|
|
AN AMERICAN WARNING
Because you should know!
April 2007 - Posts
-
|
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is learning money can't buy everything. Sure, it can pay for fancy television ads to push your latest gun-control scheme, but it doesn't mean television stations are going to run them.
In Wichita, Kansas, two stations have refused to run ads by Bloomberg's anti-gun group because the stations say the ad is misleading. Bloomberg's countered, claiming the stations are "censoring" him.
Here's news for Bloomberg: These stations are responsible for the accuracy of any "issue ad" that they broadcast. If they can't verify the claims you made, that's your fault, not theirs. You can make as many misleading ads as you want, but stations aren't under any obligation to run them.
Leave it to Bloomberg to complain about people taking responsibility for their own actions. And leave it to Bloomberg to avoid his own responsibility for being truthful. He might be able to get away with that attitude in the Big Apple, but he's starting to learn the hard way that he's not America's mayor.
|
-
|
The mainstream media continue their blackout on good news about gun owners, so don't expect the media to tell you about the latest survey from the Pew Center any time soon.
The Center polled Americans about their attitude towards the NRA, and the results would make any politician green with envy.
The survey found that 52 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the NRA, while only 32 percent had an unfavorable view. Those are better ratings than any of these anti-gun politicians:
Hillary Clinton- 48 percent favorable, 50 percent unfavorable.
John Kerry- 42 percent favorable, 54 percent unfavorable.
Nancy Pelosi- 44 percent favorable, 46 percent unfavorable.
Michael Bloomberg- 25 percent favorable, 50 percent unfavorable.
Remember these numbers the next time the media try to portray these politicians as speaking for the majority of Americans.
They don't. We do. And every day, our numbers grow.
|
-
|
In Pennsylvania, anti-gun politicians are trying to pass a bill requiring registration of every firearm in the state.
At a cost of ten bucks per gun, this bill would tax three million gun owners and treat them like criminals. Actually, it would treat law-abiding gun owners worse than many criminals in Pennsylvania. With registration, the state would know exactly where gun owners live and how many guns they own.
But criminals won't register their guns. And courts have actually ruled that they don't have to! Forcing a criminal to register his illegally owned firearm is a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, believe it or not. So the Fifth Amendment rights of criminals are apparently more important than the Second Amendment rights of gun owners. That's wrong!
Besides, the cops in Pennsylvania have better things to do than keep tabs on lawful gun owners. A report issued by the state earlier this week found that there are almost 1.5 million outstanding warrants in the state, including thousands issued for violent crimes, including homicide.
Instead of focusing their attention on the people who aren't breaking the law, why don't these anti-gun politicians help cops track down these wanted criminals? Are these politicians anti-crime, or just anti-gun? And why aren't the media asking the questions?
|
-
|
By now, we've all seen the images, no matter how hard we might have tried to avoid them. The face of a killer, staring at us from our newspapers and TV screens. We've heard his insane rantings, nonsensical, but forced down our throats by a media more concerned about ratings than right and wrong.
We've heard the justification by some members of the media, which always end up being something like "Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we?" Well, here's why.
Forensic Psychiatrist Michael Welner, appearing on "ABC News," called airing the footage a "social catastrophe." He begged the media to stop giving the madman a platform from beyond the grave, saying, "You cannot saturate the American public with this kind of message." Columnist Peggy Noonan wrote, "Brian Williams introduced the madman's collection as 'what can only be described as a multi-media manifesto.' But it can be described in other ways. 'The self-serving meanderings of a crazy, self-indulgent narcissist' is one. But if you called it that, you couldn't lead with it. You couldn't rationalize the decision." What the media really did is perform the last act of this madman's sick play.
I'm not blaming the media for what happened at Virginia Tech. That responsibility ultimately rests with the killer himself. But the press is responsible for what is does, for the images it presents us, and there's not a doubt in my mind that the press coverage of this individual gave comfort and validation to others with the same twisted evil in their hearts.
After Welner and other medical experts spoke out loudly against the media, many organizations scaled back their coverage, but even this week the president of NBC News called the decision to air the madman's mulit-media manifesto "good journalism". I don't think he could be more wrong.
At some point, journalists need to ask themselves if the stories that air are benefiting the public, of just feeding into natural voyeuristic tendencies. Tabloid stories about Anna Nicole Smith are one thing, but to apply that same journalistic mentality to a story about a mass murderer is not only irresponsible, it's sick. The American public expressed its disgust at how the media has handled the story. I hope the media's been listening, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
-
|
It's been more than a week now since a mass murderer struck on the campus of Virginia Tech, and as the NRA joins the debate on policies and laws, there are a few things I want to point out.
It wasn't 24 hours after the horrific shootings that the politicians started flapping their lips. Congressman Jim Moran suggested that somehow the tragedy was the fault of Republicans and President Bush. Barack Obama compared the evil events in Blacksburg to outsourcing jobs overseas. Senator Dianne Feinstein called for a new dialogue on gun control. Mayor Bloomberg spoke of the events in Blacksburg as he pushed to stop the Tiahrt Amendment from being renewed. And that's just the politicians.
Gun control advocates had a field day. Within hours, the Brady Campaign had a "Donate Now!" button on their website. The Violence Policy Center was blaming "lax gun laws" in Virginia for the murders, instead of placing the blame on the madman. John Rosenthal, head of Stop Handgun Violence in Massachusetts, even suggested that the gun laws in that state make it less likely for mass murder to occur there.
While this was going on, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine made a statement that seemed to fall mostly on deaf ears. He said, "People who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make it, you know, their political hobby horse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them. To those who want to, you know, try to make this into some little crusade, you know, I say take that elsewhere. Let this community deal with grieving individuals and be sensitive to those needs."
I absolutely agree with that statement. We've been debating gun control in this country for decades now. What does it hurt to pause for a few days in the midst of a tragedy to let the families of the victims grieve in peace, without being turned into a poster child either for gun rights or gun control? The answer, frankly, is it doesn't hurt anyone. Sure, you might not get to appear on national television to promote your agenda, but there's a time and a place for that. Even the brightest television studio lights can't hide the fact that you're standing in the shadow of an enormous tragedy in order to further your cause.
There is a time and a place for the discussion, the debate, and even the argument over gun control. I believe there is a time to resume this conversation. That is not hours after an event like this takes place. I wish my opponents felt the same way.
|
-
|
The National Rifle Association joins the entire country in expressing our deepest condolences to the families of Virginia Tech University and everyone else affected by this horrible tragedy.
Our thoughts and prayers are with the families.
We will not have further comment until all the facts are known.
|
-
|
Today is one of the most important days of the year for gun owners. The start of the NRA Annual Meetings is both a celebration of freedom and a rally for the Second Amendment, but it's also a show of force by gun owners to the enemies of freedom everywhere.
As tens of thousands of freedom-loving Americans descend on St. Louis, the anti-gunners are doing everything they can to chip away at your rights.
Sarah Brady's sending e-mails to Brady Campaign supporters, hoping to start a Brady Gun Law Defense Fund. Unlike the NRA's Civil Rights Defense Fund, the Brady lawyers will be trying to hurt gun owners, not help them. They're pushing for persecution of the Second Amendment, not protection. But when we gather in St. Louis, we show them we won't be pushed around.
Boston Mayor Tom Menino's calling for a ban on all semi-automatic firearms. Mr. Mayor, we've already seen what that has done for England and crime there. Why would you insist on disarming law-abiding Americans? Menino and his cohort Michael Bloomberg want to turn millions of Americans into instant criminals. But when we gather in St. Louis, we show them we won't be pushed around.
Rebecca Peters of the International Action Network on Small Arms is pushing an arms trade treaty that would gut our Second Amendment freedoms. They're not interested in lobbying Congress or state legislators. Instead, they want to go global, with the help of anti-gun politicians in countries without the Second Amendment. That arms trade treaty, if ratified by Congress or signed by a future president, would mean a global war on your guns the likes of which has never been seen. But when we gather in St. Louis, we show them we won't be pushed around.
In fact, when we gather in St. Louis, we're pushing back. We're pushing for Castle Doctrine laws across the country. We're pushing for legislation that ensures the gun confiscations in New Orleans will never be repeated in this country. We're pushing to protect our rights to protect ourselves, even against anti-gun employers who want to leave you defenseless to and from work. When we gather in St. Louis, we're pushing to protect and promote our freedoms, and we won't stop pushing until we've won.
|
-
|
Texas Governor Rick Perry recently signed the "Castle Doctrine" into law. When it takes effect later this year, Texas residents will no longer have a duty to retreat when faced with a violent attacker.
But before the law goes into effect, the media in Texas should study the Castle Doctrine, so they don't make the same mistakes that a TV reporter made covering an armed citizen story in Corpus Christi.
The armed citizen in this case held a burglar at gunpoint until police arrived and arrested the bad guy. Like most defensive gun uses, the gun was never fired. But that didn't stop KRIS-TV reporter Roxanne Carrillo from lying about the Castle Doctrine.
In her report, she said, "A new law signed by Governor Perry this week will soon give homeowners the right to shoot first and ask questions later."
That's simply not true. The Castle Doctrine is not an excuse to act irresponsibly. When faced with a violent criminal, it gives you the right to meet force with force. You're no longer legally required to retreat, to turn your back on the attacker, before defending yourself.
If Roxanne Carrillo had read the legislation, she would know that. And if she hasn't read the bill, she shouldn't be making up stories about it.
|
-
|
I can't believe it, but CNN actually got a gun story right the other evening.
The same network that lied to millions of Americans about the Clinton Gun Ban finally told the truth: Gun owners are a threat to no one but criminals.
CNN focused on the reckless disclosure by the Roanoke Times in Virginia that I told you about. The Times put hundreds of thousands of lawful citizens at risk by publishing their names and personal addresses—just because they have a Right-to-Carry license. CNN featured two examples: a victim of domestic violence who's taken desperate steps to make sure her abusive ex can't find her, and a parole officer who had a parolee turn up at his home after his information was exposed.
After the story, CNN anchor Rick Sanchez hosted a roundtable that included my friend Niger Innis of the Congress of Racial Equality, CNN Contributor Roland Martin, and journalism professor Miguel Perez. Incredibly, three of the four agreed that the paper was wrong to publish the names and addresses of Right-to-Carry holders. Even more incredibly, CNN anchor Sanchez was one of those who bashed the paper for putting people at risk!
Only Roland Martin tried to defend the paper. But even he tempered his argument by suggesting that Virginia lawmakers could restrict public access to this information. And journalism professor Miguel Perez called the paper's actions "ridiculous."
I still can't believe that the same network I took to task for showing machine guns and calling them "semi-automatics" actually got this story right. Maybe there's hope for CNN after all.
|
-
|
Do you ever check what they're teaching kids about the Second Amendment these days?
If you have children of your own, you know the best you can hope for is that your kids are learning nothing at all about the Second Amendment in public schools. If not, you can bet our children are being told the Second Amendment is outdated, or that it's about the National Guard, or that it's otherwise meaningless in today's society. And along with that brainwashing comes indoctrination that guns are bad and gun owners are worse.
An anti-gun politician in Maine recently enlisted a group of ten-year-olds to help him draft some gun-control legislation. As you can imagine, these kids were only told one side of the story.
The kids say they spent a year researching the issue of mandatory use of trigger locks, and came to the conclusion that it would be a good thing. But in their year of research, the students never took a gun safety course, and it appears they're basing their arguments on the "research" done by anti-gun groups like Maine Citizens Against Handgun Violence. Were they ever exposed to an argument against their proposal? I doubt it, because the anti-gun side can't risk these kids being exposed to the Constitution and a dose of common sense.
If you want your kids to learn about the freedoms protected by the Second Amendment, you'd better teach them yourself. Otherwise, the anti-gunners will be more than happy to "educate" the next generation on the issue.
|
-
|
Good news about gun owners almost never gets reported, so I'm not surprised Katie Couric or Brian Williams hasn't reported on the latest statistics about accidents with firearms.
The National Safety Council's new data on accidental firearm fatalities shows that the number of accidents continues to decline. In fact, over the past ten years the number of accidental fatalities has dropped by almost 70 percent!
To put things in perspective, here are the accidental fatality rates per 100,000 for certain categories:
Accidental Poisoning: 7.1
Falls: 6.0
Choking: 1.6
Drowning: 1.2
Firearms: 0.2
The accidental death rate for poisoning, falls, and choking have been inching upwards, but the number of accidental deaths involving firearms keeps going down. Not only are the vast majority of gun owners safe and responsible people...they're the ones who fund programs like the NRA's Eddie Eagle, who teaches kids what to do if they see a gun - twenty million kids so far.
When it comes to firearm accidents, there's some very good news to report. Too bad you'll only hear it from me.
|
-
|
When anti-gun Illinois Senator Dan Kotowski held a press conference to promote a gun ban the other day, I'm sure he didn't expect someone who knows a thing or two about the guns being banned to be in attendance.
So when the senator pointed to an Armalite .50-caliber rifle and called it a "military weapon," he got the shock of his life. The top guy from Armalite stood up in the audience and told the crowd that's not true. He said they'd never sold the rifle to the military.
Kotowski was shocked, and started dancing his best back-and-fill routine.
Armalite is an Illinois company, and the proposed .50-caliber ban would mean they'd have to move operations out of state. But more importantly, a ban on that rifle would lead to a ban on more firearms, and Armalite's Mark Westrom knows that.
In fact, he said at the press conference, "When the .50(-caliber) is restricted, okay, so then we modify it and we convert it into a 49(-caliber). Then what happens next here to the 49s and the 45s?"
Westrom is right. Because bans don't solve problems, they only lead to more bans, and gun owners should NEVER stand for it.
Kotowski made some ludicrous claims about the rifle, including that it could shoot down an airplane flying 6,000 feet overhead. These gun-banners make idiotic statements like this all the time, but rarely is their stupidity confronted by someone so highly credentialed.
I'm glad Mark Westrom was in the audience last week ... I just wish the Illinois media saw fit to report his truth, instead of Kotowski's lies.
|
-
|
Kent Hardin is a hero, but you'll never hear his name on the network news, or in the pages of the New York Times or the Washington Post. That's because Kent Hardin saved a life, but he did it with the help of his gun.
Hardin's mother is elderly and needs a caregiver, so the family hired Sharon Hamblin to watch over her. Unfortunately for everyone involved, Hamblin's ex-boyfriend Gary Stewart was watching all of them, and one day he came to the house where Hamblin was caring for 85-year-old Louise Hardin. He abducted the pair of women, only to let them go a few hours later.
Police warned the family that he may be back, and they were right.
Three days later Stewart returned to the home, smashing the glass in the garage door to gain entry once again. He found Sharon Hamblin, and forced her out of the home and towards his car at knifepoint. This time, however, Kent Hardin was at home and heard the commotion.
Grabbing his gun, Hardin dashed out of the house. Opening the door of Stewart's car, he ordered him onto the ground. Faced with an armed citizen, Stewart complied. Five minutes later, police arrived and took Stewart into custody.
What would have happened if Kent Hardin had been unarmed? Would we be reading about the body of Sharon Hamblin being found somewhere in Memphis? Would there be three people dead, instead of one thug in jail?
These are questions that don't have to be answered, because Kent Hardin was armed, and was able to protect the lives of others. He's a hero, even if most media don't want you to know it.
|
-
|
A new nationwide poll shows strong support for gun owners by rank-and-file police officers, which means you'll never hear about it in the mainstream media.
Police Magazine surveyed more than one thousand officers on various Second Amendment issues, and the results are a slam-dunk for gun owners. Eighty-eight percent said more gun control won't make people any safer. More than 60 percent of officers said they own more than four firearms for their personal use.
Officers were also asked if they would take part in a gun confiscation in the case of a gun ban. The good news is that two-thirds of officers surveyed said they wouldn't confiscate guns that had been banned. The bad news is that a third of officers said they would.
Next year I'd like to see those poll numbers change. I'd like to see that majority of officers explain to their colleagues that, if you believe in the Constitution, you don't do things that are unconstitutional.
In the meantime, this poll affirms what I've been saying for decades: The vast majority of rank- and-file police side with gun owners because they are gun owners. They're Second Amendment supporters, even if their politically appointed chiefs are not.
|
|
|
|