It appears that Pacheco is taking a rest from media over exposure. His alternate mouthpiece came up with the following column in today’s (30 July 2010) Inquirer. Nothing new, same old drivel since 1990.
At Large
Guns and roads
By Rina Jimenez-David
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 21:26:00 07/29/2010
Filed Under: Infrastructure, Elections, Firearms
PEOPLE WHO say that it’s impossible to implement a gun ban in the Philippines forget that during an election year, for six months of the year, the Comelec imposes a ban on the carrying of guns in public by individuals other than police, military or those authorized to do so.
True, the ban, implemented by the police, is subject to a lot of loopholes, as proven by the number of ambushes and gunfights that mar the conduct of the campaign and elections. But for the most part, the ban is observed, and law enforcers apply the law.
Why not extend the ban indefinitely?
This is what Nandy Pacheco of The Gunless Society and Ang Kapatiran Party asks President Aquino in a letter he sent recently. “The essence of the Comelec gun ban is to avoid turning the harmless act of carrying a gun or deadly weapon in public places into a violent act,” Pacheco explains. “Let us be clear: we are not proposing a ban on owning guns, as we are not against keeping licensed guns at home for protection or sports.”
Perhaps the last sentence was added because P-Noy is himself an active and passionate gun enthusiast, who spends much of his weekends target shooting. But as Pacheco points out, the “Gunless Movement” has no plans of preventing gun owners from keeping guns at home—albeit in a safe and locked location to prevent accidents and suicides—or for using them for legitimate purposes like sports. Certainly, if a “responsible” gun owner ever transports a weapon, he should do so for a specific reason, and not with plans to use it, looking for the least excuse to brandish it before potential targets.
“THE OBJECTIVE of the Comelec gun ban in public places was essentially the same as the Anti-Deadly Weapons Act of 1991, which was certified by your mother, President Corazon Aquino, to Congress as urgent for immediate enactment, following the murders of Eldon Maguan on 2 July 1991 and of Maureen Hultman and Roland Chapman a few days later,” Pacheco reminds the President. “It was to reduce the danger of guns being used for violent crimes. The Senate passed the bill swiftly, but the House’s committee on public order and security opposed it.”
For now, Pacheco and his allies in the Gunless movement have no plans to re-introduce a similar measure, given the frustrating run they have had in past Congresses. Perhaps a few congresspersons or senators could see fit to take the initiative and re-introduce similar legislation.
We still live in dangerous times, no less so for members of the media who have fallen to assassins and hired killers in record numbers over the last decade or so. Perhaps if Congress had been able to pass the gunless law decades ago, the count of casualties among media circles would not have risen to alarmingly.
“We still live in dangerous times,” she says. Yes indeed. This is exactly why people need to take responsibility for their own safety.
A gunless law will never mean a gunless society, as can be seen in other countries that have taken such measures.
“Perhaps if Congress had been able to pass the gunless law decades ago, the count of casualties among media circles would not have risen to alarmingly.”
Really Now! Does she believe this crap? For a supposedly educated columnist, this strikes me as a very naive way of viewing things. Can she eleborate how such a law could “REALISTICALLY” stop criminals from killing journalists and other media practitioners. Clearly, even a moron would know that even if you go to the extent of prohibiting the private ownership of guns, criminals will still be able to get their hands on illegal guns and use it to continue victimizing ordinary law abiding citizens.
Wake up and smell the coffee! I don’t know what planet you and Nandy Pacheco live in, but in the world WE ordinary mortal beings live in, we have to contend with murderers, robbers, carnappers, kidnappers, rapists, muggers, corrupt law enforcers, etc. on a daily basis. Who’s going to protect us? YOU? NANDY PACHECO? THE POLICE? Well, I don’t know about other people, but if you ask me, I would rather entrust the protection of my life and the lives of my loved ones to someone who I really know gives a S#%T; AND THAT’S ME!
“True, the ban, implemented by the police, is subject to a lot of loopholes”
You think? Like say, criminals not giving a flying f#ck whether there’s a ban or not?