On December 14, 2012 a crazed gunman broke into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT and killed 26 people including 20 young children. The nation reacted with all the horror the act deserved. Unfortunately there are many who like to follow Rahm Emanuel's paraphrase of one of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" ("Never let a crisis go to waste"). Some of them used this evil act to advance an agenda. Within days of the savage killing spree the anti-gun Nazis were beating the drum for more gun control.
I use the term Nazi with good reason. I just saw a post on Facebook stating, "I saw a movie once where only the police and military had guns- it was Schindler's List." My intent here, however is not to revisit the gun control debate; people much smarter than me have weighed in and I am not writing this to add my two cents worth. No, today I have my own "agenda".
As regular readers know one of my favorite pastimes is pointing out the insane media bias that has contributed to the mess this country is in. I especially love those instances where the looney left-wing media shows rank hypocrisy. Today's exhibit A comes to us courtesy of White Plains, NY and it's rag The Journal News.
Sunday, December 23 the paper published a map showing the locations of gun owners in two counties just north of New York City, complete with names and addresses. The unintended consequences began surfacing immediately. A woman who had been the victim of stalking up to a couple years ago began receiving mysterious calls again. Some prison guards reportedly were told, "I know where you and your family live" from inmates.
Those who had their privacy invaded by the publishing of this information were understandably upset and began complaining in droves. Some were so angry they called the paper and threatened its employees.
The paper would like to stigmatize the lawful owners of weapons in an attempt to advance their vision of a world where if you feel threatened you don't have the right to defend yourself but you can call the police. So how did they react when they felt threatened you ask? Well they didn't call the police- THEY HIRED ARMED GUARDS! That's right, when you're a member of the elite you can have people with guns to protect you, but for the great unwashed- not a chance.
If this were all the hypocrisy the paper exhibited it would probably be enough but unfortunately it wasn't. A blogger decided what was good for the goose was good for the gander and published the names and addresses of the newspaper's employees. Now I happen to believe that this was a case of two wrongs NOT making a right but, once again, this isn't the issue I wish to discuss. The newspaper's reaction and it's hypocrisy is.
How did execs at the paper react? By complaining long and loud about the invasion of privacy and how damaging it was to the employees of the paper and their families. I happen to agree that it's possible the publishing of that information could have unintended consequences that could harm innocent people but... isn't that exactly the complaint being registered against the paper's publishing of gun owners' names and addresses?
Here's an example that would parallel this situation: what if we either posted names and addresses of welfare recipients or even those who went to Planned Parenthood for an abortion? Both have similar ties to government as those forced to get permits to legally possess a weapon. Both made the choice to pursue an activity. Should we file a FOIA request and publish? Imagine for a moment the furor if one of these lists were published.
The left and its minions would scream to high heaven about the invasion of privacy and the stigma attached to the publishing of names. I believe the same case can be made for the publishing of gun owners' names but if there is going to be an outcry from the media or the ACLU I have yet to hear it.
And I don't expect to.
Comments