Katie Couric led Wednesday's CBS Evening News by trumpeting a victory for gun control and featuring a one-on-one interview with a gun control advocate. “An historic alliance between Democrats and the NRA produces the first major new gun control bill in years,” Couric teased. “Tonight, they're closing the loophole that allowed the Virginia Tech killer to buy his guns.” After that plug for House passage of a bill that still must go through the Senate and be signed by the President, she teased another story, one seemingly more crucial but didn't get to until 14 minutes into her newscast, “A CBS News exclusive: For the first time, the Director of the FBI details the nuclear threat that America faces today” from al Qaeda. Couric led by touting how the closing of “the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy the guns he used in the April massacre despite his history of mental illness” is “the first major new gun control legislation in more than a decade and it has the backing of the NRA.”
After NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre got one sentence in the story from Sharyl Attkisson (“We'll work with anyone if you protect the rights of law-abiding people under the Second Amendment and you target people that shouldn't have guns”), Couric turned to Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. She started by asking him to assess the effectiveness of the proposed new law before fretting that it doesn't go far enough: “What about gun shows though? Won't they still be permitted to buy them there?” She also let Helmke ruminate on what “motivated”the NRA to back the bill. Helmke used that as a chance to forward a talking point: “It's too easy in this country for dangerous people to get guns. We have very weak gun laws. We need to strengthen these things.”
ABC's World News led with the new attack on the al Askari Mosque in Samara (the second story o CBS) and NBC Nightly News began with their latest poll on an “angry America” with only 19 percent seeing the nation going in the right direction and approval for Bush at 29 percent and for Congress as 23 percent, followed by the mosque attack.
Neither ABC or NBC, the MRC's Brad Wilmouth observed, mentioned the House passage of the bill to require states to provide the FBI with the names of those mentally ill who should not be allowed to buy a gun.
Couric opened the June 13 CBS Evening News:
Hello, everyone. Congress is trying to prevent another Virginia Tech. The House voted today to close the loophole that allowed Seung-Hui Cho to buy the guns he used in the April massacre despite his history of mental illness. It's the first major new gun control legislation in more than a decade and it has the backing of the NRA. House passage came on the day a federal report was released on the Virginia Tech shootings. Among the key findings: Information states have about people prohibited from buying guns is not making it into the national registry. That's exactly what this new law addresses. So we'll begin on Capitol Hill with Sharyl Attkisson.
Following Attkisson's report, Couric interviewed Helmke via satellite:
COURIC: Paul Helmke is President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. He's in our Washington bureau tonight. Mr. Helmke, we just heard Sharyl Attkisson talk about the fact that there are 2.5 million mentally ill people who should be prevented from buying guns in this country. Will this new law do that?HELMKE: This law will definitely help. Brady background checks do work. It stopped over 1.3 million people that are prohibited purchasers from buying guns in the past to have more complete records is gonna make all of us safer.
COURIC: What about gun shows though? Won't they still be permitted to buy them there?
HELMKE: There's still a lot more that needs to be done and I hope that Wayne LaPierre and the NRA will follow through on the statements they've made today and let's strengthen the background checks. Background checks work and if we can get them applicable to all sales of guns, then we can make all of our communities safer.
COURIC: A lot of people might be surprised that the NRA supported this legislation. We heard Wayne LaPierre explain why. But what motivated them in this case?
HELMKE: I think it's the situation where post-Virginia Tech they realized that the American people want to do something about the easy availability of guns to dangerous people. It's too easy in this country for dangerous people to get guns. We have very weak gun laws. We need to strengthen these things.
COURIC: Paul Helmke. Mr. Helmke, thank you very much.
—Brent Baker is Vice President for Research and Publications at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
repeatedly thumbed their nose at the US Constitution
August 19, 2008 - 22:01 ET by EdwardGun Controllers Among Us, Marin County California Courts, http://reno.broowaha.... Most liberal Marin County Ca has repeatedly thumbed their nose at the US Constitution, then imposed their illegal actions onto a Nevada citizen. What's next? I was pleased to see the recent US Supreme Court ruling about gun control. Along with others that are challenging previous court rulings and laws in light of the recent US Supreme Court ruling, one more challenge desperately needs to be immediately mounted. That is the blanket all-inclusive law that a person with any sort of restraining order against them is not allowed to have any sort of a gun. Based on my experience as a Deputy Sheriff, that is bad law and I have always believed that is unconstitutional. It is also even worse law when the restraining order is obtained by default and a contemptible law when obtained through breaking the court’s own rules to get the default in the first place. It is a gross denial of civil rights. In one of my Among Us stories I’ve been following and reporting on, exactly that happened. When husband is caught in bigamy living a double life, wife changes locks to Reno family home. According to the Reno police report, that home is immediately violently broken into. Two well-secured doors were broken down. The second door was so well secured that the only way to get in was to break that door frame and surrounding sheet rock. This is exactly what happened according to the witnesses, Reno police report and photographs. It took 45 minutes to an hour to break through those two doors. The garage door was then blocked shut. The home is thoroughly ransacked, a knife is taken to their bed. According to the Truckee Meadows Community College police and Pat Slavin, there is then an attempted break-in of wife’s locker at Truckee Meadows Community College. Average criminals breaking into a home take a minute to enter that home. If more than that, they immediately move on to the next home. To take the hour and hard work it did to break through those two door, thoroughly ransack the home and take a knife to the bed is evidence that wife is in danger. The attempted break-in at Truckee Meadows Community College is evidence that the wife remained in danger and the danger was escalating. Wife has no history of violence. Husband does have flip-flop history. The evidence is there that the wife desperately needs a gun for protection. Wife, who has lived in Reno since summer 1995, files for a divorce in Reno, Nevada. Husband does an end run and cheats. He files for a restraining order in Marin County, California, 200 miles away, although wife has not lived there since summer 1995 nor does she visit there due to her disabilities restricting her ability to travel. Husband has wife served with Marin County California court papers in Reno on a Thursday evening while she is teaching an evening credit class at Truckee Meadows Community College. According to those court papers, a court hearing was scheduled by husband in Marin County California for first thing that Monday morning for a temporary restraining order against wife. Therefore, wife thinks she had only 8 business hours that Friday to find and hire a California attorney. Didn’t happen. So wife mails pro per response to Marin Court and husband’s attorney. Illegally, husband gets a 3-year default restraining order against wife and wife is threatened with prison if she has a gun for protection although recent evidence proved she desperately now needs a gun. Problems, here is an illegally obtained restraining order, and the gun restriction is illegal. For several reasons. First, it is illegal for service to be 36 hours before a court hearing. Therefore, husband, his attorney and/or the Marin County courts falsified the date of service. Second, a gun prohibition is unconstitutionally illegal. As the US Supreme Court just recently again affirmed. Third, a blanket restriction of a gun prohibition in every restraining order is unconstitutionally illegal. As the US Supreme Court just recently again affirmed. Fourth, wife had mailed her pro per response to the Marin County court, so that court issuing a default order is illegal. Fifth, a California court issued a default order against a Nevada citizen that they have no legal jurisdiction over. Sixth, Novato, California police have threatened to jail the wife based on this illegally obtained order. “You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.”- Mark Twain. Marin County California is the most liberal county in America. They have repeatedly evidenced that they are willing to break several laws, repeatedly thumbed their nose at the US Constitution, imposed their illegal actions on a Nevada citizen, threatened a Nevada citizen, and terrorized a Nevada citizen. Who and what’s next? Sources and further readings: Washoe District Court, Marin County (California) Superior Court, Reno Police Department reports, Twin Cities (California) Police reports, Sausalito (California) Police reports, Marin (County California) General Hospital medical reports, Now You Call It Madness (But I Call It Love ), A List of Questions I Promise Not To Pose , Cheaters Among Us, Olson , California’s Legal Secret Marriage Racket , Get All Those Instructors You Can – Or Maybe No t, Bigamists Among Us, Olson, Flip Flop RERs Among Us, James K. Olson . http://sf.broowaha.c..., http://reno.broowaha..., http://sf.broowaha.c..., http://reno.broowaha..., http://reno.broowaha..., http://sf.broowaha.c..., http://reno.broowaha..., http://reno.broowaha..., Copyright © 2008 Craig B Ed
The Perkless wonder! Gee didn
June 13, 2007 - 21:05 ET by upcountrywaterThe Perkless wonder!
Gee didn't anyone tell her , this (Virginia Tech) murders happened in a "gun free zone"... Once again the nanny state FAILED to protect us.
More guns less crime it's a FACT.
IRANIAN URANIMUN ,IRANIAN URANIMUN IRANIAN URANIMUN , not a tongue twister ,a 7th. century life choice.
The NRA doesn't get another n
June 13, 2007 - 21:08 ET by I-BurnThe NRA doesn't get another nickel from me! Henceforth, I support GOA exclusively, rather than both!
I think that perhaps Wayne LaPierre has forgotten:
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
-Thomas Jefferson
This is really funny. I am
June 13, 2007 - 22:26 ET by amberThis is really funny. I am sitting here with my pistol, fully loaded and 3 other mags (15 rounds each) right next to me. I was planning on going outside shooting.
There is only one documented shootout that occured in a place where guns are allowd. The rest were gun free zones. Part of my decision to homeschool my kids was affected by the pulic school not taking the threat to our children more seriously. My kids' school, the one they went to, still leaves all of the doors unlocked, they have video equipment behind the receptionists (if she wants to see what is on the screan she has to turn her chair around), and their major plan in case of an armed intruder is to turn off the lights, shut and lock the glass classroom doors and be quiet in the corner. Stupid, with all of the meth in our area, that is gross negligence on their part. One of the teachers told me the family of a kindergartener was threatened and the school did nothing to inform the parents of the danger. They are just asking for a lawsuit.
Perhaps Katie knows the frenquency Kenneth
June 13, 2007 - 22:43 ET by Lame CherryI am no fan of the NRA as it is a rights eroding organisation, but it is a million mile stretch for Perky to frame the story the way she attempted.
Helmke like all liberals is a tool of the globalists making a nice income and feeding his "look at me me me" psychopathy.
All of this adds up to the oh Danny boy, "We don't report the news, we make (as in create) the news", Rather syndrome.
It was a match made in Stalin hell as Katie sees gun control just likes Stevens on the Court sees aborticide in the Constitution and the perfect topper of "al Qaeda nuking evil America". It just must have made Katie quiver in she can disarm Americans and then al Qaeda can come in and murder who is left. The socialist dream of population control.
Somewhere in this weirdo news of the new CBS I am reminded of psycho Rather being kidnapped and people asking him "What the frequency is Kenneth".
Katie probably knows as she is hearing things now too.
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
"It just must have made
June 14, 2007 - 00:06 ET by stratman"It just must have made Katie quiver in she can disarm Americans and then al Qaeda can come in and murder who is left."
Is that a freudian slip or what?
Thank goodness they won't be killing the "Right"!
Just too good to pass up. :)
Given the angle that Katie &q
June 14, 2007 - 00:27 ET by jdhawkGiven the angle that Katie "the Dufus" Couric used to provide this "news" story, it is easy to forget that these mass murders have all been carried out in GUN FREE ZONES.
The solution to stopping these nut jobs from killing our children are armed people at these locations (i.e. concealed carry permitted people). Ever increasing restrictions on people that "should not have guns" ensures that only people that "should not have guns" will have them
.
It does try ones patience wh
June 14, 2007 - 01:10 ET by ViperIt does try ones patience when this topic comes up. Rarely do I see anything regarding firearms in the MSM "reported" correctly much less without their bias. It's the death by 1000 cuts theory that they seem to use by constantly grinding away upon the constitution. I have been reading the Federalist Papers and find many of the writings stunning in their foresight. If you have not read these, it's certainly worth the time. On another note, the NRA is the most organized lobby we have and it's discouraging to read that some will not support them due to an occasional difference of opinion. If we are divided that easily, we will surely fall. Information regarding the NRA's political arm can be found here. I encourage everyone to support their local firearms dealer and also enjoy excercising the 2nd amendment here.
Gun control
June 14, 2007 - 05:51 ET by Cool ArrowTough question. Do I want crazed psychos to own guns? Not really.
Do I want the path to "reeducation" smoothed for the Socialists? Not really.
Do I want to take the "Death with dignity" Morphine pump out of the doctor's hand? Not really.
Would I like to see Scalpel Control in planned parenthood? Yeah.
Well, some people's differe
June 14, 2007 - 06:04 ET by sarcasmoWell, some people's difference of opinion with the NRA is a rather powerful one. Considering the diversity of pro-gun political groups ranging far beyond just the NRA and JPFO, don't you find it odd that the news media repeatedly tries to act as if the NRA always speaks for all gun owners? I sure as hell do. They don't speak for me, and they don't get any of my money anymore.
JMR
Have you noticed that there h
June 14, 2007 - 06:12 ET by USA4freedomHave you noticed that there has never been a mass murder at a gun shop? I wonder why?
The MSM cant be so simple minded. If you were someone that was going to commit a murder or a mugging, who would you pick, the guy that looked like he just came out of training to be a SEAL or the little old lady with a cane. Now lets change that a little, you want to car jack someone. The same little old lady, but this time you just saw her walk out of a gun shop, would that make you change your mind? Hmm, I want to kill a lot of people fast (and safe) where should I go?? Well I could walk into that police station and last about 2 seconds, or the gun shop where every one is packing or.. that little school where it’s a “NO GUN ZONE”(well except mine of course).
I was married to a liberal woman (about firearms.) Now she is a life member in the NRA. She gets it. Her family now that’s a different story. I had a discussion one time about gun control with my sister in-law (she is British). She is about 5 ft tall and 100 lbs. She was telling me why can’t we just call the police? I told her if I wanted, I could kill her in about 1 min. How soon will the police get there. Soon enough to take pictures of her lifeless body. She was shocked, but somewhere deep inside her I think I hit a note. Then my wife added, when governments take over the citizenry what is the FIRST THING THEY DO? Take away your guns. I told her I know it sounds like a bumper sticker but really if they outlaw guns and you cant have any and the criminals (by their nature) will not abide by the law who is in a weaker position. The one good thing about my sister-inlaw, is rather then come back with all sorts of talking points she actually listened. In the end while she did not give a full indorcement she did admit that she understood my side better then she did before. Now my wife’s brother…
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
I wonder, does the perky one
June 14, 2007 - 06:14 ET by USA4freedomI wonder, does the perky one have a body guard?
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
Great observation
June 14, 2007 - 06:18 ET by Cool ArrowI've corrected that "sportsmen and hunters' caveat often. The Constitution didn't mention clay pigeons, tin cans, or even bears. One need only go to the Declaration of Independence to find the "hidden meaning" of the 2nd Amendment.
I used that same reasoning wi
June 14, 2007 - 06:48 ET by USA4freedomI used that same reasoning with my sister in law, when she said: that the way she sees it, is that hunters and shooting clubs can keep their guns. I told her (she is British) that is how it started in the UK. Now can you buy a gun to protect yourself if you want? NO. If you give in at all, you loose because “that” becomes the starting point in the debate. Just like the “Saturday night special” trick. Then every gun is a Saturday night special.
These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day
I read the speach that you li
June 14, 2007 - 16:42 ET by ViperSarcasmo,
I read the speach that you linked to. Although it was from 1994, at a time the NRA was undergoing many changes in leadership, I still did not find anything in particular that it pointed out against the NRA much less it being a "rather powerful one" against the NRA. However, it is a speach that is more aggressive in it's words, and while that is another way of making a point, I still do not understand your reasons to abandon the oldest, largest, and strongest lobby we have. While I support other organizations efforts regarding the 2nd amendment, both in funding and with support of my time, I will not bad mouth or try to undermine their particular mission just because I may have a different point of view on how some things may be best handled politically. Once again, I see it as though we are on the same side and wish to maintain our freedoms and liberties so hard fought for us by the generations before us. I'm sorry that you are going to throw the baby out with the bath water at a time when all of the proponents of the 2nd amendment need our support.
Real quick, as I need to go
June 14, 2007 - 18:21 ET by sarcasmoReal quick, as I need to go eat good food, it was basically this line:
"...stress that there is strong evidence that 'gun control' in America has Nazi roots, i.e., as JPFO's research has shown that 'sporting purpose' was almost certainly lifted from the Nazi's Weapons Law of 18 March 1938..."
which has divided the NRA from JPFO. A minor-seeming history disagreement, yes, but a particularly-uncomfortable one for some inside-the-beltway folks, apparently. I don't like that part of the law. I want to find a way to repeal that part of the law because the second amendment has nothing to do with brand new Nazi definitions. So does Aaron Zellman. We'd prefer the baby have some clean bathwater for a change, to continue with your metaphor...
JMR
Reading the Federalist Papers
June 14, 2007 - 18:08 ET by SoftRightReading the Federalist Papers is a serious undertaking, but, when done, you will understand the Constitution like few people today and have an unbelievable amount of respect for Madison and Hamilton's intellectual prowess.
The politicians of today couldn't block James Madison's shadow. A giant among men......
Congress: Do your Duty! Enforce Article 4 Sect 4 of the Constitution!
BLAH! BLAH! BLAH!
June 14, 2007 - 07:59 ET by Sergeant ROCKAnyone that thinks the 2nd Amendment is about 'duck hunting' (as Klinton claimed), is a complete moron. It's funny that 'guns' are once again to blame, not the nut who should've been locked-up. Where's the effort to keep nuts off the streets?? Once again, LaPierre is proven correct when he surmised that liberals are delighted, politically, when these events occur.
Watch these:Bowling for Col
June 14, 2007 - 09:53 ET by doubledown552Watch these:
Bowling for Columbine for an accurate portrayal of gun control and crimes in America. </heavy sarcasm>
Chronicles of Riddick for a MSM utopia.
Second hand smoke kills more people than gun crimes in America each year. Where is the regulations on where people can smoke? Cars kill more people too, where are the regulations, restrictions and warning labels? I just bought a car about 6 months ago. They didn't tell me that driving it could cause great bodily injury or death. I think I should sue them.....?
Morals....? Who needs those?We need less laws, less cop
June 14, 2007 - 12:15 ET by dabalWe need less laws, less cops, less lawyers, and less jails.
Then, you need to fire any law enforcement official the moment they fail to prosecute any remaining laws.
Selective enforcement is one step shy of full-blown tyranny.
I don't know enough about the
June 15, 2007 - 09:14 ET by BeowulfI don't know enough about the proposed legislation to comment. What I do know is that the NRA most likely wouldn't endorse it if there were serious infringements to the 2nd in it.
I would anticipate the biggest hurdle would be the likes of the ACLU for violating people's medical privacy. Of course, if they were to take that stance, they would spotlight their hypocrisy to the world, and you'd better believe it would be challenged.
As for Couric's "report", going with references from Helmke and the Brady Bunch as well as the WaPo doesn't give me warm fuzzies, as these aren't renowned as the most credible sources of unbiased or even factual information. But what else can one expect from little Katie, who herself falls into the same category for information?
The Closed Mind Erects Strong Barriers