The AP used to be a reliable ‘disarmenter‘ media outlet. John Lott documented how an Associated Press editor managed to tell a story about shooter at the Appalachian Law School without mentioning the armed students who helped to subdue him. But this has begun to change as the pro-gun culture media has been able to document and challenge the AP’s stories and procedures. It seems the AP has been feeling the heat. So it was with interest that I read this AP story, just before next week’s election. It starts with typical disarmenter passive construction . . .
The latest U.S. school shooting claimed the lives of two students and the teenage shooter less than two weeks before congressional and statewide elections. It barely made a ripple in the final days of campaigning.
Notice that the second sentence acknowledges that the school shooting is having almost no effect on the campaigns. The article goes on to lament the general inattention to gun control, and actually provides a measure of balance. The AP includes the fact that opinions are divided on the issue, that there are in fact two sides, and that candidates may pay a price on election day if they push for more civilian disarmament.
This is a significant change. Allowing that Second Amendment supporters have legitimate arguments is a death knell for disarmenters. They rely on emotion to press their gun grabbing cause because they lack rational arguments to support their stance.
That’s not to say that the AP has suddenly become an organization that respects the Constitution and limited government. It has been forced to back away from its transparently one-sided position. However, when presenting anything less than their mono-poled view of the “gun violence” problem, disarmenters lose.
Notice how the passive voice is dropped, later in the article:
Gifford’s (sic) latest appearance was in Seattle, just two days before a 15-year-old high school student shot and killed two people and himself in an attack north of the city.
The AP probably feels that it’s safe to use Giffords as an expert on the subject as an attack on Gabby would be seen as an attack on a gun violence victim, someone who has already lost a great deal. That might be true if Second Amendment activists were to go after her. But they have no need to do so when they can simply point out how she is being used by the disarmenters to further their unpopular cause. It’s not an attractive position for the disarmenters to be in.
Still, the AP can’t finish an article without attempting to smear the NRA as an evil big money machine, ignoring the millions spent by “progressive” billionaires such Michael Bloomberg and Bill Gates. But they give a quote to the NRA, who talks about their millions of members.
Some might cynically say that the article is an attempt to suppress second amendment support just before the election. Perhaps, but it can also be seen that the AP has been forced to move away from its historically ardent disarmenter stance. That is a good sign.
©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Gun Watch
Again, the anti-gun liberals are trying to forestall and minimize the crushing defeat, they so well have earned and deserve.
Notice how the author tones the article to make people believe that the AP is a poor baby. Well I for one am not buying it.
The AP and liberal media are in the thick of it. and will be again after the elections or whenever they think they can push it to win.
Just like the Koran says, it is OK to lie.
But I swore an Oath to protect the Constitution of the US, (Even if Obama and his bunch keeps attacking it) and I will go to my grave attempting to do so,
It says much about the” news media” _that a change from hostility and half truth innuendo, to passive aggressive snot, is viewed as an improvement.
The article also says that the Second Amendment gives the right to own a gun (which is incorrect), instead of protecting that innate right (which is correct).
The AP’s staff consists of some of the best science fiction writers in America. I was especially taken by this little bit of parallel universe history:
“Restricting gun ownership is a complicated legal matter because of the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which gives citizens the right to own firearms.”
You know, when I took Constitutional Law in law school, I never learned that the Second Amendment gave me any rights. Imagine that. In fact, I probably learned otherwise in junior high school civics. But the AP “writer” probably missed class on the day they taught law in his/her grade school.
Maybe the author’s Constitutional Law professor was Barack Obama. He doesn’t seem to have that firm of a grasp on how the document grants limited, enumerated powers to the government, not limited, enumerated rights to the people.
Oh, but Obama, being from the Third World, has a firm grasp on how rights come about.
He’s king, and he decides who will get what rights, for how long, and what transgressions against his majesty will get your rights revoked.
Hmm… I usually see a lot of pro-2nd amendment comments on online articles (that allow them) for main-stream news sites. Even the ‘progressive’ sites usually get their fair share. I wonder if it’s time to take it up a level and start writing the news organizations directly when they have obviously wrong information? Or start steering them towards solutions that would actually save lives:
i.e.
-background checks to reduce gun deaths? no
-Suicide prevention and detection services, or gang-intervention programs? Yes.
But… but… but… those would be haaaaaard!
“Suicide prevention and detection services” What is Suicide detection exactly?
Want a suicide hotline, fine but already have one, never called it, never needed it but
understand such thing does exist and is OK by me. However that detection thing you mentioned is disturbing to me. Is that ferret out the loons, strap in a strait jack and haul them away? Please explain.
The problem is that curing the gang problem requires reversing two major pieces of Nanny-State legislation, one that Democrats love, and one that Republicans love:
1. The welfare state
2. The war on drugs
The first produces the fatherless children needed to populate the world of crime, and the second provides the economic means to support it.
Notice how the passive voice is dropped…
Is that a subtle attempt at humor, or am I reading too much into it?
Hey, man. If you want to believe….
He apparently doesn’t know what passive voice is, so this is an accident. He continually mislabels “Gun kills person” as “passive construction.” It isn’t, the gun is the subject of the sentence and performing the action. The actual problem with that sentence is that it ascribes volition to the gun.
The AP really wants more school shootings so they can push more gun control. Biden and Harrry Reid obviously wants this to happen based on their comments.
The latest U.S. school shooting claimed the lives of two students and the teenage shooter less than two weeks before congressional and statewide elections. It barely made a ripple in the final days of campaigning. The liberals really want another big Sandy Hook and you can tell that they are disappointed that one has not happened just before the elections.
They have not moved at all. The shooter DID NOT kill himself. A teacher physically pushed the firearm and he shot himself in the head.
Bad call.
Yeah, well, we’re probably still screwed here in Washington.
They haven’t given up on it. They are minimizing it. They hope to promote candidates on other issues or lie enough to squeak the same sleazebags into office, and pick up the disarmament song and dance in January… or the next time some asshole shoots up a school. Anyone notice that the nutjob in Washington State has got a pretty low press coverage? They know if they scream for gun control now they might as well just pack their offices.
Expect a push in January. The outcome of the election will merely dictate whether the banners try to ram it through by fiat or to sleaze it through in the backrooms and smear campaigns.
The Liberals will distance themselves from a hot topic until the elections are over.
They don’t want to be seen as fear or hate mongers. After the elections, they’ll start back on their war against the 2nd Amendment.
A poll was done recently about “issues” that matter to American voters.
Gun control is near the very bottom of the list. Right behind “global warming” and some other media-fabricated “issues.”
The Democrat narrative is starting to break down. We’ll see how badly by Wednesday morning.
Too late. I’m already against every anti-gunner out there! Democrats are dirt and a few Republicans who haven’t done enough are too.
I’ve already told Collins of Maine I at least, will NOT vote for her again. Takes being a RINO to a whole new level.
Comments are closed.