Richmond and Press Bias

So, the Virginia 2d amendment rally was entirely peaceful. No real surprise to anyone but the media. As the Babylon Bee says:

Somber members of the press offered their thoughts and prayers that someone would start some violence at the gun rights rally in Virginia today.

Reporters expressed their grief and condolences as the violence they hyped has so far failed to materialize.

“Nobody has so much as fired a shot. This is an unbelievable tragedy,” said one teary-eyed MSNBC reporter, clearly caught up in the anguish of the moment.

John Hinderaker at PowerLine adds:

Antifa threatened to show up at the rally, and likely would have created violence if it had done so. But for some reason, the group’s leaders changed their minds. Maybe they focused on the fact that the 2x4s, pipes and baseball bats with which they are used to beating up innocent bystanders might not fare so well in this crowd. One young guy who looked suspiciously like a leftist advocated jumping the fence and killing people. The genuine demonstrators denounced him as an “infiltrator”–which I suspect he was–and told him to “get the f*** out.”

No surprise at all in any of that. How did we ever survive without the Babylon Bee though? In a related matter…


David Weinberger at The Federalist has some thought on why the media can not be unbiased. Let’s look.

Americans generally agree that news media should be “objective” and “report the facts.” But as I recently explained, there is no such thing as merely reporting “the facts.”

Consider a simple example. Imagine a drunk driver kills someone. Which facts are relevant to report? Does it matter where the accident occurred? How about the identities of the people involved? Do their backgrounds matter? What about where the driver was coming from and where he was going? Is race important? Should the media report anything about their families’ reactions to the incident?

Ought the details of the vehicle be reported? What if it is later revealed that the brakes were faulty? Does it matter whether the driver is a citizen? What if he is an illegal immigrant? Are there then possible implications for public policy, and if there are, ought they be reported? Furthermore, how much time should news media devote to this matter — a 10-minute news segment, an hour, or possibly even a 24-hour news cycle or more?

Facts alone cannot answer these questions. Discerning which facts to report requires judgment, and judgment requires morality. As the late Leo Strauss observed, “We cannot observe facts without selecting facts, and we must therefore have principles guiding our selection.” Put simply, the notion that facts are completely severable from values — an idea known as the “fact-value distinction” — is untenable, and no news outlet should pretend otherwise.

Lest this be misunderstood, the news media do bear a responsibility to report the facts they select as accurately as possible, but facts do not select themselves. No outlet is therefore free from ideology. Rather than feign objectivity, it would be more responsible for news outlets to drop the pretense altogether and instead invite the best opposing thinkers to debate the issues of the day. In other words, “diversity of ideas,” not “report the facts,” is a more sensible goal for news media.

Keep reading at the link above.

He makes excellent points here, no matter how we try, we cannot be unbiased, the best we can do is admit our bias and try to read around a subject getting several viewpoints. All stories have at least two sides, after all, and most have many more – the world isn’t black and white but a technicolor extravaganza.

You want an example? I looked at probably 20 (or more stories) in the last 24 hours before I selected these two, the very selection, and my comments on them reflect my biases. So does everything else you’ll read today and in the future. Your judgment and discernment are called for to cut through the chaff and find the grain.

It’s actually always been that way, we just had this spell where we thought we could depend on the organized media to do the job for us. We can’t and we never could, we just got lazy. This is a country where people are required to think for themselves, mob tactics are antithetical to self rule.

Sunday Funnies; Bat Guano Crazy

Killing Terrorists, supporting freedom, signing trade deals, and what do you get? Impeached. That’s the situation this week. It could be worse, there could be a Demonrat who looks like a credible candidate.

 

Pappy says

And, of course

 

Sic Semper Tyrannis?

In a sense, I’m pushing the ‘easy button’ today. My cold lingers, and I have trouble staying awake. That said this is a very good article on the mess the Democrats have created in Virginia. It’s by Bob Barr and appeared on Townhall. Enjoy!

Virginia Democrats flexed their muscle in Richmond this week; passing four gun control bills through the Senate Judiciary Committee. This action had been promised by Gov. Ralph Northam since his Party gained majorities in both houses of the state legislature last November. As with other state governors who believe that the best way to stop criminals from committing murder is to make it more difficult for law abiding citizens to purchase and possess firearms, these measures will do just that – make it harder for law abiding citizens of Virginia to exercise their rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Specifically, the Northam-endorsed proposals will limit citizens to one handgun purchase a month, mandate universal background checks, and allow local governments to selectively ban firearms from public events. Most troubling, one measure authorizes law enforcement to preemptively seize firearms from individuals they deem to be a threat (a so-called “red flag” law). But there’s more.

The “crown jewel” of Northam’s expansive gun control agenda is a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” This measure is expected to pass through committee this week, which then will trigger a long-anticipated showdown in the General Assembly.

Indeed, pretty much normal Democrat, Statist procedure. Of course that it actually makes the situation worse while giving the government unwarranted and unconstitutional power is considered a feature, not a bug.

This is no ordinary political stand-off. Democrats indicated they had every intention of doing whatever it took to implement their sweeping gun ban; including, if necessary, using the National Guard. This overheated rhetoric, on top of the radical policies being proposed, prompted more than 90 Virginia localities to declare themselves “gun sanctuaries,” placing local law enforcement and government officials in direct confrontation with Richmond and state officials. […]

Northam and the Virginia legislature are remaking the Commonwealth of Virginia in the image of Michael Bloomberg and George Soros; an image bearing no resemblance to the model of freedom and liberty designed by truly great Virginians like George Washington, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. For the sake of their, and our posterity, let us pray that this rebranding of Virginia will be reversed in the coming election cycles.

Yep, and read it all.

Sunday Funnies: Buffoonapooza

What a stupid week. No one could make this up. I stole the term Buffoonapooza from PowerLine because it’s perfect for the week. I thought it was going to be almost all Beto, even Biden and Corn Pop couldn’t top him, and then along comes the New York slimes and their Kavanaugh fake news, and then to top it all, here comes Justin Trudeau. I haven’t a clue what more could be in store for next week. Well, might as well get started.

The whole thing leaves you wanting to know what store sells this:

And, of course

 

Of Rights and Needs

The gun confiscation people (who want us to believe that they simply want ‘common-sense gun regulation’) make a lot of noise about what we need. In the first place, they haven’t a clue what living in the middle of Nebraska is like, let alone Alaska, but they think one size fits all legislation is just fine. They’re wrong of course.

But that is not the real point. The Constitution and especially The Bill of Rights is the American guarantee of the freedom and the sovereignty of the people and no one else.

It harks back to Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

As we all know the Declaration is not law, I like to call it a mission statement. That mission is to create a country of free people, who can say and do as they please without fear of the government. The Consitution and the Bill of Rights were written to secure these rights through time.

Shortly after the Constitutional Convention, Pennsylvania called a convention to consider it, including whether it needed a Bill of Rights appended. John Smilie warned:

“Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army-or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there shall be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed; the people in general may be disarmed.”

Carrying this point forward Tenche Coxe a prolific writer on the Consitution and the rights of Americans wrote this:

The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY.  The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or federal constitution hath given away that important right…. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

In short, the Founder’s would have had, in fact, did have, no problem with the citizens’ possession of any and all military weapons. Remember the most advanced weapons of the day were the Pennsylvania rifle, the Brown Bess musket, and bronze smoothbore howitzers, all of which are to this day unregulated.

And yes, this argument does indicate that the National Firearms Act of 1937 is unconstitutional (this is where the licensing of fully automatic weapons and some other devices came in). As the Supreme Court originally ruled only to be pressured by the Roosevelt administration’s court-packing scheme.

You see we are not talking here of needs, we are talking of the rights of a free citizenry, and what may suffice to keep it free.

An interesting note is that Coxe served in a subcabinet role in the Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison administrations. In Jefferson’s administration, you will recall that this was during the Napoleonic Wars, he was responsible for military procurement. In that capacity he wrote to the President:

The free people of these states may be estimated at five millions. The men able to bear arms may be computed at one million. It is respectfully believed and it is most anxiously suggested that measures for the immediate acquisition by purchase, importation and manufacture of muskets, rifles and pistols to arm our one million of effective free men … should be taken into consideration.

I suspect many of us have seen this meme lately

The Founder’s, including the founder of the Democrat Party emphatically, say “YES!

 

Of Guns and Men

So  Alicia Colon wrote about guns on American Thinker yesterday. It’s actually pretty good. So read it.

If there were ever a survey asking gun owners why they buy guns, I’d wager the majority of them would say that it basically is for protection. The Second Amendment was not written for hunters but for the people’s self-protection, including protection from tyranny. The first thing smart dictators do is remove guns from registered owners.

Well, yeah, but even hunting can be seen as an act of independence, protection against hunger itself. And any act of independence is anathema to those who would rule us.

Hunter Lovell in the Washington Examiner:

The South Carolina senator made the comments to reporters aboard Air Force One that he maintains an AR-15 in case “there’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything.”

His remarks were first revealed by Voice of America on Twitter. A reporter then asked him to clarify if he meant the semiautomatic rifle was for looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”

One of the survivors of the awful El Paso massacre, Christopher Grant, a black man, told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that he was surprised his mother didn’t have her gun with her : “I ran towards my mother to try and shield her. And I’m like ‘mom.’ Cause my mom is a gun-wielding grandma. She carries a snub-nose Smith and Wesson, 38 special with a built in scope in it — everywhere she goes.”

This was probably not something CNN wanted to report while visiting survivors in hospital. Why did this black woman carry a gun? For protection, of course.

It still has not occurred to the Left that gun laws only impact the law-abiding. Criminals break these laws all the time but politicians continue to ignore the fact that good people with guns prevent more mass shootings than gun-free zones. In fact, gun-free zones only place targets on the backs of the innocent humans there.

I think they know it well, and there are plenty of reporters who are capable of reporting it. But it will never happen. When we say “It doesn’t fit the narrative”, what we really mean is that the Dem, the left generally, and the press ( Yes, I repeat my self, they are all the same insidious block) will never report this, it will reduce dependency on them. The blacks aren’t the only slaves on the plantation, after all. And nothing is more liberating than the heft of a loaded gun in your hand, no longer a slave, you become a man or woman who has at least something to say about your future.

You know, in thinking about it, this may be part of the cause of these mass shootings, we have emasculated boys in our culture, maybe this is a perverted (because of the lack of father figures) grasp at agency over their life. Hard to say, and I’m no social scientist. But I know this when I pick up a gun, just like for me when I pick up a pair of Kleins, or a screwdriver, or meter, I become not some random opinionated guy on the internet, but an expert, a guy that knows how to do it, and more to the point, how not to do it.

I think somebody said this sometime, if they didn’t, they should have, and now I did.

We form our tools, and then they form us.

That is true whether it is a  screwdriver, a truck, a rifle, an MBT, or anything else. But tools are objective, they do not know good from evil, they can form either, that’s on us. And we are failing.

%d bloggers like this: