In June of 1999, two weeks after Rosie “The Queen of Nice” O’Donnell used her TV talk show to confront Tom “I’m the NRA” Selleck about gun violence, she was calling in to Larry King Live to promote gun control on CNN. Asked by King if she favored amending the Second Amendment to the Constitution, O’Donnell replied: “I think that we need to seriously consider that. Yes, I do, Larry.”
The above may appear to some as evidence of gun bashers running amuck in the media, even favoring a rewrite of the Constitution. I submit it as evidence of just the opposite: how the National Rifle Association and gun lobby have dominated the terms of the media debate on gun control.
Indeed, media bias in favor of the NRA’s view of the Second Amendment (as protecting individual gun ownership) is so pervasive that even many gun-control supporters seem unaware that the federal high courts have never found a gun law to have violated the Second Amendment.
The Amendment is only 27 words: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” While the NRA emphasizes only the last 14 words, the U.S. Supreme Court and appeals courts have focused on “well-regulated militia” and “security of a free State” to rule that Second Amendment rights are reserved to states and their militias—nowadays, the National Guards.
The truth is—and one would hardly know it from the mass media—that since the Supreme Court’s unanimous Miller decision in 1939, all federal appeals courts, whether dominated by liberals or conservatives, have agreed that the Second Amendment does not confer gun rights on individuals. The NRA view, opposed even by such right-wing judges as Robert Bork, has been consistently rejected.
Unlike the average media consumer, Douglas Hickman knows this truth. In 1991, he invoked the Second Amendment in suing the City of Los Angeles after failing to get a permit for a concealed weapon. In keeping with dozens of cases since 1939, the Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously: “We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.”
The Hickman decision, like most of the other decisions, went unreported in the New York Times, which once inaccurately reported that “the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled” on the Second Amendment’s meaning.
My point is not that the high courts are correctly interpreting the Amendment (some legal scholars, including liberals, say they’re not), or that this unbroken 60-year pattern of decisions will go on forever (a Texas gun owner has found a lower federal court judge who endorses the NRA’s view, and that case may one day reach the Supreme Court).
My point is journalistic, not legal: If you just learned that federal case law says the Second Amendment does not protect an individual’s right to own guns, do you feel cheated that news outlets have allowed the NRA to impose its Second Amendment worldview on coverage, while marginalizing the federal courts? You’re not alone: Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to gun lobby propaganda on this issue as “one of the greatest pieces of fraud…on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
Howard Friel, editor of “Guns and the Constitution,” studied news coverage on the issue for an article in Extra!, FAIR’s magazine: “While the NRA’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is repeatedly cited in newspapers and on TV, the federal judiciary gets virtually no coverage.” When reporters matter-of-factly describe a politician as “a supporter of the Second Amendment,” the well-established judicial view isn’t even in the picture.
In complaining about bias, conservatives point to surveys indicating that most reporters are personally pro-gun control. But so are most Americans. A more revealing survey finding—from the anti-gun control Second Amendment Foundation—indicated that 69 percent of daily newspapers subscribed to the NRA’s interpretation of the Second Amendment.
If mainstream journalism were intent on biasing the news in favor of gun control, would reporters be so credulous in accepting the NRA’s view of the Second Amendment?
I’ve found that news coverage of gun control rarely fails to include “both sides.” Reporting is usually balanced, often predictably so—with gun advocates hailing their sacred Second Amendment rights pitted against gun control advocates arguing for incremental reforms like trigger locks and gun-show background checks that hardly address the enormity of the problem of firearms violence.
Even though nearly 40 percent of the American public favors banning the sale of handguns, according to recent polls, it’s a proposal deemed too “extreme” for most mainstream media debates. A USA Today columnist dubiously asserted that “such a sweeping measure wouldn’t pass constitutional muster.”
Conservatives complain of media bias against the NRA, especially in editorials and op-eds. In fact, the NRA has many allies among opinion-shapers, including some of the biggest voices in talk radio—such as NRA echo chamber G. Gordon Liddy, who told listeners how to kill federal agents.
Given the inflammatory utterances from NRA leaders, toned down after the Oklahoma City federal building was bombed by ardent member Timothy McVeigh, the NRA has not fared all that badly in the media. One board member wrote that masked federal agents are “scarier than the Nazis” and should be “targets.” Another declared: “The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to threaten the government.”
Only after Oklahoma City did national media notice official NRA rhetoric about the “storm-trooper tactics” of firearms agents, a.k.a. “jack-booted government thugs,” who have the green light to “murder law-abiding citizens.”
Gun advocates are right to gripe about the sometimes hysterical coverage, especially on television, that follows school, workplace or other mass shootings. They are wrong, however, to blame a pro-gun-control bias; the real culprit behind overhyped coverage is corporate-driven, ratings-hungry, tabloid-oriented media that have updated the “if it bleeds, it leads” slogan with a dictum more appropriate to the 24-hour news environment: “If they’re dead, we’re live.”
In fact, given the quantity of coverage devoted to school shootings perpetrated by kids as young as 11, it’s startling how little reporting has focused on the efforts of the NRA and the gun industry to market guns to youth. A Violence Policy Center report, “Start ‘Em Young: Recruitment of Kids to the Gun Culture,” offers graphic details of ads, catalogues and campaigns aimed at attracting kids, even preteens, to shooting. Until 1994, the firearms industry distributed a pamphlet, “When Your Youngster Wants a Gun,” saying that “some youngsters are ready to start at 10” as gun owners.
It’s basic journalistic instinct, not bias, that prompts reporters to point out that the gun-related crime and death rate in the U.S. is many times higher than that of any other advanced industrial country (in 1994, there were 142.4 gun deaths per million people in the U.S.; 4.1 in England and Wales; 0.5 in Japan). NRA supporters complain that reporters move too quickly from these stark statistical comparisons to differences in gun regulation—relatively lax in the U.S., very strict in most advanced countries.
Frankly, a correlation between gun laws and gun deaths is too obvious to ignore. Mainstream journalists do often ignore another key factor contributing to our much higher violent crime rate: poverty. The U.S. is the only advanced industrial country with so much of it. But we’ll leave media and poverty for a future debate.
A version of this appeared in Brill’s Content (2/00).
the only people who should fear background checks,and other reasonable regulations,are those who have something to hide
Ripley’s Contrary to popular belief Museum Not only that, the world-famous Ripley’s Contrary to popular belief Museum. Artist inside Vancouver and also artist inside Montreal each and every described the location will be way better called “strange” gallery. It highlights the assorted strange selection of arts. It displays your head blowing illusions designed for everyone.
oil paintings for sale http://t.cn/RPLVU38
this is a bunch of liberal crap.
A liberal will argue there is no constitutional right for an individual to own a gun but then turn around and argue the abortion is a constitutional right. I’ve read the constitution. No where is the word abortion mentioned.
The word gun is also never mentioned, arms doesn’t apply only to guns, so taking them away would still give you the right to bear arms.
Agreed, but gun control legislation is an infringement on the right none-the-less. The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, or personal defense against the criminal element, but about every man, woman, and child protecting themselves from a tyrannical government.
can anyone help me with how this can relate to my topic should their be strict gun laws
y u no shoot up school?
stop deleting my comments douche turd uranus sucker
Yeah leave his comments alone. “YOU MOTHA FUCKERS ARE GOING TO JAIL FOR WHAT YOU DID!”
-Robert Loggia
TOTINO BOY SENDS HIS REGARDS! Along with a tasty pizza roll.
http://totinos.com/History
FREEDOM OF SPEECH A S S WIPES. free robert loggia
Come over to my place if you wanna see a pizza roll ;)
robert loggia should have won an oscar for jagged edge
totinos for life fagboi
east side till i DIE
FUCK ALL OF YOU I AM FREE YOU CUNTS LOOK I WAS ON FAMILY GUY AND YOU MOTHER FUCKERS ARE GONNA GO TO JAIL FOR YOUR CRIMES
owen got a hot as tie right now
Glenn Close is the most handsome man ive ever seen, huge cock that man has
fuq the polie
My thoughts on gun control. First anyone who says that “guns kill people” is not thinking logically. Firearms have been a major part of this country since before we were even a country, and without firearms the United States of America would never have been founded. After the Revolutionary War the Founding Fathers were trying to find a way to build a country in a way so that the government could no longer impose its will against the wishes of the people. They built a constitution that would protect the rights that every American citizen deserved and the right to bear arms was one of those rights. The stats prove that owning guns makes our country safer, “Over the past 20 years, gun sales have absolutely exploded, but homicides with firearms are down 39% during that time and “other crimes with firearms” are down 69%”. People against guns and who want more laws banning them say that more guns means more gun crime but the facts disprove this. Guns also make it so people can defend themselves “Approximately 200,000 women in the United States use guns to protect themselves against sexual crime every single year.” Without firearms those 200,000 women would not be able to defend themselves. Guns in America have been a right since our country was founded in 1776 and we need to keep it that way. Guns do not kill people, people kill people.
all countries were created using weapons and they’re not shitty. fuq tyler. People have no power, you shit. constitution is outdated, revise it get white out. Firearms statistically show more chances more gun related suicides, homicides, mass shootings and crime, hell to your bloodline. I do not believe your lies, cite your sources a s s breath poop neck. tazers work just as well for self defense, fat balls. do not follow the words of tyler the liar, not the creator, the constitution is older than your grandmama, son.
guns are not a sufficient way to defend against an invading force or oppressive government. look at other revolutions, guns sometimes banned yet they still successfully revolutionized.
matharfuqqar
guns cannot protect people. training is the difference between law enforcement and armed civilians, cuntmouth. fagit scrotum eyes.
i’m in the hospital, i was shot.
suck G’s stiq
i will alex w
G will be satisfied
1 out of 10 stars
“would not try to find online date here again”
Reporting fails to cover both sides?? No idea what media Jeff Cohen watches but he’s way off base here. It’s true it does not cover both sides equally, but it’s the control activists that get the majority of coverage, not the other way around! It’s mind boggling how so many miss such a basic and irrefutable truth. Pass all the gun laws you want, but the people who do the damage and should not be allowed to have guns will always find a way to obtain them. It may sound like an overused talking point but it’s as true now as it always has been, all gun laws do is take guns out of the hands of responsible owners, they do absolutely nothing to remove them from those who want to kill. Why does nobody seem to want to talk about the responsible CHL holders that have ended so many of those mass shootings? How many more would die if those owners were not allowed to have their guns?
Show your support:
http://teespring.com/guns-preserve-life
What’s the difference between the 2nd amendment (guarantees the right to own and use guns) and the 21st amendment (guarantees the right to own and use alcohol)?
One amendment receives special treatment.
In 1996 the gun lobby with help from congress succeeded in preventing the CDC (Center for Disease Control) from collecting and disseminating any statistics about injuries or deaths resulting from gun violence. Because of this gun advocates can assert without fear of contradiction just about any statistic they want. Often numbers of intruders thwarted by gun owners from entering homes are quoted, but there are NO statistics available nationwide about how many family members have been accidentally or on purpose killed by guns kept in their homes. It’s not just that this prevents any rational discussion about the benefits and risks of keeping weapons kept at home I believe it contributes directly to particular tragedies. For instance, just this week an eleven year old boy took a loaded shotgun from the closet in his home and murdered an eight –year – old neighbor girl because they had had an argument about puppies. Of course, some will be able to argue that this is an “isolated “ or “rare” case without fear of contradiction because actual statistics are being actively suppressed. An obvious preventive measure most Americans would support, if they weren’t prevented from knowing the extent of the problem, would be to increase the legal liability of parents who don’t secure firearms.
Legal liability is something every individual, every producer of goods, and every manufacturer of products in America face – EXCEPT firearm manufacturers.
How did this happen?
The same gun lobby with the help of congress put immunity from prosecution for gun manufacturers through.
Congress now not only won’t pass a federal law requiring universal ID and background checks (supported by the vast minority of not only all Americans but also the vast majority of gun owners – even NRA gun owners) as a requirement for the purchase of a firearm but also won’t bring it up for a vote.
There is not enough money from gun lobbyists, or in the whole world for that matter, to explain the lack of action in congress. Sure, gun manufacturers are making enormous profits and can afford to lavishly pay lobbyists and contribute almost unlimited amounts to the campaigns of those who support their views, but even that is surely not enough to convince elected officials to support a minority of Americans against the majority.
Repetition in advertising works and it is the ONLY way to explain how an outright lie (they’ll take ALL your gun) can be used by a minority of Americans to defeat sensible gun control measures approved by the majority of Americans.
A popular argument of the gun lobby is the first thing the Nazis did was make Jews give up ALL their guns. That’s not true. The first thing the Nazis did was stereotype Jews and say they couldn’t be trusted.
The gun lobby is doing exactly what’s been done before stereotyping anyone now who opposes them as untrustworthy and more than insinuates that “they” want to take ALL your guns away.
The minority successfully, so far, thwarting sensible gun control approved by the majority can only succeed as long as real information is withheld.
Tobacco manufacturers for years fought governmental scientific facts and smokers swore they would NEVER inconvenience themselves just to protect others from a danger they believed didn’t exist. Now you no longer hear that smokers are “real” men – just that they are men who have chosen to shorten their life spans and endanger those around them with second hand smoke.
Alcohol, besides being as much an addiction as tobacco, is also guaranteed by our constitution just as are firearms.
For years individuals were able to wipe out an entire family in a DUI vehicular homicide, and then another one, and then another one – all without spending time in jail or losing their license. This constitutional right to own and use alcohol was used as an excuse until the death toll mounted so tragically people more concerned with their own conscience than the convenience of others decided to act to save lives rather than do nothing. Now when drunken driving deaths increase nobody questions increased sobriety checkpoints or argues that they wouldn’t have “prevented” any particular innocent family wiped out by a drunk.
I won’t tell you those who ignore history are destined to repeat it. By failing to act on gun control you ARE repeating history by allowing bodies to pile up in numbers we can only guess at because a minority in congress, influenced by the gun lobby, has decided we don’t need to know.
ねえ とても素敵 サイト！ ガイ .. 美しい .. アメージング .. I意志ブックマークあなたのサイトもさらに？ |ここで 情報情報 ように多くの を求めることを見つけるのは 参考に有用 我慢、我々が必要私たちが望む 開発 戦略 共有するためのおかげで |この}点に、{ありがとうございます。 。 。 。 。 。
国内即発 绝賛発売 http://enjoy-lyon.fr
This article is out of date since the 2008 SCOTUS decision in Heller v Washington DC and the 2010 SCOTUS decision in McDonald v Chicago in which the SCOTUS has ruled that the 2nd amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.
Amazing how the celebrities and politicians that espouse gun control the most vociferously have 24/7 armed security. Must be nice compared to us “rabble” that shouldn’t be allowed the right to self-defense according to this opinion.
we have the right to bear arms
The Founding Fathers, as evidenced in the Federalist Papers, disagree with the 1939 SCOTUS decision you cite.
” all federal appeals courts, whether dominated by liberals or conservatives, have agreed that the Second Amendment does not confer gun rights on individuals.”
Never heard of DC v Heller?
“District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
How about McDonald v Chicago?
“McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to “keep and bear arms” protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.”
not gonna lie I read more of the goof ass names than I did the actual article