The Media Assault On The Second Amendment
Are you intelligent enough to read, Ludovic?
Or does the fact that a pro-gun organization has collected supporting evidence for their position (in excatly the same way anti-gun organizations collect suporting evidence for their position) disqualify them as “biased” in your “intelligent” worldview?
Scare Tactics: The Mainstream Media’s War On Guns.
[More.](http://www.mrc.org/public/search.aspx?q=gun control&cx=017129887351509153482:jmlpklq7d5o&cof=FORID:9)
It wasn’t worth commenting on?
Yeah, I suppose it wasn’t. The conclusion was pretty much dead on.
The next poster who comments on “intelligence” will be Warned.
[ /Moderating ]
Thankfully, the influence and reach of the Olde Skool news sources (ABC, CBS, NBC, especially) has been tremendously diminished due to the Internet. Even I, a news junkie, only rarely sees ABC World News tonight. With instant news via the web from a variety of sources, it’s like saying to yourself “I can’t wait until 5:30 to find out what’s happening right now!”
Likewise I haven’t taken a paper newspaper in more than 10 years. Thus I’m no longer subjected to the anti-gun rhetoric of the Kansas City Star. If it still exists; I wouldn’t know as I don’t have to read it.
Looking ahead, I think that the NRA actually has both an easier and a harder job ahead of them thanks to the combined landmark decisions of Heller and McDonald.
They have an easier job in that anti-gun firebrands can no longer claim that the Second Amendment does not apply to an individual, does not address self-defense, and does not apply to the States.
They have a harder job in that the anti-gun measures and movements are now much more subtle, and thus it’s harder to rally people (and a lot of people I know who are pro-gun have sort of taken the attitude of “hey, we won in the Supreme Court; battle’s over now!”)
For example, it’s unlikely that the assault weapons ban is going to be voted on in either house of Congress no matter which party is in control - but subtle restrictions like expanding the stupid “gun free school zone” bullshit, environmental restrictions on shooting ranges, banning laser sights, etc. are going to be harder to rally people against. Instead of being able to say
“CONTRIBUTE NOW TO PREVENT YOUR HANDGUNS FROM BEING SEIZED”,
it’s more like
“CONTRIBUTE NOW TO PREVENT APPLICATION OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT FROM APPLYING TO RIPARIAN FIELDS IN UNINCORPORATED TOWNSHIPS WHICH MAY BE USED BY HUNTERS EXCEPTING PROPERTY ZONED RR-2 OR RR-3.”
This distinction is why the NRA is hyper-partisan, in my eyes. They attack people who cannot, and in most instances, don’t even want to, enact wide-sweeping weapons bans.
They are on my side inasmuch as I think current gun laws should allow as much or more freedom than they currently do. I do not listen to them because they are always turned to 11. Their words mean nothing if they are always the same.
Certainly the actions of the Clinton Administration (and of the leading Congressional Dems back then, Schumer, Fienstien, Boxer, Metzembaum et al) forced the NRA into a more “adversarial” posture for the protection of the 2nd Amendment.
The 90’s had an undercurrent of real hostility for everyday citizen gun owners and with that came a demonization of the NRA for “standing in the way of reasonable gun control”.
Remember, back then, the 2nd Amendment being only a protection for states to form militias was “settled” law (at least according to lower federal courts) so, according to gun control proponents, the only possible reason for a politician to resist joining in on enacting gun control laws was being in the pocket of the NRA . . . That sentiment persists today and is even more ignorant post Heller / McDonald.
The Clinton years were very frustrating for gun rights advocates; gun crime was rising and the calls for sweeping gun laws was constant all the while the Clinton / Reno DoJ was in complete retreat from prosecuting gun crimes. The situation, as seen by gun rights people was plainly, ***more laws we do not need, become more laws they will not enforce, which becomes further evidence that more laws are needed. *** It was a snake eating its own tail . . . By the time the erroneous action was realized, it would be too late.
Yeah, LaPierre is blunt and boorish but when one is faced with proposals that mutate, pervert and insult the Constitution is there really room for being nice?
The 1990’s anti-gun Democrats started us on this more confrontational level of discourse. As crime rose and with every new headline grabbing incident they heaped more and more blame on gun owners and their “evil instrumentality”, the NRA. This laying of moral blame for violent crime at the feet of the law-abiding, and the implicit absolution of violent criminals for their misdeeds, naturally infuriates me and other honest gun owners.
The Dems have proven their disdain for the 2nd Amendment and demonstrate often and profoundly their ignorance of fundamental Constitutional principles that secure liberty and their outright animosity for those who cherish those principles. . .
When is the last time you heard a Democrat expound upon the most elementary, foundational tenets of conferred powers and retained rights? Hint, they can’t and remain honest to a leftist, “progressive” agenda.
I have something shocking to tell you, Abatis. It may come as a complete surprise. I want to make sure you are sitting down, and perhaps have a glass of water at the ready.
Deep breath…
It isn’t the 1990s anymore. Bill Clinton has been out of office for more than a decade. There has been no serious gun control legislation considered at the Federal level for quite some time that has a snowball’s chance of passing. The overwhelming record of the past several Congresses, under both Democratic and Republican leadership, has been to loosen gun laws. Even when there were 60 Democrats in the Senate in 2009, the chamber voted to do away with almost all of Washington, DC’s restrictive gun laws. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and it is being incorporated so that states must comply as well.
Reliving the laws that were passed in 1993 and 1994 and warning that no-good Democrats will sneakily roll back the Second Amendment makes about as much sense as warning people to keep their eyes on those sneaky Japanese because of what they did to Pearl Harbor not that long ago.
Hope that wasn’t too much of a cold dose of reality.
Quite honestly, I agree with the fundamentals of both statements. There certainly was an “intent”, an object to be attained with Fast and Furious. The BATF’s means to achieve that object wasn’t hidden, it was simply to allow straw buyers to funnel a couple thousand weapons from US gun dealers into the hands of the Sinaloa Cartel in Mexico. End of story, that was it – no interdiction of any trafficking was intended or permitted, even when permissions for takedowns were requested because agents knew the guns were about to cross the border.
In my opinion the object was to have an overwhelming number of Mexican crime scene weapons be traced back to the US civilian gun market to garner support for various new gun laws . . . The distortions bandied about over the last few years about how many US guns are found in Mexico had fallen flat when scrutinized so new “evidence” of everyday civilian, gun store sourced guns needed to be constructed. Abracadabra!
As far as the second statement goes, I don’t trust Obama at all to have altered his hostility for gun rights. His inaction regarding gun control is one of two things, a conspiracy to lull gun owners or just a product of political expediency. Either way he’s a future danger to liberty.
Seems like a foregone conclusion when your sources are as left-wing wacko extremest anti-NRA as the NRA is right-wing wacko extremest anti-Obama.
Should I display your ersatz indignation when the NRA is depicted / described as a criminal enabling, psycho empowering, wanting to arm schoolchildren and the mentally disabled to fight for the neo-con Tea Party??? :smack:
Ravenman, your smug condscension aside, Abatis was directly addressing the OP, snark-free, as to WHY things are as they are.
Why you would come off with the snark is beyond me, except for no other reason than to be a jerk.
The “90’s” are over? Really? You posted to bring us this amazing temporal factoid?
Or were you trying to suggest that the big, bad, mean Clinton/Reno team are “out,” and all us paranoid gun freaks can calm down and stop worrying about gun control initiatives from this current administration and Congress?
Have you oh-so-conveniently forgotten “Fast and Furios,” which brought us the SHOCKING! HEADLINE! “90% of Illegal Guns In Mexico Originate In USA?”
So, the DOJ orders gun dealers along the border to sell guns to questionable people against multiple dealers better judgement, and then says that we need more gun control laws to prevent this from happening?
And you see nothing in this tactic that hearkens back to the good ol’d days of Clinton/Reno? Nothing that would give gun owners and gun-rights activists the teeniest, tiniest measure moral outrage at the slimy, underhanded, two-faced tactics?
And Ravenman, I have something shocking to tell you. It may come as a complete surprise. I want to make sure you are sitting down, and perhaps have a glass of water at the ready.
Deep breath…
I was replying in the context of the OP’s statement and complying with his desire to have replied NOT focused on “gun control” per se . . . I realize that can be seen as an uncommon occurrence but try to deal with it.
I am just Jumping into this thread and I can assure you, I am up to speed on current conditions and the state of the 2nd Amendment’s protection sphere in the courts , both federal and state.
Congress did no such thing. DC’s gun laws were Home Rule laws, Congress, statutorily in charge of DC, did nothing to change them. In fact, Congress’ only involvement was individual Congressmen writing amicus briefs in favor of one side or the other.
Perhaps you’re thinking of this, circa 2004, that died in the Senate. Or this one that also went nowhere.
DC’s gun laws still exist in the (only slightly) revised form that was adopted by the DC City Council to comply with the Heller decision. They are still incredibly restrictive and are being challenged, again by Heller and Gura, as part of the aftermath of Heller and McDonald.
And, of course, the 900-pound gorilla, Obama’s own words, can’t be handwaved away, nor can the annual bills from Bobby Rush and Carolyn McCarthy. Now, I grant that they may never be passed. It appears that the time of massively supported gun-control initiatives have passed. But that’s no reason for us to say that it’s over, because so long as someone proposes a bill it’ll never be over.
ExTank brings up a good point, as I think did Airman earlier - Fast and Furious was a prime example of activity by an anti-gun President which seems coincidentally to be in-synch with the media. For several months we were subjected frequent news reports about how all these guns being used in crimes in Mexico were being supplied from the United States, including much bemoaning from the President of Mexico and Attorney General Holder. Something which Obama’s own Administration was happy to bring to the front and center. And yes, it is true, many weapons used in crimes in Mexico come from the United States. And yes it’s true we need to find a solution to reduce crime and stop the flow of illegal weapons across the borders, both ways (however, when illegal aliens can cross the border with impunity, it boggles the mind to think we’ll be able to stop this flow of illegal guns before we get the border back under control).
And yet…all the while, Obama’s own Administration was supplying 2,000 or more guns, such as AK-47s, to drug dealers, in what turned out to be a blundering bit of stupidity. Sort of the old “Hey, let’s put out the fire by pouring gasoline on it!” strategy.
And Obama’s own AG can’t even get his story straight on his involvement in the fiasco.
Hello! The clue phone is ringing! AK-47s supplied to drug dealers by our government, the Attorney General can’t get his story straight and may have lied to Congress, and all the while most liberal pundits in the news and here on the SDMB have either been silent on the issue, or else are trying desperately to handwave it aside with an affected “meh.”
Because I guess maybe the ends must justify the means…right? :dubious:
And folks wonder why gun owners burned in the Clinton Administration don’t trust the Obama Administration and its supporters on any firearms-related issue? Really?
The only reason for wanting to own death equipment is to want to kill other humans.
That’s all it is.
So the Olympic shooting and pentathlon teams of the various countries of the world want to kill other humans? As do all police, guards, hunters, and sportswomen and men the world around?
You will provide some proof of that, I’m certain. Otherwise it would look like you were deliberately and knowingly posting something outlandish just to get a reaction.
I would bet that 95% of US people owning weapons have no idea what those Olympic sports are all about.
95% of US people owning weapons have no idea what Olympic shooting is about? 
Maybe some will have to look up “pentathlon”, but shooting? :dubious:
With respect, that is neither evidence nor proof of the assertion you posted. Perhaps there is a reference or something you could link to?
Christ Jesus, just keep the goddam things if they mean that much to you!
This has been a message from the Christ Jesus, Just Keep the Goddam Things If They Mean That Much To You! Coalition.
I can’t believe it took you until the end of page 4 to post that, it’s been so pro-forma for such a long time I was wondering when it was coming.
And thanks, we will keep the damn things.
Until us Liberals get sixty votes in the Senate… bwahaha!