Media Continues to Claim Obama Not Anti-Gun
In its Election 2012 coverage the Sacramento Bee showed promises kept and unmet by President Obama. It noted:
-Silent on issue of gun violence after calling for “sound and effective steps” to keep guns away from criminals after Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot.
This isn’t quite true. But read the sentence again… note that it says “issue of gun violence.” Really, is anyone in favor of gun violence?
And again, no one wants to see criminals with guns. So not only is it not accurate but it throws in some anti-gun bias in the process.
Letter to Editor Shows Ignorance of Understanding of the Second Amendment
We don’t often call out letters to the editor, but we do feel it necessary from time to time. In this case, it was a letter to the Santa Maria Times by Robert Hoffman. He writes:
The 2nd Amendment confers the right to bear arms. It is, however, unlikely our founding fathers could have envisioned the muzzle-loading muskets of their era, essential for food and defense, evolving into weapons capable of inflicting the carnage modern weapons make possible.
This is a typical anti-gun rant. But Hoffman should also know that in the time of muzzle-loading muskets of that era a wound was typically a death sentence due to the medicine of the day.
Also, this notion that the guns were “essential” for food is nonsense. Does anyone think that the Founding Fathers, who were rich land owners, needed to hunt to eat? Why do people like Hoffman assume that the United States was all wilderness? There were actually cities in North America, and most people were actually farmers. This notion of backwoods men and rugged Daniel Boone types is not accurate.
He adds:
The price for our gun obsession is about 30,000 killed and 65,000 wounded annually. Most fatalities are not premeditated murders or in self defense and would, likely, not have happened had guns not been part of the equation.
And how many of those are killed are done so with illegal guns? The truth is that the vast majority of people killed with guns are killed with illegal guns. The NRA isn’t out to protect illegal guns in the hands of criminals.
He adds:
The “well-regulated militia” included in the text of the 2nd Amendment were the colonial militias that served as our only defense in the absence of a standing national army, before we had a National Guard and the most potent military in the world.
Yes, we’ve heard this before. So we should lay down our arms, live in a police state and basically except that the army will protect us, and the police will keep the streets safe.
Finally he adds:
Neither the Constitution nor its amendments is set in stone. Both have been amended when changing circumstances warranted change. It is time we revisited the 2nd Amendment and the relevance of the broad interpretation given it by the NRA and the gun enthusiasts it represents.
Spoken like a true anti-gun zealot. He doesn’t like guns so it is time to change the laws. Doesn’t matter that criminals won’t heed the new laws, doesn’t matter if gun enthusiasts want their guns – no for the good of America this anti-gun zealot believes it is time to change.
CBS Failed Gun Show Sting
Our friends at Guns.com reported this past weekend:
CBS 5 went undercover in a California gun show to look for guns that violated the state’s strict gun laws, but the only people breaking any rules were the CBS investigators.
And:
As it turns out, there are “No Camera” signs all throughout the gun show, and gun show representatives announced “No picture taking during the show” frequently throughout the day. “Hypocrisy” is the word that we’re looking for, here.
What makes things worse is that California has a two-party consent law, which means that it is a crime to record private conversations unless everybody involved is aware that you are recording.
Guns.com: CBS Seek to Uncover Illegal Guns, Expose Themselves Instead
Pincole Bans Private Sales
Last week The Chicago Tribune noted a story that missed much mainstream attention is just the latest example of strict Illinois gun laws:
The Pinole City Council this week formally adopted an ordinance banning the sale of firearms and ammunition from home businesses and restricting them to commercial areas, bringing to a close an often-heated debate centering on Second Amendment rights that dragged on for months.
The council also extended an existing moratorium on home-occupation use permits for firearm and ammunition sales to cover the 30-day waiting period before the ordinance adopted Tuesday becomes effective and give the city clerk time to publish the ordinance in the newspaper.
This essentially bans private sales in Pinole, but here is the bigger issue – it will only deter the law-abiding and not do anything about criminals!
Who Guards the Guards: Gun Range Inspector Violated Laws
The State Journal-Register noted this week:
Robert Schmalholz has agreed to resign from his job as an inspector with the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation.
Carol Stream police arrested Schmalholz in 2009 and took his guns. He didn’t tell his department about the arrest or allegations, which were later dropped.
Schmalholz kept working without carrying a gun as required for his job. He also let his firearm-owners ID card expire but carried his gun after police returned it.
On the one hand, it is disturbing that he continued to carry a gun without the required permit or ID card, but if the charges were dropped why is this an issue? Clearly Schmalholz made a mistake, and it is ominous that law enforcement could so callously break the law, however this also is of concern that someone could lose their Second Amendment rights without due process.
CSM: Words Not Guns
There is an old saying that the pen is mightier than the sword, and this may be true but when it comes to defending one’s home a fountain pen is and go very far. This week the Christian Science Monitor questions stand your ground laws, and veteran newsman Walter Rodgers writes:
I’ve had pistols held to my head from Bosnia to Beirut. Your best self-defense is your tongue. Those who put their faith in guns will ultimately be outgunned.
He adds:
Rarely does one find oneself in a confrontation that can’t be talked out of, and where having a gun would have made things safer.
He must have quite the silver tongue, because as some tragic cases show sometimes you can’t talk your way out of a violent situation. Unfortunately, the world – including parts of the United States – is becoming a dangerous place. This does not defend the actions of George Zimmerman, but rather is mentioned note that there are times when words simply won’t suffice.
Who Guards the Guards: NYPD Guns Stolen
Last Week The New York Daily News offered a story that anyone who believes that only the police should have guns, should read. It noted:
Four 9mm guns have vanished from police officers’ lockers at the East Village station house — brazen thefts committed right under the noses of Internal Affairs Bureau investigators.
In this case criminals wanting firearms didn’t bother to cross the Hudson River, had to go and show hundreds of miles away or find some other source of illegal firearms. Instead they stole the police. Doesn’t this show the lengths that criminals will go to acquire guns? In other words, the Mayors Against Illegal Guns should realize that the problem the criminal, not the gun.
Huff and Pulls Tell How to “Control” the Debate
Do anti-gun zealots want a fair debate? In a word: no. Writing for the Huffington Post last week Margie Omero, Democratic pollster and president of Momentum Analysis instead offered a way to “control” the debate. In a piece titled, “‘Controling’ the Gun Debate: An Open Letter to All Pollsters,” she writes:
These days, the gun debate is not about whether one has the right to own a gun, but about how to balance those existing rights against the need to prevent gun violence.
This is not accurate, nor is it a fair way to look at the issue. The very notion that the right to own a gun somehow waits to gun violence shows why there can be no middle ground on this issue.
She adds:
Gun “Control” is an anachronism. Look at the exact wording of the Pew question: “What do you think is more important — to protect the right of Americans to own guns, or to control gun ownership?” This question uses the language of the gun lobby (rights), not the language of those working for stronger gun laws (safety). And it pits a right versus simply “control” for its own sake.
I don’t assume nefarious motives on Pew’s part. When this question was first written, “control” was indeed part of the gun debate vernacular. But it is no longer. Using the word “control” is a poor description of that side’s position. (While the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence was once called Handgun Control, Inc., the group hasn’t had` “control” in its name in over ten years.)
Here this is completely misleading. Anti-gun groups look for gun control as an answer, and removing the word control only confuses the issue. This is an issue of the right to own a gun versus those would like to control said right.
Handgun Control changed its name in an attempt to seem as if it was not so anti-gun, but the issue remains. As with other anti-gun groups, the agenda is to place greater restrictions, add new laws, and make it difficult to legally own a fire. The problem again is that these laws, restrictions and other methods of gun control will only affect the law-abiding.
Survival Mom Tells Why Families Should Have a Gun
Can you ever be fully prepared for disaster? The answer is probably not, but if you take the time to ensure that you have enough food and water, medicine, clothing and other essentials, the question must be asked to you need a gun?
Lisa Bedford, the Survival Mom, offered a sobering thought this week:
It’s shocking to read comments from non-preppers and a few preppers, alike, that part of their survival plan is to take by force the food and supplies they need from people who have prepared. If you are putting time, effort, and money into supplies that will help your family survive future crises, then you absolutely must include firearms as a layer in personal and home safety.
It is a sad but very apt statement, and just one of many excellent arguments made by Bedford.
Samuel L. Jackson and Guns
One of the most disturbing aspects of the Trayvon Martin shooting in Florida is how it is being used by anti-gun zealots as a rallying cry for gun control. It has gotten mainstream media attention, and has polarized much of the country. However, actor Samuel L. Jackson makes an interesting point.
Numerous media sites this week noted that the actor does not believe in the “stand your ground” law, and has criticized how George Zimmerman acted when he shot Martin. We believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, even on this matter.
What is notable however is that Jackson continues to back gun ownership. He was even quoted as saying, “Hell yeah. I’m not going to be the one without the gun when the people who have guns show up.”
