The Editorial Page Editor for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review rips apart various gun control proposals that violate not just Second Amendment rights, but also our Fourth Amendment rights. Whether it’s insurance, warrantless searches, or the terrible firearms advice from the Vice President, Colin McNickle holds nothing back. He even demonstrates how, if we applied the logic of many gun control advocates to the First Amendment, the modern media would not exist. This is a column that absolutely deserves some pro-rights clicks and praise.
Category: The Media
A Reporter Takes a Shooting Class
A New Haven reporter who had handled guns three times before in very casual ways with no serious instruction decided to actually take a class that would allow him to get a permit to carry. He wrote about his experience, and it turns out that it’s more detailed instruction than most people would get in boating or driving classes:
Despite the relatively short class time [8 hours], a lot of ground was covered. Imagine going to driving school and being taught not only how to drive, but all the parts of an engine and what makes it go. Pear taught us how to use firearms, but also what makes them tick.
He taught the anatomy of a cartridge — bullet, shell and the primer that ignites the gunpowder. We learned the different components of handguns, both revolvers and semiautomatics. We learned the difference between a single-action firearm and a double-action firearm. We learned how to line up the sight of a pistol and how to control breath when aiming.
“We did an entire chapter of what you have to do to fire a shot,†Pear said. “Tons of words — 20 pages of written verbiage, 15 slides in a PowerpPoint presentation — for you to do something mechanical that takes a second to do. We explain every part of that event.â€
The article is actually pretty long, and the reporter outlines what it was like shooting multiple calibers and an AR-15 in a private session he had with the instructor after class.
In the end, the reporter weighs the various reasons that men and women young and old took the class with him and debates whether or not to get a carry license. Ultimately, he decides that carrying is not for him, and the best decision is to put the fees for licensing toward buying his first gun to shoot at the range.
Women are Part of the Debate
Courtesy of John Richardson on Twitter, I came across this post which supports a claim that pro-gun women’s voices haven’t been heard in the current debate on gun control. They argue that gun control is all they hear out of women’s voices at the moment. I totally disagree with this premise, but unlike the CBS article and accompanying blog post, I’ve going to back my argument up with evidence.
As I tweeted back to John, there was the highly publicized feature of Jessie Duff on Fox News where she was featured as the expert on firearms. In next week’s Senate hearing on gun control, a woman will be one of the pro-Second Amendment speakers. I also immediately thought of the coverage here in Pennsylvania of the big pro-gun rally last Saturday which featured a female NRA board member. They also interviewed another woman in the audience who supported Second Amendment rights.
But I’ll concede that’s just what I could think of off the top of my head. To do a little more research on the gender divide of pro-gun versus anti-gun, I went through several pages of Google News results on the term “gun control” and selected random articles on different gun law-related news from the last day and a half. Here’s what I found:
- Letter to the Editor, Peoria Journal Star – anti-rights; written by a man
- Report on DC gun control march, New York Daily News – 2 anti-rights protestors; both men
- Report on gun show attendance, NBC Los Angeles – 3 pro-rights, all men
- Expectations for gun control hearing, Hartford Courant – 2 pro, 2 anti; all men
- Report on gun show attendance, ABC Lincoln, Nebraska – 3 pro-rights; 2 men, 1 woman
- Gun rights rally report, Indiana – 4 pro-rights; 1 woman, 2 men, 1 unidentified
- Report on pro-rights rally, Atlanta Constitution-Journal – 1 anti-rights, 3 pro-rights; 1 woman (anti), 3 men
- Letter to the Editor, Portage Daily Register – anti-rights; written by a man
As you can see from this quick and dirty survey of outlets around the country, there are more men quoted and writing to newspapers in support of gun control than women, and women are often featured as being pro-gun nearly as much as men. Is it perfectly balanced? No. But, considering that the shooting sports and gun ownership have been pretty overwhelmingly male-dominated for a long time. That’s changing, and I actually do think that is reflected in the media narrative.
In fact, I think that the growing visible involvement of women in the Second Amendment movement is why you don’t see us getting steamrolled right now. There’s a little secret that politicians already know. That secret is that once women get involved with something, they often get loud and visible about it, and the bring the whole family on board. In all of the pro-gun political volunteer work I’ve done, the offices are full of predominantly women. So, while there may still be more men quoted in all of the articles, whether for our rights or against us, the fact that there are still quite a few female pro-Second Amendment voices being heard speaks volumes.
Did Katie Glueck of Politico Even Think of Consulting Gun Experts?
This photo show is so bad I don’t even know where to begin, and even basic facts and understanding about guns and gun regulations are completely missing. . I will endeavor to educate Ms. Glueck, so let’s start with the first slide. Go ahead and pull that puppy up, and we’ll go through slide-by-slide:
1st Slide
A big photo of Mikhail Kalashnikov holding what is definitely not a Chinese-made semi-auto AK. That’s a full auto AK old Mikhail is holding. The actually Poly-Technology AK is not in danger of being “banned again,” because it has never been unbanned. There’s an embargo against Chinese military goods entering the US that’s been in place since the 90s.
2nd Slide
Semi-automatic versions of the Galil are sold on the US market, but they do not shoot “630-750 rounds a minute.” Machine guns do that, and we know that civilians can’t own machine guns. Full-auto Galils have never been lawful to import into this country for civilian use. They were introduced in 1972, four years after the Gun Control Act banned importation of new machine guns for civilians.
3rd Slide
Hey, she got one right. That looks like a carbine version of the Uzi, with the requisite 16 inch barrel, to make it lawful to have a shoulder stock on it. The should stock shown looks to be a collapsing stock, which would have made it an “assault weapon” under the 1994 law.
4th Slide
The Beretta AR70. There was a “Sport” model that was briefly available on the US market, but I don’t think Beretta ever resumed production, and they are rare as hens teeth. So yes, it was banned, a straight up renewal of the 1994 wouldn’t change anything because it’s not manufactured currently.
5th Slide
That looks about what the Colt AR-15 looked like when it was introduced in the 1960s, but unless you buy one of the totally retro models on the market today they don’t look like that. And the M203 40mm Grenade Launcher is a destructive device and highly restricted, and so is its ammunition. You can certainly, as a civilian, mount a coast guard approved flare launcher to your AR, because it looks badass and all, but you’re not getting a hold of a grenade launcher at Joe’s gun shop.
6th Slide
This is a Styer AUG. With a straight up renewal of the federal assault weapons ban, this particular rifle would not be banned. No bayonet lug, no flash hider. Good to go. Under a one feature test, it would be covered, which means this gun would be banned for the first time. It was never banned, ever. Imported AUGs are currently banned, and have been since the 90s, but they are being manufactured domestically now. So any way you look at this, it’s wrong.
7th Slide
She apparently did not know that the firearm she linked to is a restricted NFA item. It is a transferrable machine pistol, which have been banned form new production since 1986. No one is proposing eliminating the NFA grandfathering for machine guns (yet).
8th Slide
Total FAIL! What’s pictured is an FN P90, not a FAL. This does not even look like the civilian legal semi-auto PS90, as the barrel is too short. This is a fully automatic firearm that has never been available to civilians. She notes that the gun pictures is “one member of the FN family,” as in FN makes the gun pictured. But it is in no, way, shape or form related to the FAL.
9th Slide
When reporters speak of semiautomatic and “spray bullets” in the same sentence, they only reveal a glaring ignorance. And the TEC-9 is no longer being produced. The semi-automatic variants that fire from a closed bolt weren’t that reliable.
10th Slide
Total FAIL! Revolving cylinder shotguns were reclassified as destructive devices in the 1990s. They are NFA items and not easily available to civilians. As far as I know they are no longer being manufactured.
Gun Shows Banned from Public Property in Pennsylvania?
Creating a story where there otherwise isn’t one, the AP reported that Gov. Tom Corbett is considering a ban on any gun shows on public property.
Considering that the Governor just recently made clear that gun bans are not on the table for the Commonwealth under his administration, this struck me as extremely odd. This seemed especially out-of-character because gun shows aren’t typically the target of anti-gun groups here in Pennsylvania, so it’s not an issue he is pressured on politically.
I listened to the recording of the radio program to see what on earth could have caused this story to pop up. Gov. Corbett was asked by a caller who identified himself as Brooks from Harrisburg about why Pennsylvania allows businesses engaged in gun sales to rent public buildings to host shows and whether he would push a ban on gun shows on all state-owned property and, if not, why not?
Corbett’s first reaction was to point out that no one else has ever complained about this issue before, that this guy Brooks was the first to ever bring it up. (In other words, he showed that this isn’t even in the mainstream of anti-gun thought at the moment.) His second response says that the state is open to pretty much all businesses who want to use the public property. (In other words, he shows that they won’t discriminate against a lawful industry.) He follows that up with he has never given a ban on gun sales on state property any thought at all. (In other words, this is not a priority, nor will it ever be.) Then, Corbett goes into the polite brush-off which is totally obvious in his tone when he says, “I’ll give thought to it.” (In other words, you’re technically a constituent, so I won’t tell you outright that I’m going to ignore you.) Then, Corbett follows up with the fact that gun show gun sales are checked through PICs just like going through a gun shop. This comment then paves the way for even the radio host to move on to more relevant topics.
Basically, the AP is really reaching to come to the conclusion that the Governor is pursuing or contemplating a ban on gun shows on public property. It was so obvious in the tone of the Governor that this was a polite brush-off, and it was also obvious in the radio host who was quick to move on to other topics that might be more interesting for listeners.
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!
Specific Steps You Can Take to Oppose the Coming Obama/Biden Gun Controls
I’m back with more specific ideas that you can try in your version of a “gun community” to oppose new gun control measures. My apologies for the time off from these, but it was a little tough to blog seriously with a 4-year-old niece crawling in my lap and wanting her hair brushed and styled with “big girl” hair clips. But those kinds of moments remind me why I try to protect our rights. Someday, she will be a big girl who should have the right to decide the best way to protect herself when she’s out on her own in this world.
In case you missed the previous posts, I’m writing a short series on the topic of contacting lawmakers over the next few days with specific ideas for various communities of gun owners to expand their reach. Whether you’re just some guy who owns guns and finds their “gun community†online, own a commercial gun range or shop, or are a member of a community gun club, I’m going to collect specific actionable, easy ideas for you to think about.
Today’s list is for individuals with a focus on reaching out through the media.
- Don’t write off the media as completely against us and worthless for outreach. Many individual members of the national media aren’t good targets, but the local press is much more likely to be open to different opinions. In my holiday local news viewing opportunities, the often featured viewer comments via social media and email responses which showed support for the Second Amendment and opposition to new gun control measures.
- If you live in an area with local weeklies or other small papers, turn to those as an outlet. When I did my Congressional internship, the Congressman’s primary office had a subscription to every single paper in the district – no matter how rinky dink the circulation. I can’t speak for every single Congressional office, but I suspect that this is pretty common. The offices generally want to keep up with what all district media are saying about them.
- If you are writing to the local paper, try to include the name(s) of your targeted elected officials. As the only intern willing to work daily in the aforementioned office, I had the joyous task of reading every single paper and finding any and all references to the Congressman. It did not matter what the topic of the article/letter to the editor was about. If it was calling him to do something or mentioned his record on something, I had to cut out the article. This is likely still done for any offices that take smaller local papers that don’t publish all sections online.
- If you submit a letter to the editor or comment to the local television/radio stations that doesn’t get published or aired after several days, then post it online. If you have a blog, post what you intended to say online and include a link to what inspired you to write. The staff of any officials named will pick it up in Google Alerts and see that you are contacting media outlets in his/her district, even if your letter or comment wasn’t published that day. If you don’t have a blog and have a particularly well-written letter to the editor that you have submitted that didn’t get published, then email it to your favorite gun or political blogger to see if they will post it. Make sure to include the media outlet you targeted, and any relevant links to original stories.
- Email a copy of your letter to the editor directly to your lawmakers. If you want to go the direct route, just email the office of your representatives with a note that you thought they might like to see the letter to the editor you just submitted to the relevant district news outlet that mentioned them. Don’t do this every single week, but just a friendly and professional heads up since it is relevant to potential press coverage for their boss.
- In any communication with the media, you’re more likely to be featured if you are clear and concise. With letters to the editor, they shouldn’t be any longer than 150 words. The shorter letters provide more flexibility as they lay the pages out for publication. Typically, a writer or commenter won’t be featured more than once every 30 days, so don’t bombard any outlet with constant letters or comments if they have recently published or shared something from you.
- Use spellcheck. Ask a family member, friend, or even a fellow commenter on your favorite gun blog or forum to take a look at something before you submit it. It will help to keep you message. Don’t forget to include your name and city, as well as contact information so they can verify with you if they want to publish or feature your comments.
- If you have a state or regional political news site or blog that covers your lawmakers, consider submitting a guest editorial to them on the specific policies being discussed. If you’re lacking inspiration, use gun blogs and forums as guides in writing a well-argued piece. Don’t plagiarize, but you can certainly use ideas and concepts for composing a serious post.
I do have more ideas for individual action than just the media, but I wanted to do a media-themed post since there will be so many opportunities to talk specific issues and specific lawmakers in the next month. It’s not a completely lost cause to use these outlets.
A thorough response to one of the bigger (now defunct) political blogs here in Pennsylvania got at least one journalist to stop falsely reporting that a Democrat was pro-gun. While I’m not encouraging that kind of response to every mainstream report, it shows that readers/viewers/listeners who speak out can remind the media that we’re going to keep them on their toes. More importantly, it amplifies your voice to lawmakers since they now know that you’re not only contacting them as a constituent, you’re out there talking to other voters.
Media Pulling Strings with Administration Officials
It seems that NBC contacted the DC police about having David Gregory use a 30-round-magazine on Meet the Press and was told that they could not violate the law. However, TMZ reports that NBC appears to have gone to the ATF and they contacted the DC police about the issue. It seems to me that permission to violate the law was suddenly granted once the federal agency stepped into the situation.
NBC Could be in Real Trouble
Lots of hay has been made of David Gregory flashing a 30 round magazine, which is illegal in Washington DC in Wayne LaPierre’s face on Meet the Press. Apparently they contacted the DC police, which warned them it would be illegal. Apparently the DC police are investigating. I agree with Uncle… let NBC and Gregory suffer under the laws they advocate. Ultimately, making this magazines illegal means putting a lot of otherwise peaceful, law abiding people in federal prison. Let David Gregory be first.
Illustrating the Term “Idiot Box”
In our holiday travels, I’ve had the opportunity to watch local news in two metro areas that have reduced Wayne LaPierre’s entire speech and NRA’s entire proposed school security program down to the “good guys with a gun” quote.
At first, one might assume that this is because the hostile mainstream media just wants to make NRA look like they only thing they are capable of saying is “more guns!” I don’t think that is true though, or at least I don’t believe that it is the primary motivation.
Watching the rest of these news programs, I was struck by just how much they dumb down all content. I was once told by a lawyer that when speaking to a jury, they shouldn’t speak above about a 5th grade level. I got the impression that the news producers were working with the same advice.
Vacuous would be a generous term for what I have seen in the way of local news programming, and I think that Wayne’s attempts to play the folksy sound bite game actually backfired. It made NRA look like they aren’t thinking above the demonstrable intelligence level of the local anchors – and that isn’t saying much.