Alphecca

Weekly Check on the Bias

Welcome to the February 8th edition of the Weekly Check on the Bias. Here's where I examine some of the media stories about guns, gun control, and the Second Amendment. This is also the first week for my Weekly Report at it's new Tuesday schedule, timed to coincide with my weekly appearances on the NRA Live Show.

One of the pleasures of discovery about what to write here is that I learn something new, or about someone I was unfamiliar with, every time I simply type the word gun into the Yahoo news search engine. And that brings me to the top subject for this week's report.

I thought I'd start by asking a question: Who IS this guy?

His name is Reginald G. Jones and he's a successful music entrepreneur from New Jersey who also happens to be giving lectures around the country on many subjects including the one we're concerned about here. Specifically, he says that gun-control is racist and he rejects all forms of it. Further, he tries to teach this to young black college students and convince them (correctly of course) that owning a firearm is actually a duty of people who live in high-crime areas or who have families.

Needless to say, the articles linking to him didn't come from the New York Times or the Washington Post. Last Thursday he gave a lecture at Ohio University (Athens campus) that was, alas, poorly attended, especially by those he was hoping to target. He was invited by the Ohio University Second Amendment Club. None the less, the local Athens, Ohio newspaper gave his talk a mention. In fact, they quoted him quite a bit and there was only one "semi-negative" comment from one student at the end. From the Athens News:

Gun-rights advocate Reginald Jones used humor and a dynamic, informal speaking style to deliver his inflammatory message -- "Gun control is racist" -- at Ohio University Thursday night.

"People are surprised to hear that," Jones told a small crowd of about 25 people in Baker Center's 1804 Room. Jones maintained that gun-control laws were used to keep blacks from defending themselves against the Ku Klux Klan in the old South and against the "criminal class" in the urban ghettos of today.

[...]

"The inception of (gun-control) laws were to keep blacks down," he said. "Blacks are at the mercy of the criminal class. We can't hold criminals accountable, so we hold guns accountable."

Jones noted that no one supports the banning of knives, which also can kill.

Jones advocated getting rid of mandatory trigger locks and waiting periods for firearms sales because they violate the Second Amendment by restricting a citizen's ability to arm him- or herself.

"Sure, I support a five-day waiting period for guns. I also support a five-day waiting period for free speech," he quipped. "What if I get mugged on the third day (of my waiting period)? Do people even think about the folly of the stupidity of these laws?"

That's great stuff! And it's amazing to see it quoted in a newspaper -- albeit a small one.

Even the independent student newspaper printed some intriguing quotes. From The Post Online:

Post Online Photo

"Whatever guns it was more likely for black people to afford, they (the government) banned them," Jones said.

He used past and present examples to explain how guns have saved lives and have exposed corruption in administration.

Jones said guns are not the only weapons people use to harm others.

[...]

He said education about founding principles and rights is "sorely lacking" among young Americans.

"What's there to prevent the government from walking into your home now and rifling through your stuff? The law? No one can be that naive," he said.

Jones said gun laws are not effective because criminals do not care what the law says.

"We are leaving people in the inner cities prey to the criminals," he said.

I wanted to find out a bit more about Reginald Jones but there isn't a whole lot of news stories out there about him -- you'll be shocked to hear -- because his ideas are rather unpopular with most of the liberal media. Yet he brings life to what I have mentioned here many times, that blacks and gays and women are naturals to take advantage of what little remains of Second Amendment rights in this country. I did find one rather condescending snippet from a Time Magazine article from last Summer about the slow rise of campus conservatives attending the National Conservative Student Conference:

...And while he is fringe even among those students, 40-year-old hip-hop entrepreneur Reginald Jones — who says the Iraq invasion was unconstitutional because Congress never declared war and who decries post-9/11 security measures as infringements on our freedoms — has become one of the most popular figures among the young right. His raucous seminar on the evils of abortion, taxation, the Democrats and "milquetoast" Republicans — as well as the pleasures of NASCAR — didn't end until 2:30 one morning.

Here's one last quote from Jones from a speach given in 2000 for the Fifth Annual N.Y. Conf. on Private Property Rights:

I just want to mention one last thing, the issue of gun control. One of the most racist laws in this country is gun control because the first laws on gun control were passed to disarm black citizens especially after World War I and World War II, and especially because they had lynchings, because they realized if we are going to lynch them, they can’t be armed. They might shoot us.

Monroe, North Carolina: In 1957 the Klan went to a man’s house to have a lynching party. A caravan of 80 to lynch the man, because he was protesting the fact that blacks were paying taxes that were going to a swimming pool that they were not allowed to swim in, and in rolled a caravan of 80 vehicles up to this man’s house. What they didn’t know was that they were war veterans that had 600 gas masks, helmets, mortars, rifles, machine guns, and the like, and they had built a trench around the man’s house so when they got out of their vehicles they let out a hearty “Hee-haw!” The black citizens, the black people that lived in the house opened fire and total chaos ensued. There was not another lynching in Monroe, North Carolina, after that.

Can anyone give a more powerful example for the benefits of supporting the Second Amendment? I will be trying to keep tabs on Mr. Jones in the future and maybe some local gun groups "out there" can help him get his message out by inviting him to speak. His lectures sound quite interesting.

Okay, time for a quick James Taranto type thing...

The headline: Gun in School Drawing Update

I wonder what the second place prize is?

Okay, never mind. So much for my feeble attempt at humor...

Turning to the continuing story of the City of San Francisco's attempt to outlaw handguns, I seem to recall that the main reason given was that gun crime was rising. How then to explain this Fox News story?

A renewed enforcement of a 10-year-old law has reaped big new benefits in San Francisco, where police cite it as a primary factor in a recent drop in homicides.

"Triggerlock," as the federal law is known, allows police to arrest suspected violent criminals on lesser charges. After an arrest is made, police search the suspect for guns. If they find even one, the suspect can be sentenced to 10 years in prison, effectively keeping him or her off the street.

Well, if police are now citing renewed enforcement of an existing law as creating a drop in homicides, then why do they (the City) need a new law banning handguns? And doesn't that just make the case that all of us have been saying all along that we don't need new gun-control laws but rather just enforcement of the existing 20 thousand ones on the books now?

San Francisco take note of yourselves!

That sort-of brings us to a a fine editorial by Walter Olson in the New York Times:

N January, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg signed a bill passed by the City Council making gun makers and dealers liable for crimes perpetrated with their products unless they adopt a "code of conduct" that, among other things, would limit the number of handguns they can sell to one person and require background checks on prospective buyers at gun shows. The strange thing about this new law is that it applies not only to sales within New York City, but also to sales in other states and cities.
Advertisement

This new law is too clever by half and it's also shortsighted. It insults the right to democratic self-governance of the 273 million Americans who don't live in New York City. Moreover, it may have a consequence that Mayor Bloomberg and other gun-control advocates have not foreseen: it could be further impetus for a bill in Congress, nearly enacted last year, which would pre-empt local efforts at gun-control through litigation.

[...]

When the issue returns in this year's (more pro-gun) Congress, Mr. Bloomberg's new law is likely to serve as a prime exhibit of the case for federal pre-emption on the issue of gun liability. The new city law makes it absolutely clear that anti-gun enclaves intend to inflict their will on other states. Lawmakers from the rest of the country will then, appropriately, move to defend their states' preference through federal legislation.

The mayor and City Council of New York seem to think they can make laws that bind the rest of the country. That's an arrogant stance - and when the rest of the country is heard from, it's apt to be a losing stance as well.

I point it out firstly so you can go read the whole thing and secondly because it's a rare treat when the New York Times prints any sort of op-ed that ISN"T in support of more gun-control. I mentioned this last month by the way and although comments are now closed on that post, there were are some interesting ones existing for you to read.

Now, I happen to believe in the concept of States Rights but certainly Olson is correct that when local municipalities decide to exceed federal or even state laws on firearm control, a good case can be made that some federal oversite is needed. Of course, THAT invites possible controls that exceed what many states have now such as where I live, Vermont.

San Francisco take note!

Denver take note!

So now it's time for my Here's how it's done feature:

From the News-Record (NC):

A man authorities allege participated in a home invasion was shot in the upper torso early this morning by one of the residents he was trying to rob, police report.

About 1:30 a.m., Burlington police responded to a reported burglary in progress at 1109 Rosenwald St.

Officers found a man later identified as Tele Richmond, 22, of 231 Kerr Chapel Road in Burlington, lying in the front yard suffering a gunshot wound to his torso.

Richmond was one of four men who entered the Rosenwald Street home and tried to rob the residents at gunpoint, police said.

One of the residents, apparently acting in self defense, fired at the suspects with a handgun, striking Richmond, police said.

The other suspects were last seen running north toward Sharpe Road.

I am constantly amazed at how efficient owning a firearm is at thwarting crime. Well, not amazed at that so much as amazed at how more folks in this country don't take advantage of that fact. When I hear liberal Democrats talking about how they want to "get tough on crime" I always think, then why aren't you encouraging them to arm themselves? Why aren't you supporting the Second Amendment? But that's just me...

So here's what some others in the blogosphere are talking about:

Publicola is featuring his new Garand in a post of gun porn.

Say Uncle has some of his own too!

Denise at The Ten Ring explains the joy of shooting.

Glenn Reynolds has good news and bad news on arming pilots.

Bruce at mASS Backwards gives a perfect example of why states need to adopt "shall issue" laws regarding firearms permits.

Carnaby Fudge discovers that KFC has a subliminal pro-gun message. Now if that doesn't make you hungry, nothing will...

Confederate Yankee has lots more on ActionFigureGate.

Kirk at Fun Turns To Tragedy has even MORE gun porn. Rather a smutty week here in the blogosphere!

Okay, time to get this posted. See you soon and thanks for stopping by!

Posted by Jeff Soyer at February 8, 2005 10:17 AM