-Caveat Lector- Don’t Blame Liberal Journalists Many are quick to blame "liberal journalists" for the anti-gun slant they see in the media. Perhaps they are too quick. It is undeniable that most journalists hold left-of-center views. A 1996 survey of working journalists by the Roper Center and the Freedom Forum showed that 89 percent had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 (compared to only 43 percent of Americans overall who voted for Clinton). Only 4 percent of the journalists surveyed identified themselves as Republicans and only 2 percent as conservatives. Journalists clearly favor the left. Yet, their "liberal" opinions probably have less impact on the media’s gun coverage than most people assume. Rank-and-file journalists in large news organizations actually have little control over the political slant of their stories. It is management that decides how a network or newspaper will spin a particular issue. Ordinary journalists have little opportunity to vent their personal views. The New York Post, for example, is generally recognized to be a conservative paper. Yet, when I worked there in the mid-1980s, I found the newsroom filled with liberals. They grumbled constantly about the paper’s conservative slant. But they did as they were told, because it was company policy. Liberal news organizations are no different. Political bias comes from the top. Rank-and-file reporters simply follow orders. The anti-gun bias permeating our mass media comes, not from individual journalists, but from the owners and senior managers of multibillion-dollar media conglomerates. Don’t Blame Liberal Politicians Either "Liberal" politicians are another favorite scapegoat of gun-rights advocates. But, in government, as in media, the forces promoting gun control appear to be larger than any party or faction. It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes." It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who, in 1967, signed the Mulford Act, which prohibited the carrying of firearms in public or in a vehicle. The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners. Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay." One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration filed suit against 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000. In March of that same year, New York City police commissioner Howard Safir – presumably with Giuliani’s encouragement – put forth a nationwide plan for gun licensing, which would require owners to bring in their weapons once a year for "safety" inspections. The real purpose of the inspection, Safir admitted, was to keep tabs on guns and monitor whether or not they had been sold. Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21, and imposed a ban on "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison. ''This is something the rest of the nation should take a look at,'' said Pataki. "I hope this serves as a model." George W. Bush has kept a low profile regarding Pataki’s gun crackdown. But when the program was first announced in March 2000, a Bush spokesman said, ""The governor . . . wants to review it, but his initial response was positive." Journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon, back in 1969, what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles." Gun Abolition – The Real Goal Today’s gun-control promoters seem to share a view of gun rights every bit as restrictive as that of Richard Nixon. The ongoing case of United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson has helped make this clear. In the midst of a bitter divorce fight, Dr. Emerson – a Texas physician – was hit with a restraining order from his wife. Unbeknownst to Dr. Emerson, federal law prohibits anyone under a restraining order from keeping a gun. He was arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm – even though he had legally owned the firearm in question for years. A federal judge dismissed the charges, partly on the grounds that they violated Emerson’s Second Amendment rights. But the U.S. Justice Department appealed. Arguing before a three-judge panel on June 13, 2000, Justice Department attorney William B. Mateja dropped an unexpected bombshell, revealing the government’s true – but seldom stated – position on gun rights. According to Mateja, the Constitution does not ensure a right to keep and bear arms to ordinary citizens. Those rights stipulated in the Second Amendment apply only to members of a state "militia," Mateja claims. In today’s terms, that would mean the National Guard. So if you’re not a Guardsman, says the government, you have no right to own a gun. Any kind of gun. Evidently stunned by Mateja’s position, Judge William L. Garwood sought clarification. "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public?" asked the judge. "You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?" Mateja answered, "Yes." The judge probed further. "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?" "Exactly," said Mateja. Dr. Emerson’s case is now before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Whatever its outcome, it has clarified, beyond doubt, that our government – or at least powerful elements within it -- recognizes no right to keep and bear arms on the part of ordinary Americans. Most gun-control advocates swear that they have no intention of challenging the basic right to own a gun. But these soothing assurances should be measured against the reality of Mr. Mateja’s words. A Global Movement The ongoing debate over the meaning of the Second Amendment is important. But forces beyond our shores may ultimately carry more weight in the battle over gun rights than our own Constitution. Year by year, our government is ceding more of its sovereignty to international courts and global regulatory bodies. Americans may soon find that foreign bureaucrats have more influence in defining our gun rights than the Founding Fathers. For instance, the United Nations, of which we are a member, actively promotes and coordinates efforts to ban or severely restrict firearms all over the world. At a UN conference in Cairo in 1995, the Japanese government proposed formulating "a common strategy for effective control of firearms at the global level." Since then, the UN has moved aggressively in that direction. One 1998 resolution by the UN Panel of Governmental Experts on Small Arms (Report to the Secretary-General on "Measures to Regulate Firearms" #E/CN. 15/1998/4) recommends, among other things, that no person be allowed to own more than one gun, that hunters must store their firearms in sporting clubs, and that gun ownership should be denied to the elderly. To the extent that such measures are adopted globally, there will be intense pressure on the United States to conform, regardless of what our Constitution says. The Seven Myths With such powerful forces arrayed against gun rights, we should not be surprised that so little pro-gun information manages to filter down to the public. Ignorance about guns has reached pandemic proportions. Children are not taught the history or meaning of the Second Amendment in school, nor do they learn later as adults. Much of what Americans think they know about guns is false. The anti-gun case rests almost entirely on a set of deeply erroneous assumptions. I call them the Seven Myths of Gun Control. They are: Guns increase violent crime. Pulling a gun on a criminal endangers you more than the criminal. Guns pose a special threat to children. The Second Amendment applies only to militiamen. The Second Amendment is an obsolete relic of the frontier era. We should license guns for the same reason we license cars. Reasonable gun-control measures are no threat to law-abiding gun owners. We stand at a crossroads today. For the first time since our Constitution was drafted, a major component of the Bill of Rights – the right to keep and bear arms – is in danger of being jettisoned. We must decide, as a people, whether or not we will allow this process to continue. Ignorance, fear and hysteria are poor foundations upon which to base such a weighty decision. I hope the following discussion of the Seven Myths of Gun Control will help clarify the issue of gun rights in the minds of those for whom it still remains cloudy. Richard Poe is editor of David Horowitz’s Web site FrontPageMagazine.com and SlapHillary.com. Copyright © 2001 FrontPageMagazine.com <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
