Guns & The Media - Bias Gives Way to Lies

The Story That Wouldn't Die
MSNBC Blatantly Distorts Gun News

In 1997 a Media Watch study concluded the media was biased against guns. The study found there were 87 stories favorable to the gun control lobby to every 4 stories favorable to gun rights. To anyone who has watched media reporters mutilate the English language and firearms terminology to dramatize a news story involving guns, this is old news.

Today, while reporters still flaunt their complete ignorance (my second favorite is San Francisco's KGO radio reporter Holly Kwan's description of a semi-automatic machine gun) some media outlets have cast truth in jouralism aside entirely.

That's exactly what MSNBC did regarding a recent story of an armed man at an Arizona healthcare meeting. I commented on it a few days later in this blog entry. But I never expected MSNBC to blatently lie about the entire thing.

Even the Washington Times ran an editorial about it, entitled False Reports About Guns. I've watched the replays of the MSNBC report and I can tell you that I was seriously outraged at MSNBC's distortion and lies.

In short, here's what happened. An African-American gentleman showed up at an Arizona healthcare event while legally carrying both a pistol and an AR-15 rifle. The media predictably focused on the gun and when police declared the man's actions legal they speculated for many minutes on his "apparent motive".

But MSNBC, in revisting the "anger" at townhall meetings over healthcare, showed a snippet of "a man with a rifle" with the man's race intentionally obscured. Their on-air personalities then painted the armed man as a white racist angry about a black president and national healthcare. It was almost one hundred percent likely that they know the protester was black, not white.

Watch a clip of this "news" segment using this YouTube link and tell us what you think.

In my opinion, this is the same kind of yellow journalism that resulted in the firing of CBS Anchor Dan Rather. This is the kind of distorted "news" one would expect to see in a movie like 1984. There are plenty of video sources that showed the rifle was carried by a black man and from several angles. MSNBC had to work hard to focus on a short snippet that obscured the man's race. And the hosts of that program either knew what they were doing or are simply incompetent to be journalists.

On Ted Kennedy's Passing

Ted Kennedy - The End of Camelot

First, let me extend my sympathies to the Kennedy family, his personal and political staff and those who were close to him. I know many people liked him and thought of him as a champion for certain causes. If it is any consolation, he is no longer in any discomfort and he may know peace at last.

However, as someone who grew up in a home with parents who were independent voters and a father who was born about the same time as Joseph Kennedy Jr., I cannot say that I'm terribly saddened by Mr. Kennedy's passing. My father had some contact with the Kennedy family before the Second World War and those experiences shaped his opinion of them. And, he didn't have many kind words for them. In fact, he voted for Richard Nixon over JFK, if that'll give you an idea of how he felt.

The Brothers
Almost unknown today, Joseph Jr. was a Navy Lieutenant during WW-II. He was killed on August 12, 1944, at age 29 when the PB4Y (B-24 Liberator) he was piloting as part of Operation Aphrodite exploded near the English Channel. He was the first of the four brothers to die in service to his country.

The loss of Teddy's brother, John F. "Jack" Kennedy in 1963 shocked the nation. We'd had presidents assassinated before (four of them), but never had it been caught on film. Worse was that Jack's charisma was very strong and many that initially resisted him came to like him personally. People mourned for their "Camelot" president.

Five years later, with America embroiled in the increasingly unpopular Vietnam War under President Lyndon Johnson, Robert F. "Bobby" Kennedy ran for president. Both he and Johnson were Democrats but Bobby ran on a popular platform appealing to the younger crowd. Then, on June 6, 1968, just after winning the California Primary, a young Palestinian man wielding a .22 caliber revolver assassinated him in the kitchen of the Los Angeles Ambassador hotel.

Edward Moore "Ted" Kennedy was the last of four brothers. That he might also one day run for president was obvious. But first, he joined with others in Congress to support the 1968 Gun Control Act (or GCA-'68). This act forced gun sellers to be licensed by the government, prohibited felons, drug users and non-citizens from buying guns and required the registration of ammo sold. With two brothers assassinated, I think we could easily understand his desire to tighten up on firearms.

Teddy - Mr. Anti-gun
Any aspirations Teddy had for the White House were dashed in the infamous 1969 Chappaquiddick incident in which Mary Jo Kopechne died in Teddy's car. As a result of this incident, he never ran for President. Instead, he supported every anti-gun measure to come before the Senate.

Kennedy supported many various causes over the years, from civil rights, immigration reform, health-care bills, anti-war legislation, campaign finance reform and many others. The problem many people had with his politics was that Kennedy pushed social program over many primary needs of the nation.

Rather than address crime, it was always guns. Rather than address illegal immigration, it was always immigration reform. Rather than create jobs for the poor, he wanted to build them housing. He would often publicly excoriate those who opposed him with an acerbic tongue.

I'm told that Kennedy was the backroom force that required a no gun ownership clause inserted in Federal Housing laws to prevent the poor from owning firearms for self-defense. He supported Diane Feinstein when she made her infamous statement about banning every gun in the country ("Mr. & Mrs. American, turn 'em all in").

A man who wanted to ban every firearm in the country, yet his personal bodyguards were well armed, sometimes carrying weapons which would be illegal in many states were it not for his political clout. It rarely occurred to him that most of his constituents could not afford to hire personal bodyguards for a trip to the airport or another country. Nor that few of them lived in gated "compounds" with armed security guarding the gates. Not that he really gave a damn about it either.

In 1993, when Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wanted a 10,000 percent tax on 9mm JHP ammo, Kennedy reportedly supported it quietly and tried to convince others to support some sort of massive tax increase on ammunition. Moynihan's absurd tax proposal would boost the cost of 9mm Black Talon (now Ranger) ammo to $1,500 per box (except for police & military uses of course).

No, I will not mourn the passing of Senator Kennedy. Neither will I celebrate his death nor his life. Once the media has had enough of the tearful farewells and the citizens rightfully stop Congress from pushing "KennedyCare", I'll forget all about Teddy Kennedy.

Lastly, I'll sleep better knowing he's not planning more anti-gun stupidity.

Have a comment? editor@handgunclub.com

Guns Near Obama

Armed Men Show at Obama Rally
(Nothing Happens)

The above headline is one you won't see on any mainstream media outlet. Even though it's truthful and describes exactly what occurred, they don't dare run such a headline.

In Arizona, a gentleman showed up at one of Obama's appearances in business attire, openly carrying a semi-automatic pistol and an AR-15 rifle slung over his shoulder. I should point out that Arizona is an open-carry state and you need no permit to do so.

Police checked him out and, finding that he was doing nothing illegal, was cooperative and not making any threats, they let him be. Sure, they and the Secret Service kept an eye on him as he moved around in the crowd outside the venue. Most important, he didn't cause any problem.

But the one thing some media outlets tried hard not to mention was that this man was African-American. Why? You be the judge. It could be that people like Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) claimed that healthcare protesters who were "too nicely dressed", like this man, were "Republican activists" and heaven forbid this man could be Black, Republican and a gun enthusiast without doing something illegal.

Incidents in Tennessee and New Hampshire were also mentioned. In New Hampshire, a man with a legally carried and holstered pistol held up a sign. I've seen two quotes of what the sign read. Either it asked, "Is it time to water the tree of Liberty?" or it said "It is time to water the tree of Liberty". Both are references to Thomas Jefferson's famous quote that the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants from time to time.

Liberal commentator David Sirota's recent column tries to claim that by exercising our 2nd Amendment rights at a political rally it becomes "intimidation" or "coercion" and thus "terrorism". While this is typical of most media nitwits, he goes further to try to tie these incidents to the old south and the "Jim Crow noose".

Is this the liberal's idea of "terrorism"? Quoting the founding fathers on a protest sign, at a political event (exercising the 1st Amendment) while legally carrying a holstered handgun (exercising the 2nd Amendment). I want to vomit when I see unadulterated pig excrement like that.

No laws were broken. No one was hurt. Firearms stayed in their holsters where they are safely secured. The rifle remained slung over the man's shoulder. There's no news here. None at all. Not unless it's manufactured.

And, that's just what it is. People who fear guns and fear others who have guns have manufactured a story. Stories like Sirota's claim the mere presence of a gun, legally and responsibly carried, while trying to exercise one's first amendment rights is like... The KKK intimidating blacks. Or like car bombs near voting booths. Or it is like a mob holding a noose to lynch a man.

Which would be funny, if they weren't so serious about it. You can bet some half-brained idiot will try to get his or her congresscritter to pass a law prohibiting people from having guns anywhere near a political event.

I looked up another event where armed men arrived in at a state capitol building and caused an uproar. Step back to May 2, 1967. Ronald Reagan was in his fifth month as Governor of California. The Watts riots were less than 2 years old. And the Black Panthers, who called for a revolution and Socialist takeover were a "radical" group.

You can see the headlines at right. The major difference between the reporting on May 2, 1967, when armed Black Panthers briefly occupied the California Capitol building and events in 2009, is that the Panthers received more sympathetic coverage.

The real purpose of these recent displays are not to intimidate or frighten people. They are to remind the American public that our rights are being trampled and that a citizen trying to fully exercise his rights is a target for government or public harassment and scorn. Exercising the 1st and 2nd Amendment together is, to the media pundits like Sirota, somehow now verboten.

Why is it that these same folks aways loudly proclaim "It's My Right!" when it comes to their bodies, the use of drugs, violent and lurid lyrics in music and other such pursuits? But it suddenly becomes a "public safety issue" or a "societal issue" when a person simply exercises their right to own or carry a firearm? Why is a woman's right to choose, which is not found in the constitution - an inalienable personal right while her right to keep and bear arms, which is expressly written in the constitution, is not?

I guess it is inconceivable to some people that we can exercise all of our rights all the time!

Post Script: These protesters obviously researched their state and local laws before proceeding. I am not advocating anyone do the same thing without consulting a local attorney. You don't want to end up in jail for violating some law you were not aware of.

Have a comment? Editor@handgunclub.com