Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: NY Daily News' Michael Daly - gun rights supporters morally responsible for NYC cop's death

  1. #1
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post


    If this commentary by NY Daily News' Michael Daly is not the outrage of the week, I don't know what is - first Daly falsely claims an "automatic" pistol was bought in Virginia (probably at a local Safeway grocery store I guess) and used to kill an NYC police officer; second, Daly brays that the "[n]early two-thirds of Americans say they believe the Constitution guarantees each person the right to own a gun, according to a poll released [last] Sunday," see http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/16/guns.poll, are "morally responsible" for the NYC police officer's death.

    Daly's commentary is at http://tinyurl.com/2y59j9:

    SNIP

    "Virginia held a day of mourning for its victims but remained as indifferent as the other states that are major sources of the illegal guns flooding into New York. In July, a .45-caliber automatic from Virginia was used to shoot Officer Russel Timoshenko of the 71st Precinct in Brooklyn. . . . Those morally responsible include people who speak of gun rights but who really stand for gun wrongs. The blood spilled beneath the name of Nathan Hale is on their hands, no matter what they try to say about the Founding Fathers."
    --

    http://tinyurl.com/2y59j9
    Regret for one more life lost to guns
    Tuesday, December 18th 2007, 4:00 AM

    Two bulletshad ricocheted off a brick pillar, leaving coin-sized impact marks that still looked fresh Monday. One crater was about head high, the other waist level.

    A third bullet had gone a few inches wider and continued down the block to where bits of crime scene tape tied to trees and a lamp post still fluttered in the icy wind, looking like yellow ribbons outside a deployed soldier's home.

    The tape had been used to seal off the stretch of pavement where that third bullet had struck a profoundly innocent bystander, a student nurse named Carol Simon. She was hit in the torso; a pool of vomit in her building's vestibule marked where she had collapsed.

    The twin hedges that flank the front walkway twinkled with white Christmas lights. The windows above were decorated with a Santa and candy canes and a wreath. The building's name was inscribed in big block letters above the entrance: NATHAN HALE COURT.

    The original owner must have figured on giving the building an extra bit of class by naming it after the great patriot.

    Hale was hanged after the Battle of Long Island - whose major engagement took place a few blocks away in the vicinity of Prospect Park. He uttered those famous last words, "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country."

    He gave that one life so we can enjoy the freedoms in the Constitution. Folks who say they are for "gun rights" contend that the Second Amendment imparts the unfettered right to bear arms.

    The syntax of the Founding Fathers in this regard is unfortunately imprecise. Their intent was to guarantee the populace maintains a "well-regulated militia" - in modern terms, the National Guard.

    They could not possibly have intended for the country to be flooded by millions of handguns of no military value that kill thousands of innocents every year.

    Two centuries, 31 years, two months and 23 days after Nathan Hale was hanged, we had some other last words, these uttered on a cell phone by Carol Simon, whose one life was stolen. "I got a bullet. I got to call 911."

    Simon apparently collapsed before she could make that call. Neighbors summoned help, but she was beyond saving. She had left her 9-year-old son in the family car at the corner while she went back to get a purse. He is said to have heard the shots - and they will no doubt reverberate through his one life.

    The boy was with relativesMonday morning as seven candles flickered at a makeshift shrine in the vestibule where his mother died. Somebody had added a white teddy bear like one I saw set among the candles at another makeshift shrine, this one at the Virginia Tech campus after a gunman killed 32 innocents.

    I hoped sight of that shrine would cause the country to say enough is enough. Unfortunately, my hope proved unreasonable.

    Virginia held a day of mourning for its victims but remained as indifferent as the other states that are major sources of the illegal guns flooding into New York.

    In July, a .45-caliber automatic from Virginia was used to shoot Officer Russel Timoshenko of the 71st Precinct in Brooklyn. He struggled mightily, but lost his one life at Kings County Hospital.

    Officers from that precinct rushed to a report of shots fired at 5:30 p.m. on Saturday and found Simon dying in her doorway. She worked regularly with the trauma team at Brookdale University Hospital, which made her kin in the struggle to preserve life.

    The police set out after everyone criminally responsible for the latest outrage. Those morally responsible include people who speak of gun rights but who really stand for gun wrongs.

    The blood spilled beneath the name of Nathan Hale is on their hands, no matter what they try to say about the Founding Fathers.

    mdaly@nydailynews.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Live Free or Die, ,
    Posts
    140

    Post imported post

    The syntax of the Founding Fathers in this regard is unfortunately imprecise. Their intent was to guarantee the populace maintains a "well-regulated militia" - in modern terms, the National Guard.
    And this clown interprets the Founders' intent...how?

    What an arrogant, sanctimonious ass.




  3. #3
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    The blood of the officer is on gun advocates hands like the blood of 6 million Jews is on his hands and the hands of those like him that advocate the disarming of a population so that they can be exterminated by their government.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  4. #4
    State Researcher dng's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    1,290

    Post imported post

    He gave that one life so we can enjoy the freedoms in the Constitution. Folks who say they are for "gun rights" contend that the Second Amendment imparts the unfettered right to bear arms. EXACTLY the founding father's intent! They were tired of England telling them they could not have guns, just like I am tired of YOU trying to tell me I can't have guns.

    The syntax of the Founding Fathers in this regard is unfortunately imprecise. Their intent was to guarantee the populace maintains a "well-regulated militia" - in modern terms, the National Guard. No, the militia were volunteers, the national Guard is paid by the government. If the men who were part of the militia back during the American Revolution were still alive, they would be calling for another revolution because of all the rights that have been taken from us. The American government today is what the British government and king was in the 1770's.

    They could not possibly have intended for the country to be flooded by millions of handguns of no military value that kill thousands of innocents every year. Get rid of YOUR criminals, and the crime will go down. Get rid of guns, and crimes will still be committed, just with different instruments. The value of those "millions of handguns of no military value" are of value to me and millions of other Americans; those guns protect us from YOUR criminals in New York, from our government, and from evil socialists in our government; people like you Mayor Daly!
    See what you've done to me, Mike?

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Maryville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    407

    Post imported post

    The only one morally responsible for this murder is the criminal who commited it. Not people who speak for gun rights. Comments like that make my blood boil

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    A "person" wrote:
    The syntax of the Founding Fathers in this regard is unfortunately imprecise. Their intent was to guarantee the populace maintains a "well-regulated militia" - in modern terms, the National Guard.

    They could not possibly have intended for the country to be flooded by millions of handguns of no military value that kill thousands of innocents every year.
    Ok, guns of no military value? Fine. I'll give up my right to own handguns if I can get to buy and carry selective-fire carbines, i.e. "guns of military value", with no questions asked. Anyone else?

    Oops, not what you meant?


  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    If handguns have no military value, why do so many militaries use them? They must be stupid, I guess. Daly should clearly start a business as a military consultant, since he could save them a lot of money that they currently waste buying handguns and ammunition for them.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Dallas, TX, ,
    Posts
    496

    Post imported post

    swillden wrote:
    If handguns have no military value, why do so many militaries use them? They must be stupid, I guess. Daly should clearly start a business as a military consultant, since he could save them a lot of money that they currently waste buying handguns and ammunition for them.
    I agree with this and imperialism's POV. If Mike only wants guns with "military value" to beavailable and thinks handguns have none, gimme my MP5 andM4 Carbine and you can have my P95. I think a lot of hunters will thank Mike when they have to hunt with AKs and ARs instead of their trusty bolt-actions. Oh, wait; get a black synthetic stock and bipod and that bolt-action has military value. And when the police start walking around with M16s because handguns' only purpose is to allow criminals to kill, I think we'll all be thanking Mike.

    "No military value?" Whythen does every soldier in the U.S. Army wear a handgun on their hip, and has done so since WWI? In fact, the gun used for all but the last 15 years or so was a .45ACP1911 (the same caliber, if not the same gun, used to kill the officer).

    The 2nd Amendment does not protect the right of the Federal government to maintain the National Guard. Wait, the Federal Government maintains the State guard forces? Yes, the States may administer their use, but you think Texas could maintain its NG and ANG on a10.7 billion dollar budget? It costs more than the entire expenditure of the Statejust to maintain the ANG for a year.They get Federal money to do so and could not do so without it. The Act that established the National Guard was at the federal level, and the Federal government's needs pre-empt the States';it's a Federal construct. It therefore cannot be the "militia" the Bill of Rights was talking about because the BOR is a document that places limitations on the Federal government for the benefit of the States and the People. Why would the BoR contain one Amendment out of Ten that grants a power the Federal government already had in the original Constitution to create and maintain the armed forces?

    A militia, as protected by the Second Amendment,is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "a military force raised from the civilian population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". Wikipedia defines italternately as "The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms." "Well-regulated" would translate into today's parlance as "well-equipped". Therefore, "a well-regulated militia" translates as "the able-bodied citizenry, equipped with capable firearms and available to fight". Minutemen. The right to keep and bear arms ensures the availability of such a militia, whose usefulness was proven in the Revolutionary War, and thus "a well-regulated militia" and "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" IS THE SAME THING. The importance of such a force is no less useful today than200 years ago; if Venezuela invaded from the Gulf of Mexico tomorrow, with the Army AND National Guard largely deployed overseas, what wouldthe President say? "Get your guns out and protect your homes and communities by any means available!"

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hilton Head, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    524

    Post imported post

    Liko81 wrote:
    swillden wrote:
    If handguns have no military value, why do so many militaries use them? They must be stupid, I guess. Daly should clearly start a business as a military consultant, since he could save them a lot of money that they currently waste buying handguns and ammunition for them.
    I agree with this and imperialism's POV. If Mike only wants guns with "military value" to beavailable and thinks handguns have none, gimme my MP5 andM4 Carbine and you can have my P95. I think a lot of hunters will thank Mike when they have to hunt with AKs and ARs instead of their trusty bolt-actions. Oh, wait; get a black synthetic stock and bipod and that bolt-action has military value. And when the police start walking around with M16s because handguns' only purpose is to allow criminals to kill, I think we'll all be thanking Mike.

    "No military value?" Whythen does every soldier in the U.S. Army wear a handgun on their hip, and has done so since WWI? In fact, the gun used for all but the last 15 years or so was a .45ACP1911 (the same caliber, if not the same gun, used to kill the officer).

    The 2nd Amendment does not protect the right of the Federal government to maintain the National Guard. Wait, the Federal Government maintains the State guard forces? Yes, the States may administer their use, but you think Texas could maintain its NG and ANG on a10.7 billion dollar budget? It costs more than the entire expenditure of the Statejust to maintain the ANG for a year.They get Federal money to do so and could not do so without it. The Act that established the National Guard was at the federal level, and the Federal government's needs pre-empt the States';it's a Federal construct. It therefore cannot be the "militia" the Bill of Rights was talking about because the BOR is a document that places limitations on the Federal government for the benefit of the States and the People. Why would the BoR contain one Amendment out of Ten that grants a power the Federal government already had in the original Constitution to create and maintain the armed forces?

    A militia, as protected by the Second Amendment,is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "a military force raised from the civilian population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". Wikipedia defines italternately as "The entire able-bodied male (and perhaps female) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms." "Well-regulated" would translate into today's parlance as "well-equipped". Therefore, "a well-regulated militia" translates as "the able-bodied citizenry, equipped with capable firearms and available to fight". Minutemen. The right to keep and bear arms ensures the availability of such a militia, whose usefulness was proven in the Revolutionary War, and thus "a well-regulated militia" and "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" IS THE SAME THING. The importance of such a force is no less useful today than200 years ago; if Venezuela invaded from the Gulf of Mexico tomorrow, with the Army AND National Guard largely deployed overseas, what wouldthe President say? "Get your guns out and protect your homes and communities by any means available!"
    Few soldiers carry pistols on their hips. Most just carry rifles. Pistols are issued to officers, tankers, some support personnel, and as a secondary weapon to special operations guys.

    OTOH, every Marine is a rifleman first.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Alabama, ,
    Posts
    1,338

    Post imported post

    Hmm, all that ranting and not one compliant on the parole board who let the thugs out being to blame also.
    Nor one comment about the police responsible to protecting her, failing in thier
    duty. And not one comment about the police not even protecting thier own.
    Geuss he was asleep not to mention the microstamped fireing pin, and ammo
    would have stopped the crimes also.:X

    Lets not forget that military also has compact assault weapons for close
    quarters, with AMG folding stocks.

  11. #11
    Regular Member IanB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Northern VA
    Posts
    1,896

    Post imported post

    It wasn't the criminals fault he shot a cop, see... it was the guns fault. That criminal would be an upstanding citizen if it were not for those nasty guns from Virginia.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    81

    Post imported post

    I don't normally frequent the NY thread, but I saw this today:

    http://wcbstv.com/breakingnewsalerts....2.877183.html

    So maybe we should all contact Daly and ask him where he stands on banning knifes. Just think, a world without sharp pointy objects that could slash and stab..... ahhhhh..... how peaceful. Box knifes, razor blades, who needs 'em? Anything that could even be used to stab someone should be illegal. Get these tools of death off our streets and we will all be safer. Maybe this bus driver would still be alive?

    On a serious note, the worst part about this is that people just stood by and did nothing. NOTHING! And I can't be sure here, but I have a sneaking feeling that there are the few that believe "well maybe if the driver would've just given him the $2 transfer, he would still be alive. He is dead over $2."

    Sure, it sounds easy to say "well maybe the perp fell on hard times, maybe he couldn't pay for the bus, maybe maybe maybe; maybe if the bus driver just gave up the transfer... mabye maybe maybe." The fact remains that when the bus driver stood is ground, this POS excuse of a human being decided that it wasn't enough to take THE FIRST free ride, he would take someone's life, all becuase he wasn't given another free ride.

    And people STILL CONTINUE to ask me why I carry.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    , New York, USA
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    The liberal left commie media is not only in NYC. It is everywhere and it is brainwashing America.

    People like this guy daly are a dime a dozen in NYC. They all try to beat each other out and see who can write the most liberal piece. Of course the problems lie with the criminal element, the gangs, the drugs, the druggies. But dont tell that to a liberal, oh no, its not thier fault. Its the fault of society, guns, the gun owner, the butcher and the baker.

    NYC and the US is a cesspool of liberals who want nothing more than to disarm you and set the criminal element free.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •