to be a massive crash of the economy”

            Red Terror is the template — Bolshevik idealists are in control.
            “Do Americans Face a Red Terror? – henrymakow”
            http://henrymakow.com/2014/03/do-americans-face-a-red-terror.html

          • DavidAppell

            Yet another kook.

            Did you know that if you say “orange” very slowly, it sounds like “gullible?”

          • zlop

            ” sounds like “gullible?””
            And you believe official US census statistics?

          • DavidAppell

            “And you believe official US census statistics?”

            Let me guess — they’re part of the conspiracy too.

          • DavidAppell

            This kook said (about the 4 min mark), “We’re not making it through September without the real thing [crash].”

            We made it through September without a crash.

            Credibilty = -1

          • zlop

            You miss the point — he said that, there is no precedent or this large amount of money.
            Others say, crash could be prevented, but it will not be prevented.
            Reading between the lines, the crash would be convenient for Obama to become dictator.

            “Alex Jones interviews Larry Nichols September 1st 2015”
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ni0rrThsv0o#t=448

          • DavidAppell

            “Reading between the lines, the crash would be convenient for Obama to become dictator.”

            Thoughts like that make you a kook too.

          • zlop

            That person was Hillary’s strategist. Said that, Hillary did not
            become president, because she did not follow the rule book.
            ( scare off or destroy competition )

          • DavidAppell

            Then she should not hire kooks. The whole idea is preposterous, laughable, and nutty.

          • zlop

            ” preposterous, laughable, and nutty”

            US is not exceptional, immune to population destruction.
            8 out of 130 million disappeared during the Great Depression. Remember Smedley Butler,
            who could have helped the US oligarch, to bring in Stalinist repression.

          • DavidAppell

            No, the US did not “lose” 8 million during the Great Depression:

            population by year:
            http://chartsbin.com/view/gdn

          • zlop

            “Researcher: Famine Killed 7 Million in US During “Great Depression” The conditions,
            under which people were working for food, could be compared to Stalin’s GULAG camp.”

            Seven and a half million people does not mean the number of particular victims of the famine, but a general demographic loss, or the difference between the supposed population on the date of the census that was due to be held in 1940 and the factual number of people. … The figure is more than ten million people.”

          • DavidAppell

            People often choose not to have babies in difficult economic times. That’s smart. The actual population did not decrease by 8 million during the Great Depression.

            The Great Depression occurred in a capitalist country, not in Stalinist Russia.

          • DavidAppell

            “You miss the point — he said that, there is no precedent or this large amount of money.”

            What “large amount of money?”

          • Debbie Wassamater Mann

            Zoros you’d bling that up at this time. shillgrim.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)