MLB Drops Complaint Over “Colt .45″ Logo
How the world has changed. Even the sight of a gun is enough to cause concern. So much so that a “retro” baseball uniform is a problem. This week FoxNews.com reported:
The Houston Astros’ plan to pay tribute to their roots by wearing throwback uniforms with a smoking Colt .45 across the chest is back on, after Major League Baseball dropped its objections.
Nobody batted an eye in 1962 when the Astros’ forebears, the Houston Colt .45s, first took the field. But with views toward guns changing over the decades, Major League Baseball balked at the team’s plan to mark its fiftieth season by donning the retro jerseys. League officials first said the gun that won the west had no business on the uniforms, but then said it was up to the team.
Dave Workman: Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes evidently cannot take “no” for an answer.
This week our friend Dave Workman noted that “Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes evidently cannot take “no” for an answer.” This was noted in his story titled, “Seattle bitterly vows to lobby for erosion of state preemption,” which looked at the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling.
Workman added:
Reacting today to the State Supreme Court’s denial of a petition for review in Seattle’s appeal of its double-loss in an effort to adopt a city parks gun ban in defiance of Washington’s 29-year-old state preemption statute, reported by this column earlier, Holmes told the Seattle Times that the city will take its campaign to the legislature next year.
“Seattle sought a second look not only on behalf of its residents but for all forms of local governments in the state that want authority over their own properties. We’ll ask the Legislature next session to give local governments the tools they need.”—Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes
Continue reading on Examiner.com Seattle bitterly vows to lobby for erosion of state preemption – Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com
Observer-Dispatch Hasn’t Observed Obama
This week in an editorial titled, “Guns and paranoia,” The Observer-Dispatch of Utica, New York suggested that President Obama isn’t so anti-gun, and the piece noted:
Gun sales in the U.S. spiked after Obama was elected and have stayed high ever since. The ostensible reason is that Obama was going to dramatically restrict gun rights, though he never made it a priority in his campaign. Nor has he proposed, let alone pushed, any gun control legislation in his first term. He hasn’t even talked about it. The only bill he’s signed relating to guns was one that legalized carrying guns in national parks.
That just proves he’s plotting to take away everyone’s guns, say the conspiracy theorists. He’s lulling the gun-rights folks into complacency, then in his second term he’ll disarm everyone. Without an act of Congress. Without running into trouble in the courts.
What bothers me most about this stuff is how little confidence these people have in their country. Every two years voters have the chance to change the country’s direction, and they often do. We have a strong system of laws and an independent judiciary to enforcement. We have the strongest, most reliable and most respected constitution in the history of the world.
This is actually only partially true and ignores some facts. First, President Obama did support a State Department ban on the importation of vintage M1 rifles from South Korea. This hasn’t gotten a lot of media pick up, but it is a clear case of gun control.
Second, President Obama did tell Sarah Brady that he was working on gun control, but “under the radar,” so there is a concern that he could try some end run around the Constitution.
There have been attempts to ban lead ammunition by the EPA as well, and while it didn’t go very far, it could have been a de facto gun control. All these show the Observer-Dispatch hasn’t been so observant.
Media Matters: Gun Blogger’s Starbucks Appreciation Day Backfires
Isn’t Media Matters for America supposed to be tracking bias in media? So why is the so called left-wing watchdog noting: “Gun Blogger’s Starbucks Appreciation Day Backfires.” The story reported:
Late last month, the National Gun Victims Action Council (NGAC) announced a boycott of Starbucks starting Valentine’s Day, stating that the company’s policy of allowing “guns and assault weapons to be openly carried in its stores (in 43 states) and concealed and carried in its stores (in 49 states)” was unacceptable. In response, prominent gun bloggers and activists called for a Starbucks “appreciation day” – a decision that now seems to causing them some blowback.
The story added:
Immediately after the NGAV issued its release, prominent gun blogger Sebastian wrote that in response he was “going to declare February 14th Starbucks Appreciation Day, by encouraging gun owners to head to Starbucks to buy some of their fine coffee and pastry products.” According to the Los Angeles Times, there were reports of such “buycotts” in several states, including Washington, Hawaii, Tennessee, and Michigan.
We still ask what is the big deal? While we don’t think Starbucks saw a surge in sales last Tuesday, we also don’t think they saw any decline. In other words it was probably business as usual, so did the appreciation day backfire? And why isn’t there any mention that the boycott was essentially a failure? Does that MATTER to Media Matters?
Dave Workman: Drink Up at Starbucks
Yesterday our friend Dave Workman also offered some commentary on why the Starbucks protest is just plain wrong. Workman writes:
Starbucks has simply maintained the good business practice of serving coffee to people who want to buy it. The company operates its stores and serves its clients in accordance with state and local laws, and that includes serving people who may be openly or covertly carrying firearms, depending upon those statutes. There has not been a rash of incidents inside Starbucks stores, as this column noted, and the publicity, while possibly annoying to Starbucks owners and investors, has hardly interfered with their bottom line profits.
Continue reading on Examiner.com Drink up with your Valentine at Starbucks – Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/drink-up-with-your-valentine-at-starbucks#ixzz1mNUxeZUa
Reuters Lets Anti-Gun Zealot Get Last Word
Reporting on the “Virginia Senate votes to repeal limit on gun purchases,” Reuters seems to have taken the sour grapes approach to reporting. This included the final passages coming from the Virginia Center for Public Safety, including this quote from Lori Hass:
“The Senate today pandered to special interest groups and has just opened the door to begin illegal gun trafficking again in Virginia.”
Well it makes for a compelling kicker, is it accurate even? This isn’t the special interest if the vast majority of voters pushed for this. But apparently anytime an anti-gun type doesn’t like a ruling, they blame the “special interest” and unfortunately the media gives this added weight by supporting this line of thinking.
NPR Offers Biased Take on Virginia Gun Laws
How does National Public Radio see the new lifted restrictions on firearm sales in Virginia? Basically the way they report on it, it will only open the flood gates to criminals. The story offered this introduction to an interview between host Robert Siegel and newspaper reporter Bill Sizemore:
Twenty years ago, Virginia had a not-so-flattering reputation as a haven for illegal gun runners. Traffickers would buy batches of guns legally in the state, and sell them on the black market. With the Virginia guns turning up at crime scenes up and down the Eastern seaboard, the state legislature decided it was time to act — a law was passed to limit gun purchases to one a month. But gun rights activists have fought to overturn it, and on Monday, the Virginia Senate approved legislation to repeal it.
Is a “reputation” really what this is about? This type of reporting doesn’t offer all the facts, including that gun sales are up and crime is down. But that would get in the way of this reporting.
But the interview also included an interesting exchange:
SIEGEL: Now, Virginia is a state where there’s a great deal of gun ownership and I assume the Republican legislators and the governor figure the public opinion is on their side with these moves.
SIZEMORE: I think they do. Virginia certainly is a big gun-owning state, particularly in the more rural areas where hunting is a, you know, longstanding tradition. You know, in the more urban areas where crime has been a problem, I think you find more support for gun control, but at the moment, the gun enthusiasts certainly seem to have the upper hand.
Let’s review: Siegel makes it clear that it is “public opinion,” but Sizemore by responds by trying to suggest that there is support for gun control, yet “gun enthusiasts” have the “upper hand.” Isn’t this a naïve way to look at it this issue? Clearly the support for gun control isn’t strong enough, but once again the anti-gun types try to pass this off as if it is the voice of a few radicals.
At least the host notes there is “public opinion,” but too bad the media can’t see it that way.
NRA News: Arizona Lawmaker Proposes New Version of Bill to Allow Guns on College, University Campuses
Cam Edwards talks to State Sen. Ron Gould (R-AZ) – NRA News
Holder in the Hot Seat – Blames Lack of Gun Control
So let’s get this straight, ATF ran an operation that saw a border control agent killed, and thousands of guns were let to walk to Mexico. And how does the Attorney General see it? It is a fault of lack of gun control in the United States, reports The Washington Examiner:
“ATF’s ability to stem the flow of guns from the United States into Mexico suffers from a lack of effective enforcement tools,” Holder told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today. “Unfortunately, in 2011, a majority of House Members – including all members of the majority on this Committee – voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and long guns – like AK-47s – in gun shops in four southwest-border states.”
No one this guy won’t step down, he seems to actually believe the things that come out of his mouth!
New York Times Editorial Suggests “gun lobby’s wrath”
The New York Times issued a farewell to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords last week, and we have to ask – why? We sort of know the answer, as it allows the Times’ editors a chance to climb on the soap box yet again, let’s keep in mind that Ms. Giffords didn’t represent the people of New York City or even New York State.
The editors of course tried to once again blame the guns and did some with the usual misreporting:
Ringing vows were made immediately after the Tucson rampage to ban the high-volume ammunition clips used by the gunman, to prod states to submit names of the mentally disturbed to the federal watch list for gun sales, and to plug the notorious gun-show loophole that allows anyone to buy high-powered military weapons without a background check. None of those have happened. Democrats, who once had the good sense to pass a ban on assault rifles, no longer fight for its renewal, wary of the gun lobby’s wrath. President Obama gave a stirring speech after the Tucson shootings, but the White House has said and done too little about gun control since then.
Our first point, yes this is an editorial and opinions are opinions. But facts don’t lie – and this editorial has one of the facts wrong. It isn’t an outright lie, but it is done to make a point. Namely the statement: “high-powered military weapons,” which isn’t fair. First, the shooter in Tucson had no such firearm. So what does it have to do with this piece?
But there is also the point of “high-powered military weapons” that suggests that the guns most can actually buy at gun-shows are “military weapons,” which they are not. The guns are civilian versions and there is a huge difference whether the editors at the Times like it or not!
Next, we note “wary of the gun lobby’s wrath.” What does this mean? It almost suggests as if the gun lobby would use said “military weapons” in a reprisal. But that’s not the case. What the gun lobby would do is stir up voters, who would send President Obama and other anti-gun types packing. But isn’t that how lobbyists are supposed to work? Isn’t that their job whether we like it or not? And at the end of the day it isn’t the majority of voters casting their ballot on the issue? Why is this point always lost in these arguments.
The paper adds:
Ms. Giffords, a supporter of gun rights, was sent off with good wishes from lawmakers who could have done something to stem the carnage. “I will recover and will return,” Ms. Gifford vowed in a her resignation letter, which was read by a colleague. Her departure offered a tragic display of how easily a brilliant career in public service was cut short because of the nation’s inadequate gun laws.
Couldn’t it be that the nation’s mental health system is what really failed here? This argument blames the guns, and whether the Times likes it or there are a lot of guns out there, so the laws seem to be fairly adequate when all is said and done. Tragedies happen, but we don’t try to ban everything.
Will cruise ships be banned because of the recent disaster in Italy? Were airplanes banned because of 9/11? Are cars or even alcohol banned because of drunk drivers? It is such an interesting argument to make, but banning the item involved is only done when it includes guns.
