Rep. William Jefferson (D-Louisiana) was ordered by a U.S. district judge to surrender his firearms Friday. Yet, media outlets that reported this ignored the delicious irony inherent in the Congressman’s anti-gun positions throughout his career.
As reported by the Associated Press Friday (h/t Marc Sheppard, emphasis added): “As conditions for his release, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III denied the Congressman access to shotguns and rifles in his Louisiana home.”
ABCNews.com also reported this interesting revelation (emphasis added):
Jefferson will also have to surrender guns he has at his home in New Orleans. Jefferson said he had several rifles and shotguns.
On the television side, CNN did at least three reports Friday about Jefferson that included his gun possession, starting with “CNN Newsroom” during the 10AM EST hour:
TONY HARRIS, HOST: Right. And Brianna, Jefferson wants to keep his firearms?
BRIANNA KEILAR, CORRESPONDENT: He didn't say he wants to keep them, but this is an interesting -- this was an interesting moment in court. He does have firearms. The judge asked him about this. He has rifles and guns that he says are for hunting. He says he's been hunting since he was 10 years old. What normally happens, if you come up on charges, you're not allowed to have possession of weapons, use weapons. So, he's going to have to figure out something. His attorney, and the prosecution, are going to have to figure out a way to take those guns out of his possession or lock them up in a way that he doesn't have access to them.
HARRIS: Gotcha.
As far as the broadcast networks, only the “CBS Evening News” felt this court proceeding was at all newsworthy, and its producers totally ignored the gun issue.
Yet, most important, none of the reports that did include the firearms story pointed out Jefferson’s strong anti-gun positions in the past, an irony that was certainly not lost on the American Thinker’s Marc Sheppard (emphasis added):
But the specter of a gun-toting gun opponent raises some rather curious questions, wouldn't you say?
You might ask yourself, what does a man who, in 2005, voted against a bill to protect law-abiding gun dealers and manufacturers from litigation blaming them for criminal misuse of their products by others, need with rifles? Did he own them when he voted against similar law in 2003?
Why would a legislator with an anti-Second-Amendment voting record that earned him an NRA rating identical to that of Chuckie Schumer and Nancy Pelosi own multiple shotguns?
For those interested, that rating by the NRA for Jefferson is an “F.”
Yet, these media outlets seemed happy to dismiss a controversy that they weren’t willing to address by informing readers that when asked by the judge about these guns, Jefferson replied, “I've been hunting since I was 10 years old."
Hmmm. Isn’t that what gun advocates say about their own arsenals?
Toward that end, Marc made a bulls eye with his parting shot:
Naturally, had the camo-clothed Liberal been involved in an accidental discharge while stalking gallinules on the Bayou one hot summer's morn', there'd have been no one to blame but Remington.
How marvelous.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
So, Jefferson is a hypocrite,
June 9, 2007 - 15:24 ET by NewsbusterbrownSo, Jefferson is a hypocrite, too. What a surprise.
A typical leftoid democrack a
June 9, 2007 - 15:29 ET by Senior ChiefA typical leftoid democrack attitude, what else is new...
Democrats have no problem w
June 9, 2007 - 15:42 ET by motherbeltDemocrats have no problem with "gun control for thee, but not for me"...proven by the number of anti-gun proponents who have armed guards, including some famous Hollywood types.
It's all about who you are....
The hollywood types get aroun
June 9, 2007 - 15:48 ET by Mica the MagnificentThe hollywood types get around owning guns for protection by hiring armed security guards. BTW, did they find those shotguns in his freezer, too?
"Look, if it happened only once, I could look the other way. But every time you prayed, you didn't face Mecca. Take a look. Here you prayed facing Minneapolis; here you faced Easter Island; and here, may the Prophet forgive you, you faced a Justin Timberlake concert!" - - - Gatekeeper at Islamofacist heaven disappointing another direction-impaired follower
Sorry, Motherbelt, you alread
June 9, 2007 - 15:53 ET by Mica the MagnificentSorry, Motherbelt, you already posted the 'hollywood and armed guard' thought. Oops.
Not only is Jeffferson a hypo
June 9, 2007 - 15:52 ET by bigtimerNot only is Jeffferson a hypocrite of the utmost....so are the media complicit in all of this hypocrisy.
If anyone thinks for one single second if this situation were reversed and a repub had a anti-Second Amendment voting record, but yet owned any kind of firearm(s) him or herself..... this would be a big story...in fact that person would have political ad's, the press/msm in all venues blathering themselves into such a fury until that person would have to just forget about running in that district again ..it would be so over.
Not only did Jefferson shoot himself in the foot...so have the media with all of their blatant hypocrisy....
Ahhhhh..but that is ALWAYS okay if you have a 'D' behind your name and you have the leftist msm arm of the dem party covering your arse...as usual.
By the way...I would really want to know how many dem's who have voted Anti-2nd Amendment in any way at all over their years in office of any kind owned firearms or had them in their homes...
This inquiring mind wants to know.
bt, you can bet if this wer
June 9, 2007 - 16:08 ET by motherbeltbt, you can bet if this were a Republican caught in an instance of hypocrisy, there would be an investigation. Can't you hear it now.... "Is he the only one? How many other Republicans voted against the bill but own firearms? An ABS (American BS) news investigative report."
Exactly motherbelt...they wou
June 9, 2007 - 16:18 ET by bigtimerExactly motherbelt...
they would of already been reporting this non-stop...they would be asking every single opposition party members if they own a gun or have a gun registered in their home through somebody else.
I am danged serious when I saw somebody ought to make a big deal out of this in the msm...do a investigative report, have all names of all congresscritters that have voted anti-gun for us all to see...it would be great to run on in some districts against a hypocrite like that...the political ad's when the time came up near an election could be...priceless.
It would be a great smoking gun issue...
LOL....
Oh the injustice, the histr
June 9, 2007 - 23:46 ET by JasonCOh the injustice, the histrionics, the hysterics!
Guys, I hate to break up the victimization, but all this "pro-gun-control means anti-gun" stuff is absurd. Being pro gun control can quite easily just mean that you don't want people to be able to waltz into department stores and buy a gun like it's a 12-pack of toilet paper; who think you should have to go through at least as much hassle and paperwork to get a gun as a car. It doesn't mean you think all guns should be incinerated and the 2nd amendment should be physically removed from the constitution.
Being in favor of sensible gun laws and also owning a gun?! Oh, the total and utter hypocrisy! I am just fuming. You all sure do enjoy your broad stroke character assassinations of the big bad liberals.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
Hi Jason...I see you are your
June 10, 2007 - 00:05 ET by bigtimerHi Jason...
I see you are your usual jolly delusional self this evening.
Oh the wisdom of it all.
LMAO.....
OK thanks biggie, so explai
June 10, 2007 - 00:14 ET by JasonCOK thanks biggie, so explain to me why I'm wrong. Not just talking about the disgrace Rep (D), I'm talking about your basic, sweeping claim that a person in favor of Gun Control would be a hypocrite to own one. It makes exactly as much sense as a person who advocates the existence of the DMV being a hypocrite for owning a car. Really, BT, what's wrong with that?
Get off the cross already. You're so oppressed and victimized for being a gun owner. Please.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
If you use them for your own
June 10, 2007 - 00:20 ET by bigtimerIf you use them for your own use in any way shape or form...
You are a hypocrite if you vote to deny that right to others in any way shape or form.
Pretty self-explanatory Jason....only the blind would refuse to see.
What others? What ways, sh
June 10, 2007 - 00:21 ET by JasonCWhat others? What ways, shapes, and forms?
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
Oh please Jason....Please qui
June 10, 2007 - 00:28 ET by bigtimerOh please Jason....
Please quit playing dumb.
Please.
You have a nice evening....I'm not going to banty with you tonight, not in the mood.
defining ourselves
June 10, 2007 - 00:30 ET by Pragmatic-ManIs it practical (even possibly pragmatic) to define ourselves at this point? Allow me to start:
I am a gun owner.
I believe every citizen has the right to own guns.
I believe this right can be denied by the state if that person has shown himself to be of bad character (criminals) or unsound mind.
I believe gun ownership should be uncontrolled, but registered, just as it is possible to own as many cars as you want but they must all be registered.
I believe there are practical limits to what constitutes a citizen's class of firearm. This pertains to what is a registerable weapon (tanks and full auto 50 calibers seem a bit unnecessary in the hands of a civilian).
Jason, want to take a crack at it? Just as clarification. Not to pinch or twist words, just to be sure where the debate really is.
That all sounds pretty good
June 10, 2007 - 00:37 ET by JasonCThat all sounds pretty good to me, except that there's no real definition of "uncontrolled" in line 5. I own a shotgun, .22, and an antique musket.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
line 5 could have limits
June 10, 2007 - 00:42 ET by Pragmatic-ManI suppose line 5 could have limits. If you get to a point where the basement and your spare bedrooms are filled with firearms, you either need to be a licensed gun dealer or start sewing up you own national flag.
Pragmatic in regards to what goal?
June 10, 2007 - 10:18 ET by PhillepI seriously doubt you even own a car, never mind any firearms.
Why? You'd know that cars are registered /after/ they are purchased, the registration is supposed to be renewed on a regular basis, and many cars on the road are not registered to the present owner. It's illegal to drive an unregistered car on the road, but it's not illegal to own one.
California is the only state I know of that aggressively pursues registration, and even they permit de-registration of cars for agricultural purposes, or for race track use.
If you owned firearms, you'd know that commercial sellers are supposed to get the FBI's permission to sell guns to an individual. Let's see you push that sort of restriction on the auto industry.
"Pragmatists" like you have been pushing "reasonable" gun control for nearly 40 years, ever since 1968. Kind of funny how many more "reasonable" restrictions come up after the previous "reasonable" law was passed.
Pragmatic-Man, I find myself
June 11, 2007 - 00:17 ET by MikeBPragmatic-Man, I find myself in disagreement with you only on your beliefs 3 and 4. No, the guns should not be registered. In many countries where firearms were eventually confiscated, they started off with gun registration. Look at the history of gun siezures in Nazi Germany, in the Soviet Union, in Australia and Britain. They all started out with registration as a public safety issue.
As for belief number four, the bill of rights, including the second amendment was written so that the people could protect themselves from the government. When it comes to weaponry, if you want to defend yourself against an armed opponent, you want to have as good, if not better weaponry as your opponent does. If that means full auto weapons, so be it. If you don't think that a citizen is ever justified in fearing the government that much, ask Randy Weaver, ask David Koresh, ask the relatives of Elian Gonzales, and ask the citizens of New Orleans who had their firearms confiscated by the city government after Katrina whether or not the government is as benign as you seem to think.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Jason
June 10, 2007 - 00:10 ET by Noel SheppardJC,
So, you don't see any hypocrisy here? Forget about Jefferson for a second. Shouldn't the media, once this revelation occurred, have discussed his "F" rating from the NRA?
Please remember that this is a media bias site. That's what we deal in here. Let me give you an example: If it turned out that a strong pro-life presidential candidate's wife once had an abortion. How would the press handle that? ns
I put no stock or faith in
June 10, 2007 - 00:16 ET by JasonCI put no stock or faith in the NRA or its rating system.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
Jason
June 10, 2007 - 00:20 ET by Noel SheppardJC,
This has nothing to do with what you place stock in. The question is still a valid one. This is an anti-gun Democrat that just got caught with a lot of guns. You don't think this is newsworthy?
Furthermore, once again, if a pro-life Republican presidential candidate was found to have a wife that had an abortion, would the press be all over it like white on rice? ns
Plainly, I reject your use
June 10, 2007 - 00:24 ET by JasonCPlainly, I reject your use of the term "Anti-gun" and its being equated with "Pro-gun control." I'm not talking solely about Jefferson, I was reacting to BT's total condemnation of those who support gun control.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
Gun control is the ability to
June 11, 2007 - 00:09 ET by MikeBGun control is the ability to hold a tight pattern.
Gun control is using both hands.
Yup, I'm in favor of this kind of gun control.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
If it turned out that a str
June 10, 2007 - 00:19 ET by JasonCIf it turned out that a strong pro-life presidential candidate's wife once had an abortion.
Not comparable. Pro-gun control is not automatically anti-gun. It's specious to equate the two. If what you call "pro-life" means wanting the process of abortion to entail counseling, regulation, etc, then yes, that would compare to most pro-gun control types' perspective. But that's now what you mean, I imagine.
"If their sins were as scarlet, they are now white as snow" Isaiah 1:18
Pro gun control and anti gun
June 10, 2007 - 10:28 ET by PhillepYup. You have a point. Someone can be pro gun control without being anti gun.
Let's see, reasonable alternatives to "anti gun":
"Gullible idiot"
"Elitist bigot"
Pwould you say gun control is
June 10, 2007 - 10:30 ET by botgP
would you say gun control is using both hands?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
The victimization is legitima
June 11, 2007 - 12:47 ET by BeowulfThe victimization is legitimate, Jason. Gun Control means just that - controlling guns. Meaning government deciding who can and who can't own guns as well as how one can own them (i.e. storage, carry, transport). While injecting criminality or mental instability into the equasion is legitimate, and no gun owner would argue against it, this is not at issue. Look at D.C., NYC, San Fran as examples of what the term "gun control" really means. There are well over 25,000 local, state, and federal gun laws in existance, all of which run the gamut from legitimate control for real public safety (i.e. felons and such) to totally ridiculous and ineffective.
As to the question I continually hear comparing gun ownership to driving a car, it's literally apples and oranges. Gun ownership is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Driving a car is a priveledge.
And I see no bearing as to how many guns someone can own. What's the difference? Unless you have a dozen or more arms and hands, there's a finite limit on how many you can fire at once. As to types of guns, there's also a common-sense limit. Obviously, no one need, or can safely use, a 90mm recoiless anti-tank rifle. I hear sensationalist speculation from the anti's about "if there's no control, then people will go out and buy anti-tank rockets and surface to air missiles". This just demonstrates their ridiculousness. No law abiding gun owner wants such weapons, even disregarding the fact that they aren't even guns.
And it is a documented FACT that lawful gun owners seldom use their weapons for illegal purposes. Gun control only applies to those who benefit society by their ownership. Criminals are totally unaffected by such laws, or at least in any negative sense. At least criminals know their intended victims will be unable to defend themselves with strict gun control in effect. And fear that their potential victim may be armed is the single greatest fear they have.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Heavy arms
June 12, 2007 - 09:20 ET by PhillepNo, back before 1968 we could buy cannons, machine guns, rockets, etc through the mail. It was not until the socialists (called communists back then) got serious trying to foment rebellion and civil war in the US that restrictions on these items got pushed through, by the socialists in power.
The richest irony is that the people who wanted the US to dissolve into anarchy so they could scavenge wealth and power are the very ones who tried the hardest to prevent the factions having the weaponry, not that it would not have done any good for the Black Panthers or SDS to have anti tank weapons while being out numbered a million to one, by people equally well armed.
Oh, and check out Knob Creek some time.
Culture of Corruption
June 9, 2007 - 15:59 ET by MAVYes I think the Culture of Corruption in the Democrite in mean Demorat I mean Democrap I mean Democrat Party is as it has always been, They invented corruption, lying, dishonesty, disception, disinformation and so much more...
What hypocrites Nancy and the gang of idiots are...
Good catch, Noel. If this g
June 9, 2007 - 16:39 ET by sarcasmoGood catch, Noel. If this guy was -- as in Florida -- elected due to racially (racist, IMO) gerrymandered districts, it's even worse. IMO such districts also deeply hurt (and distort candidates in) other districts surrounding them, in a very evil and unseen way. But evil is rampant these days...
JMR
Ya know, bribery is bad enoug
June 9, 2007 - 16:53 ET by dahliatraversYa know, bribery is bad enough. But the hypocritical use of official power is worse.
I'm going to own guns. But I'm going to use my vote to curb everyone else's possession of them.
Wrong. You need to live what you legislate.
Jefferson epitomized abuse of
June 11, 2007 - 13:04 ET by BeowulfJefferson epitomizes abuse of power. He has taken bribes (not yet convicted) to use his position foe monetayr gain with other countries. He abused his position during Katrina in using the National Guard (who were supposed to be there to help those in need) to check on his house and to haul off personal effects, just before deriding Bush and FEMA for their "poor response".
I don't point fingers at the corruption of either party (they both suck), but the Dems have made the whole issue one of hypocrisy. At least the Repubs kept quiet when they were being accused of corruption. The Dems are screaming at the corruption of the Repubs with one hand while taking bribes with the other.
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers
Cold Cash is going to walk. You just wait and see....
June 9, 2007 - 16:59 ET by Dave RSo Cold Cash doesn't want me owning a gun, yet feels the need to have one himself.
What makes him special?
PREDICTION: This guy is going to walk. He has two things going for him:
1) He is a democrat.
2) He doesn't reflect much light.
Together, those two things make him untouchable in the eyes of the criminal-coddling libs and their grape-peelers in the MSM, who will excuse any crime, so long as the perpetrator isn't white and conservative, in which case they will just make a crime up, if necessary.
Cold cash
June 9, 2007 - 19:08 ET by Jerry Mack(picture) Where did I hide the rest of the cash?
Yea right, good one, that's t
June 9, 2007 - 21:16 ET by MAVYea right, good one, that's the look...
Mister Freeze will walk, on a
June 9, 2007 - 20:59 ET by Del DolemonteMister Freeze will walk, on a technicality.
All he has to do is claim that during many of those years he was being crooked and anti-gun at the same time (while possessing weapons himself) that he was legally allowed to do so because his State's license plate had a slogan that said "Sportsman's Paradise".
As the title of the best-se
June 9, 2007 - 21:17 ET by Tom1969caAs the title of the best-selling book says...
~~~
"The current tax code is harder to understand than Bob Dylan reading Finnegan's Wake in a wind tunnel."-- Dennis Miller
Meantime, the party of corrup
June 10, 2007 - 04:12 ET by jdhawkMeantime, the party of corruption, still embraces Jefferson, Democrat, LA. And, Jefferson still serves on the Homeland Security committee. We are, in part, putting our security in his "capable" hands.
That Jefferson has the gaul to remain in office is repehensible as is the party that still supports him being there.