New weapon in gun control debate: Common sense

January 10, 2000

Surprisingly, the Associated Press ran a story
last week based on a new study about gun control bias in the press
authored by the Media Research Center. Surprising, I
say, because the establishment media rarely faults itself for coverage
that is obviously biased; however, readers of the article will
conspicuously note that the AP neglected to include itself as a news
agency that routinely toes the anti-gun line.

So pervasive is the media’s gun control bias, MRC said, that it
serves as the “communications division of the anti-gun lobby.” Indeed it
does.

Not so, said CNN and a spokesman for
Handgun Control Inc.

CNN spokesman David Bittler defended his network’s “fair and
balanced” gun issue coverage, saying, “We do not advocate for or against
any particular position and we stand behind the balance and fairness
that goes into all our reporting.”

Yeah, OK.

Naomi Paiss, spokeswoman for Handgun Control, also said the
complaints were unfounded. In a weak, typically arrogant and dismissive
attempt to trivialize MRC’s massive study, Paiss said, “This is clearly
the comedy press conference with which to start off the New Year.”

No, Ms. Paiss, what is comical is Handgun Control’s incessant denial
that they do not have a well-documented anti-gun (meaning all guns)
bias. Maybe Paiss should talk to Sarah Brady, her boss.

To underscore MRC’s point, most of the linked articles on the Yahoo!
News site containing the article about the Center’s research were
pro-gun control. How’s that for validation?

But Paiss and others — oblivious to reality and to their own
“scare-posturing” about the “evils” of guns — ignore the evidence.

Well, they ignore it at their own risk. Make no mistake about it —
if this country ever becomes gun-free, Paiss and others like her will be
infinitely more at risk to violence perpetrated by criminals than they
are now. Only a moron with an agenda cannot see that — especially for
women — guns are the great equalizer in a confrontation with a
criminal, even when the confrontation doesn’t turn out as well as one
had hoped.

Perhaps more than anything else, common sense and a healthy
dose of the truth have been missing from the gun control debate for
some time now. As MRC’s study demonstrates, much of the reason for this
phenomenon has to do with the kind of “news” they hear about guns. For
example, newscasts and news articles routinely provide the
details about shooting victims — even to the point of being ludicrous
(Columbine comes to mind) — in order to scare people away from the best
protection against being killed they could ever have. But rarely — and
I do mean rarely — will these same shills of “fairness” feature
equal numbers of stories about men and women who routinely defend
themselves with a gun, mostly without ever having to fire a shot.

In an effort to combat this “common sense gap,” Dr. Joseph L. Bass has authored a new tome on the issue of guns in America.

“A Little Handbook on the Second Amendment: What the American
Aristocracy Does Not Want You to Know,”
is a short, highly comprehendible 105-page book that explains the
history of our right to keep and bear arms — and why it is important to
protect that right with all the vigor we can muster.

The book “clearly demonstrates that the Second Amendment of the Bill
of Rights recognizes a right of individual citizens to possess and carry
privately owned firearms free from infringement by state governments and
the federal government,” and “includes information that our government,
big business interests, and the American media do not want you to know.”
(Does that sound familiar?)

Plus, there are historical references made in the book that are so
far beyond the research capabilities of most establishment writers, they
could never even conceive of such things.

For example:

An Armed Citizenry in England — The English had a system of
government recognizing the right of “the people” to be armed. During
ancient times, the English were exposed to raids from Germanic tribes.
All of “the people” made up the “militia.” (Again, does that sound
familiar?)
The ancient English kings required subjects to be armed at all
times. The Laws of Alfred (871-899) and the Laws of Cnut (1020-1023)
considered being armed a right and a duty of all male citizens. A person
was fined if he failed to have arms available so that he could respond
to a community emergency. Such response was known as “responding to the
hue and cry.”
During Anglo-Saxon times a ceremony was conducted when a slave
was freed, placing weapons into his hands, indicating his new status as
a free man. Having and bearing arms was a symbol of liberty. Anglo-Saxon
laws made disarming a free man a crime.
In 1066, the Normans (from what would be part of France today)
conquered the English and thus began a process of the English losing
their rights. Henry II’s 1181 Assize of Arms recognized being armed as a
right and a duty. But individual English subjects were to possess arms
according to their “station” in life. That is to say, subjects could
only have certain arms based on their wealth and the amount of land they
owned. Because the king feared revolt, the poor could own only certain
weapons and certain quantities of weapons.

There are more examples, but you get the idea. This book is
filled with historical references that all lend credence to common sense
defenses of gun rights today. Plus, as the book points out, it’s
constitutional to be able to bear arms, and U.S. Code even
requires all “able bodied persons (it used to be males only) ages
17-45” be available for “militia” service in case the government needed
some help in staving off the attacking hordes. How are people supposed
to fulfill this law, this requirement, if they don’t have a
weapon?

After much blathering about gun control, it is refreshing to see an
author take an entirely new (and much needed) approach to supporting the
right of the people in this country to be armed. That doesn’t mean that
mothers are necessarily wrong to harbor unreasonable fear of guns or that in
the wrong hands, guns don’t kill.

It simply means that of all the other legal and more lethal
things we also have a right to utilize if we choose (cars, booze, fast
food), guns are the only things mentioned in, and
protected by the Constitution as a God-given right free
Americans have been blessed with.

You don’t have to be a “compassionate” liberal or a scared mom to
figure that out. The law is the law; the rest — like the fearmongering
and outright lies perpetuated by the media and “activists” like Handgun
Control Inc. — is, in the practical and legal sense,
meaningless.

Thanks, Doc. This book was needed.