The Mass Media lies

Leave a comment

In the latest example of today’s topic – In the 7 July 2015 cnn.com/Money article, Gun sales spike in June, by Aaron Smith, it is stated, “Last month the FBI conducted nearly 1.53 million background checks, which are required for all in-store purchases, but not for sales at gun shows or between individuals”.
This is of course a lie. Not so much the number of background checks (of that we can only take his word (actually not something I am prepared to do)) but, for any that take to the time to know the law, the assertion the they are not required at gun shows. 90+% of the sales at guns shows are by Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders. All FFL holders are required to run background checks for all sales (exception noted below) regardless of the location. Aaron Smith knows this. Aaron Smith is a liar. Should I give him the benefit of the doubt? Should I presume he is just ignorant of the topic and is doing the best he can? He IS writing for the “Money” section after all. The answer is a resounding NO! He is not writing for some minor rag in some Podunk town in the middle of nowhere. He is writing for CNN. If he is THAT good, he should be THAT good! But of course he IS that good. He phrases it the way he does on purpose. To further the agenda of the Liberals/Progressives/Socialists. And most people will just take his word for it. Mission accomplished.
So I ask, what is the point of mass media if they continually and blatantly lie to us. How many of you take them at face value? Why?

As an aside, part of the point of his article is to suggest that since the number of background checks is increasing, the number of gun sales is therefore increasing. Three points are to be made (mifireaFFLLibersnor of course, but you’ll only hear it here).
– FFL holders are not required to run background checks on concealed carry permit (CCW) holders. The rational being that CCW holders have already had a background check (one far more in-depth that one used to purchase a firearm). In my state, a CCW is valid for five (5) years. In that time I may purchase one gun or one gun a year or one a month or one a week or one a day. For none of which will a background check be run. The safeguard of course being that: a) if I do something that would make it illegal for me to purchase a gun or hold the permit, it will be revoked and b) I must still complete all the “no, I’ve not done anything bad in my past” paperwork under threat of fine and jail time if it turns out I’m lying. But since I don’t work for the press, nor am I a criminal, I’m probably ok.
– Not all background checks lead to gun sales. Kinda the point if you think about it. Of course thinking is not something the press is known for.
– He is correct (imagine that!) in that sales between individuals do not require background checks. Since criminals, by definition, don’t care about the law, the presumption behind this is that the seller knows the buyer well enough to know they can legally own a gun. As well, just to ensure this, it is illegal to KNOWINGLY sell a gun to someone not legally allowed to own/possess one. Therefore, if you are a criminal you won’t care anyway and if you are an upstanding citizen you won’t sell the gun if you know that person can’t legally own one.

Finally, he can only PRESUME that since background checks are increasing, gun sales are increasing. Not my major issue with his article but none-the-less. Leaving the whole issue of illegal sales out of the argument (let’s presume he was only referring to legitimate, legal sales), maybe more people are currently buying from gun stores than their friends and relatives. Maybe CCW permit holders have all the guns they want at this time and were not buying last month.

Another minor example: the “press” reports that “The official confirmation had to wait until new population figures were released by the Census Bureau this summer. The new tally, released in late June, shows that as of July 1, 2014, about 14.99 million Latinos live in California, edging out the 14.92 million whites in the state.” On the surface this may seem somewhat innocuous. This is not only a lie but it is also purposefully divisive. The problem? Latinos ARE white. Latino is an ethnicity, not a race. White is a race. The US Census Bureau knows this. SO…. Yet another misrepresentation by the press. In this case, another division to set one group of people against another. Illegal immigration aside (which, by the way, isCe not all Latinos!), WHO CARES? Why do we need to concern ourselves with such divisions of people in this country (or any for that matter). If you wish to differentiate legal from illegal (read, criminal) people in this country, more power to you. Goes to sovereignty. However, in any other argument, WHY? Why must we divide by race? Why must we divide by ethnicity? Why can’t we all just be American?

Regardless, between presumptions, ignorance and outright lies, the mainstream media provides more of an amusement than a source of valid information. Take it for what it is worth.

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…

We the People have lost control

Leave a comment

The majority of those voting in the last two U.S. elections voted for Socialism.  I’m not sure many of them understand that, but they did.  I AM sure the officials for whom they voted are well aware of it (see my post of 12/23/12).  I do not want to specifically dwell on this issue.  However, I do want to mention of few consequences thereof.  I think from the standpoint of the average citizen that voted for this government, they will find many of the consequences unintentional.  I know many of these people and am dumbfounded that they could actually cast their vote the way they did.   While on the surface they can reconcile their underlying beliefs with what they were being told.  I am dumbfounded however because these are otherwise intelligence people that refused to look any deeper than the political rhetoric, the stump speeches, the sound bites.  I am dumbfounded because of the overwhelming data that demonstrates over extended periods of time in countless different circumstances and situations that none of what they were being told works.  Two of the most pressing topics of the day are ObamaCare and gun control.

I’m not exactly sure how birth control became a medical issue.  It is not a disease to be cured.  It is not an injury to be repaired.   In many forms of birth control you are putting chemicals into your body but you do so also with aspirin or any other over the counter remedy.  However, in those cases you ARE actually attempting to cure, or prevent, some disease or injury.   So why again is birth control a medical issue?  In the past, from a “societal view”, it really hasn’t mattered.  However, in the new Socialist state in which we live, it does.  It does because the government has decided that employers must pay for it.  I can hear many of you now.  Why does THAT matter?  It matters because, although we continue to ignore it, the Constitution is still the law of the land.  The 1st Amendment to said Constitution explicitly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; …”  So what has THAT got to do with birth control?  It just so happens that some people are opposed to birth control on religious grounds.  So, contrary to popular belief, those privately owned companies that do not believe they should pay for their employee’s birth control are not just doing so on religious principal.  They are doing so on Constitutional grounds.  This is the type of thing our Founding Fathers fought against.  Not just against a government that tells you what religion you must practice (such as belonging to the Church of England in pre-Revolutionary days), but a government that tells you what you are allowed to practice and what you are not.  A government that tells you that unless it is practiced inside four walls designated a religious building, it is not religion.  Your religious beliefs are not a concern of the government.  Control is.

I saw a poster the other day that said, “We don’t blame cars for drunk drivers, why do we blame guns for violent criminals?”  I would add that we don’t blame the alcohol either.  I find it a darn good question.  What I find dumbfounding (apparently my word of the day), is that so many people don’t get it.  In More Guns, Less Crime John Lott demonstrated the inverse correlation between guns and crime.  In doing so demonstrated yet again that gun control does not work.  He demonstrated in fact, the exact opposite.  As an aside, Mr. Lott is an economist quite familiar with how to do honest statistical analysis.  Not being a gun enthusiast himself, he originally planned to prove exactly the opposite of what his results showed.  However, unlike so many that manipulate either the question or the answer in order to achieve their going in supposition, Mr. Lott let the honesty of the results speak for themselves.  Of course, many blame neighboring cities, states, countries, etc for such statistics.  They claim that we must get rid of ALL guns and control them getting into the country.  Hmmmmm…  Let’s ask England and Australia how that is working for them.  Both island nations.  You can’t get better control of your borders than that.  Both saw a marked increase in violent crime as access to firearms became more and more restricted.  Not just crime but crime in which individuals were more directly involved.  What do I mean by that?  In England, prior to guns being outlawed home break-ins were mostly limited to vacant houses.  The robbers were of course concerned with discovery and confrontation if someone was home.  This is problematic if the person at home had a means of defense.  Since that means of defense (firearms) was removed from the home (first restricted to the shooting range/club and then altogether), burglars have little to be concerned about as relates to their safety.  They are now going after homes whether someone is there or not.  Now the citizens of England not only have the crime of burglary but assault.  You need now not fear only the loss of possessions, but the lost of limb or even life.   Australia’s “experiment” proved the same.  Has either country admitted its failed policies?   Oh NO!  We can’t have that.  The fact that their subjects (specifically chosen term) are in far more danger now than ever is not a concern of theirs.

What has all this got to do with us?  We are yet again on the trajectory of more restrictive gun control.  The fact that the Clinton Gun Ban was a failure and we actually have far fewer “gun” crimes now than under that failed policy is beside the point.  The problem they argue is the same as what those in other countries pushed.  It didn’t go far enough.  That these other countries have gone to complete bans and finding exactly what John Lott found (in this case, less gun means more crime – while not the title, also covered in his book) is ignored.  We are now again pushing for another “assault rifle” (aka, black, menacing looking rifle) ban.  In addition, the latest FBI data (2011) shows more murder victims in the U.S. by blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc) than all types of rifle combined (496 vs 323).  I could cite reams of data demonstrating the absurdity of blaming the weapon instead of the user.  But this is what will always continue to baffle me – the complete denial of data demonstrating anything that disagrees with their view.  Your safety is not a concern of the government.  Control is.

Let us set aside the “moral” aspect of birth control and the logical aspect of gun control for a moment.  The question with which we are left amounts to control.  Society is a “contract” in which man bands together for collective benefit.  In such a situation, control is to some extent necessary.  Of this there is no doubt.  Because of this, there becomes a delicate balance between individual and group requirements. Using the example of traffic management makes it quite easy to see such a balance.  Traffic lights and stop signs are used to control vehicles at intersections.  We acknowledge that in order to have an ordered society we may have to come to a brief stop at a stop sign or sit at a stop light for a few minutes even if another vehicle is nowhere to be seen.  I would suggest both evidence and logic would demonstrate this is an acceptable price to pay to ensure a level of safety while driving.  I would also suggest that if individuals choose not to practice birth control or own a gun, this is an acceptable price to pay to live in a mutually beneficial society.  However, when government, against all logic and honest data, decides to take our money to pay for something for another individual that we find objectionable or that we are not allowed a specific tool we find necessary, both with no regard for our Constitutional rights, it is probably time to question into what we have gotten ourselves.  We the People have lost our Constitution.  We the People have lost control.

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…