CNN Begging for a Gun Ban?

Perhaps it was due to the “bad” news that fewer people support gun control now, but it appears the question of whether Obama is going to actually push a gun ban might have different answers depending on the reporter. Ed Hornick and Kristi Keck of CNN only reported his full support for a ban last night.

Looking at other stories on the subject this morning, the Arizona Republic’s Chris Hawley took something else away completely.

President Barack Obama, outlining plans to help Mexico combat drug violence, promised Thursday to resurrect a treaty against arms trafficking that has been stuck in Congress for 12 years but rebuffed Mexico’s demands to curb sales of assault weapons in the United States. …
However, Obama showed little appetite for reviving the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons Ban. …
Obama, who acknowledged the United States shares a responsibility for the bloodshed in Mexico, said that he still believes the Assault Weapons Ban “made sense” but that he wants to concentrate on measures against gun smuggling, not gun sales. …
“None of us is under the illusion that reinstating that ban would be easy, and so what we’ve focused on is how we can improve our enforcement of existing laws,” Obama said.

That hardly sounds like he’s going to be putting the weight of the White House behind any proposal. In fact, the article headline reads, “Obama rules out assault-rifle ban.”

So, is CNN simply clueless, actively pushing the Brady agenda, or a victim of wishful thinking on the part of their reporters?

5 thoughts on “CNN Begging for a Gun Ban?”

  1. In fact, the article headline reads, “Obama rules out assault-rifle ban.”

    Then then headline is just patently untrue. That’s NOT what Barry said at all. He said that implementing the ban wouldn’t be “easy.” In other words, he wants it badly, but doesn’t believe he has the political capital to get it done yet. He has been a gun-grabbing zealot his entire political career. He hasn’t “ruled out” anything.

  2. No one here believes he’s actually ruled it out, either. I think the point was that obviously the three reporters left with VERY different interpretations of what was said.

  3. No need to ban them when you’ve got a treaty making reloading a crime and supply is non-existent.

  4. When it comes to gun control, defenders of lawful ownership and use of self-defense weapons can choose to rely upon three different sets of “facts”.
    1) What the politicians actually said
    2) What actions the politician takes
    3) What the newspapers and TV say the politician says

    It isn’t a bad idea to limit yourself to item 1 or 2, keeping in mind that one should really never trust what gun prohibitionists will lie to advance their ends (oh really?).

    Paying attention to what the politician actually does (item 2) is the only reliable method by which to gauge Obama/Peloso/Reid. None of these three elected officials is an advocate for lawful gun ownership, nor can any of the three be trusted to provide an honest and enduring statement on their positions (when it comes to freedom for We the People).

    Trying to rely upon newspapers to give an accurate or useful characterization of their actions or opinions might have been possible 50 years ago, but no longer. I will certainly not bother reading articles from sources that are generally inaccurate, especially when the person being covered could care less about the accuracy and fidelity of their statements in the first place.

  5. How does anyone know what they say on CNN? Do people actually watch that network? Seriously?

Comments are closed.