The ink was hardly dry on the June 26 ruling overturning Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban when Newsweek started the hand-wringing about how the city's political establishment would react.
Rather than profiling D.C. resident Dick Heller, the victor in the lawsuit, or officials from gun rights groups on their next move in challenging other gun bans with yesterday's precedent, Newsweek sought to press D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty (D) on how he can blunt the scope of the Heller decision.
The teaser headline and caption from the Web page read:
"D.C.'s Dilemma: Washington's mayor weighs options after gun ban overturned."
That's right, the high court ruled that a near-total gun ban is a blatant violation of an individual's right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Given the mainstream media's history of vigorously defending its freedoms of speech and press from any abridgement or "common sense" restriction, you'd think consistency would compel a little bit of a slant or a tip of the hat to the court upholding the plain language of another article in the Bill of Rights.
Nah, who am I kidding?! This is Newsweek after all.
To writer Daniel Stone's credit, he does ask some good questions that raise conservative arguments on the impracticality and counterproductivity of the D.C. gun ban. Yet there were no questions posed which were predicated on the constitutional and personal liberty issues at play, nor were any questions worded in a manner that put Fenty on the defensive for having supported a law that denied his city's people one of their cherished civil liberties.
Below are the agenda of questions, for the full story by Stone, click here:
- Where were you when you heard? What was your reaction?
- What kinds of regulations [will you draft to conform to the ruling]?
- Cities like Chicago and Boston, which both have strict gun laws, will be looking toward your administration to see how you handle this. What else will you do?
- You said earlier there was near-unanimous disappointment among the District's 600,000 residents. Does this ruling mean that D.C. will be less safe?
- Critics of the ban say that it was never really effective, that the number of homicides and gun-related crimes actually went up since the ban was instituted in 1976.
- Is there validity to the point that residents will be safer with the ban lifted?
- What about the argument that it'll be easier to defend yourself if you have a gun in your home?
- What does this mean for your job? Do you see this as an added challenge?
- The people who aren't supposed to have the guns likely already do, regardless of whether it's legal. Is it possible to draft regulations targeting criminals specifically? Or do you think you'll draft the new policies more broadly to affect everyone?
*I noticed the story in the lineup late last night and it was still there at 10:00 a.m. EDT today when I made the above screen capture.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Keeping the Brothers and Sisters Down!
June 27, 2008 - 10:31 ET by ChasvsAnything these Liberal Slave owners can do to keep their "people" under their thumbs and permanent Vicrtims will ensure they stay in power!
Fenty is the epitome of Black on Black crime!
If a White Mayor had treated these people this way, there would be riots in the streets! With the likes of Fenty and Barry, this town is doomed! And the stupid idiots continue to vote for these criminals!
They deserve the politicians they elect!
Have you ever met Adrian Fenty?
June 27, 2008 - 14:49 ET by SyriusChavs,
Adrian Fenty is not Marion Barry. Adrian Fenty is white and black. His parents and family are wonderful people who are engaged with the community. Are you trying to say his 'blackness' trumps his 'whiteness' there for he's black? I'm offended by your soft bigotry. From your statements you try and lump Fenty with Barry as being connected by their race. Barry is a criminal. He was reelected by the people of his ward. Blacks commit crime the same as whites. How did you make the leap to Fenty as a criminal?!? Who are these voters you call stupid idiots?!? All the blacks? All the whites? All the Latinos? All of the residents of DC?
Where do you live to make such a statement about Washington, DC? Stop believing in the lies they spoon feed you.
And remember this year's GOP slogan- "the change you deserve."
Syrius
"...the dire consequences to society when people begin to believe that by
renaming someone to erase their humanity opens the door to the
devaluation of everyone's life..."-dscott
I moved away from the DC
June 27, 2008 - 16:09 ET by ChasvsI moved away from the DC area recently, so i'm not talking about rumors. Please don't make excuses for the criminals that RULE DC. They all take the taxpayer's money and throw it down the drain. Just look at the school system. They spend MORE per student that ANY public school system and still have less than a 50% graduation rate.
The idiots I referred to are those who voted for Fenty! that was OBVIOUSLY the MAJORITY of the voters! That's how elections work isn't it? Doesn't matter to me which color the voters were. That bigotry is yours to deal with. I didn't say ANYTHING about his color other than his relationship to the PRIMARY victims of crime in DC. It is Black on Black. And my POINT was that legal gun ownership has NOTHING to do with that crime.
Fenty may not be marion barry, but he's still a DC politician.
You don't suppose...
June 27, 2008 - 10:54 ET by heldmyw...that if criminal activity suddenly plummets as a result of the overturned gun ban, that liberals will 'see the light' and change sides?
Naaah. That would mean giving up control! And control is their aphrodisiac.
The only way to deal with
June 27, 2008 - 11:55 ET by conantThe only way to deal with the liberal press on the issue of Second Amendment rights is to apply the same rules to the First Amendment. Does anyone doubt the pen is mightier than the sword? Does anyone wish to dispute the proposition that more lives have been lost due to words than weapons?
Does anyone doubt that there are limitations to free speech? Apply the same rules to both and hear the tune the press sings. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander after all. I need a license to exercise my right to bear arms? Ok license journalists too. After all we license barbers and nobody objects. What's the big deal? I have to pass an approved safety class- so should they. I have to go hat in hand to the chief of police and hope he likes me to get my application to buy a gun approved? (talk about letting the cat guard the canary) well perhaps journalists ought to be subject to the whim of the police before they can report and see how reasonable a condition like that really is. Am I limited to using my gun in my home and at an approved range? Same for reporters-- all you get to report about is what you saw inside your home and inside the office. Oh too strict? A small price to pay to protect us all from your imprudent words. Depriving you of your constitutional rights? If you think so then don't apply those restrictions to my rights. And while we are on the subject remember that at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights reporters wrote with quills and printing presses produced one page at a time. Register my semi-auto 45? Fine- and we register your PC. The highspeed printing press is nothing more than the First Amendement's equivalent to the Second Amendment's machine gun. Think manchine guns need tight controls? Go for it-- just be sure to control your printing press to the same degree. Seem like your rights are being restricted a little too much for comfort? Whats wrong with you anyway- if just one childs life is saved restricting your right to write anything you want its such a small sacrifice to pay--don't you think?
Who is the subject here?
June 27, 2008 - 12:00 ET by TBARDoes this apply to all the people or just to the well educated?
You decide who can keep and read the books based on this rewrite of the 2nd Amendment .
A well educated people, being necessary to the intelligence of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
Life is too short to be serious
Noooo...it's like this...
June 27, 2008 - 12:32 ET by SyriusA well regulated library, being necessary to the security of
free speech, the right of the People to keep and bear pens shall not be
infringed.
That's more in line with the play on the words.
"If guns kill people, do pens mispell words?"-as seen on a protestors placard.
Syrius
Ray Nagin clone??
June 27, 2008 - 12:03 ET by wizardjrAt first glance I thought that was Ray Nagin. On reading the article I have to wonder if he's a clone?
Ray he ain't - But He's Still Not good!
June 27, 2008 - 16:10 ET by ChasvsRay he ain't - But He's Still Not good!
Constitutional Rights?
June 27, 2008 - 12:38 ET by exLibI thought of this this morning:
Liberals think banning guns is a good idea because possibly bad people will get them, despite the fact that 90+% of the people who own them either use them effectively or cause no one any problem.
However, Liberals want to extend Constitutional rights to foreigners, including terrorists, because a small percentage may be either innocent or not as guilty as the rest, while allowing the vast majority to be in a position to waste federal funds and be in a position to gain their freedom to kill more people on technicalities.
In both cases liberals are putting the majority in danger for the marginal benefit of a vast minority.
I have realized over time that most liberal policy is derived via similar thought process.
How about the only real option?
June 27, 2008 - 15:33 ET by richflanjOBEY THE LAW !! Stop trying to find a way to keep the people from having a viable means of self defense.
Just one - surely you can point to one out of many
June 27, 2008 - 21:00 ET by w0tmSurely the left can point to one city big or small where gun ownership has been banned or made more difficult to buy and own where crime at gunpoint has gone down. Just one -- that's all I ask.` Is there a state where gun violence has gone up with the passage of a "right to carry" law? Surely there has to be just one state to point at. Not two -- just name one - ANYWHERE. It should be easy listening to the "talking points" of the left. Alas, there are none. Look and look and look. Facts are pesky things to get around! Darn!
The peaceful ownership and carrying of handguns by trained and carefully verified law abiding and mentally stable citizens has dropped the crime rate at gunpoint in EVERY state that has passed such a law even in states that make it difficult to obtain a right to carry permit. Like here in Kansas where our far left governor has vetoed gun laws as fast as she can. Her veto of "right to carry" was barely overridden thank heavens. Even with just 7,000 out of two million citizens with right to carry licenses gun crime has dropped except in the lawless parts of our urban areas (everyone was always armed and still are there so the law made no difference in those areas).
The "bad guys," who never worried about gun laws for themselves, now don't know which potential victim is among the 7,000 armed citizens. Several meek looking grandmotherly types have shocked the Hell out of a member of "ACLU Protects Me local chapter XX" when out of their handbag came not money but a loaded 32! How unfair! There should be a law! After all, they have to make a "living" too!
Facts, truth and common sense are replaced with the theatre of the absurd in the lives of the far left. Yet they stand to soon take over our fair land. And we'll NEVER get our country back other than by the "well armed militia" the left despises so much (for good reason). Personally, I don't believe the American people will meekly turn in their guns as they did in the U.K. I know I won't! Charlton Hesston, bless his soul, will be pleased and proud.
*********************************
View http://www.youtube.c... to FINALLY understand why liberals think the way they do. This was the most informative 47 minutes I've ever spent. Please -- take the time to view it.
Bite the bullet, take the
June 28, 2008 - 08:57 ET by badger.Bite the bullet, take the pain. Definition - to make yourself do something or accept something difficult or unpleasant. There's an option for you Mayor Whiner. I except the courts decision, and so will you, and everyone else.
If the situation were reversed and the Supreme Court decision vote went the other direction, gun owners would be expected to suck it up, and quit crying. Constantly reminding the opposition that a decision has been made and handed down. Now live with it.
Politicians have no problems or issues with guns, as long as it's their sorry rump that's getting the protection. Their deserving/special VIP's.
I will feel very safe and will sleep quite comfortably. Like the old saying of better to have it and not need it.......