Anger Issues

I have to agree with Professor Reynolds. The fact that guys like this are out there and taken seriously is a big reason I own firearms.

What is being proposed here, seriously, in a mainstream newspaper, is the kind of thing our founders put the Second Amendment in place so we could protect ourselves from. It’s astonishing that such an article would even make it into a serious newspaper, and be printed. It’s an outrage. Note that it’s a Gannett Newspaper too, the same people who are outing every gun owner in New York. Like I said, this is war. I get that a lot of people who have Comcast don’t have a choice, and I’m sympathetic to that. I’d bite the bullet and pay Comcast if that’s all the choice I had for Internet. But I’ve gone without a paper for my adult life, and don’t find I’m any less informed. If you’re subscribed to a Gannett paper, cancel it. Call their advertisers and harass them too. Starve the beast!

12 thoughts on “Anger Issues”

  1. The mask is indeed starting to come off. The Gun-grabbers are clearly off their rockers and they are trying to reach for the brass ring. For this we can thank them.

    When they argue that they aren’t in favor of gun confiscation we can point to Hurricane Katrina, the Feinstein bill, Governor Cuomo, etc….

    When they claim that 2A supporters are hate filled we can point to this article and virtually anything on MSNBC (Ed Schultz for starters.

    Those who voted for Obama claiming that he isn’t coming after our guns now have no where to hide. He isn’t waiting for his second term to begin and he has already declared his intentions, as if installing 2 rabidly anti-2A justices wasn’t enough.

    The lines are now clearly marked. The other side now has no where to hide. They are showing themselves to be the fascists we always knew them to be.

    Here is an article from PRAVDA of all places imploring Americans to fight the gun-grabbers!! We truly live in interesting times.

    1. I’m only posting this because I’m a longtime though casual student of propaganda, and not because I disagree with most of the content of the column. is not in any way related to the Soviet Union’s old house organ by that name. It is not a real news outlet in Russia. Being in English, it is sort of a quirky overseas version of WorldNetDaily, that steals undeserved interest and credibility from those who think it is the old Russian newspaper. I have tracked down other things from it, in the past, and its authors have no particular credibility. Essentially they are just bloggers.


      “ online. Readers should note that, despite the name, the latter is NOT the official organ of the old USSR, which was closed by order of Boris Yeltsin in 1991. While runs many interesting articles, it is often an instrument for the expression of Murdoch-style yellow journalism and Great Russian chauvinism.”

      1. Why “Murdoch-style yellow journalism”? Why not “Sultzberger-style yellow journalism”?

        1. If you look at the link, this label on a picture of Murdoch is rather telling:

          Committed plutocrats like Rupert Murdoch are supposedly bringing communism to the USA. The idea that the world’s super rich are insidiously injecting Marxism into the planet’s “great democracies” is a favorite fantasy of deranged populist right-wingers.

          Which is largely irrelevant to the provenance of, which was why Andy cited it.

          But otherwise, you have a point, aren’t the Sultzbergers’ more anti-gun and more yellow journalism, in a new style, than Murdoch? And Murdoch is at least tolerant of seriously pro-gun stuff in his US properties, I can’t see that getting too far in the other’s empire.

          1. Harold, you got my purpose: It was about, not about the merits of Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch just happened to be referenced in the first convenient thing I stumbled upon.

            That said: The most fruitful place to find inconvenient facts about people and things on the left, is from sources on the right; and also vice-versa. This is hardly profound, but both wings tend to give undeserved credibility to, and ignore the shortcomings of, their own fellow-travelers. So, I check with both.

    1. Indeed, although we need to keep this in historical perspective, say BAG and AHD, Before Al Gore and After His Defeat in 2000. Except for the VT and now the Newtown shootings gun control hasn’t gotten much traction after the Democrats realized that if he’d not gone strongly anti-gun he would have almost certainly defeated Bush (note, the RKBA isn’t unique, there are a whole set of individual things like that since it was so very close). The article you’re linking to is of course BAG.

  2. Forgive me for being dense, but what the heck is the basis for slamming Comcast? As far as I can see, Comcast does not own Gannett. Gannett does not own Comcast. Their relationship is simply that Comcast owns NBC, and Gannett owns some NBC affiliates. Sorry, too tenuous.

  3. Gannett also owns the Army Times, Marine Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times, Military Times, Federal Times, and Defense News.

    Choosing between keeping up with current events for promotion boards/ Soldier & NCO of the Year competitions OR boycotting the publications that the questions will be taken from, is a no-brainier for most soldiers.

    This sucks.

    1. Gannett also owns at least one company that produces online advertizing for websites, without regard to ideology. Some websites most of us frequent are served by that Gannett subsidiary, from time to time.

Comments are closed.