From the AP. Focuses mostly on Mike Vanderbough and the Virginia rally. Â The Washington Independent, focusing on a statement by Mike Vanderbough. The HuffPo with photos and videos. From the WaPo blog mostly covering the DC rally, and in the theme that there really isn’t anything to protest on the gun front. CNN’s coverage focused mostly on the rally in DC, but did make a mention of the Virginia rally. Probably the worst coverage was AFP:
“We are the tip of the Tea Party’s spear. We are the IRA to the Tea Party’s Sinn Fein,” Vanderboegh said, referring to the Irish Republican Army, the main paramilitary force in three decades of violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, and its political wing.
Not playing into any carefully constructed narratives there about the Tea Party. No. None at all. The AP had later coverage which they note the numbers were in the hundreds. I wouldn’t say that’s undercounting based on the pictures so far. The Richmond Times Dispatch says VCDL delivered at least 100 people to the rally.
10 thoughts on “Second Amendment Rally Coverage Round Up”
Vanderboegh is a narcissistic a*****e.
Vanderdouche is worse than useless.
The first link doesn’t go anywhere.
And the rest of the links go to sources that have a well documented hostility towards the 2A. Just what is the point here? About the only “new” thing here is that the MSM has a particular individual to vilify, as opposed to the general “cousin humping, gap toothed, pickup driving, redneck” meme they’ve been flogging all along.
The Huffington Post? Really?!
Peter’s right …… none of these news outlets have much sympathy for the truth, let alone any for the pro-2A movement.
And if keeping up the narrative was the objective, then the rally was a target-rich environment for the MSM. If it hadn’t been Mike V, they’d have found someone else to denigrate.
David Codrea has written stuff just as caustic to the anti-gun ear as Mike; Mr V is just more outspoken about it (barely).
The HuffPo Link is just pictures and video, and their introductory piece is more objective than many of the MSM pieces I’m seeing, though they all tend to be pretty objective.
I’m having trouble seeing where he is philosophically wrong with his statement. Sinn Fein had no political power without the implicit threat of force created by the presence of the IRA. The American people have no political power without the implicit threat of force created by the armed public in general. That’s how the framers thought about it, anyway; the Constitution is a contract that can be enforced by threat or use of lethal force by involved parties.
” The American people have no political power without the implicit threat of force created by the armed public in general.”
Voting gives you power. That’s the way we do it in this country. Not through force or the threat of violence.
Perhaps a better analogy could have been chosen than an organization that blows holes in bandsmen by remote control.
Vanderboegh may wish to look into a speechwriter now that he’s caught the camera’s gimlet eye.
Chewy, fruity, and delicious: Why do politicians stand for the vote? Why do the courts (pretend) to follow the Constitution? Your reply to my comment is inane and shallow, and my statement stands unrefuted; the Constitution is ultimately only enforceable through threat or use of lethal force.
Comments are closed.