Big Muddy rancher
Well-known member
> A gun lobbyist, traumatized by the evil in Newton, Conn., under
> pressure by reporters for an interview, asked me desperately for help.
> What is he supposed to say? How can he respond to such slaughter, how
> can he defend guns in the light of this massacre? He is at his wit's
> end, ready to give up, throw in the towel. Help me please, he
> implores. What can he say in the face of such an abomination? There
> are no words. And there aren't any.
>
> Why does the media only cover guns in the face of such tragedy? Why
> don't they discuss it when we can examine the subject coolly and
> rationally, and maybe get somewhere? Because then we might learn
> something. Because then the public could become educated, and the
> media does not really want this to happen. Because then you might
> learn that guns have social utility, and are indispensable -- that
> guns serve good purposes -- instead of being pounded with the
> hopelessly false idea that arms are bad. If the media covered guns
> without tragedy as a background, you would learn that guns save lives,
> which is why we want our police heavily armed, with high-capacity
> magazines, and high-powered rifles, and all the ammunition they can
> carry. You would learn that you need guns and ammo and full-capacity
> magazines -- for the exact same reason. You would learn that your need
> is even greater, because YOU are the first responders, and police are
> always second. You face the criminals first, in every event. Police,
> with all their deadly bullets only show up later. Police are the
> second responders. Media stories are always wrong about that. That's
> what you say.
>
> People would learn that guns are for stopping crime. Guns protect you.
> Guns
> are good. Guns keep you safe, and help you sleep quietly at night.
> Guns are why America is still free. And the media doesn't want that
> message to get out. That's why they only haul out the subject with
> horror as a backdrop.
> That's what you say.
>
> Thirteen scholarly studies show that guns are used to prevent crimes
> and save lives between 700,000 and 2.5 million times each year
> (depending on study size, time frame and other factors). You could get
> the book entitled "Armed," by Kleck and Kates, and read the studies
> yourself. Why doesn't the media ferret out those stories and put them
> on the front page? That's what you say. Even the FBI says justifiable
> homicide happens every day, and they're only counting the cases that
> go all the way through court. Most armed self defense is so clean it
> never even makes it to court -- or the gun isn't even fired. Why isn't
> that in the national news every day?
>
> Because you, Mr. and Ms. Reporter, don't want the public educated
> about guns. Because you want the public ignorant, misinformed and
> terrified of guns, just like you are. Because you are pushing an
> agenda to vilify and ban fundamental rights we hold dear, that have
> helped make America great.
> Because you want people to have a lopsided unbalanced distorted view,
> and you're doing a great job of that. That's what you say. And let
> them try to deny it.
>
> Because so-called "news" media gun stories are not news, they are
> propaganda. Showing the image of a mass murderer 100 times a day isn't
> news, it is propaganda. Because staying on the same single event for a
> week or more isn't news -- even reporters would call it old news, or
> yesterday's news, or yellow journalism, if they were being honest -- a
> trait many have long since lost the ability to exercise. It is
> propaganda by every definition of that term. It is designed to
> disgust, and cause revulsion, and motivate mob mentality. It serves no
> news purpose other than to induce fear and cause terror. In five
> minutes you have told the story, nothing new is added, yet it rolls on
> with images on endless loop. It promotes evil, encourages copycats,
> with zero redeeming news value. It violates every rule of ethical news
> behavior there is. That's what you say.
>
> Showing the grief and tears day after day as you are doing, dear
> reporter, is not news, it is manipulation of we the people. It is an
> effort to turn people against something you as a reporter personally
> detest, because you are as poorly educated on the subject as many of your
viewers and readers.
> You are so poorly informed on this subject you need counseling. That's
> what you say. Tell reporters they are acting like hoplophobes. Let
> them look it up.
>
> When eighty people died that day, with their bloodied bodies strewn
> all over the place, they didn't care. When children were torn from
> their parents, and parents never came home, they didn't care. When
> people left home and said, "See you later honey," and were never heard
> from again, they didn't care, and I didn't care, and they never even
> mentioned it, because those people died in their cars. Eighty people.
> Entire families. Moms and dads, infants, teenagers, all across this
> great land, not just in one town. That grief was every bit as tragic.
> And eighty more the next day. And today. And reporters didn't even
> mention it. Because reporters don't care about human tragedy.
> They just want to use their favorite tragedy, a maniac's evil, now
> [five] days old, to promote a terrible agenda they and their bosses
> and their political puppet masters want them to promote. And that's the
abomination.
> They should be ashamed of themselves. They are a disgrace. That's what
> you say.
>
> Even though cars are involved in virtually the same number of deaths
> as firearms, and typically used by all the murderers, we don't call
> for their elimination, because cars serve a purpose greater than the
> harm they cause.
> Doctors kill between ten- and one-hundred-thousand people every year
> through "medical misadventures," a sugarcoated term for mistakes (the
> actual number is hotly disputed). We don't call for doctors'
> elimination, because doctors serve a greater purpose than the harm
> they cause too. Guns are precisely the same, but you wouldn't know it
> watching the so-called "news." Think of all the lives guns save and
> crimes they prevent. We should call for education and training -- and
> the pro-rights side does, constantly, to the media's deaf ears. Right
> now, schools and the media are a black hole of ignorance on the
> subject. Half of all American homes have guns -- how is it possible to
> get a high-school diploma without one-credit in gun safety and
> marksmanship?
> How can you honestly argue for ignorance instead of education and live
> with yourself? That's what you say.
>
> The greater part of this great nation is on to you. We hold our rights
> dear.
> We hold the Bill of Rights in highest regard, while you spit on it
> with your unethical and vile effort to destroy it from your high and
> mighty seat.
> You
> believe you are protected by the very thing you would use to demolish it.
> Your use of propaganda, every time a tragedy occurs, to deny us our
> rights is the highest form of treason, a fifth-column effort, an enemy
> both foreign and domestic of which we are keenly aware. You will reap
> what you sow.
> That's what you say.
>
> The media says it wants more laws but we already know that everything
> about every one of these tragedies is already a gross violation of
> every law on the books, many times over. You media types would outlaw
> all guns, as many of you are calling for. We all know it would be as
> effective as the cocaine ban -- a product many of you enjoy in the
> privacy of ... Hollywood and Wall Street and Occupy rallies and your
> upscale parties and across America. And if you like the war on some
> drugs, you're going to love the war on guns.
> That's what you say.
>
> And if you think the rule of law is the solution -- like for people on
> Prozac and Ritalin suddenly going berserk -- remember that, at least
> for tomorrow, if the man next to you is going to suddenly crack, you
> really do need a gun. Ask yourself why people in greater numbers are
> suddenly cracking up and taking up the devil's cause, to speak
> metaphorically. So many reporters have obviously given up on religion
> and the morality it used to exert, the binding social effect it had on
> people. Are you a religious person? Ask them. People typically never
> ask the reporters questions.
> Reporters don't know how to handle that. Try it. That's what you say.
>
> Do films like American Psycho, where scriptwriters invent characters
> who enjoy killing and go around gleefully murdering people, and
> financiers who put millions behind such projects, and which the
> entertainment industry put in our faces on a constant basis -- does
> that have any effect? Would you argue it has no effect? Hundreds of
> films like that, filling our TV's daily
> -- doesn't that do something to people? Dexter, a mass murderer
> disguised as a cop who is the hero of the series, does that shift
> people's thinking, their sense of balance? How do you justify
> supporting such things instead of shunning and casting such perverts
> and miscreants from the industry?
> That's
> what you say.
>
> But here's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. Here's the
> Pulitzer Prize, waiting for you if you want one. Should people who put
> scores of guns into the hands of drug lords get one-month sentences --
> like we saw the very day before this massacre -- is that right? If you
> get the laws you're shouting for, would it matter if that's what the
> Justice Dept. does with them? Why isn't THAT discussed? How did you
> let that skate by? Don't tell me you covered that story, if you simply
> reported the government handout, that Fast and Furious smugglers Avila
> and Carillo were sentenced. That's not reporting, that's reading.
>
> That's the ugly underbelly of this "gun problem" we have. There are
> the laws for real crimes, and the feckless government role, letting
> slaughter continue unabated, even abetted. There's the solution you
> say you seek, squandered. Were the hundreds murdered that way less
> important? Is it a racist thing -- because they were brown-skinned
> Mexicans and not little White children, is that it? How could Eric
> Holder's Justice Dept. -- and you
> -- let those perps off so easy? Why isn't that the headline? It was
> the biggest gun scandal in U.S. history -- your own words. One-month
> sentences?
> Not even a trial? And you bought into this? That's what you say.
>
> The ring leaders in the biggest gun-running death-dealing high-powered
> so-called "assault-weapon" scandal in U.S. history were caught
> red-handed giving guns to murderers, but they got a plea deal from the
> administration, not even a trial, and the media had nothing to say.
> The media that has so much to say about guns -- or so they would have
> us falsely believe -- are shills for the Justice Dept. that
> perpetrated this travesty, and now would use their bully pulpit to
> attack our rights, in the name of little children, day after day.
> Journalists have become a travesty, that's what you say.
>
> More than 90 of these fearsome guns were delivered by our very
> government to the worst murderers on the planet. And now, thanks to
> double-jeopardy protection, we won't have a trial so we can't even
> find out who in our government gave the orders. And now we have
> nothing to say. The event in a small Connecticut town has opened the
> gun issue again. And that's what you say.
>
> Alan Korwin, Publisher, Bloomfield Press The Uninvited Ombudsman
> GunLaws.com Reprinted by permission = Copyright C 2012 JPFO.ORG, All
> rights reserved.
> http://jpfo.org/
> P.O. Box 270143,Hartford ,WI 53027, USA
>
>
> pressure by reporters for an interview, asked me desperately for help.
> What is he supposed to say? How can he respond to such slaughter, how
> can he defend guns in the light of this massacre? He is at his wit's
> end, ready to give up, throw in the towel. Help me please, he
> implores. What can he say in the face of such an abomination? There
> are no words. And there aren't any.
>
> Why does the media only cover guns in the face of such tragedy? Why
> don't they discuss it when we can examine the subject coolly and
> rationally, and maybe get somewhere? Because then we might learn
> something. Because then the public could become educated, and the
> media does not really want this to happen. Because then you might
> learn that guns have social utility, and are indispensable -- that
> guns serve good purposes -- instead of being pounded with the
> hopelessly false idea that arms are bad. If the media covered guns
> without tragedy as a background, you would learn that guns save lives,
> which is why we want our police heavily armed, with high-capacity
> magazines, and high-powered rifles, and all the ammunition they can
> carry. You would learn that you need guns and ammo and full-capacity
> magazines -- for the exact same reason. You would learn that your need
> is even greater, because YOU are the first responders, and police are
> always second. You face the criminals first, in every event. Police,
> with all their deadly bullets only show up later. Police are the
> second responders. Media stories are always wrong about that. That's
> what you say.
>
> People would learn that guns are for stopping crime. Guns protect you.
> Guns
> are good. Guns keep you safe, and help you sleep quietly at night.
> Guns are why America is still free. And the media doesn't want that
> message to get out. That's why they only haul out the subject with
> horror as a backdrop.
> That's what you say.
>
> Thirteen scholarly studies show that guns are used to prevent crimes
> and save lives between 700,000 and 2.5 million times each year
> (depending on study size, time frame and other factors). You could get
> the book entitled "Armed," by Kleck and Kates, and read the studies
> yourself. Why doesn't the media ferret out those stories and put them
> on the front page? That's what you say. Even the FBI says justifiable
> homicide happens every day, and they're only counting the cases that
> go all the way through court. Most armed self defense is so clean it
> never even makes it to court -- or the gun isn't even fired. Why isn't
> that in the national news every day?
>
> Because you, Mr. and Ms. Reporter, don't want the public educated
> about guns. Because you want the public ignorant, misinformed and
> terrified of guns, just like you are. Because you are pushing an
> agenda to vilify and ban fundamental rights we hold dear, that have
> helped make America great.
> Because you want people to have a lopsided unbalanced distorted view,
> and you're doing a great job of that. That's what you say. And let
> them try to deny it.
>
> Because so-called "news" media gun stories are not news, they are
> propaganda. Showing the image of a mass murderer 100 times a day isn't
> news, it is propaganda. Because staying on the same single event for a
> week or more isn't news -- even reporters would call it old news, or
> yesterday's news, or yellow journalism, if they were being honest -- a
> trait many have long since lost the ability to exercise. It is
> propaganda by every definition of that term. It is designed to
> disgust, and cause revulsion, and motivate mob mentality. It serves no
> news purpose other than to induce fear and cause terror. In five
> minutes you have told the story, nothing new is added, yet it rolls on
> with images on endless loop. It promotes evil, encourages copycats,
> with zero redeeming news value. It violates every rule of ethical news
> behavior there is. That's what you say.
>
> Showing the grief and tears day after day as you are doing, dear
> reporter, is not news, it is manipulation of we the people. It is an
> effort to turn people against something you as a reporter personally
> detest, because you are as poorly educated on the subject as many of your
viewers and readers.
> You are so poorly informed on this subject you need counseling. That's
> what you say. Tell reporters they are acting like hoplophobes. Let
> them look it up.
>
> When eighty people died that day, with their bloodied bodies strewn
> all over the place, they didn't care. When children were torn from
> their parents, and parents never came home, they didn't care. When
> people left home and said, "See you later honey," and were never heard
> from again, they didn't care, and I didn't care, and they never even
> mentioned it, because those people died in their cars. Eighty people.
> Entire families. Moms and dads, infants, teenagers, all across this
> great land, not just in one town. That grief was every bit as tragic.
> And eighty more the next day. And today. And reporters didn't even
> mention it. Because reporters don't care about human tragedy.
> They just want to use their favorite tragedy, a maniac's evil, now
> [five] days old, to promote a terrible agenda they and their bosses
> and their political puppet masters want them to promote. And that's the
abomination.
> They should be ashamed of themselves. They are a disgrace. That's what
> you say.
>
> Even though cars are involved in virtually the same number of deaths
> as firearms, and typically used by all the murderers, we don't call
> for their elimination, because cars serve a purpose greater than the
> harm they cause.
> Doctors kill between ten- and one-hundred-thousand people every year
> through "medical misadventures," a sugarcoated term for mistakes (the
> actual number is hotly disputed). We don't call for doctors'
> elimination, because doctors serve a greater purpose than the harm
> they cause too. Guns are precisely the same, but you wouldn't know it
> watching the so-called "news." Think of all the lives guns save and
> crimes they prevent. We should call for education and training -- and
> the pro-rights side does, constantly, to the media's deaf ears. Right
> now, schools and the media are a black hole of ignorance on the
> subject. Half of all American homes have guns -- how is it possible to
> get a high-school diploma without one-credit in gun safety and
> marksmanship?
> How can you honestly argue for ignorance instead of education and live
> with yourself? That's what you say.
>
> The greater part of this great nation is on to you. We hold our rights
> dear.
> We hold the Bill of Rights in highest regard, while you spit on it
> with your unethical and vile effort to destroy it from your high and
> mighty seat.
> You
> believe you are protected by the very thing you would use to demolish it.
> Your use of propaganda, every time a tragedy occurs, to deny us our
> rights is the highest form of treason, a fifth-column effort, an enemy
> both foreign and domestic of which we are keenly aware. You will reap
> what you sow.
> That's what you say.
>
> The media says it wants more laws but we already know that everything
> about every one of these tragedies is already a gross violation of
> every law on the books, many times over. You media types would outlaw
> all guns, as many of you are calling for. We all know it would be as
> effective as the cocaine ban -- a product many of you enjoy in the
> privacy of ... Hollywood and Wall Street and Occupy rallies and your
> upscale parties and across America. And if you like the war on some
> drugs, you're going to love the war on guns.
> That's what you say.
>
> And if you think the rule of law is the solution -- like for people on
> Prozac and Ritalin suddenly going berserk -- remember that, at least
> for tomorrow, if the man next to you is going to suddenly crack, you
> really do need a gun. Ask yourself why people in greater numbers are
> suddenly cracking up and taking up the devil's cause, to speak
> metaphorically. So many reporters have obviously given up on religion
> and the morality it used to exert, the binding social effect it had on
> people. Are you a religious person? Ask them. People typically never
> ask the reporters questions.
> Reporters don't know how to handle that. Try it. That's what you say.
>
> Do films like American Psycho, where scriptwriters invent characters
> who enjoy killing and go around gleefully murdering people, and
> financiers who put millions behind such projects, and which the
> entertainment industry put in our faces on a constant basis -- does
> that have any effect? Would you argue it has no effect? Hundreds of
> films like that, filling our TV's daily
> -- doesn't that do something to people? Dexter, a mass murderer
> disguised as a cop who is the hero of the series, does that shift
> people's thinking, their sense of balance? How do you justify
> supporting such things instead of shunning and casting such perverts
> and miscreants from the industry?
> That's
> what you say.
>
> But here's the bottom line as far as I'm concerned. Here's the
> Pulitzer Prize, waiting for you if you want one. Should people who put
> scores of guns into the hands of drug lords get one-month sentences --
> like we saw the very day before this massacre -- is that right? If you
> get the laws you're shouting for, would it matter if that's what the
> Justice Dept. does with them? Why isn't THAT discussed? How did you
> let that skate by? Don't tell me you covered that story, if you simply
> reported the government handout, that Fast and Furious smugglers Avila
> and Carillo were sentenced. That's not reporting, that's reading.
>
> That's the ugly underbelly of this "gun problem" we have. There are
> the laws for real crimes, and the feckless government role, letting
> slaughter continue unabated, even abetted. There's the solution you
> say you seek, squandered. Were the hundreds murdered that way less
> important? Is it a racist thing -- because they were brown-skinned
> Mexicans and not little White children, is that it? How could Eric
> Holder's Justice Dept. -- and you
> -- let those perps off so easy? Why isn't that the headline? It was
> the biggest gun scandal in U.S. history -- your own words. One-month
> sentences?
> Not even a trial? And you bought into this? That's what you say.
>
> The ring leaders in the biggest gun-running death-dealing high-powered
> so-called "assault-weapon" scandal in U.S. history were caught
> red-handed giving guns to murderers, but they got a plea deal from the
> administration, not even a trial, and the media had nothing to say.
> The media that has so much to say about guns -- or so they would have
> us falsely believe -- are shills for the Justice Dept. that
> perpetrated this travesty, and now would use their bully pulpit to
> attack our rights, in the name of little children, day after day.
> Journalists have become a travesty, that's what you say.
>
> More than 90 of these fearsome guns were delivered by our very
> government to the worst murderers on the planet. And now, thanks to
> double-jeopardy protection, we won't have a trial so we can't even
> find out who in our government gave the orders. And now we have
> nothing to say. The event in a small Connecticut town has opened the
> gun issue again. And that's what you say.
>
> Alan Korwin, Publisher, Bloomfield Press The Uninvited Ombudsman
> GunLaws.com Reprinted by permission = Copyright C 2012 JPFO.ORG, All
> rights reserved.
> http://jpfo.org/
> P.O. Box 270143,Hartford ,WI 53027, USA
>
>