Christian Science Monitor Profiles Gun Blogs

We ran into a reporter from the Christian Science Monitor in the NRA Press Office, who was interested doing a story on this whole gun blogging thing.  We invited him out to talk to some of the bloggers at our happy hour.    The article he wrote is excellent, and has some choice quotes from Josh Sugarmann in regards to gun blogging, and other new media efforts.

16 thoughts on “Christian Science Monitor Profiles Gun Blogs”

  1. He wrote an OK article. I give it a “C” or B-.

    He missed the civil rights point completely and the fact that gun bloggers, (or 2nd Amendment bloggers…not PRO-GUN bloggers…) do well because they are correct with their facts and rational in their thinking. Anti-civil rights folks do badly because….they lie and any commenter with a modem can expose them.

  2. I also think that the “Not (completely) Under the Thumb of the NRA” point would have been much better made if there were say… more Civil Rights Bloggers that were included in such events and not excluded because, well, they dont act like they are under the thumb of the NRA. I think this might have been a more interesting and informative article if they, also, were readily available to this reporter.

    Im not saying you guys arent doing a great job, i saw a number of bloggers i follow out on the floor today, which was cool to say the least, but the idea of rational discussion that excludes outside (grey) viewpoints while it is ridiculing other (black) viewpoints, and claiming to be impartial and uninfluenced is as rediculous as NRA tv being taken seriously as a source of news. Even CNN puts on Jeremy Siegel across from Peter Schiff in economic discussions, to offer the appearance of an open discussion on the issues. They both agreed that there was a problem with the economy, but thy differed greatly on what was to be done.

    When was the last time Aaron Zellman or David Codrea was on NRA tv?

    This might not be anyones fault, and i might be mistaken, as i wasnt there and dont know who was in attendance, thats just the impression i get from certain inflammatory types on the internet. Maybe its those other guys fault for not more actively participating in the venue that was provided by the NRA here in sunny and mildly warm Phoenix.

    I was there, it was a hoot.

  3. Robert’s point above is well-taken.

    From the article:

    “Sebastian … is part of a contrarian gang of gun bloggers …”

    Contrarian? To what? Mainstream media? Gang? This hit me as just a wee bit derisive, but perhaps only because we are sensitive to looking for derision from the MSM. And I hardly consider the CSM to be “mainstream.”

    Sugarmann said:

    “If you compare the pro-gun activity in the blogosphere versus the pro-gun-control activity, the scales have just tipped tremendously in their favor”

    In other words, he says they’re winning. Boo hoo for us. But then to make himself feel better and to take the swipe, he says:

    “…they clearly have more free time than people on our side of the issue do.”

    Josh, you are an ass. People spend time with issues they care about. I’d like to compare Josh’s salary for anti-gun efforts with Sebastian’s salary for this pro-rights efforts. The comparison would be telling.

  4. I left a response to a comment that was left below this story on the Christian Science Monitor web site, one which was authored by somebody identified as Susan Gill.

    I’m unsure as to whether my comment will get published though, so I’d like to share it here also:

    Susan Gill’s comment above is so chock-full of liberal-pinko-claptrap and distortions, it’s hard for me to know where to begin! She basically could have summarized her entire rant by saying, “I hate all guns. I think they are evil and I just wish that they would all go away. Whenever I see a murderer, gang member, or rapist on the TV news, I want to give him or her a hug.”

    However, Susan Gill’s opinion on guns might suddenly change if her home were to be violently invaded by a ruthless gang of criminals late one night while she’s upstairs in bed, that is, she’ll then wish she had a gun once she discovers her phone lines have been cut, and her cell phone isn’t working for some reason.

  5. From the article — “The question is: How did they succeed [in liberalizing CCW]? How do you succeed in the face of conventional wisdom, common sense and elite opinion?”

    Is the notion that disarming the law-abiding will result in less crime and violence “Common sense?”

  6. A pretty good article I think. Congrats Sebastian for getting Snowflakes mentioned in the old media.

    I think it is setting the tone for a new traditional media conspiracy theory. Everyone knows that the NRA controls the government, now it turns out gun bloggers control the NRA ;)

  7. Dear Hank Archer:

    The answer to your question is “yes.” Not so much because of the idea that disarming only the law-abiding will result in less crime and violence … but because many (including gun control advocates) believe in the “supply-side” ideal of gun control. The belief revolves around the false notion that any restrictions making guns and/or ammo more difficult to acquire or possess, or more “rare” in our society, necessarily will reduce crime. To believe that you must assume that more guns equals more crime, and you must ignore or irrationally downplay the “remainder problem” (mostly only a “problem” to those who believe in gun control).

    The following paper will enlighten you greatly.

    Johnson, Nicholas J. 2009. IMAGINING GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA: UNDERSTANDING THE REMAINDER PROBLEM. Wake Forest Law Review 43: 837-891.

  8. I didn’t think the article was all that great, though of course I’ve seen far worse.

    As long as the author was going to give readers helpful adjectives, such as describing the Independence Institute as “conservative,” he might have added similar hints to things such as Sugarmann’s snarky dig about people with lots of free time – maybe pointing out just how many full-time paid propagandists are on the staff at VPC.

    I also noted the line about “common sense.” Common sense is sense which we all have in common. Obviously there’s not much of that in the gun control debate – I certainly share little sense of things in common with Josh Sugarmann, for example. Therefore it’s misleading to describe either the pro-control or pro-civil rights stances as “common sense.”

  9. I thought it was a wonderful article. The idea that gun bloggers are more numerous and more passionate seems indisputable to me. What I’ve often had to contend with on my blog from the pro-gun commenters is unfair arguing practices like putting words in my mouth or exaggerating what I said in order to win their point. In many cases it escalated to one-sided name-calling and even bizarre accusations.

    I think you guys have it wrong. I try to maintain that position respectfully and honestly. Hopefully, some of the more “passionate” among you can settle down now and abandon some of those disrupting tactics, now that you’re so strongly in the majority.

  10. “NRA: The new face of the American right?”

    I truly hope the hell not. NRA (and gun owners) must think bigger than that. Fundamental individual rights are NOT a partisan issue!

  11. In the absence of the “mainstream” media it does indeed fall to the bloggers to share information, facts and opinions on the sacred Second Amendment over the internet.

    I appreciate the effort and obvious impact of 2ABB members.

    Much like the original Patriots – a seemengly rag-tag, group of freedom fighters – 2ABBers worship liberty, respect individual rights and champion personal responsibility.

    Who could find any fault with that? Perhaps that’s why I never encountered an anti-gun blogger in Phoenix or a single protester in front of the convention center.

    It all gets back to reason, logic and common sense.

    Thanks, Sebastian (and all your colleagues)!

    Looking forward to seeing you all in Charlotte.

Comments are closed.