LA Times Offers Biased Take on SCOTUS Ruling
No surprise here, The Los Angeles Times doesn’t agree with the ruling from the Supreme Court this week and it shows in its heavily biased reporting. It starts out as with a tone that clearly questions what the SCOTUS was thinking:
“The Supreme Court ruled Monday that cities and states must abide by the 2nd Amendment, strengthening the rights of gun owners and opening courthouse doors nationwide for gun rights advocates to argue that restrictions on firearms are unconstitutional.”
The reporting also had some serious factual errors, notably:
“Seven states, including California, forbid assault weapons or semiautomatic weapons, the court noted. Those restrictions will face a legal challenge, gun rights advocates said.”
No state currently has a ban on semiautomatic firearms, and the wording of this seems to imply that the authors suggest otherwise. For the record, California does not forbid semiautomatic firearms, only those deemed to be an assault rifle. There are rules in place, such as the number of rounds the magazine can hold, and in some cases only non-detachable (without a tool at least) are legal. But the point is that the authors tried to imply that semiautomatic firearms are some sort of heavy weapon, and that’s just not close to the truth. Maybe they didn’t know, but they should do their job and get the facts straight!
Gun Issue Splits Party Lines
Do liberals like guns? We can’t say one way or the other, but a Supreme Court ruling was straight down the middle. The Associated Press reported on the Supreme Court ruling on gun owner rights with this take on the issue:
“The court was split along familiar ideological lines, with five conservative-moderate justices in favor of gun rights and the four liberals, opposed.”
So this clearly remains a political issue, and while not split on strictly party lines, it is based on – as the AP noted – familiar ideological lines.
Brady Bunch Against State’s Rights?
Does it sound like the Brady Center Against Gun Violence really wants reasonable gun laws? It certainly doesn’t seem that way to us, as the group is now going after states that it disagrees with, reports The Great Falls Tribune:
“The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed written arguments in U.S. District Court in Missoula, asking that the Montana Firearms Freedom Act be struck down as unconstitutional. Among the groups joining the Brady Center were Montanans Against Gun Violence, the Montana Human Rights Network and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers.”
This is extremely worrisome to us. The law was passed in Montana but the Brady Bunch is making this a District Court matter. So much for state’s rights!
Chicago Tribune Offers Truth About Gun Sales to “Terrorists”
You’ll hear time and time that the NRA wants to allow terrorists to be able to buy guns. At least that is what the anti-gun lobby seems to like to spout. But Steve Chapman of The Chicago Tribune offered some “truth” to this misinformation. As he points out in an editorial with the sub-head: “Mere suspicion doesn’t warrant violating rights.”
This is what the anti-gun zealots fail to understand. Criminals can’t own guns, at least not “convicted” criminals. But those under suspicion aren’t convicted and thus are “innocent until proven guilty.” Why can’t the liberals agree to this point when it involves guns? Kudos to Chapman for explaining this so clearly.
Gun-Rights Rallies Held This Past Weekend
We’re happy to report that the mainstream media can’t ignore the growing gun-rights movement in this country. Here is a recap of some articles (among many others) that appeared this weekend:
- The Maine Sunday Herald noted “Pro-gun rally shines light on liberal laws“
- The Washington Post reported, “Gun-rights advocates gather in Va. and D.C. to celebrate ‘historic moment’“
- The Los Angeles Times reported, “Gun rights supporters rally near Capitol“
- NPR offered “Gun Rights Fans Rally In DC, VA, Some Bearing Arms“
Of course not all of this reporting was free of anti-gun bias, but it is about time that these events are being reported.
AP Shows Bias in Recent Voting Rights Bill for DC
In 2008 the Supreme Court ruled that the District of Columbia’s draconian gun laws infringed on citizen’s 2nd Amendment Rights. Two years later, DC has done nothing to comply with the ruling. In a recent House of Representatives bill that would give DC two voting House seats, an amendment was attached that would force DC to revise its gun laws to comply with the Supreme Court ruling. The bill was killed and no vote will take place so DC can continue to infringe on citizen’s Constitutional Rights. Read more
Huff and Puff Notes Difference Between “Activists” and “Advocates”
What is the difference between an “activist” and an “advocate?” Well, it would seem that an “activist” would be someone going against the status quo, whilst an “advocate” would be someone fighting to maintain what is right.
So no surprise that The Huffington Post this week called those who support gun rights as “activists,” which implies a more radical thinking, and called those opposed to gun rights as “gun control advocates.” Of course the rest of the article was just more liberal bias, of the sort we’ve come to know and loathe from the Huff and Puff.
Philly Inquirer Thinks Legal Guns Will Mean Illegal Gun Trafficking
The debate in the Supreme Court this week (McDonald v. Chicago) is one being editorialized in numerous papers, and we must take note of some of the weak arguments made by The Philadelphia Inquirer including:
“A gun-rights decision by the Supreme Court two years ago threatened to make it more dangerous to walk the streets of Washington.”
Is there even any evidence that the streets of Washington are any more dangerous? Worse still, somehow the editors of the Inquirer seem to think that allowing citizens to legally obtain firearms will lead to more illegal guns:
“That will lead to a greater proliferation of handguns – with the inevitable increase in illegal gun trafficking.”
We must ask why criminals will wait for legal handguns, and further ask if anyone really thinks someone would suddenly just buy guns legally, only to sell them illegally?
Newsbusters Uncovers NPR Bias Against Guns
Thank you to our friends at Newsbusters,org for watching how National Public Radio has reported on the issue of gun rights. According to the post, it seems that there is a double standard when the word “rights” or “advocates” are used.
In other words, NPR uses the word “rights,” which implies (to many of us anyway) that it is the “right thing” or something people believe is the “right thing” when discussing the topic of abortion, as in “abortion rights.” Only once was the phrase “abortion advocate” used. But the word “advocate” was used far more often with guns, again implying (at least to us) that NPR doesn’t think this is a “right.”
Of course liberals are often about rights… for the issues they support, such as “gay rights,” “abortion rights,” and so on. The irony is that if they don’t like the topic it is about “control,” as in “gun control.”
Times Herald Imagines Surreal Scenarios in Editorial
In an editorial loaded with the wildest scenarios ever, the editors of The Times Herald of Solana and Napa Valley write:
“It appears some Bay Area residents feel that simply having a right to bear arms is not enough. They also feel they must exercise that right in a public display that conjures visions of a modern-day Wild West.”
That’s pretty clear what they mean, but let’s examine this a bit more in detail. Here is another juicy passage:
“We can envision a circumstance where a teen comes into a coffee shop and runs out with the tip jar and the good citizen carrying a weapon decides to load up and pursue the youth. That has bad ending written all over it.
“Or, even more dramatically, an armed robber enters a store brandishing a loaded weapon and sees a patron with a gun on his belt. Either the perpetrator knows it is unloaded or he doesn’t, but either scenario is rife with disastrous prospects.”
We can imagine a circumstance where a gun owner chases the teen stealing the tip jar, knowing that if the little punk has a knife or gun that there is a chance to fight back. We also wonder if a robber entered the store and saw a patron with a gun on his belt, if he wouldn’t turn around and go elsewhere?
Part of the problem with any “scenario” is that too often the idea of the always violent Wild West is brought to mind. Yes, there were times of seeming lawlessness, but it wasn’t quite what Hollywood had in mind. Every year dozens of states have hunting season, and all sorts of firearms are on the roads and in the trunks of cars. We don’t hear about the Great Michigan Deer Hunting Shootout do we? We don’t, because most law-abiding gun owners are responsible. The real threat is from those breaking the law, such as those who would steal a tip jar or attempt an armed robbery. Shouldn’t law-abiding citizens have the right to fight back too?
