An old posting titled "Why I Sometimes Hate the Washington Post"

I am annoyed. I am annoyed at those who know nothing yet continue to defend gun laws. I am annoyed at the Washington Post. And more specifcally I am annoyed over an article entitled "Against Backdrop of Gun Ruling A Sad, Familiar Scene plays out." (You can read it to at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702149.html).

The article is about a young shooting victim's funeral. "[Walter Robinson] was the last juvenlie killed in the city before the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the city's strict gun bacn violated the Second Amandment quarantee of an individuals' right to own a gun." Now I have nothing wrong with an article about this young boys life. Everyone should be saddened at the death of a boy, one who barely got to start his life, a boy who never gets to go to college or raise a family. What ruined this article is the gun politics that was tied into this article, and its not just because I was one of those people that were jumping with joy at the Supreme Court's ruling.

Under the D.C. laws hand guns that were not registered with city police prior to Sept. 24, 1976 and rereigstered by Feb. 5, 1977, were prohibited. This means that the type of gun matters. Other types of guns wre not illegal, including rifles, but they had to be dissasembled, unlocked, and unloaded. Now going back to the article, it never did get around to specifying what type of gun was used. I would guess, and I think rightly so, that the gun used in the accidental shooting was a handgun, and im going to go out on a limb and say that it had not been originally been registered in 1976 (the suspect got hte gun from his mothers home). If this is the case, the gun was blatently illegal. It was not only an illegal act to shoot the kid but the gun was illegal in the suspects mother's home.

The article comments how community activists held a vigil outside his home, homing to convine the nation's highest court that more youths would die if the ban was overturned. But in my mind something else should have been occuring. They should have seen this incident as evidence that the gun laws in place were not working. There were still guns (illegal guns at that) on the streets and kids were still dying at unpardinable rates.

I am only half annoyed at the activists and that annoyance is only at the lack of education on the topic im going to guess that at least a few of them have. But at least they are politically involved. I am annoyed at the article because of the way the writers wrote this article. I give them props for saying "but the gan ban didn't save Walter Robinson." But could they not educate the public on the specifics. Couldnt they go beyond saying that what some fear with the overturning of the laws and specifically say why the gun ban didn't save Walter Robinsons life. They left out the most important part. THE GUN WAS MOST LIKELY AN ILLEGAL GUN!!!

They should have either left out the gun politics from the article, or dwelled on it enough that both sides were fully analyzed. If everyone is left with a bad taste against the overturning of D.C. gun laws, the article did not fulfill its job. It did not give an unbiased view of the issue. But I guess thats the media for you.

In my mind the focus of gun laws need to change. Deaths have nothing to do with the lack of gun laws. As this story shows, people will still get a hold of guns. This case shows that something else needs to be done. Perhaps we could try an education aspect. Familiest with guns can educate their kids on safe gun use. Education may have saved the victim and the suspect.

I may be annoyed at this article, but I am also very happy. Very happy that we have a supreme court that can stand up for our rights and our safety. They striked something down that not only worked, but took the rights of law abiding citizens away. People now have the ability to protect themselves in their homes. They also have their right to a revoluation fully back now as you can not fight a revoluation without weapons. Amen to freedom and to rights for that was what our country was founded on.