Dishonest Public Official at Senate Hearings.


Billy Shears
February 20, 2013, 08:36 PM
This comes a bit late, as the article is days old, and the official's testimony is weeks old, but I just remembered something that makes me want to post this. (To the moderators: If this has already been addressed in another thread, feel free to move this.)

Read this article for more details

At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings a few weeks ago, one of the witnesses was the Baltimore County Police Chief, James Johnson, who testified that it was extremely important that Congress reinstate the assault weapons ban, stating that such weapons are being seized by his officers every day, and they are an enormous danger to law enforcement and citizens.

Except it ain't so. It turns out, when records are reviewed, only about 5% of the firearms seized since October are "assault weapons" under the definition of the Clinton-era ban. So either the chief is an idiot, who testified in ignorance of the true figures, or he's deliberately lying. I think the latter is more likely. Why would he do this? Well, to advance an agenda, obviously, but why does he have that agenda in the first place?

Think about what a festering cesspit Baltimore has become. Blaming "assault weapons" sure might take some of the heat off a chief who's not cleaning up the city, and has to explain why things aren't getting better, now wouldn't it?

What prompted me to post this now, is that I suddenly remembered something about gun control in Britain, and how it was advanced. In June 1966, British Home Secretary Roy Jenkins told Parliament that after consulting with the Chief Constables and the Home Office, he had concluded that shotgun controls were not worth the trouble (at the time, shotguns were not regulated, pistols and rifles were. A year earlier, his predecessor as Home Secretary had also made the same inquiry, and reached the same conclusion. Just six weeks later, Jenkins announced that new shotgun controls were necessary, because shotguns were too easily available to criminals.

What changed? The answer was: nothing remotely to do with shotguns. But what had happened was that three policemen at Shephard's Bush had been murdered with illegal revolvers, and this resulted in a strong popular outcry for the return of capital punishment, which had been ended in Britain the year before. Jenkins, a staunch opponent of the death penalty, announced new shotgun controls, in an attempt to divert attention from capital punishment. It wasn't remotely logical, but it worked politically. Jenkins claimed that "criminal use of shotguns is increasing rapidly, still more rapidly than that of other weapons." This was not true at all. The only shotgun related crimes that were increasing were poaching and property damage. There as no evidence that shotguns were increasingly used in violent crime. But proposing new shotgun controls allowed the Home Secretary to show that he was "doing something" about crime. It did nothing about real violent crime, but it make him look proactive, and muffled calls for the return of the death penalty.

This is what we are up against folks. Johnson is spiritual kin to Home Secretary Jenkins. He is entirely willing to distort and mislead to advance his agenda, and make him look like he is "doing something." And it goes beyond that. I think Johnson, and other gun control advocates in public office are dangerous, as they really think they have some sort of right to decide for other people what sort of weapons they "need" and should be allowed to have. We have too many public officials like this.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dishonest Public Official at Senate Hearings." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
February 20, 2013, 08:45 PM
He's a politician first and foremost. I didn't trust Ron Paul, and I won't trust James Johnson or any of the other politicians. They are politicians, their job is to lie and be deceitful.

Billy Shears
February 20, 2013, 08:52 PM
A worse aspect of things is that when a police chief like Johnson gives testimony such as he has -- wearing his uniform, of course -- he gives the impression that he speaks for law enforcement. Nothing could be further from the truth. He represents the opinion of some politically liberal police chiefs. I am a cop (12 years) and most of the officers I know are opposed to any assault weapons ban. There are exceptions, of course, but most of my fellow officers are not supportive of such a ban. The scumbags we arrest don't typically used "assault weapons" and when they do, they weren't often obtained legally. The vast majority of weapons purchased out there were bought by law-abiding citizens, and those aren't the people we're worried about.

But lying officials like this chief get up and misrepresent things at official hearings like this, and the average citizen who isn't a gun owner sees these things and thinks this is what police officers think.

February 20, 2013, 10:08 PM
A lying anti! Who'da thunk it?

This comparison wth what happened in Britain was especially poignant for me, because that's where I'm from. I thought I'd escaped this nonsense when I moved to the States, but it looks like we have a fight on our hands.

I don't want my kids to have to grow up in a country that is like Britain is today.

If you enjoyed reading about "Dishonest Public Official at Senate Hearings." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!