Perhaps it was his attempt at balance, but CNN's Bill Mears cast a cloud over the constitutional right to keep and bear arms by stacking his March 18 article about today's District of Columbia v. Heller case in "personal" terms that focused heavily on the victim of a tragic school shooting. What's more, Mears put the constitutional language about the right to keep and bear arms within the dreaded dismissive quote marks (emphasis mine):
Shelly Parker wants to know why she cannot keep a handgun in her house. As a single woman she has been threatened by neighborhood drug dealers in a city where violent crime rates are on the rise.
"In the event that someone does get in my home, I would have no defense, except maybe throw my paper towels at them," she said. But Parker lives in the nation's capital, which does not allow its residents to possess handguns.
Elilta "Lily" Habtu thinks that is how it should be. She knows about gun violence firsthand, surviving bullets to the head and arm fired by the Virginia Tech University shooter nearly a year ago.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓"There has to be tighter gun control; we can't let another Virginia Tech to happen," she said. "And we're just not doing it, we're sitting around, we're doing nothing. We let the opportunity arise for more massacres."
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will consider whether Washington's sweeping ban on handgun ownership violates an individual's constitutional right to "keep and bear arms," setting the stage for a potentially monumental legal and social battle, just in time for the 2008 elections.
Could you imagine a journalist writing about a disputed constitutional right "peaceably to assemble" or to "freedom of speech"?
Mears pitted Parker, who lives in fear of violence by armed criminals against Habtu who "knows about gun violence firsthand."
The term "gun violence," of course, is favored by gun control groups to depersonalize the actions of criminals and vilify the inanimate weapon, the gun. Yet it's constitutional language about the right to keep and bear arms, not a politically-loaded catchphrase, that earned dismissive quote marks in Mears' article.
Yes, Habtu is a victim of a crime committed with a firearm and as a journalist Mears should present her point of view, but Ms. Parker, though not a victim/survivor of an armed attack, lives in fear of retribution from armed thugs due to her work to clean up her neighborhood:
She said her community activism earned her the anger of local drug dealers, who vandalized her property and made repeated verbal threats and taunts. After her car window was broken, she called police, who offered some friendly advice.
"I said to the police, 'I have an alarm, I have bars, I have a dog, what more am I supposed to do?" recalled Parker. "The police turned to me and said, 'Get a gun.' "
It's safe to say Ms. Parker lives in fear of "gun violence" at the hands of criminals but that she believes in an additional option to protect herself against it, an option that her local government is striving to withhold from her. Of course, that's a fine point that removes the powerful sway of emotion from the gun control debate.
Mears opted to close his story with one final shot at gun rights, giving Habtu the final word in this "personal" Court case (emphasis mine):
"No one here is trying to fight against your right to have a gun," she said in a soft voice. "What we want is for dangerous people not to get access to one, and today it is just too easy. We cannot keep sacrificing innocent people because you have a fear that you're not going to have your right to own a gun."
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Someone care to tell me how
March 18, 2008 - 10:31 ET by Scout FinchSomeone care to tell me how gun control would have stopped the killings at Virginia Tech? I'm pretty sure the gun wasn't legally purchased. And I'm pretty sure Virginia Tech's campus is a "Gun Free Zone" too. You can pass all the laws you want.
When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will possess guns.
Virginia permits concealed carry weapons...
March 18, 2008 - 10:37 ET by Prester John....but allows schools to ban them from campus which Virginia Tech did.
So.....
Save A Life - Get a Gun?
March 18, 2008 - 10:43 ET by allanfThe campus was a gun free zone. If students had been allowed to lawfully carry firearms, the tragedy may not have been as grave. Simple minded newsreporters often don't grasp this point.
One need only look at the New Life Church shooting to see the value of armed security.
In January 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law a gunman who killed three people was subdued by armed students. The "armed" part of the story was embargoed by the press.
Clearly all of this is lost on the reporter.
Scout, the gun was legally
March 18, 2008 - 11:40 ET by bassndudeScout, the gun was legally purchased, after omiting some mental problems he had as a kid. The law dosent reveal the past history of a minor on a check. The glitch is, as a minor, his records are sealed. So he buys a gun, background check comes back A-OK. Then he takes it to a gun free zone, where no one is allowed to have one. A place he knows he is in no real danger.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Why don't we hear
March 18, 2008 - 10:33 ET by FastEd"But, if it were to save just one life", when it comes to gun ownership? Most, if not all liberal "laws" always use that phrase, but when one wants to defend oneself, it gets spun to become, "But, if you take just one life, . . . " Rhetorically, how come we hardly hear about those who were saved by carry laws?
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
FastEd, here is a site that
March 18, 2008 - 14:21 ET by MikeBFastEd, here is a site that you might be interested in. They collect stories from all over the country about incidents where private citizens have use their own firearms to prevent crimes from happening. In many cases the goblins' crime carreer comes to an abrupt halt. In other cases they just get a lengthy time out before they can resume their criminal lifestyles.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Gun ban proponents are
March 18, 2008 - 10:36 ET by mattmGun ban proponents are idiots. Plain and simple. The "innocent people" this particular anti-gun idiot cares so much about would have alot better chance of staying alive in situations like VT if they had a gun in their possession.
Right.
March 18, 2008 - 10:47 ET by SocratesThe illogic of the gun-grabber argument is confounding. Because a violent attack took place in a place where no guns were allowed, there should be no guns allowed.
Never mind that you can make a gun out of a desk lamp.
Give 'em guns
March 18, 2008 - 10:44 ET by CobraMan"setting the stage for a potentially monumental legal and social battle"
We already had one of those. It was called the Civil War and it was fought, and won, by ordinary citizen who carried privately owned guns.
The same is true of the Revolutionary War. Fought, and won, by ordinary citizens who carried privately owned guns.
What’s the lesson here? If you want to prevent a tyrannical government from gaining control of the population, you need to arm the citizens. Nothing else will work. Had the citizens of France been allowed to freely carry guns, Germany would never have invaded. The same with the rest of Europe. And Africa, the Far East. Etc. Etc. Etc. An armed citizenry is the best deterrent to war.
CobraMan
March 18, 2008 - 11:55 ET by lotrThis has been my take on this as well. The United States was founded in the wake of English tyranny, which sought to suppress liberty and independence by military force (which in turn was resisted by an armed citizenry).
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
This statement, especially given the social context of the time, seems straightfoward to me, yet according to Wikipedia on the topic,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_rights
there are differing "interpretations," something I wasn't even aware of until just now....
Also, would you happen to know whether the right to bear arms was afforded to the citizenries of 1933-40s Germany (I am guessing that a specific religious group, who had their citizenship revoked, did not), or of the communist Soviet Union?
Tyrannical government and guns
March 18, 2008 - 18:57 ET by CobraManThe Soviets passed strict gun control laws and confiscated most guns under the rule of Stalin. The only people allowed guns were the inhabitants of the steppes who used muzzleloaders as hunting tools. All other guns were banned. This had the effect of disarming the Soviet citizens to the point where the government couldn't even manufacture and supply enough guns and ammunition to arm its own military until two years after Germany invaded.
During the first year of the war, Soviet soldiers were issued one rifle for every two or three soldiers. Each soldier was only issued 5 to 10 rounds of ammunition. When an armed man died, the other was expected to pick up the firearm and use it. Needless to say, Soviet citizens died by the millions due to the lack of privately owned firearms.
Germany also had strict gun control laws during the Weimar Republic as a result of the Treaty of Versailles; laws that required all firearms be surrendered to the government. Hitler and the Nazi's relaxed some of those laws, allowing for the ownership of firearms through strict licensing , but the law specifically banned the ownership of any dangerous weapons by the Jews, whether they be guns, knives, swords, clubs, or pointed sticks. It's highly doubtful that the Holocaust would have occurred had the Jews been allowed the right to keep and bear arms.
CobraMan, I suspected as
March 19, 2008 - 07:48 ET by lotrCobraMan, I suspected as much -- thanks. These little recaps from recent history demonstrate why the right to bear arms is so fundamental to a free State.
Every single place on the
March 18, 2008 - 11:00 ET by Gary P JacksonEvery single place on the planet where guns and gun ownership have been prohibited, the crimes against persons have risen. If Shelly Parker was able to carry a weapon, those drug dealers would think twice about messing with her!
Thank God for Texas, where gun ownership is allowed, and encouraged! Now granted, there are some places where guns aren't allowed in, like liquor stores and such, but as long as one can pass the tests and background check, a concealed carry permit is issued. Plus we have strong castle laws. It's your tail if you break into a home, or vandalize property.
Of course all sane people know that an armed society is a society that can't be oppressed.
1970 media playbook
March 18, 2008 - 12:05 ET by wizardjrBeen here done this. In the 70's when most of the gun grabbing insanity ramped up, this was a classic ploy of the lame stream media. They always pick some victim and juxtapose a rabid anti-gunner. It was even better if the victim was dead and couldn't counter the lunacy.
Dunno about the dead victim
March 18, 2008 - 12:21 ET by CortillaenDunno about the dead victim part, but I agree with your assessment of the media's tactics here. When their position makes no sense viewed from a disinterested, rational standpoint, how else could they possibly win, though? Of course, tug on the heartstrings, spin a sob story, cast opponents as evil victim haters looking to get more people shot. Simply disgusting.
Maybe we should take the per capita crime rate of somewhere like DC or another city with tight gun-control and apply it to the nation, then accuse of gun-control proponents of wishing those deaths would happen... Actually, slapping them upside the head with the numbers like that sounds like a very good idea to me.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
I can sum up the whole
March 21, 2008 - 20:35 ET by CortillaenI can sum up the whole "gun-control" issue with a single question: "Do you believe those with the mindset of violent criminals will follow the law?" If the person answers yes, they're simply an idiot and any further attempt at reasoning is pointless. If they answer no, they also have to admit that gun-control laws do not prevent crimes using guns or be guilty of ignoring reality in favor of fantastical idealism. If they obfuscate, they fall into the second category of the "no" answer, too. See? Simple.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
Headline: Anti-Gun Crowd Lives in Bubble - Needs Slap in Face
March 18, 2008 - 12:38 ET by 911isbusyHabtu's ironic claim: "We cannot keep sacrificing innocent people because you have a fear that you're not going to have your right to own a gun," is the classic straw man fallacy. It presumes that the strongest argument the pro gun crowd has is merely the right to "own" a gun. Moreover, it presumes that exercising that right only results in a cause of innocent deaths. Dare we question the validity of her conclusion.
It ignores the fact that Parker wishes to keep from being an innocent victim herself by using a gun in self-defense.
It ignores the fact that innocent students at VT died because there were no armed students there to stop Cho.
It ignores the obvious fact that murder is already illegal so why would Cho or any other killer care about breaking some new law that says he cannot own a gun.
Lastly, it was a gun that finally stopped Cho - the shame of it is that in our anti-gun hysterical world, it had to be his own.
Those who have not swords can still die upon them.
Absolute moral authority
March 18, 2008 - 13:55 ET by nkviking75It's the old "absolute moral authority" ploy. Get a victim of a horrible crime and use her to flog one point of view. Libs think she can't be challenged because of her suffering. If they were really interested in debate, it wouldn't be hard to find spokespersons who wouldn't have to depend on the MSM's cheap tactic to make their points.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
The problem with that being
March 18, 2008 - 14:28 ET by CortillaenThe problem with that being that they don't actually have a single rational point to make. Their entire argument is pure emotion without a speck of reason, so I wouldn't expect them to stop relying on the most emotional speakers they can find anytime soon. You don't ask an atheist to give Sunday sermon, and you don't ask a rational person to defend an emotional viewpoint.
www.rhjunior.com Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.
"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." -Miyamoto Musashi
A good article to read
March 18, 2008 - 15:12 ET by GForceQuote from
Thomas A. Bowden
"As the Declaration of Independence recognizes, governments are
created to protect our individual rights to “life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness.” The right of self-defense is included and
implied in the right to life. In forming a government, citizens
delegate the task of defending themselves to the police. But to
delegate is not to surrender. Each citizen retains the ultimate right
to defend himself in emergencies when his appointed agents, the police,
are not available to help."
Read it here;
http://www.capmag.co...
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it"-Aristotle
i live in blacksburg
March 18, 2008 - 22:18 ET by pmohbuckironic how the new york yankees roll into town today to participate in helping students move past last years violence ... meanwhile, a scum-trolling CNN host decides to exploit one of the shooting victims.
in another ironic twist, the guy who killed the law-enforcement officers on the first day of class last year at VT ... was sentenced to death last friday. the guy didn't own a gun, he knocked out a deputy and stole his gun ... kind of gives creedence to the thought that there are still american jurors who believe people should be held accountable for their actions rather than innanimate objects ... CNN's reporting on this was conspicuously absent. go figure