New York Times Shows Lack of Understanding of America Again
In a New York Times editorial titled “School of Glock,” columnist Gail Collins writes the following passage, and it shows how out of touch New York City’s journalists can be with the rest of the country:
“It’s been nearly nine weeks since that tragic shooting in Tucson, and you may be wondering whether there’s been any gun legislation proposed in the aftermath.”
Let’s consider a couple of points. First, in New York City gun legislation is pretty much already on the books. The high-capacity magazines she rallies against are already banned in the city, and as we’ve long reported unless you are rich and famous forget about getting a Glock or any other handgun easily. It is an expensive and time consuming process to “legally” obtain a firearm.
Second Collins isn’t really concerned with reasonable gun legislation either, as she writes:
“The gun lobby will never be happy, unless the health care law specifically requires every American to have a pistol on his or her person at all times.”
Thus her editorial isn’t about reasonable gun laws, it is a rant about why House Republicans are trying to overturn Obamacare and she’s using guns an excuse.
So what this really says is that like many New Yorkers she doesn’t really get the “real” America west of the Hudson River. But yet, she also doesn’t address how to solve the problem of illegal guns in the city. Perhaps she really believes, much like the city’s misguided mayor, that taking away guns from law-abiding citizens in other states will somehow solve New York’s problems.
SOP Offers Sloppy Opinion on Issue of Guns and Violence
The news site Sop.org offered a misguided editorial suggesting, “Let’s Broaden The Gun Rights Debate Into a Debate About Violence.” The author offers this thought:
“The question is now centered on the Second Amendment to our Constitution, granting us the right to bear arms. But what if the question were centered instead on violence? Without the element of violence, after all, there would be no debate.”
The author goes on to note that violence is in movies, TV and video games, further noting a connection between drugs and violence, between poverty and violence, etc. The article further breaks down into a rant about credit cards, corrupt local government and how “presidents con us into wars,” before coming back to the point that “unless we accept that the Second Amendment made us violent… we must accept that other factors are at work.”
In the end, we’re not sure what the point is, except to say that the issue of even suggesting that violence be debated with guns is simply absurd.
Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day 2011 – IGOLD
Our friends at Illinois Carry are hoping for the largest turn out of Second Amendment supporters Illinois has ever seen! Here are the details:
Where:
Thurs. March 10, 2011
Prairie Capitol Convention Center, Springfield, IL
- 10:30 a.m. – Doors open
- 11:00 a.m. – Concessions open
- Noon – Legislative Briefing
- 1:15 p.m. – March to State Capitol!
Watch for details as they develop at IGOLD.isra.org. and reserve a seat on one of the many charter buses headed to Springfield.
IGOLD t-shirts will be available for purchase prior to the event and at the PCCC. Monies raised from selling the t-shirts goes to help fund the event. We encourage you to support IGOLD by purchasing the official IGOLD t-shirts.
IGOLD has gained statewide and national recognition as a well organized and highly respected event. Each year, as the event has grown larger and larger we have gained the respect of City and Capitol police/security for the professional and orderly manner in which we conduct ourselves – as well as for our cooperation in helping to make the security screening process as expedient as possible.
To expedite security procedures it is best to enter the Capitol with the least number of items that must be opened, searched or screened. If you can narrow that down to a wallet that can be tossed on the scanner bed all the better!
We thank you for your cooperation – and so will Capitol security!
About:
The IllinoisCarry forum was started in April 2004. The idea was that Illinois needed a central location to communicate ideas and information regarding 2nd Amendment issues in Illinois. There are many organizations in Illinois working to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights. Working with these groups IllinoisCarry has become the central location for information and Action Alerts. IllinoisCarry will not endorse political candidates. We simply provide information so voters can make informed decisions. Our goal is to join the other 48 states that allow their citizens to carry concealed firearms. We encourage you to register on our forum and join the fight for your 2nd Amendment Rights in Illinois.
Election 2010: Wisconsin State Journal Looks at Candidates Records on Guns
One thing the liberal media seems to miss the boat on is that gun rights do matter to many voters. This is abundantly clear as The Wisconsin State Journal offers a piece looking at the candidates’ records on gun rights. That’s right, “gun rights” not “gun control.”
The paper ran a question from reader Henry A. Koshollek, who asked who in the governor’s as well as Senate race is for or against gun rights. The paper responded by noting “all of the candidates in these races have said they support Second Amendment rights.”
Of course there could be readers that would ask who supports gun control, but it is clear from this piece that gun rights are a serious issue this campaign season. If only the media actually understood this fact.
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
