“Could January’s mass shootings in Tucson, Arizona lead to new gun restrictions? Fort Wayne’s former mayor, Paul Helmke , hopes so.”

The problem is that the article is that it praises Helmke’s efforts, yet offers no rebuttal. So the head of the Brady Campaign is able to make his statements without any challenge – talk about an opportunity. The article even quotes Helmke:

“”I am not anti-gun. I am not trying to take your guns away. I’m looking for some common sense.”

The problem here is that we don’t know, or do we believe, what he is saying. What is the common sense? He constantly campaigns for stricter gun control – which for the record was the original point of the Brady Center. So he may say that he is “not anti-gun” but that’s a far cry from being pro-gun, or even being silent on the issue.

And sorry, but we do think he is, in fact, trying to take our guns away.

Here is what Maher had to say about the Second Amendment:

“I’m so tired of hearing about the Second Amendment and the Constitution. If you love guns just admit it like it’s a vice. It’s like alcohol or drugs or sex addiction [Scattered applause] or gambling. It’s just a vice. It’s something you like. It’s not good for you or anybody else. You just like it. But stop the bulls–t about the second amendment in the Constitution, because nobody needs — nobody needs a gun that fires 31 rounds.”

However, Jay Leno wasn’t much better:

“That big magazine was illegal. Then, it became legal again. I don’t know why it became legal again because had this guy — this guy had a — you know, the magazine, it fits into the bottom of the gun. But normally it’s no bigger than the butt of the gun. And this one makes it extra-long so you get a number he would not have been able to kill if the original law had been in place, he wouldn’t have been able to fire that many shots.”

Sorry Jay, you might know cars but you clearly don’t know anything about guns. While the magazine might have held 31 rounds, anyone with reasonable experience with a gun can change a magazine in a few seconds. So is the issue really about the magazine or the guns in general?

But the final truth is that Maher (and possibly Leno) is just a liberal who is angered because he personally doesn’t like (or clearly understand) guns. He offers this thought:

“I think how about the Democrats reclaiming this issue (gun control)? This is the problem. I understand that the gun lobby owns the Supreme Court, and they own the Republican Party. What’s disappointing is that they have cowed the Democratic Party into silence. There should be one party that sticks up for this issue. I’m not expecting it from this crowd, but some audience somewhere should stick up for this issue.”

What Maher doesn’t understand is that millions of Democrats also own guns. During the 2008 campaign Vice President Joe Biden said, “I guarantee you Barack Obama ain’t taking my shotguns, so don’t buy that malarkey.”

Clearly this is a point missed by liberals who don’t like guns. Democrats can like guns, and there are anti-gun Republicans. But as we’ve said at FirearmsTruth time and time again, this is a political issue that crosses party lines. Candidates don’t make it an issue because voters want guns.

The real issue is that a handful of these liberals – Bill Maher, Michael Moore, etc. – don’t really like America as America is. They envision an America where people are liberals like them, where people don’t have guns or go hunting. In other words, Bill Maher doesn’t know America, and the America he does know he hates.

Here is what Newsbusters had to say: 

“According to Good Morning America’s Robin Roberts on Monday, the efforts of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence aren’t ‘anti-gun.’ The morning show co-host interviewed Colin Goddard, the group’s assistant director of legislative affairs, and promoted a new documentary on the ‘gun show loophole.’

“Colin Goddard survived the massacre at Virginia Tech and now works for the aggressively anti-Second Amendment organization. Yet, while talking to Goddard, she portrayed the group’s work as just common sense. She exclaimed, ‘Because you’re not anti-gun.’”

Read the rest of the story at Newsbusters: ABC Pushes Gun Control Documentary, Absurdly Touts Work of the Brady Campaign as ‘Not Anti-Gun’

Of course we shouldn’t be surprised, as this same site offers this suggestion: “Drop the I-Word – People are not “illegals.” Pledge to drop the I-word and ask media to do the same.” Our response, “some people are ILLEGAL and we’ll continue to use the word “ILLEGALS.” What is actually official is that sites like this have a clear-cut bias against guns, would be content to let ILLEGALS take come freely to America and basically would hope to change the nation in ways that we cannot accept. Clearly the Constitution means nothing to these people.

“Tighten gun rules, most Virginians say in poll”

That’s a headline from The Virginian Pilot, and it suggests that those in Virginia, a state that is generally considered very pro-gun, is moving to an anti-gun stance. This is just one of the many ways that the mainstream media pursues its anti-gun bias. The rules in question are actually not that really that far from what many gun owners might consider reasonable, including one that would bar guns from bars! That makes sense.

The other point in the survey was focused on the gun show loophole, but of course on the surface we can’t say whether the loop hole was actually explained or if those who gotten surveyed understood what closing the “loophole” really means. But it is worth noticing that the survey didn’t seem to ask key questions such as outright bans, or limiting the number of purchases. In those cases, the headline likely would have read:

“Keep gun rules the say, Most Virginians say in poll”

 ”Bloomberg created ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ as a front group to lobby Congress to oppose important pro-gun reforms and support new federal gun control restrictions. And some mayors have joined or been duped into joining this anti-gun Bloomberg crusade.”