| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
Cheney shoots fellow hunter accidentally
Via AP:
WASHINGTON – Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a companion during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, spraying the fellow hunter in the face and chest with shotgun pellets.
Harry Whittington, a millionaire attorney from Austin, was “alert and doing fine” in a Corpus Christi hospital Sunday after he was shot by Cheney on a ranch in south Texas, said Katharine Armstrong, the property’s owner.
He was in stable condition Sunday, said Yvonne Wheeler, spokeswoman for the Christus Spohn Health System in Corpus Christi.
Armstrong in an interview with The Associated Press said Whittington, 78, was mostly injured on his right side, with the pellets hitting his cheek, neck and chest during the incident which occurred late afternoon on Saturday.
She said emergency personnel traveling with Cheney tended to Whittington until the ambulance arrived.
Cheney’s spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, said the vice president met with Whittington and his wife at the hospital on Sunday. Cheney “was pleased to see that he’s doing fine and in good spirits,” she said.
Glad to read Mr. Whittington is doing well, but as Michelle Malkin notes, the usual suspects are going to have a field day with this.
Monday AM Update: Let the conspiracy theories begin – sigh. (Hat tip: Outside the Beltway)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
67 Responses to “Cheney shoots fellow hunter accidentally”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
“As the story comes out it seems Mr. Whittington was the careless person in this accident, breaking a cardinal rule of walking around aimlessly during a covey stalk, something even a begginer is warned against up front.”
OMG. It’s starting. The blame shifting is here.
He wasn’t walking around aimlessly. The other guys went off and then he was cathing up. He was behind the guys with the gun. Is there another place he ought to have been?
Andrew, your ignorance about hunting is stunning. In these situations, the person leaving and then reapproaching a hunt is responsible for letting everyone know where they are. When you reapproach a hunting party, you yell out you’re coming back and where you are. It’s simple, and even newbies are informed of this at the start of a hunt.
And steve is well into the liberal lunacy of firearms. The “the police and military are evil, fascist organizations, and they are the only ones who should have guns” meme.
Hey Steve and Andrew take a look at Great Britain there is a perfect example of your gun control idiocy. Great Britain’s crime rate has increased tremendously since they confiscate law abiding citizen’s weapons and basically rendered them defenseless against criminals. Because we all know that all criminals obey every law when it comes to purchasing and handling weapons! “RRRiiiggghhhttt” Before either one of you show anymore of your ignorance google “Great Britain’s Crime Rate” and after that look at John Lott’s books “The Spin on Gun Control” and “More Guns Less Crime”. If you believe in gun control why don’t you put a sign in your front yard saying “This house is gun free”?
“Hey Steve and Andrew take a look at Great Britain there is a perfect example of your gun control idiocy.”
For me gun control is not swinging around and shooting behind you without checking to see what is there.
- I think your paranoia and fears are not without merit Andrew. If I were involved in the “Anti-everything-American” movement and “lets-turn-America-into-another-Zombie-Socialism” crusades, I’d be looking over my shoulder too… Good luck…
- Bang
Hey Andrew you are right Gun Control is hitting what ever you are aiming at especially if it’s a criminal and make sure they are DRT saves on court costs. The ignorance you show about hunting tells me you have never been it is up to you to let the others know where you are at “it’s called communication”.
” The ignorance you show about hunting tells me you have never been it is up to you to let the others know where you are at “it’s called communication”.”
And its up to someone pulling the trigger to tell the difference between a bird and senior citizen, specially when he’s spinning around and shooting at what he wasn’t looking at. Cheney needs gun control all right. But its not the law kind.
Steve wrote:
The Vice President was engaged in purely legal activity, and an accident occurred. The good people of Philadelphia suffered 380 murders last year, the vast majority of them by people with prior criminal records, killing people who also had prior criminal records. Mr Cheney is legally allowed to use a firearm hunting; most of the murderers (and victims) in Philadelphia were not legally allowed to have a firearm, due to their previous criminal records. But somehow, some way, all of the gun control laws didn’t stop people who were already criminals from committing more criminal acts.
Steve, perhaps you believe that the law-abiding homeowner in this case should not have been allowed to own ammunition.
THIS WEEK IN RNC STRAWMEN:
It’s not that Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face and then tried to hide it, it’s that the hyperventillating liberals will try to turn this into a(n) impeachment/guncontrol/story about how crazy Cheney is.
Steve, you just demonstrated you know nothing of the Constitution and individual rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I don’t know why anyone would listen to someone like you. You are wrong 99% of the time.
Steve, go read the 2nd amendment.
THIS WEEK IN DNC MOONBAT BUSH DERANGEMENT SYNDROME:
- Its all an elaborate coverup. Cheney was actually engaged in hunting puppies and bunnies with a rusty ceiling fan. He makes fuzzies out of them, like beer glass coasters, and slippers. Its a vicious hobby, and we’re outraged…..Outraged I tell you….Congress needs to hold investigative hearings into this anti-puppy/bunny scandal….
- I’m really hoping Kennedrunk weighs in on this. The gift that keeps on giving….
- Bang
Come on Big Bang Hunter (very hopeful thinking on your part considering your lack of a sex life), if you’re going to snark, at least get your own snark, and learn to use ellipsis properly.
Constitution talks about regulated and armed militias not individuals. Allowing individuals to have guns was allowed when some activist judge ruled it was ok to own guns. Now that the Suprem Court has no activists we the people will revisit the gun issue and have it reversed. You guys have abortion and we have guns. Good luck. Peace
Oh the al Qaeda lovers are out in force today, trolling right along. The obvious hope working here, is you tin-hats hope to take attention away from the truculent inflamatory remarks of your unguided missle mouth, Al Gore, over the weekend. Just keep on alienating mainstream America Komrade, election day is right around the corner….
- Bang
Just to be helpful to people, I thought you all might actually want to read the 2nd Amenment.
The 2nd Amendment with Legal Annotations:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Annotations
In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ”individual rights” thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ‘’states’ rights” thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force.
In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ”[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.”5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ”civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ”comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, ”when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”6 Therefore, ”[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ’shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”7
Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,8 and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.9 At what point regulation or prohibition of what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all, the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of illumination toward an answer.
Wrong again Steve. The 2nd Ammendment mentions that militias are necessary, but then goes on to state that the right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed. I know it’s complex for you to grasp, but there never was, as you so naively indicated, a court decision that said “OK you can have guns.” We have owned and used firearms since the inception of this country, we don’t need a judicial review to grant us a right we have always had. You make it seem like guns were illegal until some activist court ruled otherwise, and that just isn’t so. This is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. You may be a wimpy, hand wringing liberal who’s scared of guns, but most of us aren’t.
Once again, the liberal confliction: The police and military are fascist organizations, which is why they should be the only ones allowed guns.
Actually, I feel much better knowing you don’t have one personally.
This horrible tragedy calls for a boycott of the gun manufacturers, the ammunition maker, the companies that provided the rubber for their hunting boots, an immediate ban of the word “hunting” from our schools. Dick Cheney should also be impeached and tried for attempted murder, thrown into Abu-Graib where he’ll be raped, tortured, humiliated and beaten.
SCANDAL!!! SCANDAL!!!
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ‘the right of the people’ to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
- Is there a school that moonbats go too to learn reading “non-comprehension”, or is that just a natural talent of the “elites”?
- Bang
Big Bang,
Liberals Listen with their mouths and read with their writing hands. The get most things bassackwards and wonder why they are scorned and mocked.
>Constitution talks about regulated and
>armed militias not individuals.
That’s who’s, you know, IN the militia. Individuals.
This is really good, 40 reasons to support gun control:
http://www.attrition.org/technical/firearms/40_gun_control.html
>Constitution talks about regulated and
>armed militias not individuals.
That’s who, you know, is IN the militia. Individual citizens like you and me. Well, like me.
Ok, here is the deal that the Left extends to the Right. If you give up all of your fire arms, we will give up our Right to Privacy and let you spy on us. Peace
If you give up all of your fire arms, we will give up our Right to Privacy and let you spy on us.
After reading some of your posts Steve I cannot help but feel pity for the poor slob that get’s stuck reading your e-mails and listening in on your phone conversations. Talk about a lousy civil service job!
Here is the deal that the Right extends to the Left. Let the adults run the country. It’s past your bedtime.
“Let the adults run the country.”
nah. let them all go on hunting vacations.
Well, that certainly proves my point. Oh, and you forgot to say ‘peace’ after wishing all Conservatives would be shot. Mask slipping, Andy?
Never mind; it’s the other one who talks like a hippie. Hard to tell you two apart.
“Never mind; it’s the other one who talks like a hippie. Hard to tell you two apart.”
I’m the one that thinks the kind of gun control Cheney needs is the kinds the NRA will teach you.