Defining the terms
I suppose one could argue that we still have a relatively free press, but what one can also argue is that — because it’s a press that has become an arm of progressive activism and big government — the freedom it has is being used not as a check on the powerful, but rather as a propaganda arm for them.
Which says to me that we need, institutionally, to begin teaching our children that the press is necessarily biased; and that any “news source” that doesn’t admit upfront to its political biases cannot and should not be trusted — nor should it be subsidized in any way by taxpayer money.
All of which is a general prelude to a story that is, in the scheme of things, rather a small one, although fitting given that it’s tax day. Chicago Sun-Times:
Nahshon Shelton didn’t want to pay the 22-cent tax on his $1.79 two-liter of Pepsi on Saturday afternoon, Chicago Police said.
So he allegedly pulled a blue-steel Intratec .22-caliber submachine gun out of his Gucci satchel inside the convenience store in the 4000 block of West Madison Street where they tried to make him pay it — and he threatened to kill everyone there, a prosecutor said.
This “is my neighborhood, I’m tax exempt!” he would later allegedly tell the cops. “Man, you know what, I’ll keep it real. I had to put them in their place.”
Shelton, 36, of the 4200 block of West Carroll, was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, unlawful use of a weapon by a felon and having an invalid FOID card.
Assistant State’s Attorney Claire Savaglio said police saw Shelton yelling at the victims when they answered a report of a man with a gun there.
“I’m going to shoot you in the head three times,” Shelton allegedly told one person.
“I’m going to smoke your ass,” he allegedly told another.
Savaglio said the whole thing was caught on video surveillance. She said Shelton’s gun had eight live rounds in one magazine, five live rounds in another and one in the chamber.
It might be enjoyable to make a game out of this piece of reporting — here, done by staff reporter Jon Seidel — in which we as readers spot the errors, but really, who has the time? So let’s just get to it. The way the story is written suggests that Shelton already had a felony conviction, meaning that he was ineligible for a FOID card. That is, as a felon, his having a gun was itself already against the law in Illinois.
Second, if you do a search for an “Intratec .22-caliber submachine gun” (blue steel or no) you’ll find that nearly every mention of such a thing is a reworking of this story by a media that is either too lazy to do any research (and astonishingly uninformed about firearms), or else has as its agenda to make the kind of gun this felon was carrying seem all the more sinister.
Here are the facts: the Intratec .22 caliber “submachine gun” is nothing more than a .22 caliber semi-automatic pistol in a gaudy mostly plastic shell.
To put that into perspective, my wife owns a nickel-plated .22 Walther as her carry piece, a Christmas present from me (because the baby Jesus would want us to be able to defend ourselves), and no one anywhere at anytime ever who has even the most rudimentary knowledge of hand guns would mistake a .22 Walther for a sub machine gun, which is a fully automatic rifle.
And not only is it onerous for a citizen (much less a felon) to legally obtain an automatic weapon of any sort, but the only way that this particular plinker could be turned into a machine pistol, which still wouldn’t be a “submachine gun,” would be by way of machining and filing, something that I doubt was done to this weapon, which, if used automatically, would have been out of ammo in less than a second. Which is why one of the very few .22 submachine guns deployed in the US is uses a drum, not a magazine system.
The fact that so many news services, including some overseas, “reported” that this felon threatened people with a “submachine gun” just goes to show, yet again, that the contemporary news media isn’t. Instead, it’s an extension of the left’s agenda, in this case, to gut the 2nd Amendment to make controlling the masses less dangerous for our new plantation overseers. Because there is no way any self-respecting journalist could get this wrong. It is, therefore, intentional.
So, then. What’s not mentioned in the accouint? Is who this guy, who was indignant about paying a tax on his soda, voted for — and whether or not whomever he voted for (assuming he votes or purports to support any political party) represents a tax cut agenda.
Because that’s the story here. If you have to find one amid the load of propaganda masquerading as journalism.
(h/t Geoff B)