Alphecca

Weekly Check On The Bias...

Well, it's that time of the week or so, time to examine how the media treats us gun-nuts. Yahoo has been rather quiet. They do slack off during the Summer months and granted, there has also been a lot happening -- non-gun-control related -- in the news the past week. Even Keep And Bear Arms has had to scramble. So, all that is by way of saying that this won't be the longest edition I've put up. So this week will focus more on other issues or tributes. For my top graphic, here's a shot of a true patriot, Alphecca reader, NRA member, a Texas State Rifle Team National Match Shooter, a Junior Rifle coach, and a holder of the Distinguished Rifleman's Badge, Robert Langham, from Texas. He's been sending me some terrific photos of his service to our country by helping to train Army troops to shoot their M-16's.

I'll be putting up a post shortly featuring many of the photos he's sent me.

We've just laid President Ronald Reagan to rest, with sorrow but also with the fond remembrances of his service to our country. Guns And Ammo Magazine has reprinted a fine column written by him in 1975 when he was governor of California that everyone should read. Read the whole thing but here's a quote:

[US Attorney General] Mr. Levi is confused. He thinks somehow that banning guns keeps them out of the hands of criminals. New Yorkers who suffer under the Sullivan Act know better, they know that the Sullivan Act makes law-abiding citizens sitting ducks for criminals who have no qualms about violating it in the process of killing and robbing and burglarizing. Despite this, Mr. Levi apparently thinks that criminals will be willing to give up their guns if he makes carrying them against the law. What naivete!

Mightn't it be better in those areas of high crime to arm the homeowner and the shopkeeper, teach him how to use his weapons and put the word out to the underworld that it is not longer totally safe to rob and murder?

Our nation was built and civilized by men and women who used guns in self-defense and in pursuit of peace. One wonders indeed, if the rising crime rate, isn't due as much as anything to the criminal's instinctive knowledge that the average victim no longer has means of self-protection.

No one knows how many crimes are committed because the criminal knows he has a soft touch. No one knows how many stores have been let alone because the criminals knew it was guarded by a man with a gun or manned by a proprietor who knew how to use a gun.

Criminals are not dissuaded by soft words, soft judges or easy laws. They are dissuaded by fear and they are prevented from repeating their crimes by death or by incarceration.

In my opinion, proposals to outlaw or confiscate guns are simply unrealistic panacea. We are never going to prevent murder; we are never going to eliminate crime; we are never going to end violent action by the criminals and the crazies--with or without guns.

Ronald Reagan was firmly in support of the Second Amendment no matter how hard Sarah Brady and Katie Couric might try to rewrite history; from the NRA-ILA:

Exploiting tragedy for political gain is nothing new for the media and the Brady Campaign, but this morning's appearance on NBC's Today Show reached a new low. Katie Couric and Sarah Brady used the tragic occasion of President Reagan's passing to shamelessly forward the gun-ban agenda with deliberate misinformation. Led by carefully crafted questions from Couric, Sarah Brady claimed that President Reagan wasn't actually an NRA member, and that he "worked hard" for passage of the so-called "assault weapons" ban.

In fact, President Reagan, the owner of an AR-15, was a strong and consistent supporter of the Second Amendment and the NRA. He was a long time member who actively courted the NRA's endorsement in both of his presidential campaigns, and was the first presidential candidate in history to receive that endorsement. He appeared on the cover of NRA magazines four times. In 1983 he was offered, and accepted, an NRA Honorary Life Membership, the highest honor bestowed by the NRA.

He was the first, and to date, only, sitting president to speak at our Annual Meetings, saying, in part, "The NRA believes America's laws were made to be obeyed and that our constitutional liberties are just as important today as 200 years ago. And by the way, the Constitution does not say Government shall decree the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution says 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'" In 1986, President Reagan signed the landmark Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA), and he never blamed law-abiding gun owners for the actions of criminals.

From KHNL TV:

Brady and his wife, Sarah, became strong opponents of handguns and were an impetus behind the 1993 Brady bill that requires background checks for buyers and a waiting period.

Brady's wife Sarah defended Reagan's views on gun control -- specifically his measure to ban assault weapons -- as "common sense."

Reagan's column is pretty clear, but was also written early in his political career. The NRA and the Bradys are both biased enough to claim more than what was there. The truth probably lies somewhere in between...

Never a friend of gun owners, The Detroit Free Press policy apparently doesn't extend to it's sports writers. From an article about the Pistons:

As personal safety becomes more of a concern for NBA players, a growing number of them, including some Pistons, consider carrying concealed weapons.

Players say they are highly visible and recognizable, and often feel they could become targets of robberies or other crimes.

"I think any NBA player or any professional athlete has a bull's-eye on their back to some extent, whether they're male or female," said Jerry Hendon, director of Pistons security. "And because of that, they just have to be very careful."

Or does it? the article goes on to quote two players who say that guns are not for them, and will cause more problems then would be solved. This is not the first time the media has brought up the fact of athletes owning firearms. And many "movie stars" do to. What's galling is that these same people vote and speak against guns and against the average Joe's right to also defend himself. Apparently only the "beautiful people" should be allowed to protect themselves.

By the way, one good reason for states allowing concealed-carry is that carrying "openly" can alarm the timid sheep of the left, not to mention those (fortunately) few cops who believe that anyone carrying a weapon must be up to no-good. From World Net Daily:

Michael Pelletier was browsing a Manchester, N.H., Barnes & Noble with his wife March 27 when a police officer, assisted by a colleague, suddenly grabbed him by the right shoulder and his holster and pushed him toward the corner of a bookcase, says Gunowners of America.

The Manchester Police Department officers, Chris Byron and David DuPont, ordered Pelletier to place his hands on his head, which he did at once, the group said.

Pelletier was carrying a pistol openly at the small of his back, which became apparent after he took off his jacket.

The officers then disarmed Pelletier and escorted him out of the store. Background checks revealed no record, but officers and detectives issued a barrage of questions about why he carries a gun and what kind of training he had, the gun group said.

Pelletier received back his firearm then reloaded it and put it on his belt, under his shirt. He then went back to the store to complete his purchases.

This is shamefull behavior by these two police officers. They should have approached the man, asked him politely to perhaps answer a couple of questions, and when it was apparent that he was simply a law-abiding citizen exercising his Second Amendment (and under N.H. law, perfectly legal) right, they should have bid him good day and left.

None the less, we live in a society filled with leftist liberals who have no idea of the foundations of our nation, nor our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Concealed-carry really is a wiser option just to avoid these hassles.

Meanwhile, I know you'll be shocked -- shocked! -- to find out that the (CT) Hartford Courant wants Congress to renew the "assault weapons" ban:

Time is running out on efforts to extend the federal assault weapons ban, which is scheduled to expire Sept. 13.

There's no good reason why civilians should be allowed to own these rapid firing, military-style weapons, which are favored by criminals. The weapons have no legitimate use for self-defense or hunting.

Unfortunately, Republican congressional leaders are ready to do the bidding of the National Rifle Association, which has fought the ban since it became law a decade ago. President Bush favors an extension of the ban, but unless he pressures Congress to act, it's likely that nothing will happen.

That would be tragic. Once again, the nation's cities would be flooded with an array of high-powered weapons on streets and in homes. Police officials across the nation have pleaded with Congress to extend the ban.

"high-powered weapons?" There is no difference between these guns and other ones not classified as "assault" style except for -- style. They aren't "rapid firing" anymore than any other gun. Each time you pull the trigger, one bullet comes out. That's all. If they're rapid firing, it's only because the user has a quick finger!

The claim that they have no "legitimate use" is simply bogus. They are used for hunting, defense, and target shooting. And the un-signed editorial makes clear just how phony this bill is when they say:

The proposed extension also would tighten current law to close a loophole that has allowed manufacturers to sell the weapons simply by making cosmetic changes in the banned models.

If gun makers can presently get around the ban "simply by making cosmetic changes" then it's obvious that the ban is based simply on cosmetic features. The firearm looks scary so let's ban it!

There's the usual implication, too, that the Republicans are just doing the bidding of the NRA. It's kind of sad that the Hartford Courant continues to take such an anti-gun stance in a state made famous and prosperous by numerous firearms makers.

As I've said, there isn't a whole lot to report on this week. I would like to take a moment to give thanks. A couple of weeks ago I found out (and mentioned) that Outdoor Life Magazine had mentioned me. I finally got hold of the Summer issue and while I was expecting just a tiny mention at the bottom of some list, it turned out to be a very nice write-up of this weekly feature of mine:

They even had a screen-shot! I had no idea this would happen. Of course, I'm flattered by all links and mentions but this is the first time a real magazine (any magazine for that matter) has noticed me. My sincere thanks go out to them, and I welcome you readers who have found your way here because of them.

There are many bloggers working in the trenches in support of the Second Amendment. Most of them are better than me. Here's what some of them are up to:

Last week I mentioned that "no guns" signs were coming down in Ohio. Tex The Pontificator gives his own thoughts about that in Texas.

Say Uncle reports that a former Libertarian candidate and pro-gun rights advocate was raided by Federal Agents. This looks like further abuse of the powers of "The Patriot Act."

What does the movie Aliens and gun control have to do with each other? Kevin at The Smallest Minority lets us know!

Publicola reports on an Ohio sheriff giving CCL names to a local paper. And the paper published them!

Smoke On The Water has more on Diane Feinstein and the AWB.

Bitter Bitch reports on the latest California attempt to tax bullets.

WeckUp To Thees wants to put together his dream carbine.

Les Jones has his Thursday Gun Links.

There's lots more so just scroll through my blogroll. Anyway, that concludes this edition. Thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at June 14, 2004 02:59 AM