Alphecca

Weekly Check On the Bias...

Most people dread Mondays, the start of the work week. But a select few (such as the staff of Alphecca -- one old guy and three cats) look forward to it because that means it's time for the Weekly Check on the Bias... Here, we take a look at some of the stories linked to by Yahoo on their Gun Control Debate Page and Keep and Bear Arms, as well as other sources.

But first, I want you to take a little quiz. I suspect that unless you're Michael Moore or John Kerry, I know how you'll respond.

Question 1: You arrive home from work, get out of the car, and as you enter your door, you see a strange creepy guy rushing towards you and pointing a gun at you. You try to slam the door in his face but he blocks it with his foot and tries pushing his way in, yelling "I got you."

Do you:

A) Ask him to excuse you for a moment while you dial 911, perhaps invite him to join you in a cup of tea while waiting (average response time: 15 minutes) for the police to arrive?

or do you:

B) Do what Barbara Holland did last week in Detroit and pull out your properly licensed concealed-carry firearm and shoot the mutant dead? From the Detroit Free Press:

Holland got into her 1998 Ford Escort station wagon and drove home. She pulled into her driveway and walked toward her side door. A video cassette fell out of her laptop computer case.

As she bent down to pick it up, she saw Hunt running toward her, pointing the gun.

She screamed for help and tried slamming the door. Hunt blocked the door with his foot, pushing it open. Holland fell back onto a landing leading up to her kitchen.

Then she fired.

I mentioned this story last week but thought it deserved mention in this post, firstly, because it is a perfect example of what the right to bear arms is all about and secondly, because -- in a break with their usual bias -- the Detroit Free Press actually reported this story straight-up, without an anti-gun slant. If you read the full article, I think that you will reach the exact same conclusion that I have: Holland would be dead now if she hadn't been carrying that firearm.

Here's the money quote from the article:

Citizens defending themselves are precisely what backers of Michigan's controversial concealed-weapons law had in mind when they worked to pass the legislation in 2001. The law makes it easier for anyone without felony convictions or mental illnesses to obtain a permit to carry concealed weapons.

"The more the criminal element knows that Michigan residents can protect themselves and will protect themselves, the more crime goes down," said state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-Dewitt.

Some opponents of the law predicted a large increase in self-defense-type shootings. Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who opposed the measure when she was state attorney general, has acknowledged that has not occurred.

Most liberals, such as Chucky Schumer and Diane Feinstein insist that calling 911 is all the protection you need.

Question 2: You and your mother are home one night when two mutants armed with knives start kicking at your kitchen door. You do not have the means to protect yourself. Do you:

A) Dial 911 frantically and ask for help?

or

B) Dial 911 a second time because the first operator didn't take you seriously and refused to send 'round the police.

From WFAA TV in Texas:

A Fort Worth family is demanding that a 911 operator be fired after she failed to respond to a potential life-threatening situation.

Police are now investigating - and taking very seriously - the concerns of the Diaz family. They placed a 911 call while someone was attempting to break into their home, and they now say the operator blew them off during that time...

...Her fear turned to anger, though, when the operator began questioning the validity of the call.

"OK, who were they, because strangers don't just come bang down your door with knives," the operator told Diaz. "Do you have a brother or father there who they were looking for?"

"I don't know, they were just screaming," Diaz replied.

"Ma'am, you need to be honest with me," said the operator.

Seconds later, after the would-be attackers left, the 911 operator decided the call did not merit a follow up by police.

"If they come back, please give us a call back," the operator said. "OK?"

Of course this is outrageous behavior on the part of the operator, who should be dismissed immediately. The focus of this story isn't gun control per se, since there is no gun involved, but it illustrates why NOBODY should leave their safety solely to the police or to 911 operators. Unlike England, Australia, and Canada, here in America most of us outside of NYC, Chicago, and Washington DC have the right to possess a firearm for self-defense and everyone should take advantage of that fact. Sadly, too many don't, and they wind up as statistics in the morning newscast.

Question 3: Quick! Relating to guns, what is an integrated mechanical safety device? Is it:

A) A device, such as a mechanical switch, which many single-action semi-automatic pistols have, and have had -- known as the "safety" -- for years?

Or is it:

B) Some unduly complicated locking mechanism requiring a key or "decoder ring" or such?

That question is at the heart of a lawsuit filed in Maryland. From the Washington Post:

A Beltsville advocate for gun owners has launched a legal challenge to the four-year-old law that made Maryland the first state in the nation to require built-in locks on new handguns.

The suit filed in Montgomery County Circuit Court on Tuesday argues that the law is being enforced too strictly and should still allow gun dealers to sell some weapons that don't have built-in lock-and-key devices...

...Gun rights advocate Jim Purtilo said he believes that a simple safety, a switch available on most firearms, fits within the law's requirement. "Maybe that's not what they intended, but that's what the law says," Purtilo said.

But as it has been enforced by the Maryland State Police, the measure has severely limited the number of new handgun models that can be sold legally. When the law took effect, on Jan. 1, 2003, firearms dealers said only six models of handguns had the type of integrated trigger lock that would meet the law's strict standards, and they said manufacturers of other models drastically cut back their distribution of weapons in the state.

I will give WAPO credit for not getting in the way of the story. Writer Matthew Mosk correctly points out that as the law is currently written, even legislators who supported the bill admit the suit has a good chance to succeed. This bill only barely passed the state Senate, and if they have to re-word it following the suit, there's no guarantee it will pass again -- in fact, it's unlikely that it would or that Maryland Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. would sign it "back" into law.

A brief, one-sided story appeared on the ABC TV 7 Chicago web site:

Cook County State's Attorney Richard Devine and gun control advocates today called on Congress to renew the federal assault weapons ban and President Bush to sign it.

At a news conference in Chicago, Devine said he can't think of any reason that a hunter, sportsman or target shooter would need an AK-47 to hunt deer or pheasants.

Devine says gang members, drug dealers and other violent criminals are those most interested in using assault weapons.

Since ABC TV didn't bother trying to get the other side of the story, perhaps I can explain reasons why I might need one.

First, the Second Amendment makes no mention of hunting or target shooting. It refers to protection. Protection of the country and the state and by extension, self. Secondly, since all other enumerated rights [amendments] refer to individual rights, there is no reason to think that the Second Amendment doesn't. Furthermore, this amendment says, "shall not be infringed." Clearly, a government would have no reason to "infringe" on a (state) organized militia's ability to bear arms since that is what they do. That meaning would be illogical. Therefore, they must clearly have been referring to attempts to "infringe" on an individual's right to bear such an arm.

In addition, most of the initial "states" wrote their constitutions -- during the same period of time -- to state that the right to bear arms was an individual one. And by the way, even a cursory reading of other documents written during that period by the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights indicate that they thought free men should carry arms irregardless of whether they were in a militia or not. Obviously they considered any such state militia to be made up of the common people and their intentions were that an individual not be "infringed" from bearing arms.

Their definition of arms included pistols and rifles. The AK-47 is a rifle. You, Mr. Devine, and your gun-grabbing cronies might call it something else, something misleading such as an "assault weapon" but that doesn't make it so -- it's still just a rifle.

Now, why would I need an AK-47? Maybe because, as Devine points out, that is what the criminals of this world -- supposedly mind you, according to Devine -- are carrying. It only makes sense that as a law-abiding citizen who might need to defend myself from these mutants, I should arm myself accordingly.

Lastly though, maybe I just WANT one! And since the government and the law shall not "infringe" on my right to bear arms, I ought to be able to buy one. Because I want it. That's all the reason I need. Period.

As I write this -- it's Sunday, about 6:15 PM in the evening -- I'm watching the "local" evening news from WPTZ/WNNE from Plattsburgh NY/Burlington, VT. It is, sadly, the only local broadcast we receive here via rabbit-ears. But to give you an idea of the stark difference between a local, rural newscast, and the coastal, elitest, liberal-dominated newscasts...

They just did a report on a gun show in Plattsburgh held today. Matter-of-factly, they said, this is the first show held in the there in several years and it was well attended. They had camera footage, of course, which shows they considered it enough of an event to send a crew. They said there were lots of guns, both new and antique on display and many of the attendees left with purchases. No editorializing. No shots of protesters (well, there probably weren't any in that neck of the woods.) They simply covered it as a normal community event to be covered like any other. That's the lack of bias a heck of a lot of other media outlets should try practicing. For those of you living in NYC or LA or Washington DC, try to imagine one of your local six o'clock news crews presenting such a story. My heart goes out to you...

Okay, here's the final question in the quiz:

Last week, who said this?...:

Democrats, however, still need to make the libertarian case. That's where guns come in. Accepting and promising to defend the Constitution as a whole, including the Second Amendment, could jumpstart the return of the American left from the fringe to the mainstream. Kerry's endorsement of gun rights would not only neutralize a key GOP values issue; it would serve as a cultural signifier that he doesn't view hunters and other gun aficionados with (as Democratic political consultant David Sweet put it) "an urban, sophisticated mentality that sneers at their way of life."

Was it:

A) DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe on This Week?

B) Bill Clinton in an interview with Bill O'Rielly?

C) A New York Times editorial?

D) Columnist Ted Rall?

E) Gun Owners of America executive director Larry Pratt?

Believe it or not... Oddly enough... Stranger than fiction... It was Ted Rall. Here's another quote:

The best argument for coming out as a pro-gun nut relates to the need for an adjustment to the long-term strategy of the Democratic Party. For too long, both parties have treated the Constitution like a Chinese menu. Republicans whittle away at the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and smear opponents who exercise their First Amendment right to free speech. Democrats rail against the states rights expressed by the Tenth Amendment and absurdly argue that the placement of a comma reflects the founders' original intent to limit gun ownership to members of 18th century militias. Aside from its fundamental intellectual dishonesty, our politicians' take-some-leave-others attitude deviates from most citizens' belief that every section of the Constitution holds equal weight.

Is he being honest? Tongue-in-cheek? Devil's advocate? With Rall, who knows? I just put it out there for your comments...

He's correct though, just as Democrats have taken the "black vote" and the "gay vote" for granted, so too the Republicans have taken the "gun vote" for granted. And President Bush has not been stellar in this regard. The decisiveness he has shown in the "war on terror" and also his position on abortion has not also been demonstrated in his position on gun rights.

Is he, and the RNC, taking us for granted? There have been plenty of stories and op-eds of late that suggest he has. Most of them are from wishfull-thinking liberals but Fox News had one too by Peter Brownfeld which had quotes from our side that basically said exactly (in almost the same words) what I said two weeks ago. ...Yes, I set the agenda (I wish...) Here's a quote from the Fox op-ed:

Pratt also warned that photos of Kerry in hunter's garb could damage Bush.

"I'm afraid it can resonate because out there he's seen killing birds. For the guy who's not aware of his voting record, which is 100 percent to ban guns," the Kerry strategy could work, he said. "The administration is going to have to counter a very effective spin campaign."

Gottlieb acknowledged that gun owners have some problems with Bush, but he predicted that Bush's support from gun owners would rise.

"While Al Gore was known to gun owners as anti-gun, John Kerry is known as anti-gun plus. And the example is that he broke off his campaigning to cast a vote against gun owner rights," Gottlieb said, referring to Kerry's March vote to renew the assault weapons ban and to require background checks of purchasers buying guns at private shows. Both were amendments to legislation that would give gun manufacturers immunity from some lawsuits. The bill failed in the Senate.

Gottlieb [chairman of the 650,000-member Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms] expressed concern about the Patriot Act and Bush's failure to promote a stronger gun rights agenda, but he said he still believes the choice is obvious in this presidential race.

"I personally like the fact that there are a couple of people out there screaming, but when push comes to shove, everyone's going to vote for Bush. It would be foolish not to. It would be cutting off your nose to spite your face," Gottlieb said.

Alicia Wadas, president and founder of Mothers Arms, described the choice this way: "Many people are concerned with Bush, but they're more concerned with Kerry. Are we getting down to the lesser of two evils? I don't know."

Neither do I, but I do know that Bush would be better than Kerry as far as gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment are concerned. John Kerry would simply sign any anti-gun bill that passed his desk if the Democratic pollsters told him to.

---

Here's some of what's being blabbed in the blogosphere...

First of all, there have been several new posts put up over at The Shooters' Carnival. Lots of good stuff about the sport, the art, the purpose of guns. No politics, just practical information.

Say Uncle offers his own advice to the widely reported story of the DEA agent who shot himself in the leg.

Bitter Bitch has thoughts on Chris Cox of the NRA.

Kim du Toit has his own quiz going about what -- if you could only have two guns -- you would choose. For a handgun, I would choose my trusty carry-gun (if somewhat perceived as whimpy) S&W .38 Airweight. It always goes "bang" and if I really am in a situation where I need more than five bullets, I'm probably 'effed anyway. Rifle-wise, it is useless in defense but my Marlin 25N is wonderful for small game, perfectly accurate, and fun to use. So sue me... The Beagle Express offers his choices.

Eric Scheie reports on Jesse Jackson raling against guns. Fine, Jesse, we all care about what you think...

The Mind of Mog always has good stuff up, none of it relating to guns at the moment but she has the sexiest picture of herself with a gun on her site so just go there and drool... And several of her cats appear on my other blog, Tarazet's May PetPourri. Yeah, fine, so nothing to do with guns, but this is my blog and I'll plug something if I want to...

And go visit my buddy Jame's Hell In a Handbasket for all sorts of good stuff.

Okay, I'm done... Many hours after starting, I'm disintegrating. By now, most of you folks know I do this report every Monday. I can't check every blog so I would ask that you bloggers who would like a mention of a gun post please send me an email on Fridays or Saturdays. That doesn't insure anything, just that I'll take a look.

Lastly, yes, I'm posting this about three hours earlier than usual, late Sunday evening. I can explain... Really! Tomorrow will be a workday from hell so I wanted to do this now and get it up.

Thanks to all of you kind readers for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at May 2, 2004 08:56 PM