Oops…they published again… (hummed to a bad pop tune)

CNN re-publishes same article for the 20th time this year
(yes, another hit piece, by an incompetent moron who claims to be a journalist but likely only has a job because he’ll right piecemeal regurgitated sound bite pieces)

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/14/opinion/webster-giffords-guns/index.html?hpt=hp_c3

Below are my thoughts and responses…


“Despite being rejected by the military because of a history of illicit drug use and being kicked out of a community college for repeated incidents of threatening and bizarre behavior, Loughner legally purchased a semi-automatic pistol….”

And when have you heard gun owners express that we want nut jobs to be able to buy guns? Never!!!!

The reason this occurred is not because of gun owners, but because of HIPAA and medical privacy advocates.

The one related issue that gun owners are vocal about is not seeing our soldiers come home from war, be labelled PSTD, and lose their rights for the rest of their lives. That’s just not fair – is it?

***

“NRA spent in unsuccessful attempts to win close Senate races in swing states”

Yes, and it was a Presidential election between a leftist liberal Democrat incumbant, and a former liberal moderate socialist Republican who was unpopular except for NOT being the unpopular President.

No organization or issue was sufficient to affect that sort of election single handedly.

***

“The NRA portrays itself as an organization that speaks for and advocates for gun owners. The reality is that they speak for gun owners with the most extreme views and for the gun industry.”

Citation Mr. Daniel Webster, cause that sentence pretty much labels you a moron who talks out his arse. In fact, it’s often been the masses of NRA membership pushing the NRA organization to take stronger stances.

***

“A case in point is their opposition to requiring background checks for all firearm sales.”

Well, let’s discuss the oft repeated by CNN talking point. ALL handguns, like the one Loughner used, require a background check. Essentially, the only firearms we are talking about that are sold without a background check are individual sales of rifles and shotguns from one person to another.

In other words, when a hunter buys a new rifle and sells his old one to his hunting buddy or perhaps his nephew. And I am curious, could you quote what percentage of the firearms sold in that manner are used in actual crimes?

I bet it’s an embarrasingly low percentage. So low you’d be too cowardly to print it.

But you want it closed? So why not come to the table and discuss real alternatives? How about letting private party sellers use the NICS background check system for free. Really, it’s a very small portion of sales that actually occur this way.

***

“A recent survey found that more than 80% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members want this loophole fixed”

What recent survey. Because there are lot of BS surveys, that for example, contact all the NRA members in Berkely California.

When asked “Do you want to outlaw the right of a private citizen to sell his rifle or shotgun to a friend or other private citizen.”

I bet you get about 2% of NRA members supporting that statement.

***

“Gun owners don’t want dangerous people to have guns.”

Which is true, and why we are so confused as to why morons like you write this same article on CNN every few months. And yet never talk about why so many criminals are arrested with weapons and not prosecuted. And why so many violent criminals are released on parole or time served (until trial)?

***

“When states require background checks for all handgun sales and have strong regulation and oversight of licensed gun dealers, far fewer guns are diverted to criminals.”

All handgun sales require background checks. There is no state that allows a legal sale of a handgun without one. So calling BS on your above statement.

***

“individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of violence (often pleaded down from felony charges) or those who have been convicted of multiple alcohol-related crimes are prohibited from possessing firearms.”

Well, most domestic and violence crimes, or drug related crimes. Makes one a prohibited person in the vast majority, if not all, states.

BTW, WTF is an “alcohol related” crime. You mean a DUI with a car? Are we going to prohibit anyone with a DUI from ever owning a car? Okay, so let’s say anyone who commits a DUI, we prohibit from owning a gun. Now, shouldn’t the inverse hold true? Anyone who commits a deed that prohibits gun ownership, should also not be allowed to own a car. Just saying…

***

“our homicide rate in the U.S. is seven times higher than that of other high-income countries, due in part to greater availability of handguns”

No, it’s 90% due to parole, early release, and other programs that apply soft touches to criminals and put them back onto our streets. In fact, I have not read about a major crime, nor experienced a dealing with a criminal, who did NOT have a number of prior run ins and convictions with authorities.

We released armed robbers mere weeks after their trial conviction and sentence of 10 years. We release kidnapping rapists so they can just do it again (Jayce). Ironically, while violent predator criminals will often serve short sentences and be released due to overcrowded prisons. We’ll sentence a guy to 15 years for selling pirated albums and movies. No, the reason for our violent crime is judicial, not rights, related.

Parole is far more dangerous than handguns.

OUTING THE JOURNALIST: Daniel W. Webster – is professor and director of the Center for Gun Policy and Research at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.  And piss poor journalist.  Seriously, realizing he was referencing studies done at Johns Hopkins when he is likely involved with the organization that did the studies is rather disreputable.

No longer am I going to allow this to go on namelessly,  Mr. Daniel Webster, is an incredulous journalist and should be associated with the poor levels of research (or genuine dishonesty) portrayed in his article.

From now on, when we comment on hit pieces, we’re going to try to associate the journalist with their work “Mr. Daniel Webster, a piss poor journalist”.
Advertisements
Published in: on November 14, 2012 at 5:02 pm  Comments (3)  
Tags: , , , ,

Media Biased, Ignorant or Malicious

Snowflakes In Hell pointed to this article of a man stopping what would likely have been a multi-person murdering spree.  The citizen who stopped the event in Oklahoma City did so by means of pointing his firearm at the individual who retreated.

Sebastian commented on how little coverage this event received.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/05/the-forgotten-virtue-of-firearms/

Some accuse the media of being biased, others say it’s a matter of $$$ and sensationalism – and things don’t get printed unless they’re sensational – and can therefore make money.

I have grown toward the third category. I believe a fair amount of the media is malicious. Adhering to a set dogma they are deliberate in their focus, and even more deliberate in their silence. If the event does not fit their side of the coin, then silence is the only option.

We can see this on 2nd Amendment issues. When the event supports the people’s right to keep and bear arms, the media is silent – even if it is a sensational story ($$$).

We saw it regarding the coverage of the Tea Party on 9-12.  Hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million, Americans gathered and received paltry coverage from the media.  Were it a favored agenda with a mere 2,000 people it would be a week of headlines.

We saw it when two pro-life life protesters were murdered.  The number of articles and coverage of the event was paltry, especially compared to how much coverage the murder of an abortion doctor received.   There was plenty of $$$ to be made by covering such a sensational event. Why bury it?

These actions go far beyond “bias” or “ignorance” and are clear evidence of a far more malicious action upon the part of mainstream media.  In fact, I don’t even think that is a good term anymore.  Mainstream has some connotation to the people, the masses. It’s really the “Conglomerate Media”.

Published in: on January 6, 2010 at 7:10 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,