The media bias, Rush, and his mess.

Status
Not open for further replies.

TexasRifleman

Moderator Emeritus
Joined
Feb 16, 2003
Messages
18,301
Location
Ft. Worth
OK, so the article is about Rush and his agreement regarding painkillers and drug testing. What does this have to do with firearms? Heck if I know, Fox thought it did.


WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. — Rush Limbaugh must submit to random drug tests under an agreement filed Monday that will dismiss a prescription fraud charge against the conservative commentator after 18 months if he complies with the terms.

He also must continue treatment for his acknowledged addiction to painkillers and he cannot own a gun.

Why include that statement? Was that specifically part of the plea agreement or just another excuse to demonize the evil gun....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,193794,00.html
 
UN plot to take guns away from rich drug addicts!

By mentioning it in the press, it reinforces the evil nature of firearms as they caused Rush to become a drug addict and say crazy crap on the radio for money.

Oh, do most folks convicted of such things lose gun rights?

Maybe he should have not done that. :D
 
Oh, do most folks convicted of such things lose gun rights?

Well, if they drop the charges as part of the agreement then there is no conviction right?

There's no question he screwed up, but that part of the agreement just confuses me.
 
Oh, do most folks convicted of such things lose gun rights?
Maybe he should have not done that.

+1

I have no problem with this. Plea bargain or not, he broke the law willingly, commited a felony, lied about it, and therefore, as a felon, you can't have a gun.

If it applies to Joe Citizen, it applies to loud radio pundit. Fair's fair.

And remember, one of the tenets of libertarianism and conservatism is personal responsibility.
He did this to himself. Don't go blaming other people for what he chose to do.
 
as a felon

This is where I am missing something I guess. If you get the charges dropped you are not a felon. You have to have the charges against you in place and a guilty verdict rendered before you are a felon. If he fulfills this agreement neither of these things take place.

So he gave up his 2A right without being convicted?

Which brings me back to my question. Why would the prosecutor want that stipulation if all this is about is getting a drug test?
 
It says right there on the 4473 or whatever, narcotics addicts may not buy or own guns. He is pleading guilty to a crime which was connected to his being a narcotics addict.

I think it's a shame. All this stuff should be legalized. Heavy users like Rush don't get a high from it. They just get constipated.

Btw, the gun disability will go away when he completes whatever it is. It's not a felony conviction that would bar him from life.
 
Rush is a felon until they expunge his record, until then he can not own any firearms, in 18 Months if he keeps off the pain killers. For the crime he got off quite easily. Joe Citizen would probably be spending 18 months in state prison, and would be considered a felon for the rest of his/her life. Personally, if I was the DA, I would never have given him this deal. He would be spend the 18 months in prison just like any other citizen. I hate elitist.
 
He is pleading guilty to a crime which was connected to his being a narcotics addict.
Wrong.

He did not enter any guilty plea. The "deal" included specifically that he entered a plea of not guilty. If he were to fail to keep his end of the deal, there would not be a guilty plea waiting to be entered. Instead, the prosecutor could go forward and attempt to prove his case. That's all.


It is likely that the agreement included "no guns" because he is actively under treatment for drug addiction. Simple.
 
It is likely that the agreement included "no guns" because he is actively under treatment for drug addiction. Simple.

Is that a common thing? That was the original reason for my post, it just seemed odd that the media report made sure to mention that "very important" fact of his agreement. He pled not guilty, and will be found as such if he meets the terms of his agreement.

Again, everyone that is saying it's because he's a felon is wrong. He is not, and will not be, a felon during or after this is done if he meets his part of the agreement.

I was just wondering if the gun thing was common or just tossed in there to get attention.
 
Limbaugh has made statements before saying he owns a few shotguns and the trials he had getting them registered in NYC. However, he's said little about 2A issues and even backed Bush in his support of the AWB... :barf:

Bill O'Reilly has done more to promote the 2nd Amendment than Limbaugh... :rolleyes:

As for the "agreement"....show me an "average Joe" who ever got a deal THAT good... :scrutiny:

Besides....Bush will probably pardon him for being "a good Party Guy"... ;)
 
No guilty plea involved

"He did not enter any guilty plea. The "deal" included specifically that he entered a plea of not guilty. If he were to fail to keep his end of the deal, there would not be a guilty plea waiting to be entered. Instead, the prosecutor could go forward and attempt to prove his case. That's all."

That's my reading of the details too Henry.

He was not found guilty of anything, especially the 10 felony counts the local DA claimed in the press to have him dead to rights on for the last two years.

Limbaugh has been on random drug testing as part of his rehab program and that will continue under legal supervision now for another 18 months.

As to the question, "would any normal citizen get this kind of deal?"

(I'll set aside my speech on envy and class warfare at this point)

Not only yes, but heck yes. First offenders, not involved in dealing, routinely get out with a slap on the wrist, a fine (sometimes) and probation. Feel free to go to 26th and California in Chicago and sit in the back of any courtroom and see it for yourself.

No conviction on his record, no guilty plea and in a year and a half it all goes away.

Fighting the addiction demons goes on for the rest of his life. On that, I wish him the best.

The end result is the local DA looks kind of silly, with a three year investigation, lots of press conferences, and accusations of felony counts and a Friday afternoon fine and probeation with out even a guilty plea.

I predict that D.A. Nifong, in the Duke case, will probably wind up in the same situation by the time all is said and done in Raleigh.
 
I'm no fan of Rush but the articles in the two local papers have been biased.

I know big surprise.

The palm beach post

The sun sentinel

If you want to laugh read the op eds. Lots of liberals write in all the time.
 
The fact that El Lushbo became addicted to prescription painkillers is not the big deal, IMO - happens to a lot of good people all the time. However, his hypocrisy sickens me.
Biker
 
The fact that El Lushbo became addicted to prescription painkillers is not the big deal, IMO - happens to a lot of good people all the time. However, his hypocrisy sickens me.

In all his years of broadcasting the lefties and other sorded Rush haters have come up with one or two anti drug statements he has made.

OHHHH THE HYPOCRICY !! :rolleyes:

If you don't like Rush big deal. I can take him or leave him myself.

But to blow this out of proportion like it has been and then read here all the silly stuff that normally thoughtful people have written is just too much.

Go here as this will probably get locked. Armed Polite Society Rush thread
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top