“…the gun lobby wants to prevent doctors from telling you the truth and prevent you from hearing it.”

Is this really a fair assessment? Why do doctors need to know why parents might have firearms? Henigan notes:

“Just as pediatricians have long advised parents on the best ways to reduce the risks of harm to children from household poisons, unsupervised swimming pools and riding bikes without safety helmets, they also have advised them how to best protect their kids from the lethal danger of firearms.”

This may be true, so why can’t guns just be lumped into the mix without requiring doctors to ask whether the household has a gun? Do doctors ask, “do you have household poisons?” How often do you hear the doctors ask, “do you have archery equipment?” What about power tools or lawn mowers?

This is an issue that is blown out of proportion. Why should guns be singled out? Except of course Henigan and his lot know that doctors can guilt parents by warning of the “dangers” of firearms. Isn’t that really the point?

Of course Henigan, a true anti-gun zealot, sees this as the beginning of the end of gun ownership. But it there are some points that Henigan makes that are truly interesting.

First, he actually labels himself as “gun control advocate.” This is contrast to the very way that gun control is addressed. Note that this is the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, as that sounds less threatening to gun owners than the Brady Center for Gun Control. Henigan writes:

“Although one gets the distinct impression that the president would prefer not to receive a positive reaction from gun control advocates like myself, I can’t do him that favor.”

But let’s look deeper into this piece. Again, Henigan specifically says things that gun control advocates have denied. Here is what drew our attention most:

“But the ‘gun show loophole’ is really part of a larger loophole: in most states private sales do not require a background check, whether they occur at a gun show or not. This means that criminals and other legally prohibited gun buyers may be turned away at a licensed dealer, only to ‘effortlessly’ purchase guns elsewhere. Significantly, the president did not mention gun shows in particular, but rather said ‘we can’t allow’ the broader private sale loophole to persist. The president clearly articulated the rationale for extending Brady background checks to virtually all gun sales. It is a reform the Brady Campaign has been advocating for many years.”

For years we’ve heard about the “gun show loophole,” but here Henigan makes it clear it is really about private sales in general. To end private sales would in turn create a national database of gun ownership, where every legally owned gun would be tracked. And yet criminals would still be armed. Can any law-abiding gun owner imagine a worse case scenario?

Of course according to Henigan this is what the American people want! He writes:

“As recent polling has shown, the proposal to extend Brady background checks to all gun sales is solidly in the middle of public opinion on this issue, receiving strong support even from gun owners. An astounding 86% of Americans, and 81% of gun owners, support universal checks.”

So who conducted the poll and who released the findings? Only Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Imagine the findings if the National Rifle Association conducted the poll?

Finally, Henigan says the problem with all this is, of course, the NRA. He writes:

“Far from being part of the solution, the NRA has shown, once again, that it is the problem. If President Obama truly wants a system that no longer allows countless violent criminals to ‘effortlessly’ avoid background checks, eventually he will have no choice but to confront the gun lobby, and defeat it.”

Here we agree – in a way – with Henigan. We feel that Obama should make gun control the cornerstone of his reelection campaign. The defeat of course won’t be of gun owners, but of the POTUS.

CBSNews.com: What Wasn’t in Obama’s State of the Union: Gun Control

“The most glaring omission in President Obama’s State of the Union speech Tuesday night was the lack of any mention of the gun control issue.”

TPMMuckraker: Obama Doesn’t Mention Gun Control In State Of The Union

“To the dismay of groups hoping the White House would take the lead on proposed legislation to ban high-capacity magazines…”

The Huffington Post: What Obama Doesn’t Mention

“The most glaring omission in President Obama’s State of the Union speech Tuesday night was the lack of any mention of the gun control issue.”

This all of course follows reporting that gun control was something that might be discussed. So was the media overly hopeful? On Tuesday before the speed, numerous outlets also noted this fact.

Politico: Michael Bloomberg wants gun control nod in State of the Union

CNN.com: NY Mayor calls on Obama to discuss gun control in State of the Union

Boston Globe: What Obama should say: Ban large ammunition clips

He writes:

“The United States is a country with well over 200 million firearms in civilian hands, and since the demise of the federal Assault Weapon Ban in September 2004, the firepower in general circulation has become increasingly lethal.”

Horwitz has no source on this statement, nor does he really explain what an assualt weapon actually is or is not. This is an example of an anti-gun zealot who tries to twist the words. The so-called assault weapons are no more “deadly” or “lethal” than say a hunting rifle. They just look menacing, but crime has not gone up since the “demise” of the ban.

This is what is so worrisome about the gun control crowd. They must know that the weapons they discuss and rant about are no more dangerous, but they sound menacing. To ban those guns means you can ban other guns, and that’s why we should never back to zealots such as Horwitz.

“A shocking new report obtained by ABC News says that as many as three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico can be traced to gun stores just across the border in the U.S.”

This isn’t accurate, or actually what ABC News reported. In fact, the truth is that “of the guns sent for tracing, three out of four can be traced to the United States.” Again, the way this is written implies that all guns are sent for tracing. This most certainly is NOT the case.

The sad fact of this tragedy is that the two men might have met the same fate without or without the permit. So what exactly is Sugarmann trying to say?

All this begs the question, does the liberal media not get it?

While it is debatable whether Johnston and even Bristol Palin are overexposed – and in Johnston’s case he may have been overexposed in too many ways to name – the question is why is the media making such a deal out of the gun shop visit? But we already know the answer. Time and time again the liberal media seems to think that they speak for the country as a whole. They don’t care much for guns, so they quite wrongly assume that the country as a whole must not like guns.

From their offices in New York City, San Francisco and Los Angeles they think they have the pulse on the heartland, and what they so kindly label “the fly over markets.” Thus these solidly “Blue State” editors equate guns with something that the average American doesn’t like, doesn’t want and doesn’t understand. They believe that the NRA is a niche group of extremists – yet somehow, in some strange twisted conspiracy theory manages to wield untold power. They believe that only a handful of “wingnuts” would dare want open carry, or would actually care about the Second Amendment. They believe gun shops should be banned in Chicago and San Francisco, that less guns will equal less crime and that someday America could be a land without firearms.

The truth is that those in the extreme liberal media, especially these gossip rags, really don’t know the real America.

He then makes the bolt statement of how gun shows allow “private sellers at gun shows to sell AK-47s, TEC-9′s, Mac-10s and other types of high-powered and semi-automatic guns to buyers.” This sounds like scary stuff indeed, but we still can’t help believe that if Helmke had his way he’d want to stop the sale of all guns, including hunting rifles, .22 pistols and virtually every other type of firearm as well.

He uses jargon to make it sound scary. But the truth is that gun shows are hardly filled with Tec-9′s or Mac-10s these days. He also uses the term “high-powered” to imply that these guns are somehow more “dangerous” than a hunting rifle, but that is utter nonsense. The Tec-9 and Mac-10 use pistol cartridges, so they’re hardly “high-powered.” And the use of “semi-automatic” is no doubt to make the readers of the Huffington Post think machinegun, but that’s so far from the truth that it is laughable.

And let’s say that background checks were required. Who is going to pay for it? And what is to stop transactions from taking place in the parking lots, or in seller’s homes? Isn’t Mr. Helmke just once again calling for a ban on all private sales? It certainly seems that way to us.

The first is actually one that makes you wonder if he really believes what he is saying:

“If criminals are deterred by the prospect that their victim may be armed, how can we account for attacks by armed criminals against other armed criminals? Why do armed drug dealers have anything to fear from other armed drug dealers? Why do armed gangs have anything to fear from other armed gangs?”

The answer is quite simple. People such as Otis McDonald, who brought his case to the Supreme Court, argued that he needed a gun to defend himself from home invaders. Those home invaders and burglars are not generally the type of thug gang bangers who are shooting each other in drug related turf wars.

The gangs are shooting at each other, and while they might not follow the code of “honor among thieves” most drug gangs don’t actually want to see people shot in the crossfire. They might not actually care, but the truth is that drug dealers are still businessmen of sorts and it is bad for business when a kid gets shot. The police crack down, the corners are cleared and for a while sales of product falls off. Thus it is bad for business. But the police are typically slower to respond when gangbangers merely shoot at each other.

If no “civilian” as they say is hurt or killed, it is often business as usual. This isn’t merely how it works in the movies and TV, but this is real life too.  

But Henigan shows his true colors in further adding:

“More guns means less crime only in the imaginary world of the ‘gun rights’ movement as it tries to push us toward an America where there is nowhere to go to escape the guns.”

This isn’t an imaginary world, or else the increase in gun sales over the last three decades would mean that crime should be through the roof. It isn’t. But Henigan needs to make his argument because he wants to live in an America where there are no guns. He’s clearly an idealist who somehow thinks that if all guns are banned those armed gangs he talks about will suddenly be unarmed as well. Now that’s an imaginary world indeed!

“I have to ask — have Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy ever hung out in their Supreme Court neighborhood or other Washington, D.C. inner city neighborhoods after dark? Because if they’ve spent even the least little time doing that, their view of guns might be a little different.”

Well, Ms. Bamberger, what you clearly missed the point on is that the case (McDonald vs. The City of Chicago) wasn’t about some street thugs saying, “we need guns.” It was about an elderly man who wanted a gun in his home to defend himself from said street thugs! Maybe Ms. Bamberger, if Mayor Richard Daley would venture to Mr. McDonald’s neighbor after dark, without his police escort, he could understand why Mr. McDonald sued to get a gun!

But Ms. Bamberger takes it a step further, asking:

“But doesn’t it make sense to look at a provision about owning and carrying guns in the light of when it was penned — in the immediate aftermath of gaining our independence as a direct result of a bloody war and the reasonable fear that the King of England just might be toying with the idea of sending troops again to take back what he believed was rightfully his. If the same men who chimed in to create the Constitution were around today — in the time of ever-increasing senseless gun deaths that haven’t been curbed by owner registration or restrictions — I have to believe that they’d be okay with gun control laws that would keep guns away from those who have no problems with drive-by shootings or taking aim at someone over a cheap bracelet.”

Are the other Constitutional amendments any less relevant today? Couldn’t you argue that the Founding Fathers might be against the freedom of the press arguing that magazines with Lady Gaga on the cover in bubble wrap corrupt our youth? Wouldn’t the Founding Fathers find the pornography on the Internet to be a problem? The simple fact is you cannot judge what they would have thought, because they could not have envisioned it.

But more importantly, this isn’t about senseless gun deaths. As with many in the mainstream media Ms. Bamberger cannot show a link to this ruling and crime. This isn’t about giving guns to criminals, or making it easier for criminals to obtain guns. The fact is that criminals will always find a way to get illegal guns, and the laws are only made to deter law-abiding citizens, such as Mr. McDonald, from having a chance to fight back.