Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Ill. (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)
According to an Associated Press story by reporter John O'Connor, candidates for Barack Obama's former Illinois Senate seat want voters to think they support the right to keep and bear arms--even if they don't. That they feel they need to put up a false front on guns is in itself remarkable, but this story also raises a larger concern: the shallowness of "authorized journalists" when it comes to reporting on gun issues.
Case in point:
Most Republicans, on the other hand, oppose an assault-weapons ban. The GOP's leading candidate, U.S. Rep. Mark Steven Kirk, did not mention assault weapons in his response to the Associated Press questionnaire, but called for "sensible measures to reduce illegal gun violence." He did not specify what he meant by "sensible."
Here's what Kirk meant by "sensible":
Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008
The sponsor? Mark Kirk, of course.
It was hardly difficult to find. Just type Mark Kirk assault weapon into Google and it's currently the first hit.
Or search for Mark Kirk gun and you'll find his positions from "On the Issues". Let's see, he's against private sales, for the Brady Bill, for waiting periods, for gun locks...and while this shows his 2003 NRA rating was a "D," it should hardly be difficult for an AP reporter to find Kirk's most current grade is an "F." And Gun Owners of America gives him an "F-."
Well...that took all of three minutes.
The AP is relying on candidate responses to their questionnaire and going no deeper. The thing is, this story is not sharing the exact questions and the complete answers. So all most voters will have to go on is a shallow overview that masks true positions.
Likewise, if you rely on another AP offering:
Mark Kirk: "I support the Second Amendment and sensible measures to reduce illegal gun violence."
Sure he does.
I've written about this character before. Barring something that pushes this to a back burner, I'll have more to say tomorrow.
Comments
I posted this earlier in the week on an Illinois newspaper's site. So if you think you've read it before relax, you're not experiencing "deja vu all over again".
The English language has a curious construction that goes something like this: "I (like, support, believe in) "fill in something here", but .......". Essentially the only important part to watch for is the "but". The speaker or writer is about to negate everything that came before the all important "but". The current case in point is "Candidate Elmer Fudd said he supports the Second Amendment but also supports reasonable restrictions on assault weapons, closing the gun show loophole, registering all handguns, a 5000% tax on all ammunition, and whatever else Sarah Brady, Josh Sugarman, Carolyn McCarthy, and/or Chuck Schumer want this week." If you ever see or hear a candidate say "I support the Second Amendment but...." and you are a gun owner, avoid that candidate like the plague.
DDS, I call it having a big "but."
More authorized urinealism, getting the truth all sodden while making it smell like ammonia.
Get a clue, people. The statement "I support the Second Amendment and sensible measures to reduce illegal gun violence." is code talk for "I support a complete ban on individual ownership of any firearm and want to repeal the 2nd Amendment". If someone truly supports the 2nd amendment then ALL gun laws are unconstitutional. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" do they not understand? If a politician says 'support 2nd amendment and sensible gun laws' in the same sentence, RUN and never, ever consider casting a vote for that politician.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!