Media Continues its Assault Against Second Amendment


Our energy, Americans and especially the media and politicians, should be focused upon the victims and their families when it comes to the Aurora, Colorado movie theater massacre. But instead, it is a golden opportunity to politicize the incident, as they did for Columbine to use the tragic event for their political agenda.

The MRC has documented back in year 2000: gun control mania versus news about gun rights in the media was a ratio of 10 to 1 – in favor of those who would dissolve the Second Amendment.

As with other cases, the media is quick to blame everyone from the NRA to anyone who supports the Bill of Rights for this tragic occurrence and any violence committed via firearms.
A man stabbed his wife almost to death when he lost mental instability, but no one even mentioned that knives be banned; but such is NOT the case for firearms. Presently Congress is trying to push a ban on rifle and pistol magazines that hold more than ten rounds, not realizing that death and mayhem will still occur because there will ALWAYS be an insane person like the one in Aurora, Colorado, Columbine, and Fort Hood, Texas. As real-life, reality demonstrates in countries who do not allow firearms at all, except shotguns for hunting – people can still get them. Case in point of a personal witness: Late at night in Izmir, Turkey, a man with a revolver was chasing another down the street – a weapon not allowed own or keep by civilians.
The Second Amendment is in simple and plain language, yet constantly it is being attacked by those who: (1) believe that if guns are not allowed in the private sector crime will go down, (2) those in power will not have to worry about their tyranny when the populace is unarmed, (3) people that are just plain afraid of firearms. In the case of the latter, the Second Amendment states that citizens can own, keep and use firearms – but does not force anyone who do not want to own or keep them.
The media AND politicians use tragic news, the tool of fear, for their personal purposes. Bad news in the media is better than good news. Sensationalism, not dissemination of information is the key agenda of the media – and the public is to blame. It seems their lust for bad news, murder and mayhem pays off for TV programming, media news centers, and even literature. If they just changed channels and ignored it, the media would change their ways, lose their sponsors and go bankrupt. This is not to say that a good action-adventure-drama film well produced, directed and portrayed isn’t good escape-reality entertainment; but for some reasons society has come to not know where the line should be drawn. We have middle-age Generation X (who are raising children) that has the sensibilities of a teenager; when in the normal procedure in life, one should be getting wiser as one gets older.
True, the perpetrator of the horrific crime in Aurora was committed with weapons legally obtained, for he is 24-years-old and legal age. The creepy thing is that no one who knew him saw any of this coming. Instead of putting the blame upon the person who used a legal product illegally – we blame the product and the ability to purchase said product.
People buy the tens of thousands purchase a firearm, accessories and ammunition every day – but do they go to movie theaters with the intent to kill as many as possible?
Of course the talk shows never have a balanced representation of opinions – and that is what 95% of it is, opinions not facts.
University Professor David Kopel made a good point on the Piers Morgan Tonight show at CNN (the only pro-Second Amendment person present):
A lot of people who don’t want strengthening gun control have said this is not the day to debate it. I tell you the day to debate it, it would have been yesterday. To have prevented this happening. When you have a young man like this able to legally get 6,000 rounds of ammunition off the Internet to buy four weapons, including an assault rifle, and for all of this to be perfectly legal in modern America, allowing him to carry out the biggest shooting in the history of the United States, that, I’m afraid, means it’s too late for this debate, for those people that lost their lives. So don’t patronize me about when we should be talking about the gun control debate…You tell me a good reason why we should not strengthen the law now to stop another young man like him going into a store tomorrow, buying four more weapons, 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet, and killing and shooting another 70 people in America.
Of course, another person [Michael Isikoff] present on the show had to blame former President GW Bush:
What we do know is that he [accused shooter James Eagan Holmes] purchased those four weapons recovered from him, the two Glock pistols, the shotgun, and that AR-15 assault rifle, legally in Colorado, although it is worth mentioning – and this is something gun control groups are emphasizing today – that that AR-15 is something that was illegal as recently as 10 years ago. There was an assault weapons ban in this country from 1994 to 2004 that was lifted under President Bush. President Obama had pledged during his campaign to restore it. He has dropped that issue, so the assault, that AR-15 is a legal weapon now but was not 10 years go.
However, if it is true that James E. Holmes was a undergoing psychiatric evaluation and/or treatment at the Anschutz Student Medical Services, this should have shown up in the required background check – a clear responsibility of the system and part of the sensible gun control criteria that is federal law. Therefore, initially, it is the fault of the system – not the Gander Mountain store that did the required computerized background check and certainly the ultimate blame falls upon Holmes, who decided to take his anger out on society for his recent problems at the university. Holmes, who favored Batman (his dwelling has Batman memorabilia all over) as his personal super hero, took on the personae of the arch-evil Joker, the opposite side of law and goodness. If this guy doesn’t get the death penalty, there is something wrong with the system. Mental anguish and instability is no excuse – people in their right mind don’t do such things.
On July 22nd, Isikoff, on the Today Showlet loose a volley against the NRA:
The powerful National Rifle Association has blocked any move for stricter gun laws, meaning that, for now, beefed-up security and greater vigilance may be the best protection against horrific attacks like the one in Aurora.
One would think that these media pundits would have access to facts; however, there is a flaw in the background check system as News Busters/MRC videoshows. Gun control has been acceptable to many, but outright bans, to include accessories, as magazines, are not.
John Lott, leading researcher and expert on firearm statistics has changed, after writing his book, the debate concerning gun control. Lott explained how anti-gun laws helped the “terrorist” attack at Fort Hood. He also explained the benefits of having concealed-carry laws. After the Colorado recent tragedy, Lott wrote for the National Review:
the M&P 15 and the AK-47 are “military-style weapons.” But the key word is “style” — they are similar to military guns in their aesthetics, not in the way they actually operate. The guns covered by the federal assault-weapons ban (which was enacted in 1994 and expired ten year later) were not the fully automatic machine guns used by the military but semi-automatic versions of those guns. The civilian version of the AK-47 uses essentially the same sorts of bullets as deer-hunting rifles, fires at the same rapidity (one bullet per pull of the trigger), and does the same damage.
An assault weapon is a style – not designed to have automatic fire (machine gun) capabilities for civilian use. I have no qualms about prohibiting automatic-fire weapons and military use weapons for civilians, it is not necessary even for protection. The main point here is using common sense about the whole thing. Media is so eager to create sensationalism that they have lost their purpose, which is to provide objective and truthful information. Despite being proven wrong, and this is the scary part, too many continue to believe. If the bimbo news lady or biased anchor man said it, then it must be true. Lott also discussed magazines:
The Aurora killer’s large-capacity ammunition magazines are also misunderstood. The common perception that so-called “assault weapons” can hold larger magazines than hunting rifles is simply wrong. Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of any size. That is true for handguns as well as rifles. A magazine, which is basically a metal box with a spring, is also trivially easy to make and virtually impossible to stop criminals from obtaining.
Magazines can be banned, but people will still be able to obtain them – and those are the people that care nothing for laws anyway, and the reason for the draconian laws becomes moot.
President Clinton’s ban on assault weapons didn’t reduce crime, as Lott pointed out:
despite Obama’s frightening image of military weapons on America’s streets, it is pretty hard to seriously argue that a new ban on “assault weapons” would reduce crime in the United States. Even research done for the Clinton administration didn’t find that the federal assault-weapons ban reduced crime. Indeed, banning guns on the basis of how they look, and not how they operate, shouldn’t be expected to make any difference. And there are no published academic studies by economists or criminologists that find the original federal assault-weapons ban to have reduced murder or violent crime generally. There is no evidence that the state assault-weapons bans reduced murder or violent-crime rates either.
Indeed, it appears that crime has dropped because the ban no longer exists.
See Mitchel’s interview on NRA-TV.
Also a video about the Second Amendment. And another. Video on firearm ownership and freedom from tyranny.This last video is important because it demonstrates the saying that “criminals should be punished, not gun owners. There are at least 500,000 military style firearms in Switzerland to be used in case of national security. Military training is mandatory in Switzerland to provide homeland defense and after training they take their weapons and equipment home to be at ready. The weapons are capable of semi-automatic and automatic fire (selective fire). The person interviewed stated that the 
key to freedom is the ability to defend oneself, and if you don’t have the tools to do that you are at the mercy of anyone …”
There is much information out there, you just have to ignore the ignorance and non-objective, biased media clowns.
Advertisements