If the legislature is about to be in session, it’s time for The Tennessean to get its anti-gun on
You may recall a bit back where some idiot put on his BDUs, slung an AK pistol that had the tip painted orange to look like a toygun over his shoulder, and went gallivanting through a state park. He wasn’t breaking the law. The white people got scared. And gun rights activists shook their heads, called him an idiot, and said he wasn’t helpful. Yeah, remember that guy? As predicted, the press is getting its anti-gun on and this guy is their example. First up is this bit at The Tennessean which, basically, seems to rely on the misconception that handgun carry permit holders all wear BDUs, walk around with AK pistols, and scare white people. Which is odd because most firearms rights activists in the state condemned that guy pretty quickly.
Up next is David Randolph Smith, who you’ll recall is a pretty factually challenged guy, writing a guest editorial at The Tennessean (clenched-fist salute to ACK), which starts out with a condemnation of the boneheaded guy with his real gun that looks like a toy gun (I don’t know why the paper doesn’t mention that toy gun bit). Which I’m so far cool with. Then, Mr. Smith goes to Washington:
The Supreme Court did not hold that the Second Amendment’s individual right to bear arms was a “fundamental right,”
Has this guy even read Heller? I guess he’s technically correct that the court didn’t say the words “fundamental right” but it does reference the right to keep and bear arms about 24 times. And in the affirmative. After all, that’s kinda what the case was about. But he is correct about carrying not being affected by Heller.
Then he references a ‘study’ by the violence policy center, that has already been discredited because it’s based on google searches, doesn’t factor in when charges were not filed, and a few other reasons. Then, this whopper:
Studies show that gun control legislation lowers the number of gun-related deaths anywhere between one to almost six per 100,000 individuals.
Name one non-discredited, peer-reviewed study.
It’s a little disappointing. I’ve so wanted some sort of anti-gun activist in Tennessee so that I could ridicule them and have a good time doing so. I mean, I lost hope on one of the various shill groups opening up shop here a while back. And, now, I finally have someone. And this is the best they have?
January 7th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
My response to this is a little out of the norm, but it is pretty simple. He didnt break the law, so WHO CARES! To each his own, if the guy wants to run around in camos and play with his toys, MORE POWER TO HIM! While I will agree that it is less than ideal and a little counter productive, as long as he dooesnt hurt anyone else or violate anyone elses rights they should do what most of us do…..LEAVE HIM ALONE. I realize in an adminstraition that wants to tell you when you can POOP that is a very foreign idea, but the govt intrusion has got ot stop, if it isnt thier place they need to stay out of IT!
January 7th, 2010 at 4:02 pm
ah, good old anti-gunners. The facts don’t support them, so they just make up their own.
January 7th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Eh, the Commercial Appeal was good for a giggle or two for a while, but even they started repeating the same trite-and-disproven nonsense, over and over and over again, as if repeating the lie would somehow make it true.
I guess they have not yet adapted to no longer controlling the message…
January 7th, 2010 at 5:48 pm
Cheer up Unc! When you challenge him he’ll probably call you a racist or a redneck!
January 7th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
I think we should let these “journalists” know that we know they’re lying, and there will be consequences.
January 7th, 2010 at 8:05 pm
We should all recognize by now that the anti-gunners’ strategy is to present a caricature of gun owners; actions like that of Mr. AK-and-BDUs-in-the-park only play into the hands of the antis. This is another reason why militant, “look at me, I have a big, bad gun” open carry is often counterproductive, IMO.
January 8th, 2010 at 8:54 am
Best? It was simply a matter of who was available.
However, you can still mock him.
January 8th, 2010 at 9:46 am
I thought the Tennessean was all for tolerance and diversity and “the right to choose”. But their bigotry and prejudice means they are intolerant of certain kinds of diversity…especially against those who CHOOSE to exercise their ( U.S.2nd Amendment and State Article I, Section 26)RIGHT to armed self-defense.