I don’t like them. But when people criticize them as affecting the political stage, my retort is what the !@#$% do you think the media is besides on big HUMUNGOUS PAC for the Democrats.
This CNN.com article is essentially proof.
“Opinion: Proud day for bipartisanship”
That’s the title of the link. So when DC vs Heller was a 5/4 split it was somehow not a sign of bipartisanship. But this is…???
Yes media…we believe NOTHING you have to say.
Washington Post advocating for a renewed AWB.
Entire article focuses on a reduction in high capacity magazines during the Clinton-era ban. It points to proof that the program was working, because the number of firearms used in conjunction with high capacity magazines dropped in their survey data.
What they’re NOT saying is whether there was any dramatic drop in crime because of it. And I believe we ALL know the answer to that is NO.
Though it may take several shots to stop a determined aggressor. The vast majority of crimes do not involve dozens of victims shot. A reduction of the standard 15-17 round magazines down to the reduced 10 round magazines would do little to change the scope of crimes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/27/AR2011012706755.html
—
Sebastian covering the recent ATF study in regards to “sporting nature”.
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2011/01/27/atf-study-released/
–
Gail Pepin of the ProArms Podcast has now joined the blogosphere
http://commongunsense.net
The newspaper of my former hometown of New Haven Connecticut has done a series on “Guns”.
Rather interesting page. It has a number of videos on different perspectives of guns. From a forensic detective to the history of Winchester in New Haven. There is even a piece on shooting clays. The one video segment that is on New Haven’s crime and violence problem even came across with points more focused on the criminal activities than on guns. Albeit, commenting about New Haven youth turning to guns.
Below the videos are several articles. Some are decent some are trash.
Tennessean Guest Editorialist throws facts and reason out the door.
“But there is no Second Amendment right to openly carry a weapon in public.”
Really, um, can you please explain to me what this means?
“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Please note the references there:
a) people = public
b) keep = own
b) bear = carry
So let’s translate…
“…the right of the public to own and carry Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Seems your premise is rather weak. Unless you want to throw out our Constitution and bill of rights. But then you’d have to get rid of the freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, right to a fair trial and much more.
***
Oh, btw, it turns out that the Pennsylvania gun-toting mother actually did have reason and justification to carry her firearm openly. Several months later she would be murdered by her husband, who worked as a parole officer. Perhaps her open-carrying that firearm and letting her husband know she was prepared not only kept her safe that day, but also kept the children safe.
***
“In Heller the Supreme Court decided only that Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns in a person’s home was unconstitutional”
Once again your supposition is wrong. The Supreme Court found that DC’s ban was unconstitutional. That does not mean that only DC’s ban in unconstitutional. Just that said decision only related to DC. And when that decision is incorporated, what will your argument be then sir?
***
Lastly, you make the assumption that what the government does is Constitutional. When in fact most of what our government does these days is in fact unconstitutional.
***
“Some 107 people were killed by permit holders since 2007, ”
Let’s address this statement a little more honestly. There are two points to be made.
1) 107 people killed by permit holders. What is the breakdown of that statistic. Does that 107 number represent rapists shot dead by women defending themselves? Or robbers shot dead by a father protecting his home and family? To quote such a statistic without an accurate descriptor is poor behavior.
2) 107 out of 4 million (that is the number of permit holders you stated in your own words). So what is the percentage breakdown of that number? 5%, 2%, 1%, maybe even a quarter of a percent (0.25%)
No, the actual number is .002675%
Can you tell me how many police officers we have in the United States? Can you tell me how many people were killed by police officers in 2007?
Do you want to bet $20 that our police have a higher percentage rate?
***
“The claim by the NRA and gun lobbyists that less-restrictive gun laws or more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens will make society safer or deter crime is false.”
So is that why a state ranked very low by the Brady Campaign and consider to have way too many firearm freedoms had ZERO murders via firearm in 2008. Find a state on the bottom of Brady’s list that has higher crime than the ones on top.
“Simply put, more guns equal safer states.”
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”.
ABC’s 20/20 recently published an article entitled “Before Arranging Playdates, Ask About Guns”.
Now see videos of Jan, father of the child mentioned, explain what really happened. How 20/20 was deceptive, deceitful and plotting from the get go to make their trash story.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6647
Before Watching 20/20, Ask if the story was Arranged
Contact N.U.G.U.N.
info@nugun.org
Skype: "N.U.G.U.N."
Twitter: NUGUNBlog
N.U.G.U.N. - New User of GUNs Blog 