Friday, March 27, 2015

The stunning hypocrisy of the Gun Control Cabal

A woman who has made a career out of publicly attacking the democratically-enacted gun laws of the District of Columbia and Maryland has no business serving as the “chief investigative reporter” of a television station covering the region’s affairs. That’s the message of more than 6,300 supporters of a petition campaign led by the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), an organization that works to prevent gun violence at the local, state and federal level.
Ladd Everitt, communications director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said, “By the standards of her profession, Emily Miller has no business calling herself a journalist. Miller’s crusade against popular gun laws has been a professional one since the beginning. At this point, area residents can have no reasonable expectation that she will provide objective, impartial coverage on matters of concern to them. If Miller wishes to behave like a pundit and activist, then WTTG should replace her with an actual reporter.”
CSGV

We already know that in some political camps, some rights are more equal than others. But in an era where the media largely fellates government power, this group of intellectual midgets calls for a reporter to be excommunicated from the field of journalism.....because she dares publicly advocate for the protection of Constitutional rights.

She dares to attend 2nd Amendment events, just as so many others in her field attend similar events regarding the freedoms of speech, due process and privacy. CSGV is a group who should applaud journalistic integrity...but like the rest of their brethren....that's not really what they want.

Smells like desperation.

32 comments:

  1. Ladd Everett refers to "popular gun laws", which of course is not only a dubious claim, but reinforces my earlier assertion that this anti-Constitution crowd is interested in whether or not something perceived as "popular" ... with complete disregard to whether something has any merit or is Constitutional at all.

    "CSGV is a group who should applaud journalistic integrity...but like the rest of their brethren....that's not really what they want"

    Of course, CI. The future they want is where the government is more fascistic, and the people have less power. And there's more gun violence, because in their world, law abiding citizens have had their guns stolen. while criminals get to retain possession..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a difference between journalism and punditry. Sounds like the OP and first commenter are not aware of this. And in this case the OP rails against the 1st amendment rights of the individual members of the CSGV. WTTG does not have to listen you know. Anti-Constitution? Seems to me that the only portion of the Constitution the gun nuts care about is one amendment that has been misinterpreted. Other portions (like the amendment that comes before that one)... They don't care about that one to much. At least when it comes to people with a contrary opinion.

      And then there is the nonsense concerning reasonable gun control measures leading to more gun violence... Which has been completely disproven (Politifact says false in response to this canard).

      Delete
    2. There is a difference between journalism and punditry, and you have abjectly failed to differentiate it here. You have also abjectly failed, time and again, to prove that the 2nd Amendment has been "misinterpreted".

      Where you're also laughably wrong, is asserting that I rail against the 1st Amendment rights of CSGV [of course this applies to government action, not private....but I don't expect you to understand that]. I pointed out their hypocrisy......I didn't call for their muzzling. Of course, they are a larger threat to themselves...so why would I.

      "Reasonable" gun control measures, much like the PR branding of "common sense", is punditry. It's undefined rhetoric.

      Once again, it is you have has proven that some rights are considered MORE equal than others, depending on the political bias.

      Delete
  2. CI: I'm reading your comment and not the one you respond to, as I've seen it all before.

    ".....depending on the political bias."

    Yes, just one of many things some people put ahead of our lives, our rights, due process, Constitutional law. sound public policy, and other much more important considerations.

    ReplyDelete
  3. CI: Once again, it is you have has proven that some rights are considered MORE equal than others, depending on the political bias.

    Yes, I think I have proven that this is the view of the Rightwing gun nuts - that their "right" to gun nuttery trumps the rights of others, as well as democracy. Finally we agree.

    BTW, if gun control is so bad, why not abolish any and all laws that attempt it? Anyone and everyone should be allowed to buy as many guns (of any kind) that they want (and carry them wherever they want), right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's sad that you think the way you can win an argument is by reversing the point of another, as if nobody will notice.

      You keep referring to rights that are allegedly trumped by the 2nd Amendment, in the minds of supporters of that Amendment - yet you never define what those rights are. If you continue to stand by this allegation, why would you not be able to provide a foundation for it.

      If you could ever define your stale mythology, I would address your last question.

      Delete
  4. I don't see why you'd begrudge these folks for writing a letter. Miller put her views out there in a popular book. It's not like she didn't put it out there. And it's not like DC doesn't have a serious problem with gun crime.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure why this isn't clear. Gun control lobbyists have very public allies in the media. The field of journalism also has very public proponents of other Constitutional rights.

      I don't begrudge CSGV for writing a letter [thank you for at not confusing that with 1st Amendment rights]; I begrudge them for asserting that Miller should not remain an accredited journalist, when they themselves rely on allies in the field to advance their agenda.

      Delete
    2. You said: "And it's not like DC doesn't have a serious problem with gun crime"

      Jersey, the District of Columbia has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation

      Shows how much needlessly harassing and burdening law-abuding gun owners does when it comes to gun crime.

      Delete
  5. Thanks Jersey for providing an opposing view worth discussing. The first to be presented on this post.

    ReplyDelete
  6. When laws designed to restrict sales in a small geological area are enacted those who desire guns (criminal types) go outside that area to buy their guns and then bring them back to that area. DC is not an example of "how much needlessly harassing and burdening law-abiding gun owners does when it comes to gun crime". That is a canard pushed by the gun nuts (and they know it).

    Also, the Rights I "keep referring to" that the gun nuts think their "right" to guns trumps includes the RIGHT TO LIFE (I answered this query the last time you asked, BTW).

    The most important human right, and the gun nutters practically salivate when relating one of their fantastical wet dreams in which they (or some other superior person such as they are) blow away a "violent thug" (an African American, according to dmarks). Acting as judge, jury and executioner when taking away that Right from another person in a split second likely gets them sexually excited (or something... IMO).

    This is, remember, when the stats show they're far more likely to harm (or kill) themselves or a family member. But the gun nuts say this is a "myth" (even though the stats are SOLID). LOL.

    dmarks fibbed: Thanks Jersey for providing an opposing view worth discussing. The first to be presented on this post.

    I made the SAME point as Jersey when I noted that the station employing the "journalist" didn't have to listen to CSGV. I mean, if the want to dishonestly present opinions (gun nuttery) as "journalism" that is their right. But it is also the right (duty, I'd say) for others (more honest folks) to point out this deception. Although I'd argue that perhaps the FCC should get involved and require that WTTG identify Emily Miller's gun nuttery as OPINION and not news.

    But WTTG is a Fox Nooz affiliate and, as we all know, Fox primarily does opinion and very little actual news. BTW, Emily Miller's book contains a fabricated story in which 15 drug addicted men threaten her (the VERY type of fantasy I mentioned above that gives the nutters gun boners). Wikipedia notes that "the home invasion was debunked as untrue by a March 3, 2015 Washington Post story by Erik Wemple".

    Seems that this Fox "chief investigative reporter" didn't do that great a job "investigating" her own BS story. She's just another dishonest gun nut, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The District of Columbia has been proven to unconstitutionally infringe upon the 2nd Amendment rights of it's citizens.

      Since your "right to life" [I'll presume that you're an opponent of abortion now] is already protected by the laws regarding assault, injury or murder against your person, you have no legal leg to stand on.

      The stats are debunked by the number of defensive gun use that is reported [without even addressing the unreported cases]; studies such as the Kellerman report have been thoroughly debunked.

      The remainder of your screed is simply more rhetoric, which is sad. You can't form a cogent opinion without using the script and the key words.

      Most typically, you ignore the lies, bias and myth making from the gun control camp and their allies in the media....because it suits your narrative. You're a good little soldier!

      Projecting faux-fantasies about racially and sexually themed assaults, says far more about your inability to present a cogent assertion, than it does about the targets of your hyperbole.

      Delete
    2. As soon as the FCC moves to label the gun control lies as opinion, then we can have a discussion on the integrity of journalism as it regards the 2nd Amendment. But until that happens [and it won't], your camp will continue to misinform the public regarding firearms.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CI: As soon as the FCC moves to label the gun control lies as opinion...

    I was referring to the pro-gun lies put forward by dishonest gun nuts like Emily Miller... not the truths about gun control presented by the other side. But, you are right, the FCC isn't going to do anything. The gun nut camp will continue to misinform the public regarding firearms and the opinions of gun nuts will continue to be presented as "journalism" on outlets like Fox Nooz. Although I do applaud the CSGV for calling out Emily Miller (and I'd argue that you're on shaky ground defending a proven fabricator).

    In regards to "Right to Life", this was (and still is) an argument originally put forward by those opposed to the death penalty. It was later co-opted by the anti-choice cabal (in regards to their ridiculous argument that women should be forced to incubate every fertilized egg). I support a woman's right to choose as well as the right of innocent citizens to not be killed with an easily available gun.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can see why you're trying in vain to pimp the "truth v. lies"....as you never did get back with on the Founders intent regarding the 2nd Amendment, since you like to mischaracterize it as being "misinterpreted".

      But you're still pedaling in place.You remain as blind to the gun control lies [the "assault rifle" canard is my personal favorite] as you claim I am regarding gun rights.

      Heck, you can't even engage on this subject without using pejoratives and appeal to emotion farming.......that says volumes about your confidence in your own position.

      Delete
  9. "Heck, you can't even engage on this subject without ... and appeal to emotion farming"

    I think the crops are all dead in the ground, C.I.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a shame really. I enjoy a thoughtful, yet challenging discussion on the 2nd Amendment. Anyone who believes their position is just, wants to see it tested, because it makes it stronger.

      Dervish speaks of a 'right to life', but he frames it poorly. All citizens have a right to life. That right is protected both by our legal system [which punishes those who would infringe upon that right], and by the right of self defense, which allows the citizen to protect the first right.

      Now, anybody with an ounce of integrity knows that if a right is neutered to the point where it is ineffectual, it ceases to be a right in all but name. The Founding Fathers [quite provably] wrote the Amendment as the 2nd of 10 natural rights that the State could not infringe upon, excepting the unlawful public action of a citizen towards another.

      Dervish's right to life hinges on the right to self defense, but if the citizen cannot adequately defend himself against the median threat, the right to life is meaningless.

      Delete
  10. You are learning that you won't get a thoughtful challenge from Mr. Dervish, C.I.

    Quite unlike with others on the Left in these blogs. BB-Idaho first comes to mind. As does Jersey at times.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Although it appears that Jersey is now banned. Because his comment was judged to not rise to the level of honest debate. Yet dmarks has been implying the same thing about me for some time now with his comments suggesting I am stupid (challenges that are not "thoughtful"). I suggest holding dmarks to the same standard and banning him as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or ban dmarks and allow Jersey to continue commenting. Although it might be that CI appreciates dmarks' constant ass kissing.

      Delete
  12. Wow, such petulent whining.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. A childish taunt that fails to rise above the level of playground antics. But I predict CI will give dmarks "another chance".

      Delete
    3. dmarks didn't call you [or anyone else] an 'idiot' or a 'klansman'.

      Delete
    4. And there is no justification for repeated racial smears from Mr. Sanders in the "Liberties and Lattes" posts (including this one)...every bit as imaginary as his repeated claim that Silver calls gays "homos".

      (I.e. my views on criminals and their crimes have absolutely nothing to do with the race of the criminal. They never have, and they never will.)

      Delete
    5. dmarks: And there is no justification for repeated racial smears from Mr. Sanders in the "Liberties and Lattes" posts (including this one)...every bit as imaginary as his repeated claim that Silver calls gays "homos"....

      More imaginings from dmarks, given the fact that neither of these things ever happened.

      Delete
  13. Emily Miller was the victim of a home invasion, and when she tried to buy a gun for her protection, the city of Washington mage her wait 4 months and dish out hundreds of dollars. To call this woman a "gun nut" simply because she strongly believes in the 2nd Amendment is patently unfair and exceedingly small-minded, in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. yes will it is clear that the only gun nuts here are those who would have the government steal from and harass law abiding citizens.

      even when it happens to the point of putting lives at risk.they have nothing but megalomania and the legacy of fascism deaths and bad public policy to back them up.

      Delete
    3. Will: it is quite evil minded and dangerous for certain people to bash the victim here (Emily) and to demand that the government persecute her INSTEAD of going after the two-legged beasts who invaded her home.

      It's more than "unfair", Will. The mindset of those who go after her and insult her isn't so far from those who says rape victims deserves it, and give the rapist a pat on the back.

      Delete
  14. I've read excerpts from her book and listened to several of her talks and, while I don't agree with everything that she says, the women is far more mainstream than the person who unfortunately slandered her here, that's for certain.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.