More media fun!

Greetings!

As I was thumbing through my America's First Freedom, the official monthly publication from the NRA, and found this little gem that I thought I should share with you.

Entitled The Media Assault on the Second Amendment, it is another shining example of the media NOT doing its job of reporting the facts, but of the press attempting to brainwash [a][b] the masses on behalf of their Money Men masters.

The report begins:

By David Niedrauer

When it comes to the right to bear arms – to accept personal responsibility to defend home and family – the media are far from fair and balanced. During the first seven months of 2007, the media waged an intermittent war against the Second Amendment, using a variety of fallacious arguments to make the pitch for gun control. This Eye on Culture report will begin by detailing what the media reported on gun issues, and then point out essential information the media failed to mention.

I. The Media Assault

A crime wave in the big cities, followed by the Virginia Tech tragedy in April, gave the media plenty of ammunition for attacking the right to bear arms.

The three major broadcast networks ran at least 650 stories on gun homicides from January through July. In a manner reminiscent of Michael Moore, journalists sprinkled post-Virginia Tech news coverage with comparisons between the United States and other countries that have stricter gun control laws and less crime.

The media first broached the urban crime wave immediately following a
March 9 court decision, Parker v. District of Columbia, which struck down D.C.’s handgun ban. ABC, NBC, CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today each ran at least one story on the crime wave between March 9 and March 29.

On the March 10 NBC Nightly News, anchor John Seigenthaler tried to link the crime wave and the decision: “A new study of major cities shows an alarming rise in violence … This comes on the heels of a federal court decision striking down a gun control law in Washington, D.C., on the grounds it violated the constitutional right to bear arms.” A major problem: Seigenthaler failed to acknowledge that the D.C. gun ban was in effect while the crime wave was taking place...

Be sure to read the rest of it.

As I have said before, the evidence is overwhelming that an armed population reduces crime [c]. Furthermore, the government of the United States, or any State government, to my knowledge, has no duty to provide for your individual safety. Most important of all, the lack of access to guns leads to nasty things such as genocide and slavery, more often than not at the hands of a state gone out of control.

So why do none of these and other relevant issues ever get included in these media reports? They could easily take a pro second amendment stance, but they choose not to.

Why?

Because the mainstream news media is the weak and frightened handmaid of the men that seek to dominate others, and a disarmed populace is ever so easy to slaughter.

So in any event, before I close this one out, I leave you with some historical quotes:

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

... The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

Henry sneered,

O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?

Kumo Out.