The ignorance of most members of the dead tree media never ceases to amaze. Take, for example, columnist Winston Jones who unleashed this little gem: “I’m not sure why there’s so much emotion behind the Second Amendment. There’s never been an effort in the United States, that I know about, of the government to take away citizens’ guns. They are regulated so that felons can’t legally possess them” . . .

Some cities have tougher gun laws than others, but nowhere do I see the Second Amendment in danger. … I believe every state should have a gun law that includes gun safety education. Anybody who gets a carry permit should have to demonstrate they know how to safely and properly use their firearms.

Well Winston, you display an abysmal ignorance of ongoing gun confiscations in New York and California. To say nothing of past gun grabs (post-Katrina comes immediately to mind). And then there are the pending efforts in Connecticut.

All of which just go to show that members of the dead tree media needs to be “responsible” and “should have to demonstrate they know how to safely and properly use their” computers. Of course reportage permits will be issued at the discretion of local LEOs after the applicant has passed a mandated course and donated to the Sheriff’s re-election campaign demonstrated “good cause” for needing one. That is all.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

58 COMMENTS

  1. Totalitarian governments always control the media. In the US we have a media who thinks they are working in the best interests of the common, down-trodden people but they have been brain-washed into serving totalitarian / socialist interests. Exacerbating the problem is that many so-called journalists these days are just looking for a new path to celebrity.

  3. that I know about,

    Automatically removes truth and facts from his position. Like a politician trying not to be caught either lying or being dumb as dirt.

    It’s like the phrase “to the best of my knowledge.”

    You can get away with any ridiculous position you want and still come off as either smart or, worst case, simply not privy to the knowledge when you whip one of these reality-nullification clauses.

    Imagine if non-intellectual fields allowed this. Your mechanic saying “I’ve never heard of an accelerator sticking so this isnt the problem here” or your doctor saying “To the best of my knowledge only homosexuals can contract HIV”

    You’d rally for termination or at least find another doctor or mechanic. Where the virtual reality of intellectualism as a career is concerned (news reporting, politics, education) that doctor and that mechanic are perfectly innocent of their own stupidity.

  6. Another one of the “we don’t want your self defense guns”. We only want to get them out of the hands of felons, criminals & people we don’t like. & there are no criminal safe zones where the little darlings can rob stores without threat of running into dastardly concealed carriers./// You might want to save that for the mothers against illegal mayors picnic, winston, it will be a big hit.

  7. They have to keep up the propaganda.

    “No one is trying to take your guns.”

    – Don’t look at those in Congress (and other various parts of the government that have said exactly that).

    “There has never been gun confiscation in the US.”

    – Katrina, NYC, CA, CT

    “Registering your gun isn’t going to hurt you of affect your rights.”

    – Journal News publishing names of those who have handguns in NY.
    – California confiscating guns from a guy that smoked weed in the 1970’s.
    – High River, Canada

    On magazine limits: “If it will save just one life.”

    – Didn’t do it a Columbine
    – Didn’t do it at VT
    – Didn’t do it at the Navy Yard, etc

    On magazine limits again: “You don’t need more than 10 rounds.”

    – Pick a state/city and a number
    – MD, CO NJ: 15 rounds
    – MA, CA, NJ, NY: 10 rounds
    – NY: 7 rounds
    – NYC: 5 rounds
    – Joe Bidenland: 2 rounds (shotgun specific, probably loaded with rock salt… or pixie dust)

    There are more of course, but the takeaway is that the anti’s own positions are not only consistently changing, but are always moving to more restriction and tighter control. The “common sense” laws, that you couldn’t possible oppose before, just weren’t good enough and you can’t possible oppose the “new and improved” common sense laws. They have to keep your attention on the lesser laws in order to achieve that latter. They understand this perfectly and they also completely understand to whom they are pandering this line thinking. After all, “it’s common sense”.

    • The antis’ position is totally Consistent. It’s for whatever restriction they can get passed by whatever false arguments the locals will buy.

    • I spent most of my adult life in Wahington, DC and Chicago, when there were 0 round limits. My memory is not nearly as short as those in the main stream media who keep crying that no one is after our firearms.

      • Well, I think he’s obviously lying. Why would he add the caveat “that I know about” unless he knew he would be called out on his statement? A quick Google search of ‘Gun confiscation in the US’ brings up several articles that could be further researched (one is even from HuffPo). So in this case I think he’s writing to appease his inner-bias (propaganda) and sucks at his job.

    • I am an accepted expert in a few narrow areas and have been accepted as such by courts in 5 states. It is very seldom that an artical, in the general press, that touches on those areas gets better than a D- grade from me. There is nothing new in that. I have read articals in respected general interest journals (such as scientific Amercian ) that were printed over a hundred years ago and even when scored by the available knowledge of the time they are frequently just as clueless.

      I think you are quite right about the need to fill so many column inches every day. But you also have to consider that most journalists have an education that while it might, if they are lucky, be broad…. It is seldom very deep.

      For example a science reporter might even have a degree in a science subject. But he will be reporting on all of science for his publisher in areas where he has little deep knowledge…. If you toss in his requirement that he has to explain complex science and technology topics to readers who have not studied any science since they dissected a flat worm in high school.

      This does not excuse the lack of study and research that we see in the general press and TV reporting… But it does shine some light on it.

  9. Replace “2nd Amendment” with any of our other natural rights and maybe you may understand the logic and reasoning behind why we are so pasionate about it. These “regulations” make no sense and harm people more than help.

    The 2nd Amendment protects and helps guarantee the rest of our freedoms.

      • I think our current Second was originally the fourth of twelve. The first two didn’t make it through at the time, leaving us ten amendments.

        If that is not right, someone will correct me.

        • You are correct, although one of the first two eventually became the 27th amendment (only took 202 years). The other one of the first two never passed.

  10. To some, ignorance is bliss.

    50 mm magazine clip that fires 700 bullets through an off list lower printed plastic ghost gun, anyone?

  11. Mr. Krafft,
    I don’t know if this is your first article back on TTAG, but it is the first one I’ve seen. Just want to say, WELCOME BACK TO THE PARTY!!!!!!!!!!

  13. Interesting how journalists go ballistic when the government wants to put ‘spies’ in newsrooms. But registering firearms, that’s ‘reasonable’.

    The Bill of Rights are not listed in order of importance. You need the 2nd if you expect to keep the 1st.

    • I believe big media came out in favor of government spies in their news rooms. They want to toady up to the government and become government employees. There was even talk of categorizing newspapers as critical social institutions deserving of bailouts and protected status.

      • They’re hopeful of getting “special favors” when the bad guys take over.

        In other words, a dog biscuit and a pat on the head.

  14. Be polite, be polite, be polite…..

    YOU WOULDN’T NEED FREAKING SAFETY EDUCATION IF YOU HADN’T MADE GUN OWNERSHIP SO SOCIALLY UNACCEPTABLE THAT CHILDREN COULD STILL LEARN IT FROM THEIR FREAKING FAMILIES!!!!

    ….polite.

  15. When he says “No one is trying to take your guns” What he means is “No one is trying to take your *legal* guns” The problem with that of course (aside from the much rarer post-Katrina-style actions) is the attempt to slowly move the goalposts by making more and more things illegal (whether guns or magazines) or declaring the individual unfit.

  16. In today’s party-controlled media, factual accuracy is a crime while lies, half truths and propaganda are rewarded.

  17. It’s interesting to note that the three comments to his article all are schooling him on the meaning of a natural right in the context of the Constitution. Make of that what you will, but I think the AI are becoming proactive in a good way.

    • Mr Winston tries to come across as a reasonable good ol’ boy in his various articles, but he under-cuts himself with the admission of ignorance in his opening statement:

      “Recently, somebody told me it was our God-given right to own guns. Now, I’m not much of a religion scholar, but I don’t recall any holy book that mentions firearms. Back in the days the books of the Bible were written, warriors were still chucking spears and using slings.”

      The point about natural law and biblical texts supporting self-defense is well explained here (see links to Noahic Oath and Lindgren at Volokh): http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/371845/dear-new-york-times-self-defense-not-vigilantism-david-french

      And Mr Winston’s conclusion is best read with one minor change:

      “All the armed, well-intentioned, ‘opinion-writers’ with no training and no common sense worry me about as much as the gun-toting criminals.”

  18. There’s never been an effort in the United States, that I know about, of the government to take away citizens’ guns.

    Well Winston, just because you don’t know about it doesn’t me it’s not happening.

  19. Y’know, judge Henry Green [R] of Leavenworth KS has gone on record saying that permitting homosexuality to exist in any public form, however limited, will invariably lead to the extinction of the human race.

    Apparently, so many will be enticed into “deviance” that insufficient numbers will remain to reproduce and the race will die of plummeting numbers of replacement two-leggers.

    I’m certain that most Grabbers would be equally horrified and amused by this asinine assertion, but would deny that their logic is identical.

    However:
    “One cannot permit unfettered access to weapons, else everyone will want them and will then proceed to kill one another, either accidentally or with untrammeled abandon…”

    By and large, we won’t win ’til they die off and aren’t replaced for at least a generation.

    • A newspaper, you mean? I worked in news production for about 13 years. I was a peon to the management. I would have made a better editor than nearly anyone there.

  24. Writing “that I know about” should get this dumbass called out in a big way, by us and anyone in his newsroom who gives a shit about good reporting. I assume the guy is sitting at a computer that’s connected to the Internet, which makes this doubly lazy. I’m thinking he’ll be working in the mailroom within a fortnight.

  25. Some libtards are just in store for a ruder awakening than others. Would that Mr. Jones and others of his ill-informed ilk have plenty of “Depends” for when their day of awakening finally arrives.

  27. What part of press don’t they understand?

    Radio? Internet? Web presses? The Founders never imagined any of that. Those things couldn’t be covered by the constitution. It’s just common sense.

Comments are closed.