Who is the real threat to democracy? Photo courtesy of Flickr Creative Commons/Davey D. Cook

When Kamala Harris ran for president in 2020, she called for a mandatory buyback of “assault weapons,” which is political-speak for a compulsory confiscation of personal property by armed agents of the government.

The media never pressed Harris about the details, such as how she planned to define “assault weapons,” how she intended to skirt the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, or how far she was willing to go if law-abiding gun owners refused to surrender their arms to the government. It didn’t matter. Harris was tabbed as an anti-gun radical, which forever endeared her to the legacy media and their corporate bosses.

Harris hasn’t mentioned her armed confiscation plans recently, but she doesn’t need to. After Joe Biden resigned from the presidential race via social media and Harris was given the frontrunner mantle, of course the media jumped to offer whatever assistance they could. After all, here is a politician who advocated seizing “assault weapons” by force, which fits the media’s anti-gun narrative 100-percent.

Case in point: When March for Our Lives – the New York City-based nonprofit with $1.3 million in assets that pays its secretary David Hogg an annual salary of $56,974 for a mere 10-hour work week – decided to endorse a political candidate, Harris, for the first time in its six-year history, the media absolutely erupted with support.

Even Rolling Stone published a glowing report, which was based entirely on a written statement from the nonprofit. Evidently, the March kids were too busy marching to answer the phone.

“Harris leads the who leads [sic] the new White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, and in March visited Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, touring the classroom where the mass shooting took place. March for Our Lives lauded Harris as a lawmaker actively engaged with their mission,” Rolling Stone wrote.

In an interview with ABC News, Natalie Fall, executive director of March for Our Lives, said, “We see a lot of energy around Vice President Harris in this election; there’s no denying that. I think everybody’s seeing it right now.”

England’s Sky News, which is owned by Comcast, couldn’t get an interview with Harris, but still wanted to offer their support. In a story published Monday, Sky News cited comments from one of Harris’ previous speeches.

“Our nation is being torn apart by the tragedy of it all and torn apart by the fear and trauma that results from gun violence,” Harris said in a 2023 speech. “President Biden and I believe in the second amendment, [sic] but we also know common sense solutions are at hand.”

Betsy Reed, a U.S.-based editor for The Guardian, also British, published a story Thursday in support of Harris’ first campaign ad – a television ad.

“Throughout that ad, a Law & Order SVU-like deep male voice directly compares Harris and Trump, beginning, ‘He’s a world leader in temper tantrums. She never loses her cool. She prosecuted sex predators. He is one.’ It ends by calling Harris the ‘anti-Trump,’” Reed wrote.

Media Bias Explained

Why is the corporate media so slavish in its support of Harris? Why are reporters, editors and producers so willing to go to the mattresses for a one-term Veep who even the Dems admit hasn’t done a whole lot? The answer is simple: Guns are bad, the media believes, so any politician who opposes civilian firearm ownership is a hero.

Today’s corporate media practices a groupthink that vilifies anyone who supports the Second Amendment. Over the years, I’ve tracked examples of this collective thinking. Here are the most current examples.

This is what the media actually believes:

  • Guns are evil. All guns should be banned. No one needs a gun.
  • All gun owners are gun-nuts, rubes, hicks and hillbillies.
  • All pro-gun lawmakers are crazy. Vilify them at will. Anything goes.
  • All anti-gun lawmakers are heroes. They should be praised and protected from scorn.
  • All anti-gun legislation – even if its unworkable, such as micro-stamping or “smart gun” technology – should be mandatory and strongly supported.
  • All pro-gun legislation should be framed as crazy and ridiculed using outright lies and extreme examples.
  • All pro-gun groups are obstructing the goal of total civilian disarmament and should be ridiculed and vilified. No mention should ever be made of their training, hunter education and gun safety programs.
  • Concealed carry – especially Constitutional Carry – is deadly and leads to more violence. It should be criticized at every opportunity, as should those who carry concealed firearms.
  • If a concealed carrier uses their firearm to save a life, it should not be reported unless they’re sued or criminally charged.
  • Anyone who challenges this accepted conventional wisdom – especially another journalist – is the enemy.

With these points as their guide posts, it’s no wonder the media is suddenly attempting to build Kamala Harris into something she isn’t—a good leader.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

41 COMMENTS

  3. Governments are inherently evil by their nature. Therefore the larger and more intrusive the government the more evil, and conversely the smaller and less intrusive the less evil.

  4. Tgis article could just as well be titled, “Why another Civil War is Inevitable.”

  7. You should consider one of your columnists when writing this stuff, otherwise you’re a hypocrite.

  8. OK now. Listen carefully. Do not pay attention to that Central Intelligence Agency officer. Who is running the Democrat Party, RFK Jr. campaign.

    And why is it, that I have to find this, and so many other american news items in the foreign press???
    Specifically the Lotus Eaters Podcast!!!

    “Amaryllis Fox Kennedy (born Amaryllis Damerell Thornber; September 22, 1980) is an American writer, television host, public speaker, former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer, and campaign manager for her father-in-law Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s 2024 presidential campaign. She left the CIA in 2010.”

    • Let me get this straight, you’re saying the CIA is running RFKjr’s campaign? So the CIA is running an op to take votes from the Harris campaign?

      • Miner knows that this is not possible, since the CIA is aligned with the current regime of democrats, and carrying their water. At least you admitted it Miner.

        • If the CIA is aligned with the current regime as you put it, why would they be conducting an op to use RFKjr to pull votes from Harris?

          That is as strange as Donald Trump picking a guy for his VP who had said that Trump was America’s Hitler.

          Unless Donald Trump was flattered by his comparison to Hitler…
          Maybe Trump is rewarding JP Mandel for comparing him to Adolf.

            • I am a CIA operative?

              I wish it were so, I could really use that generous government pension about now as opposed to the Social Security that Trump/Vance plan on cutting.

            • “Former President Donald Trump on Monday suggested he was open to making cuts to Social Security and Medicare after opposing touching the entitlement programs and attacking his GOP presidential primary rivals over the issue.

              Trump was asked in an interview with CNBC whether he had changed his outlook on how to handle entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in order to tackle the national debt.

              “There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements, in terms of cutting and in terms of also the theft and the bad management of entitlements,” Trump said on CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

              He added: “There’s tremendous amounts of things and numbers of things you can do.”

              https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2024/03/11/politics/trump-entitlements-social-security-medicare

              Really, do you think a billionaire gives a shit about your Social Security?
              They just see it as a drain on their wealth, and you can bet your sweet ass they’ll do their best to cut the benefits you paid into for a lifetime.

  9. A 20 yo kid surveilled a sniper location,took position at that location, and went hot under the nose of those with authority to stop him before he fired a shot. come and get it

  11. Cackling Kamala has been chosen by Obama. Now she has the approval of the key people in the DNC, there is nothing to stop her appointment. The palace coup also gets rid of those wasteful primaries, back-room dealing, and choosing compromise candidates.

  12. The Trump campaign said Thursday it would not agree to a general election debate with Vice President Harris “until Democrats formally decide on their nominee” after Harris said she was ready to debate the former president.

    “Given the continued political chaos surrounding Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, general election debate details cannot be finalized until Democrats formally decide on their nominee,” Trump communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement.

    https://www.aol.com/trump-campaign-won-t-commit-005227084.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9zZWFyY2gueWFob28uY29tLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGvrg1LB55-OJDG2aj08deto40PsoaTZmpKV2PvCwWvMos8kelloYpSRUjdOm20m0JBRk46AhWPkmyj2zJQ50H-9zbNRzd_rZxczdw12pe-4pE6dCAHpFiPfqKcOCyNFLroo0A13noeSiyLOGIlsWOVjAON3rSi_rKXk-rZq-IdW

    The democrats are attempting to paint Trump as being afraid to debate Harris.
    Nothing could be farther from the truth. Of course this came from Yahoo news, so no surprise.

    • “The Trump campaign said Thursday it would not agree to a general election debate… “

      So why is Donald Trump afraid to commit to debate the Democratic nominee?

      Why does it matter who it is, the Democrats are going to nominate somebody at their convention and Trump can debate whoever it is.

      The fact that Trump is not willing to commit to debate the Democratic nominee because he is afraid it might be Kamala Harris is very revealing.

      Like all convicted felons, he is scared to engage with an experienced prosecutor in a public dialogue where everything he says will be fact checked in real time.

      • You and Sensiba need to get together over at The Advocate. She can do you while you 69 the minors.

        • johhnyboy…your time would be better spent washing sheets for your next klan meeting.

      • “Given the continued political chaos surrounding Crooked Joe Biden and the Democrat Party, general election debate details cannot be finalized until Democrats formally decide on their nominee,” Trump communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement.

        • The fact that Trump is not willing to commit to debate the Democratic nominee because he is afraid it might be Kamala Harris is very revealing.

          • its revealing that he wants to wait until general election debate details can be finalized, and that can’t be done until after there is an official democrat nominee.

            Its been the same for every presidential election for the last ~60 years, its a pretty standard thing. No president candidate has ‘committed’ to debate a ‘person’ from the other party until after that ‘person’ was an official nominee from the other party and the details of the debate were finalized.

            Stop trying to imply a false impression.

            You are an idiot Miner49er.

            Take your trolling elsewhere.

  13. “All gun owners are gun-nuts, rubes, hicks and hillbillies.All pro-gun lawmakers are crazy. Vilify them at will. Anything goes.”

    So this is something that is unknown to gun owners??? Perhaps the ones who live far outside of a major city.

    I’m very comfortable saying that the gun grabbers want to rape my child. That is the reason why they want me disarmed. That is why they don’t want rifle shooting teams in schools.

    Because JD Vance is correct.

    A bunch of old cats ladies who never married. And never had children want to control the world.

  15. I wish ‘reporters’ and ‘journalists’ and columnists would ask these politicians some simple, necessary questions like:

    * How many Americans are you willing to have the government gun down in hopes of reducing ‘gun violence’?

    * How many American police and federal law enforcement officers are you willing to see killed while enforcing your ban?

    * How many states are you willing to see secede in response to your law, and how many people on both sides are you willing to get killed to get them back?

    While I intend to live out my life in peace, I have a lot of trouble believing that there are not at least a few who would take up arms to defend their constitutionally guaranteed rights. I’ve seen what a civil war looks like from a civilian’s perspective -Lebanon in the fall of 1975 and again in 1977- and I guarantee these fools that no one would come out ahead. We do not want to go there.

    They seem to think that either the resistance would be trivial, or something to look forward to so they could revel in seeing people they dislike killed. They don’t seem to be capable of imagining any serious consequences. That is really scary.

Comments are closed.