On her "Couric & Co." blog today, the CBS "Evening News" anchor posted a 10-question interview with gun control activist Paul Helmke. Couric's questions largely lobbed softballs for the Brady Campaign's Helmke to hit out of the park. But beyond that, she let slip a suggestion a keener ear might have caught and followed up on.
Helmke suggested he'd prefer a law making law-abiding citizens have to show references for purchasing a gun.
That's right, references, as in asking friends, co-workers, neighbors, etc. if they think you should have the right to own a gun. References for the government to pry into your life (well beyond any criminal record) before you, a law-abiding citizen, to purchase a gun, something you have the right to do under the Constitution.
Here's the relevant portion of the interview:
In approving gun sales, the focus should be on completeness, not quickness. If his documented history wasn’t a disqualifier, it should have been. Requiring references could have made it obvious that guns shouldn’t be sold to this person. A stronger, more extensive system of real background checks might have made a difference. In addition, ballistics microstamping technology might have allowed the police to determine more quickly after the first two killings who the shooter was.
Here's Couric's question immediately following Helmke's remark about references:
What do you say to those who argue that Virginia Tech had already implemented several gun safety measures on campus-banning guns in classrooms and dorms-that apparently did nothing to help?
To that point, Helmke turned his focus on a lack of, you guessed it, even more federal gun control laws, saying that people can easily evade laws in one state or locality by purchasing them in another. In other words, he hashed out his talking points: we need more national laws to restrict gun rights.
Of course that has NOTHING to do with Virginia Tech, where campus policy forebade concealed carry, even by state-sanctioned concealed carry permit holders.
Yet rather than stop the spin and refocus the question on conservative arguments that gun-free-zones are ineffective at actually stopping gunmen from shooting sprees, she continued on with her agenda of pre-determined questions.
By the way, none of those 10 questions scrutinized Helmke or his organization for seizing so quickly on the gun control issue on April 16, mere hours after the shootings.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Crap, how 'bout just a simp
April 20, 2007 - 17:26 ET by sarcasmoCrap, how 'bout just a simple PRESCRIPTION check for a change??? Sheesh...
JMR
I mean, this is not about mak
April 20, 2007 - 17:32 ET by Ken ShepherdI mean, this is not about making sure certifiably insane people (that
courts have determined after expert psych testimony) don't get guns.
This is about authorities asking people if they think you're too ooky or creepy or weird or whatever.
That
totally evades the central presupposition of civil government. That the
government has the burden of proof to deprive you of life, liberty, or
property.
Maddening.
Ken,It's an idiot question...
April 20, 2007 - 17:42 ET by BlondeKen,
It's an idiot question...references for guns?
Seriously, do you pay attention to references of job seekers? I don't. The only question I ever ask is if the person is eligible for rehire. IMO, people who give out references usually have a reason to, um, stretch the truth for one reason or another. So why bother?
Secondly, I wonder if Katy wrote these questions herself....just sayin!
I suspect she did however, because this "references" thing sounds just as lame as Couric quoting her fifteen year old daughter to the Secretary of State. "Who made you the boss of me"?
Isn't it time for CBS to fire Couric already? She's become a pitiful joke.
Your point about the government's purpose was well stated, BTW.
Yeah. I'm just saying when
April 20, 2007 - 17:51 ET by Ken ShepherdYeah. I'm just saying when someone says we should condition a
constitutional right to the recommendation of other people, I expect a
journalist say, "whoa, back up the trolley here, what do you mean by
that?"
But no.
And Katie's not alone. WashPost today hinted at "references" in their lead editorial, "Guns for the Asking": "...with no meaningful waiting period or thorough examination of a purchaser's potential for violence."
Of course, the VT mass murderer plotted this out for months and he purchased the weapons well over the old 5-day waiting period.
But that makes no never mind to the liberal media. The idea is to float "reasonable" gun controls that are an extension of the numerous ones already on the books and then, when the devil's in the details, extract as much regulatory juice out of it as you can.
Ken, I believe the only time
April 20, 2007 - 19:38 ET by BufordKen, I believe the only time a journalist will want to "Back up the Trolley" is in the case of the "First" ammendment. And of course the mainstream media will "Happily" go along with that notion.
The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program...........Ronald Reagan
It's too bad that journalis
April 20, 2007 - 20:19 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveIt's too bad that journalists can't recognize that the entire Constitution and all the other amendments are guaranteed and protected by the 2nd Amendment. DO away with or curtail 2nd Amendment rights, and we have no other rights.
"When life gives you lemons, make lemonade, and then toss it in the face of the person who gave you the lemons until they give you the oranges you asked for in the first place!" --Bill McNeal, NewsRadio episode 3.17
Dems don't believe that the 2
April 20, 2007 - 20:56 ET by ahusserDems don't believe that the 2nd amendment is a right. Like they can pick and choose among the amendments they like. As a former cop the 4th Amendment, as intrepreted by the courts, used to gall me it usually prevented me from locking up more bad guys. More deaths probably can be attributed to the 4th amendment than the 2nd (with much less drama) but who would give up these freedoms. They were devised to limit government intrusion in our lives. Perfect security is not possible.
Ah, in a perfect world, we'd
April 20, 2007 - 21:04 ET byAh, in a perfect world, we'd all get kicked out now wouldn't we?
MGDLWe'd still have them just
April 20, 2007 - 21:06 ET byMGDL
We'd still have them just no means by which to keep or use them
Ken, I think I was unclear,
April 21, 2007 - 01:33 ET by sarcasmoKen, I think I was unclear, so I'll try again. The government thinks it's moral enough & has good-enough judgment to say which drugs are ok for anyone, which are prescription, and which are totally prohibited. People mostly seem to think this situation is ok if they even think about it at all, but I don't, and that's life. Then here we have a real-life situation where probably ANY gunshop in the USA might really want to know about antidepressant prescriptions the government issues to young men before a gun-sale, yet the government's vaunted system twice does not tell the gunshops anything, relying instead on the loon to say that he's a loon on prescription drugs which drastically increase the chance of hyperviolent behavior. Then, yet-again, a school shooting happens (Surprise!!) and nobody but me seems to see what's happening again behind the scenes. And people don't even take one millisecond to THINK & maybe question whether the system they support might better be run privately (as libertarians like me suggest) rather than by an obviously irresponsible big-government which, tragically, isn't even competent at filling the 'Big Brother' role in this case.
JMR
Stupid cloaking device...
April 21, 2007 - 09:23 ET by sarcasmoStupid cloaking device...
JMR
Dear Gun Store,
April 20, 2007 - 17:52 ET by misterbillDear Gun Store,
Mr so and so is a solid citizen. I have known him for 12 years and he never shot anyone in our neighborhood. Except for the zocor, there is no reason to deny him a gun.
I can't believe the liberal m
April 20, 2007 - 19:07 ET by mostlymoderateI can't believe the liberal media spin into a "BAN GUNS!" argument everytime some lowlife, scum-filth decides to go on a rampage and kill. They never mention the fact that if ONE student would have been packing a small gun, they might have been able to stop this little t#rd. Gun ownership has nothing to do with these sicko-vermin that decide to kill. I can't think of a BETTER reason to own a gun now; it doesn't hurt to be a super-aim too! Guns are good people, that's why cops carry them. A gun can be your best-friend. They have NOTHING to do with killing and have EVERYTHING to do with protection and self-defense. Feel a little intimidated by guns? Get some pepper spray then, or a stun gun. This kid should have NEVER been able to take out 32 people. More people need to prepare for these kind of sickos. Period.
Two points...
April 20, 2007 - 19:29 ET by c5then1) What do they NOT understand about the words "shall not be infringed"??!!!
2) How about this for a reference: Dear gun store owner, Mr. Cho is a very quiet guy and keeps to himself. Keeps his yard very nice and never makes a fuss. A very "nice guy".
In addition, ballistics micro
April 20, 2007 - 19:31 ET by BufordIn addition, ballistics microstamping technology might have allowed the police to determine more quickly after the first two killings who the shooter was.
The entire incident took a little more than 2 hours from start to finish, how fast does the Brady campaign's expert think the "government" could work?
Brainless idiots!
The nearest thing to eternal life we will ever see on this earth is a government program...........Ronald Reagan
I checked online. There are 2
April 20, 2007 - 21:05 ET by ahusserI checked online. There are 29 sworn patrol officers on the VT campus, with another 6 officers in other duties (Chief, Admin Lt., 2 detectives, 1 K-9, and Community Officer) Total 35 Officers. Considering all leave etc. Maybe there were 5-7 cars available for the day work shift for the entire campus. I guarantee you all officers were probably on the first MAJOR crime scene which was a murder which at first glance appeared to be some type of domestic violence. There are 30,000 or so Students and Faculty. You better be self-reliant to a point because there aren't enough police to come to your aid quickly especially in a rural area which VT is. From online investigation I figured maybe another 25-30 officers may have been immediately available from surrounding jurisdictions (and that is being optimistic) without calling other shifts in.
How about this for a referenc
April 20, 2007 - 19:40 ET byHow about this for a reference check:
Last fix 13:45 am GMT
30.005 N
42.123 W
SATS used 5
Great catch - here's another juicy question
April 20, 2007 - 21:48 ET by JonQuixoteGreat catch, Ken. Although I'm sure they would argue the point, I believe irresponsibly-covered and made-up stories, along with the militantly anti-American bias of large portions of the MSM, has gotten American soldiers killed who would otherwise be alive. And as NB has documented so extensively, and I've documented on my own blog, key MSM figures have justified acts of terrorism against America.
Thus, I would ask: Where is the regulation for journalists? Why not have public input on who should be a journalist - and who should be fired? Why not have "occupational licensure" for journalists? Why, they'd scream bloody murder.
They point to the First Amendment; we point to the Second. But only one of us has the power to shape the thoughts and peceptions of tens of millions of Americans at one time.
I'm unequivocal in my support for the First Amendment. It's just a shame that "journalists" like Katie and gang cannot see why Americans, and law-abiding citizens throughout the world, have (or should have) the right of self-defense.
/rant over.
JonQuixote