Locally, there’s a new group that has popped up to defend gun rights. The media is aghast, and they resent being reminded that 1 in 17 of voting age adults in the county have concealed carry permits – a number from before the rush on permits post-Aurora and Newtown.
“Registration? Does it include the criminals?” [a local pro-gun State Rep.] asked, repeating a very tired argument. He went on, concluding: “Firearms protect children, wives and husbands.”
What about the dog? Should we shoot people who threaten the family pet?
Yes, the paper just called the argument that we should punish criminals “tiring” before comparing the value of the lives of your spouse and children to that of a dog. Let that sink in. They think the concept of defending the lives of your children is as worthless as defending a house cat. Why? Because you own guns.
But, the unsigned editorial doesn’t stop there. No, they have to make gun owners out to be dangerous creatures.
Said one of the “concerned gun owners” of possible government intervention, “They have a hunger to control us — unless we stop them.”
God help us.
Clearly, divine intervention is needed. Because gun owners couldn’t possibly be talking about stopping power-hungry politicians through civic engagement, public education efforts, citizen lobbying, and election volunteer activities.
This doesn’t even get into their policy discussion. They promote Obama’s gun ban agenda as “modest,” and then they try to claim that full gun registration isn’t really controversial at all. They think that a ban on firearms commonly owned and used by thousands of gun owners in the region is just not big deal and shouldn’t be challenged. They do make clear that we’re “entitled” to have opinions, but they are outraged that gun owners dare organize to express them.
14 Responses to “What the Media Really Thinks of Gun Owners”
- Positive Kids & Shooting Coverage | Shall Not Be Questioned - [...] do your homework on who you pitch at a local paper or other outlet. The same group that published ...