| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Analyzing Their Words |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Morris, 9/5/07 9:01:45 am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anti-gun-rights activists love it when the media (who are also anti-Second Amendment) adulturate, twist, and altogether lie about gun-related issues. The bias shines through with a transparency unmatched by the purest water. I'm gonna take a second to look at some of the wording in this article in the Chicago Tribune.
Those who would do away with Washington's near-total ban on handguns will tell you point-blank their next target: Chicago. "Point-blank". "Target". This guy thinks he's funny. The thing is, he never goes on to discuss the fact that this case only eliminates the all-out ban, not registration or strict regulations. This kind of writing is intended solely to scare the crap out of Suzie-Soccer-Mom. I believe PSH is the correct term for this. Pant-Shitting-Hysterics. The author takes an issue that he clearly knows nothing about, and turns it into "what if all gun control went away". Even if it was, there's no proof anything would change, but that isn't the point here. Gun control isn't going away. The reason Chicago is the next "Target" is because they have an unconstitutional ban on handguns. There is no "targeting" involved. If the Supreme Court upholds Parker v. DC, then Chicago will be sued, there will no longer be a complete ban, but they'll be allowed to keep such tight restrictions that nothing will change.
...federal appeals court in Washington swept aside the District of Columbia's ban on owning handguns. "Swept aside". They didn't sweep anything aside. They overturned an unconstitutional law, which is precisely what they are supposed to do. They have even been nice enough to allow D.C. to enforce the unconstitutional law while they file for cert with SCOTUS.
...risk triggering a monumental ruling from its conservative majority -- one that could wipe out gun bans across the nation Seriously... there are only a few "gun bans". In fact, most of what I would refer to as a "gun ban" won't even fall under this ruling (which only strikes down complete bans on ownership, not strict controls.) Therefore, "wiping out guns bans across the nation" is an entirely bogus statement... which is par for the course when dealing with media bias.
As an example of the urgency of the situation, district officials cited the death Sunday of a teenager who was shot by a 15-year-old in a struggle over a handgun. Ummm... but if handguns are already banned... I guess its easy to overlook what a terrible argument that is. Especially if you don't care about accuracy, logic, or intelligent journalism.
But critics say that while law-abiding residents cannot keep handguns for self-defense, the ban does nothing to prevent the flow of illegal guns into Chicago from surrounding areas where buying a gun is easier. Hold on a second. We're OK until you get to the last six words. That's Jesse Jackson's argument against gun ownership. "Gun's are too easy to get". Buying a gun in Illinois isn't easy, unless you are doing it on the black market. See how easy it is for this liberal-media whackjob to take a pro-rights statement about self-defense and the uselessness of a ban, and turn it into read-between-the-lines pant-shitting-hysterics.
If the high court were to endorse a broad view of the 2nd Amendment in the D.C. case... What in the hell is a broad view? We're talking individual right vs. collective militia-related right. The second amendment has always been considered an individual right, just like the first amendment, where certain non-infringing restrictions are OK. The "right to keep and bear arms" has never depended on "A well regulated militia", rather the latter is one intended result of the individual right to the former. The author clearly hasn't read anything about the case. Towing the party line, without doing any research, leads to borderline-criminal journalism, in my humble yet correct opinion.
Notice how the author includes seven anti-gun quotes from D.C. Mayor Fenty, the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence, and the Brady Campagin. Notice the only pro-rights individual quoted is scholar Robert Levy, who states, "Chicago would be the logical follow-up," which directly supports the author's thesis anyway. Of course, Levy is referred to as an "activist" to make him seem like a sign waving bubba, when in reality he's a well-respected constitutional scholar. The anti-gun quotes are all laden with the even more PSH than they author can manage to spew on his own. If Oliphant had ever actually read anything written by Levy, he might come to a better understanding about what the Second Amendment is all about.
This isn't journalism. This is activism. This is blatantly biased. There is no balance. The Chicago Tribune might as well just give Paul Helmke his own column in the news section. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | [Comments are closed after a month.] |
| | < "How Does This Keep Happening?" | | "The NRA and the Brady Campaign" > |
|
|
|
|
