Winning: Headlines I Never Thought I’d See

Assault Weapons Polling

A lot of my readers have been in this issue for a long time. What got me concerned about Second Amendment rights was the federal government thinking it was constitutionally unproblematic to ban “assault weapons,” all the way back in 1994. Those of us who paid attention back then remember how the media treated the issue, and remembered how shooters, collectors, and people concerned about the Second Amendment couldn’t get a fair shake. So chalk this up to headlines I’d never thought I’d see:

CBS Carries NRA’s Water On Flawed Gallup Poll

For those of us who remember the media environment in the 90s: did you ever think you’d see left-wing media complaining that CBS News was carrying NRA’s water? Granted, Media Matters are paid shills of George Soros and Joyce, but it’s still satisfying to see. The media environment has gotten considerably better just in the past few years; good enough it’s actually getting harder to find really ridiculous reporting on the issue. That might be bad news if you’re a gun blogger, but it’s good news for the Second Amendment. Granted, the major papers still editorialize against us regularly, but the actual reporting is better, and our point of view is getting a fairer shake. Our opponents are aware of this, and it’s probably part of the reason support for gun control has been declining. Media Matters can try to spin this all they want, but that Gallup poll is bad news for gun control advocates, and everyone knows it.

17 thoughts on “Winning: Headlines I Never Thought I’d See”

  1. As Bob Dylan sang, “And the times, they are a-changing!”

    However, the Times, they haven’t caught up yet.

    OTOH, CBS seems to have caught up with most of its viewers. They have been the MSM outlet working the Fast and Furious story, for example.

    I wonder if the Senate will catch up next. After all, 82 senators come from states with constitutional carry or “shall issue” systems, so if they voted in line with their states’ laws, HR822 should be a slam dunk in the Senate. I’m not holding my breath.

    In any case, HR822 won’t help me. As a resident of the Peoples’ Republic of Maryland, I still won’t be able to get a local permit. Our state’s highest court has ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply outside the home.

  2. CBS also was first of MSM to hit into Fast and Furious, I think before Fox. Maybe they are departing their left leaning ways for richer commercial endeavors.

  3. “bad news for gun control advocates, and everyone knows it.”

    What I know is just about everything can be spun. Give me a day or so on those Gallup numbers, I’ll see what I can come up with.

    1. Does not matter what you come up with. If 99.999% of Americans thought I should not own a gun, they would all be wrong. We have this little thing called the Constitution, but our natural right for self-defense will trump even this.

      Polls are fun to talk about; like who will be the next POTUS, but only one matters, it’s called the election. It’s the same thing with gun control laws in that they are USELESS for their stated goal of crime prevention, but you like for their real goal, which is citizen disarmament.

      Those that seek to disarm law-abiding citizens such as myself is clearly an enemy of liberty and a petty tyrant with evil motives.

      1. If 99.999% of Americans thought I should not own a gun, they would all be wrong.

        Yeah, and you’d still be disarmed (or killed in the process of their trying).

        The Constitution can’t stand up to a vast majority that doesn’t agree with its requirements – they’ll just change it or simply ignore it, with the Courts standing right behind them.

        And a natural right to self-defense won’t trump effective police power, either, if The People decide to abandon it (see Britain until very, very recently).

        That’s why it’s important to convince people (and not just snow ’em, but give them good arguments) – because if the other side does it instead, they’ll win.

        As you said, the election is what matters.

        Which is why the beliefs of the general population matter.

        1. You’re quite right Sigivald.

          I wanted to let MikeBbunchofnumbers know that fixating on a poll and trying to spin it does not mean he will stand on the moral high ground or on a firm legal footing. Polls and public opinion do not invalidate my Constitutionally-enumerated and protected rights, but they can be used to attack them, as you noted.

          If the political landscape changed drastically, our recognized rights (e.g. First and Second Amendments) could be trampled by power hungry control freaks like them.

          I’m not saying I could resist the force of government; just that a government that seeks to disarm is not desirable or just. Oppression would probably be just around the corner.

          We do indeed need to get as many people to see the silliness of “gun control” for what it is. Ineffective, coercive, and a means to embolden people in positions of power. So your sage observation that the beliefs of the people matters is very accurate and this is why this poll is endearing to freedom-loving people.

  4. We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. … But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.

    DC v Heller, 2008:

  5. So, polls don’t matter because we’re dealing with god-given natural-human rights, is that it?

    Someone should remind Sebastian because he’s the one who said the polls are bad news for gun control.

    As far as the god-given natural-human rights go, sorry I don’t buy it. It’s a fall back position used to justify that which cannot otherwise be justified. If we win the argument about DGUs vs. gun violence, you have your fall back. If the Supreme Court gets an overhauling in Obama’s second term, you’ve got your fall back.

    It’s bullshit, to speak frankly.

    1. So, mikeb, you’re saying that governments can revoke our rights to speak freely, or to peaceably assemble, or to have a trial by jury, or to have our life, liberty and property taken without due process, can all be taken away, because the majority agree to it?

      Granted, all these rights can disappear if the great majority approved of the disappearance…but the sad fact remains that the government that takes these rights away is illegitimate, and if the citizens can raise up and overthrow that government, they would be right to do so.

      Fighting the vast majority to preserve free speech, especially if that majority has already taken steps to nullify gun ownership, may be hopelessly difficult–nonetheless, the principle remains, that such a government will continue to remain illegitimate.

      Or would you have us believe that, if the majority of the population of the United States could have found it in their hearts to execute innocent interned Japanese Americans, it would have been appropriate for us to do so?

      1. “to speak freely”? Why do you guys keep bringing up the 1st Amendment when the discussion is about the 2nd?

        I’m not the one talking about popularity contests here, that was Sebastian.

        My hope is that the country will come to its senses, the composition of the Supreme Court will change and your willy nilly gun rights days will come to an end.

        The irony is most of you will still have your fetish toys to play with. Under the strictest controls most of you would still qualify.

        1. We bring up the 1st Amendment to show how wrong it is to abridge the Second Amendment since both are enumerated (i.e. recognized, not granted) rights.

          If the country “comes to its senses” as you say, we will have the situation like the UK where no one can defend themselves from thugs and the violence and crime actually increases overall.

          I do not recognize the Supreme Court as having the authority to just make the Second Amendment go away or to so severely restrict it that it has no meaning. It’s like them telling us that we can now no longer use the letters “M” or “B” in our speech in violation of the First Amendment. Ridiculous. I’ll tell you what, when they take away my Second Amendment rights, I’ll be sure to ask for them to trample on my freedom of speech, freedom or religion, and so on. Oh wait, that’s what they do in despotic countries. Oh yeah, that’s why we have the Second Amendment to tell them they should not go down that road.

          Sorry, but the Constitution is blazingly clear and the fact that 4 Supreme Court justices are total idiots is regrettable.

          I’m still waiting for an intelligent response from you. You have indicated you have a phobia (the “fetish toys”), don’t acknowledge history (the risk of genocide), and ignore the Constitution and its amendment process.

          Also you and your ilk are getting more irrelevant with each passing day as the “popularity contest” indicates. You have neither the facts nor the momentum going for you and most certainly not the moral high ground.

        2. First of all, I didn’t *just* bring up the First Amendment. I also brought up Life, Liberty, Property, Habeas Corpus, Due Process, Trial by Jury, Peaceable Assembly, and I put them *all* on the table.

          Second, Sebastian pointed out that the polls are currently showing the majority is on our side, while you were eager to play with statistics (and I quote, “Give me a day or so on those Gallup numbers, I’ll see what I can come up with.”) My point was this: it doesn’t matter *what* a majority says, if these rights are violated, then the government becomes illegitimate, and will remain so, until it corrects itself, or it is overthrown, and replaced with a government that *will* respect these rights.

          And yes, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of those rights that *must* be respected, for a government to be legitimate. And thus, I am claiming that Great Britain, Japan, Germany, Canada, and Norway, to be just several of *many* illegitimate governments. The funny thing is, most of these countries have illegitimate governments for reasons *in addition to* the violating of the right to keep and bear arms.

          Before you say, “But they have democratically elected governments”, I will simply point out that *that* is the reason why we need to have the support of the majority on our side, when it comes to legitimizing governments. And I would further add that Germany, in the 1930s, gave their Democratic Stamp of Approval to Adolf Hitler, who then gradually took the government from illegitimate (they already had gun “control”, and used it extensively to kill political “dissidents” by a large number of political parties) to *very* illegitimate.

  6. MikeBbunchof numbers:

    Really? You do not believe that you have an absolute right to defend yourself. Please do be quiet then, if and when someone herds you into a gas chamber shower.

    A more probable, but still remote possibility, is that you may some day be the victim of violent crime. Remember, do not speak out when the criminal decides that there should be no witnesses.

    It sounds like you believe you do not have a right to protect your own life, MikeBbunchofnumbers. Instead you want for the almighty benevolent state to be your daddy. It might try to protect you via the police (no wait, in America the police are not obligated to save your skin) and the state would never, ever, get oppressive and take away your life since you spoke out against them. That has never happened anytime in the history of mankind, right? [See all communist countries, Nazi Germany, facist Italy (where I believe you reside, how interesting), vast chunks of the Middle East, most of Africa.]

    As I CLEARLY stated, polls are fun, but not definitive, and they only tend to point in the general direction, IF they are done well. My rights are not subject to their whims. I do not believe that Sebastian hung his hopes on them either. I should not presume to speak for him so I’ll let him sddress your views.

    Regarding the purpose of the Second Amendment, it is two-fold. On the personal level, it means self-defense. On the larger scale it is the retention of the capability of the citizens to oppose a tyrannical government. You should take a look at the founding documents and the statements from the founders of this nation on their view of the value of firearms for citizens. The fact that you do not seem to believe either of these concepts is not my fault, it is due to your limited intellect and your outright refusal to acknowledge the obvious and plain facts.

    Here’s a final thought. Why in the hell do you care about gun control anyway? If you hate them, don’t own any. The people that you need to fear who have firearms are usually going to be criminals who would just find other methods to harm you if no guns existed on the planet.

    1. I wonder if MikeBbunchofnumbers will come back to play?
      I doubt it, in true troll-like fashion.

      I think my retort left him speechless. Truth kind of does that.

      You see, if he claims that the right of self-defense does not exist then his life is worthless. He is merely a drone, a cog in the machine with no intrinsic value. That’s what communism preaches.

      So, for the preservation of his life, he pins his hopes on the state. The state may or may not preserve it, and says it has no obligation to do so.

      The military protects the nation overall, and he gets a freebie protection effect when they guard our borders and infrastructure. However, with the police and violent crime, he is merely passing the buck. He expects the police to use force, up to lethal force, to protect him. If they do, he is simply a coward for insisting they do so on his behalf. However, if he does not think the police should protect his life then he has rejected self-preservation and that is clearly an aberrant thought process. He might as well rail against gravity and then step off a tall building. It’s equivalent.

  7. While the AWB was constitutional,it was also absurd and useless theater written by people who had no idea what they were talking about. It was entirely based on cosmetics and nothing to do with function. If you take a AR receiver and barrel assembly, put it in a traditional wooden stock without the pistol grip, you still have the same rifle just prettier. If you look up the technical definition of assault rifle, not to be confused with the propaganda buzz term “assault weapon” you will find that they have been (for all practical purposes) banned since 1934.

Comments are closed.