Journalists distorting the gun facts

[Mad Hatter]

Read this crap.. I have seen the U.S. death figure at 12,000 a year not 30,000 and in my opinion we are safer without some of these ridiculous gun laws that were in place.. These journalists write whatever they feel like...


Supreme Court Ruling - Lock and Load

The Supreme Court’s ruling on gun rights is a decision that will cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country.

REUTERS

Free for all: The gun lobby will trumpet the Supreme Court ruling as an end to virtually all gun restrictions.


Thirty-thousand Americans are killed by guns every year -- on the job, walking to school, at the shopping mall. The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia's gun-control law.
In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a "militia." The ruling will give gun-rights advocates a powerful new legal tool to try to strike down gun-control laws across the nation.
This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.
There already is a national glut of firearms: estimates run between 193 million and 250 million guns. The harm they do is constantly on heartbreaking display. Thirty-three dead last year in the shootings at Virginia Tech. Six killed this year at Northern Illinois University.
On Wednesday, as the court was getting ready to release its decision, a worker in a Kentucky plastics plant shot his supervisor, four co-workers and himself to death.

FOUND IN...

This article has been provided by the New York Times as part of a special agreement between NYTimes.com. You can also find SPIEGEL stories at the New York Times on the Web.


Cities and states have tried to stanch the killing with gun-control laws. The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation's highest crime rates, banned the possession of nearly all handguns and required that other firearms be stored unloaded and disassembled, or bound with a trigger lock.
Overturning that law, the court's 5-to-4 decision says that individuals have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. But that's a sharp reversal for the court: as early as 1939, it made clear that the Second Amendment only protects the right of people to carry guns for military use in a militia.
In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens was right when he said that the court has now established "a new constitutional right" that creates a "dramatic upheaval in the law."
Even if there were a constitutional right to possess guns for nonmilitary uses, constitutional rights are not absolute. The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but that does not mean that laws cannot prohibit some spoken words, like threats to commit imminent violent acts. In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued soundly that whatever right gun owners have to unimpeded gun use is outweighed by the District of Columbia's "compelling" public-safety interests.
In this month's case recognizing the habeas corpus rights of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Justice Scalia wrote in dissent that the decision "will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed." Those words apply with far more force to his opinion in this District of Columbia case.
The gun lobby will now trumpet this ruling as an end to virtually all gun restrictions, anywhere, at all times. That must not happen. And today's decision still provides strong basis for saying it should not.
If the ruling is held to apply to the states, and not just to the District of Columbia -- which is not certain -- there will still be considerable dispute about what it means for other less-sweeping gun laws. Judges may end up deciding these on a law-by-law basis.



Supporters of gun control must fight in court to ensure that registration requirements and background-check rules, and laws against bulk sales of handguns -- a major source of guns used in crimes -- are all upheld.
The court left room for gun-control advocates to fight back. It made clear that there were gun restrictions that it was not calling into question, including bans on gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, or in "sensitive places" like schools and government buildings.
That last part is the final indignity of the decision: when the justices go to work at the Supreme Court, guns will still be banned. When most Americans show up at their own jobs, they will not have that protection.
This audaciously harmful decision, which hands the far right a victory it has sought for decades, is a powerful reminder of why voters need to have the Supreme Court firmly in mind when they vote for the president this fall.
Senator John McCain has said he would appoint justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito -- both of whom supported this decision. If the court is allowed to tip even further to the far right, there will be even more damage done to the rights and the safety of Americans.

[SwedeSteve]

What a crock !!

[LiveToShoot]

As we celebrate the SC decision, others are feeling mighty sour and will continue to try and stink things up...

[oldjarhead]

What would you expect from the New York Times? They've been spinning for years and have many times been proven to be spreading less than true information.
DC had the strictest gun laws on the books, or so I've been told, and has the highest gun comitted crime in the nation. Proof positive the DC ban didn't work. Same in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, et others who have strict gun controls.
Some people are just too naive to see the forest for the trees.
Take note on his delicate statements concerning the 1st Amendment...limit that and he'd be screaming louder than all of us gun owners together.

[TXplt]

Ref. a few previous posts I've made in the PK, this is one of the threats we now face to our liberty in America. Journalists often don't investigate and report anymore; they dig up stories and make up half-truths (and outright lies) to support the "company policy" dictated to them by the owners of their media source. A few with agendas control this media and the idea is to chant something until people think it's true.

Luckily, We all know better, and ya can't stop the Internet.

[nathangdad]

in my lifetime have abandoned the lofty peaks of accuracy and honesty and objectivity for the greasy slopes of political population
control.

I feel better scanning the headlines of The Moscow Times than The New York Times.

[Windwalker]

Mad Hatter, if you believe what our biased media publish, especially the New York Times, I can understand your confusion. Anytime a journalist publishes something as a fact and it is not, call it what it is, a LIE.

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by SwedeSteve

What a crock !!

+1

"As late as 1930 the Supreme Court held guns were a collective right,'" my ***. He obviously has no idea at all what that decision even was, much less what the implications were.

[AKHunter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedeSteve
What a crock !!

+1

"As late as 1930 the Supreme Court held guns were a collective right,'" my ***. He obviously has no idea at all what that decision even was, much less what the implications were.
__________________
If a million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing. -Anatole France
Last edited by troy2000; Yesterday at 07:41 PM.

T2K, your attached signature quote by Anatole France has never been more appropriate than now, since I have been visiting this site

[Cyrille]

I added main stream journalists to my Untrustworthy list a long time ago right below the untrustworthy policiticans list and both have been growing at an unprecedented rate since the turn of the century.

[blaster]

journalists are at the top of my "to torture" list when I become King

[Libertarian]

Originally Posted by blaster

journalists are at the top of my "to torture" list when I become King

I think there should be a few exceptions to your list. John Stossel for example should be given protction under the Endangered Species Act. An honest journalist who actually does research on the subject he's reporting on.

Want proof?

YouTube - Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime

[patrick70]

Originally Posted by blaster

journalists are at the top of my "to torture" list when I become King

+1

[troy2000]

Originally Posted by blaster

journalists are at the top of my "to torture" list when I become King

United States Constitution

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

'Nuff said, yer Highness.

[Full MeTal Jack]

Am tuley suprised it the Supreme Court decision was so close. 5-4, a squeaker! Thought it would be 7-2. Should have been 9-0 in favor.
In a free market society...
Let the New York Times free speech themselves into Bankrupcy.

[SPOCAHP ANAR]

This is nothing more than an OPINION piece; which the author is more thqan within his rights to print. I am in awe at how many jounalists write and print opinion peices as news stories.

If papers wish to print opinion pieces they should be labeled as such in a section of the paper reserved for such.

[Big Dog]

Consider the source - Der Spiegel is a German rag, from a socialist-run nation. They slant their bias towards the Socialist ideal, as their handlers wish to further their agenda - same as here.
This rag is good only as fire-starter - don't even make good TP.