Monday, August 06, 2007

Stop Me If You've Heard This One Before

According to Boston Mayor Tom Menino's twisted brand of logical thinking (for lack of a better term), we'd all be best served by blaming the the National Rifle Association for this latest example of a violent criminal being allowed to roam the streets of Boston.

From Michele McPhee at the Boston Herald:

On a hot summer day last year - Boston’s bloodiest in a decade - Gregory Lodge pulled a .38 from his waistband on Dakota Street in Dorchester and threatened someone with it, police say.

“What are you going to do? Shoot me?” the victim asked Lodge, according to a police report.

The answer was yes, according to police. Shots were fired, but no one was hit. Police were called. The gun was recovered.

And Lodge, 24, was soon arrested. His fingerprints were lifted from the Smith & Wesson .38 recovered after he was busted. He was identified by the victim and witnesses.

This month, Lodge was brought to trial in the Suffolk County gun court, where a jury found him guilty of unlawfully carrying a firearm, unlawful possession of ammunition and carrying a loaded firearm earlier this month.

I guess actually shooting at someone on the street isn't a crime anymore in Boston. Any bets on whether or not Mr. Lodge took the time to be sure of his target and what was beyond?

But guess what?

Despite that conviction, Boston Municipal Court Judge Michael Coyne - who makes $129,369 a year - thought it was appropriate to give the convicted gun-toting thug a “stay of execution,” so he could get his affairs in order before he began serving the alleged mandatory 18-month sentence for illegally carrying a gun.

Can Coyne explain to me what kind of "affairs" an unemployed hooligan has to get into order before going to jail? The possibilities are scary.

Lodge was supposed to return to gun court last Tuesday so Coyne could sentence him. The con was a no-show.

Wow. Couldn't have predicted that one without a Magic 8-Ball.

And now he is on the lam.

Another great victory for Massachusetts liberalism.

I blame Ted Nugent.

Now, let's shift gears a little for a round of "What's wrong with this paragraph?". Here's McPhee's closer.

The National Guard could join forces with the BPD this morning and sweep through hot-spot neighborhoods to bust every gun-toting lowlife in the city - but unless the judges who are responsible for protecting us from the ugly growth of gun violence step up, it is the citizens who crave nothing but peace who will continue to suffer.

There are actually two answers to this one. First up, this news flash for Ms. McPhee.

Judges are as responsible for protecting people from violence as the governors who appointed them and the career politicians who voted them onto the bench. The responsibility for protecting the citizenry in this country falls primarily on, believe it or not, the citizenry - each and every one of us who calls the United States of America home.

Sadly, in the more "progressive" strongholds of America, like Massachusetts, the government has done everything in its power to make it as difficult as possible for a person to assume responsibility for his or her own security, while at the same time, doing everything in its power to ensure a steady supply of armed and dangerous criminals walking the sidewalks of our cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

One thing is certain. Should Hillary "It Taxes a Village" Clinton win the White House, this "exception to the rule" will become the national standard, as the scope of governmental control over our lives goes through the proverbial roof.

The second answer is hardly worth mentioning, as it's been the recipient of so many dead horse beatings here that I've lost count. So, I guess one more flogging couldn't do any harm.

By repeatedly referring to it as "gun violence", all Ms. McPhee and her colleagues in the media are doing is aiding and abetting the anti-gun politicians by shifting crime fighting attention and resources away from the criminals and focusing it, instead, on some of the tools they're using to assist them in their criminal activities.

Their inability/refusal to address the larger picture and their insistence on continuing their present course along the "Guns cause crime!" highway are the reasons their efforts fail. They're "fixing" a leaking boat by arguing over the color of the oars.

As I've said on multiple occasions, if all the guns in the world were to magically disappear one day, the strong, criminal subset of the population would still prey upon the weak.

Drugs and gangs would still be just as prevalent as ever in our inner-cities and beyond.

Innocents would be harmed and killed by the violent offenders being set free on a regular basis by Judges Peter, Paul, and Mary.

Mayor Menino would still be carrying in his back pocket a handy reference list of all the people, places and things (the NRA, George bush, Vermont, pay phones, t-shirts, foliage, tourists, etc.), on which he can blame his city's failures and shortcomings.

New Hampshire's violent crime rate would continue to be a fraction of the crime rate of our "progressive" neighbor to the south.

And, John Rosenthal and his ilk would sit back in their pastel-colored Adirondack chairs on the veranda, drinking wine spritzers and stroking each other's nether regions in congratulatory fashion for having been successful in lowering the state's "firearms fatality rate".