Subject: How you are being mislead by media and politicians on gun control
Dear Democratic and Liberal friends,
I understand that the Newtown tragedy was horrific, and everyone feels compelled to try and stop this from happening again.
However, you must be alerted to when you are being manipulated by the news media and politicians. You should at least hear the other side of the argument being kept hidden from you, so you can make an informed decision.
Here is what you’re hearing, and what you’re not hearing:
You may have noticed how there are numerous politicians and journalists, including many who claim to be gun owners, being interviewed at length about how nobody needs an assault weapon or a 30-round magazine for hunting. Makes sense, right?
But rarely, if ever, will the media mention that the Second Amendment is not a quick word about hunting in between nine other rights that balance and limit governmental power. Never will you hear that the Constitution balances power between the people and the government via the Second Amendment, just as the Constitution balances power between the thee branches of the federal government, and between the federal government and the states. You will never hear that the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment with an understanding of human nature, that greed will always exist in the hearts of men, and that the only way historically to control that is to balance it with another man’s need for power. When the government regulates firearms, they shift this balance of power to themselves, and away from you. It is you, your neighbor, your neighborhood, who will have relatively less power, while gang members, criminals, rapists, terrorists, mob, and government have more power. You will never hear that in history, supporters of gun control include Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and Kim Jong Ill. Meanwhile, supporters of gun rights include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Martin Luther King Jr., Gandi, and the Dalai lama. The media would never bring up these points so you could question which side of history you’re on.
The media avoids points that they cannot argue against. When a rare point on this is heard, it is quickly dismissed, and the debate is stopped immediately.
Why are they trying to keep the historical perspective from you?
Because if you consider history, you will understand the horrors that governments have imposed on their own people, and you will realize that gun control always precedes these democides.
Why not ban large-capacity magazines?
Magazines are simples part of a gun. They are only a metal box with a spring. To think criminals would not be able to get access is absurd because they can easily be made in any garage. So, every such dialogue must start from the understanding that the people who do wrong will not be affected by this. Banning large capacity magazines will only put law-abiding citizens at the disadvantage of those the Second Amendment is designed to protect them against, including criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, gang members, and a tyrannical government or foreign invader.
The media avoids such logic and facts, but dramatizes these twenty children, parading their faces across the screen with sad music, interviewing parents, to make you emotional. Only when you are emotional about these twenty lives, will you lose the logical perspective, that over two hundred million people were disarmed and killed by their own governments in the last century.
The media has covered this issue long enough to now be able to define what an “assault weapon” is. Yet, they cannot. Scary looking black rifles is what everyone imagines. However, in reality, the vagueness is an attempt by some to ban all semi-automatic weapons, which are 90% of the guns in the country, while most others still do not even understand the difference between semi-automatic and automatic.
The same media uses terminology intended to confuse. Piers Morgan wants to ban “guns that can shoot many bullets very fast.” Well, pretty much any gun can do that. The media has avoided all analysis of how assault weapons bans address cosmetic features, how guns look, not how they function, because almost all guns function rather similarly, and almost all guns can shoot fast in the right hands.
The media, and politicians, use phrases like getting firearms “off the streets” which misleads the public regarding weapons safely stored by law-abiding citizens.
Politicians say things like, “these weapons belong on the battlefield” – ignoring the fact that the purposes of the Second Amendment include protection from our own government’s military, and foreign invading militaries.
The media covered the Oregon mall shooting, but immediately stopped covering this when it was determined that a law-abiding citizen permit holder approached the shooter and took aim at him, which may have led to the shooter only shooting a couple of people before shooting himself.
The media failed to cover the recent theater shooting in San Antonio that was stopped by an off-duty police woman with a firearm. Anderson Cooper covered it only days later after popular uproar. He dismissed the story as not helping the pro-gun side because the shooter was stopped by an off-duty police officer, but never discussed how a properly or similarly trained citizen could have done the same thing. Either way, should it have been over a week before the story was mentioned during daily discussion of gun control?
The media never mentions how people who support gun control would never put up a sign in front of their home that says “gun free zone.”
The media failed to cover statistics that show that among countries, gun ownership and crime rates do not correlate.
The media never covers the democratic movements in Iran, Libya, Syria, and Egypt, in the context of the Second Amendment, even though people were in the streets pleading for guns so to not be helplessly slaughtered by their governments.
The media failed to cover that Dianne Feinstein herself carried a gun, and most politicians pushing for gun control and most news studios have armed guards.
The media failed to disclose your own experience or lack thereof with firearms.
The media uses terms like “assault weapon” without analyzing why an inanimate object has a crime, “assault”, in its name.
The media uses terms like “gunman,” which suggests that any man with a gun is an active shooter. This misleads to forgetting that millions of armed people walk the streets of this nation every day without incident, or even preventing crime.
The media rarely mentions how the places with the strictest gun control, Chicago, D.C., Medico, have the highest crime rates.
The media fails to cover how, if after a proposed gun ban, if gun crime rates went up, how it would only support their argument for more gun laws. The media failed to cover the high rates of violent crime and “hot burglaries” in England, or how their violent crime rate after banning guns is the highest in europe, much higher than the U.S., and now they are talking about banning knives because gangs of people are attacking people on the streets with knives and pipes, who are now defenseless.
The media failed to cover the high rates of violent crime and “hot burglaries” in England.
The mass Pro-Second Amendment rallies in 49 states were barely covered.
The President said 40% avoid a background check, but the media never questioned where he got that statistic. That number was from over 20 years ago, and most of it is transfers between family members.
The media never covers that more than 40 states now are shall issue concealed carry permits, and with 8.5 million Americans with permits, crime in those states is no higher. Thus, there is no effect from carrying of concealed handguns.