Framing the Dialogue

De Bait Goes On

goffordsYou decide on whether the news is slanted against the Second Amendment. This article was front page of Pittsburgh’s “conservative” newspaper. Though it is an Adulterated Press (AP) story it ran in our paper without any attempt to get the facts straight. The use of the contrasting photographs should be enough to let you know which side the AP is on.  It would be very easy to take this bait.  I’d be willing to wager that AP offices have armed guards though they’re probably not armed with assault rifles. BTW Ms. Giffords was not shot with an assault rifle and there is a growing belief that assault rifles were not used in the Newtown school shooting as confirmed by NBC News on January 15, 2013.

As Giffords pleads case, NRA pushes back

“Giffords’ 80-word plea was the day’s most riveting moment, delivered in a hushed, halting voice two years after the Arizona Democrat suffered head wounds in a Tucson shooting spree that killed six people.”

“At the same hearing, a top official of the National Rifle Association rejected Democratic proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.” [The AP didn’t even bother to use his name until later in the article]

“Too many children are dying,” she said at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. “Too many children. We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now.” Guiding her in and remaining to testify was Mark Kelly, the retired astronaut who is Giffords’ husband. The couple, who both owns guns, has formed a political action committee called Americans for Responsible Solutions that backs lawmakers who support gun restrictions. “We’re simply two reasonable Americans who realize we have a problem with gun violence, and we need Congress to act,” Kelly said.

AGAIN…WHY JUST “GUN VIOLENCE?” WHY NOT ALL VIOLENCE? WHY DON’T THEY TAKE ON HAND GUNS AS THOSE ARE WHAT WERE USED IN THE TWO SHOOTINGS MENTIONED?

Answer: This is all about restrictions on all guns. The scary “assault weapons” that they often show are props to get folks to go along. Who needs a weapon like this they always ask. Probably no one, but plenty of citizens WANT one. Who needs a BMW? Who needs a private plane? Who needs a designer dress? Who needs fancy restaurants? I would suspect that, depending on where you live, you just might NEED a rifle with a high capacity magazine. Think about the number of murders in Obama’s hometown of Chicago.

What about handguns? Other than some of the magazine sizes the left is leaving handguns out of the dialogue. Why? Piers Morgan has had some fun trying to humiliate pro-gun advocates on his show. The gun debate has been good for his lackluster ratings. He’s no Larry King after all. I remember an interview a few weeks ago with Brietbart’s Ben Shapiro. They went back and forth, often talking over each other as is typical with “debate” in the 24-hr news arena. At one point Shapiro asked why only rifles and not handguns too. Obviously the correct answer, if Morgan wanted to shed light on the left’s ultimate goal, was that they need to do this first and then they’ll come after your handguns.

You shouldn’t doubt that taking all of your guns away is a when, not if. If we learn anything from the left is that their agenda never really goes away. It’s like Harry Potter’s Voldemort. He gets vanquished only to return later when his enemies are weakened or better yet when there is a crisis that can be exploited.

Leave a comment

Use basic HTML (<a href="">, <strong>, <blockquote>)