[Mark Tyson]

Drug Bust Is Called Huge;
Guns, two men and 226 pounds of cocaine are seized in Ontario. Authorities say the action will make a dent in local trafficking.

Copyright 2003 The Times Mirror Company; Los Angeles Times

All Rights Reserved

Los Angeles Times
August 15, 2003 Friday
Inland Empire Edition

San Bernardino County sheriff's investigators arrested two Inland Empire men Thursday in a drug bust that netted 226 pounds of cocaine, $50,000 in cash, a semiautomatic machine gun and two handguns, authorities said. It was one of the biggest drug busts in recent county history, they said.

The cocaine's wholesale value is more than $1.5 million, said Chip Patterson, spokesman for the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department.

"We don't find this kind of haul very often," Patterson said. "[Dealers] are becoming smarter... We consider this a pretty good chunk" out of the drug trafficking scene.

He said it also would reduce related crimes such as violence and fraud.

Authorities arrested Mario Illan Contreras, 33, and Heliodoro Cordova, 32, at an Ontario residence on suspicion of cocaine possession with the intent to sell.

They are being held on $5-million bail each, authorities said.

Officials declined to reveal specifics about the investigation but said they had obtained information months ago leading to the two men and their alleged ties to drug dealers in Colombia, where the cocaine is believed to have originated.

It was then smuggled through Mexico, Patterson said.

The investigation included help from local, state and federal law enforcement agencies.

No other suspects are being sought, Patterson said, "but there's always a possibility there's another one out there.

"At this point, we're satisfied."

[benEzra]

"A semiautomatic machine gun"??!??
:banghead:

[Waitone]

. . . . a semiautomatic machine gun . . . . Not to fear. Voila! The latest attempt by VPC, Brady, et al to inject a new term into the public debate. Last attempt was "bullet hose". That term failed to get legs so now other terms are to be tried.

The beauty of the latest term is it confuses the meaning of a technically precise term (semi-automatic) with a term much less technically precise but just loaded with emotional content (machine gun). The name of the game is to create emotionally charged terms, confuse if at all possbile, and then create your own content for the term after confusion has set in. If they are successful in getting the public to buy off on a semi-automatic machine gun when it refers to, say an SKS, then the next step will be to create the semi-automatic machine pistol such as, say any 1911 or Glock or. . . . .

Now what is interesting about this term is it was introduced through a big media outlet instead of through a press release from anyone of a number of anti-2 organizations. Perhaps they realize the source of the term is just as important as the nature of it meaning. Since LA Times is a sister pub of the NY Times I'm not surprised the term surfaced there. The proper way to deal with an introduction of terminology is to emphasize the linkage with the NY Times. If the NYT is no longer a reputable news source, why should be assume the LA Times is any different since they are owned by the same company?

[Quartus]

"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple stupidity."

Weatherington's First Law of Non Paranoia.


We should also remember the L.A. Times' unofficial reporter's creed:

"I have sworn eternal hostility to every form of technical accuracy in all matters."



But in this case, the malice at least is equal to the amazing stupididty of this pack of idiots.

[Travis McGee]

Journalists don't know rifles from shotguns or pistols from revolvers, and they are proud of their ignorance. They brag that they have never fired a gun in their lives as if that is something to be proud of.

http://www.enemiesforeignanddomestic.com/bookcover.jpg

[Standing Wolf]

...a semiautomatic machine gun...

I'm sure that's not simple ignorance: merely one more example of the extreme left's ongoing efforts to demonize firearms, people who keep and bear arms, and the Second Amendment. Why am I sure? Because the purported "mistakes" always make firearms and law-abiding firearms owners look worse rather than better, and there are lots of so-called "minor errors."

[ninenot]

On the other hand, it could be a machine gun REALLY in need of a cleaning...

[0007]

Maybe the magazines for it only hold one round. Insert magazine pull trigger, fire one round; remove magazine; insert new magazine pull trigger, fire one more round; remove magazine, ad infinitum...

[Shawn Dodson]

I have a newspaper article from the 1990s stashed away in a box somewhere in my garage (San Jose Mercury News, IRRC), in which they described a perp's gun as a "semiautomatic revolver." (It was worth saving.)

[benEzra]

It seems as if in current igno-journalist speak, "semiautomatic" is a catchall term meaning "scary," e.g. a "semiautomatic" gun is one that is scarier than some other gun of comparison.

I heard a TV journalist covering the 1991 Gulf War talk about the Iraqi soldiers brandishing their "semiautomatic weapons" (AK-47's and 74's).

[vmi93]

It seems as if in current igno-journalist speak, "semiautomatic" is a catchall term meaning "scary," e.g. a "semiautomatic" gun is one that is scarier than some other gun of comparison.

I think news shows would be more entertaining if every announcer was paired off with an editor/researcher who could ask them to define the terms they use whenever they try to sound like they know what they are talking about.

For example:

Tom Brokaw: "Three people murdered by semi-automatic assault weapon."

Editor: "Tom, please define semi-automatic."

Brokaw: "Uhhhh..."

It'll never happen, but I can dream.

[RobW]

Shawn,

if it was a Webley Fosbury, the term is accurate. It's really a semi-automatic revolver (it rotates the cylinder and cocks the hammer after the 1st shot). I think the relatively new "Mateba" is a semi-auto revolver, too.

But, knowing "journalists", I could swear what he meant was a double action revolver.

"I don't care about facts, I'm a journalist"

[Quartus]

vmi, I LOVE your idea! :D


At the risk of veering the thread, I've got another idea along the same lines:

At every political debate or press conference, have a team of 5 or 6 linguistic or logic or rhetoric professors. Their job is to judge the responses to questions. After each answer given by the politician (or aspiring politician), they would each give a score, like judges at a gymnastics contest. The scores would be shown to the audience, but not the politicos.

What are they judging?

Nothing to do with ideology or philosophy. Not whether they like the answer or not. They'd be judging just one thing:

Was the question answered?

That's it. Just as objectively as we can manage, judge whether or not the public official or politician or candidate ANSWERED THE QUESTION.

It would wreck some political careers. :D