Scare tactics: the mainstream media's war on guns

When you have an agenda, you can spin nearly anything to fit it. The mainstream media, for reasons that are all their own, are by and large anti-gun. That bias is readily evident in their stories about anything involving guns. Take, for instance, an article in the Nashua Telegraph which begins, "like it or not, gun sales are, well, booming."

We deal with tragedy every day. Whether terrorist attacks, natural disasters, car accidents, etc., people lose their lives every day. In a free nation with 300 million people, sadly some will choose to commit violence with firearms. Unfortunately, there was just such an episode of violence over the weekend when a man killed eight people at a nursing home in North Carolina.

One article couldn't help but note that "the shooting will inevitably be seized upon by proponents of greater gun control who have already highlighted a spate of recent attacks." They also attempt to sway public opinion by noting that "the shooting appeared to be the latest massacre to scar American society, where firearms-related deaths total about 30,000 each year." Sounds scary until you note that the flu kills 63,000 and even Septicemia (infection) kills 34,000 each year. Of course, that figure also includes suicides, which account for approximately half the figure, as well as gang killings and criminals killed by police officers in the line of duty.

The media wants the "Assault Weapons Ban" reinstated, even though it was proven to be ineffective, and they will seize on any opportunity to push that agenda through journalistic activism.

Another example would be a recent story regarding singer Rihanna, who recently got a tattoo of a gun on her ribcage, remarking on her choice, "I’m a big advocate of guns. So I said, ‘How about a gun?'" Had it been any other social issue she supported, it would likely have gotten little mention. But since she was opposing the media's gun control agenda, the website perezhilton.com editorialized, "Considering everything that's come to light recently, this is totally creepy/sad! We sure hope RiRi is getting the counseling that she obviously needs." Apparently, an abuse victim who cowers in a corner is having a healthy response, but if she's a strong woman who supports firearms ownership for self defense then she needs counseling. I'd argue that Rihanna isn't the one with the problem.

Yet another example is the story out of Texas regarding that state's bill to deny an employer the ability to disarm employees to and from work. The headline laments, Guns could be legal in workplace, making people think that gun owners will be able to stick guns in their desk or lunchbox when the truth is only that employees with concealed carry licenses would be permitted to have guns locked up in their vehicles. Ohioans For Concealed Carry has asked the Ohio legislature to adopt a similar measure.

Much to the chagrin of the media, not all legislators and public officials support their agenda. We hear daily the hand wringing and rending of clothes as the media notes every pro-gun vote as the result of the "powerful gun lobby." They like it even less when a public official like Colorado's Mesa County Commissioner Janet Rowland supports the idea that "county employees might carry concealed handguns to improve security at the old county courthouse." Rather than treat it like an innovative solution to dwindling resources and increasing crime by relying on law abiding citizens to increase safety, papers like the Daily Sentinel call it a "shoot-from-the-hip solution" and imply she has lost her mind.

Gun control has proven time and time again to be ineffective. The general public seems to be less and less willing to be lied to and mislead, but that doesn't stop the gun grabbers and their puppets in the media from trying.

With 48 states having at least some provision for their residents to able to carry firearms for personal defense (though some have such strict conditions for issuance as to in effect ban anyway), there has been a push for some time for enact national reciprocity so that a license issued in one state is valid in every state, just like a drivers license.

Recently, U.S. Congressman Todd Tiahrt co-sponsored the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill (H.R. 197).

"The National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill recognizes that those who have a valid state-issued concealed firearms permit should not have to forfeit their safety when traveling," said Tiahrt. "Not only does this bill protect the rights of concealed firearm permit holders, it also maintains the right of states to issue concealed weapons permits as they desire. As a mobile society, legal firearm permit carriers should be able to travel from state to state and exercise their fundamental right to self defense. This legislation ensures that."

Which such a bill would seem to make a lot of sense, it is likely to receive heavy opposition from all sides. Naturally, the gun grabbers will oppose it because they're against anything pro-gun, but there will be resistance from states that already issue carry permits if they have heavy standards or discretionary issuance since they will be against honoring licenses from states with more lenient requirements. Take Ohio, for example. We currently don't have reciprocity with many states because they don't require as many hours of training as we do.

This week, I'm going to run into the obstacles lack of reciprocity make for gun owners first hand. Tonight, I fly to Idaho to begin a cross-county drive back to Ohio later this week. Along the way, I will be traveling through states that will render my concealed handgun license null and void and require me to disarm, less I commit a felony for no other action than crossing a line on a map.

For those of you who are on Twitter, I invite you to follow me on my journey. I'll post updates as often as I can from my phone and I invite you to make comments regarding my updates in the comments section on my daily articles. It should be fun!

READERSHIP INTERACTION

Portland Progressive Examiner: What is wrong with an assault weapon's ban? Why does anyone need an assault weapon? Is the gun lobby capable of any compromise?

We compromise every time we let shall not be infringed mean anything less than it explicitly states. When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they intended for The People to be able to defend themselves from threats both foreign and domestic. That need has not gone away, freedom and security go hand in hand. "Progressives" tend to rail against "assault weapons" because they don't understand them. They see only the bad when guns are misused by a small minority and blame guns that happen to look more "evil" than others. Why do we "need" alcohol? Drunk drivers kill far more Americans each year than guns do. Yet, we saw what happened the last time we tried to ban it. You can't take away what the majority wants in an attempt to control the actions of a small minority.