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?
Vanity Fair Offers Unfair Look at Gun Laws
You know you’re off to a bad story when the writer of a story for Vanity Fair looks to The New York Times as a source. And while Bill Bradley meant for his Politics and Power piece titled “Gun Rights, a Crib Sheet” to be humorous, I don’t think most law-abiding gun owners will be laughing.
Here is an example of what passes for liberal mainstream media humor:
“This month, the Virginia House repealed the one-gun-per-month law (passed in 1993 by Virginia’s then Democratic Governor, L. Douglas Wilder), which limited residents to one handgun purchase every 30 days. Underlying Message: If the rest of the country (except Maryland, New Jersey, and California) can buy more than 12 guns a year, why can’t we? What it Means For You: More crazy people with more guns.”
This is insulting to say the least.
South Bend Tribune Doesn’t Understand Property Rights
In an op-ed piece the editors at The South Bend Tribune wrote that employers should be allowed to ban guns at work. While that is a touchy issue, the problem we see is in the wording that is used to stress this point:
“This is an employer rights issue, not a Second Amendment issue. Workers aren’t denied a constitutional right by being told they can’t keep guns at their workplace. But for a property owner — any property owner — to be forced to allow guns on his property against his will certainly would be an infringement on his rights. “
The issue we see is “any property owner” and that could imply a landlord for example. This would suggest you must be a property owner to own a firearm, and that sounds unconstitutional to us. There was a time -and most Americans don’t remember when – only property owners had the legal right to vote. By suggesting that any property own is able to ban guns on their “property” takes things a bit far.
How I Became an Ardent Gun Rights Defender
When I relocated back to Utah to be near my aging parents, I recall vividly a prominent issue in the news. The Utah State Legislature had just passed a new law regarding what has become known as “the Shall Issue Law.” That is whoever qualifies for a concealed carry permit, must be issued said permit, after meeting certain criterion. I remember very clearly how the local media were adamantly opposed to this law. They had all kinds of fears about people shooting others, over road rage issues and were certain that general mayhem would follow. I thought their fears where totally justified and agreed with them completely.
Richmond Virginia Sees Gun Rights Rally At Capitol
Hundreds of gun rights advocates rallied today at the Capitol in Richmond Virginia. The rally was organized to support laws that would make it easier to get a concealed handgun permit and allow the permits in more places throughout Virginia. Read more
Associate Press Highlights New Gun Laws With Expected Bias
The mainstream media has said for the past year, since Barack Obama was elected president that gun owners were concerned about new gun legislation, but now that many new favor gun owners, the Associated Press has noted these with concern. Here is a rather one-sided point on the issue:
“The NRA has a stranglehold on a lot of state legislatures,” said Kristin Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, a gun control group in Washington. “They basically have convinced lawmakers they can cost them their seats, even though there’s no real evidence to back that up.”
Are these really a stranglehold, or actually just the perseveration of second amendment rights?
Gun Lobby Planning Assault on Common Sense?
Marie Cocco in writing an op-ed piece that was published in The Saratogian really goes out on a limb with her belief on what the gun lobby has in mind. Her statements might even border on what we’d safely call “conspiracy theory.” She believes that this is in fact a premeditated plan to over turn all firearms laws:
“The gun lobby, if it wins in the Supreme Court, is prepared to challenge every gun control law enacted at any level of government. It will usher in a scary season of assault on the common sense of citizens.” Read more
