Defend the 2nd Amendment: Rebecca Hagelin warns new wave of anti-gun hysteria rolling in

Guns in school. Guns and terrorism. Guns in the hands of children. No doubt we'll be hearing a lot about these topics throughout the fall and school year as those who seek to destroy the Second Amendment roll-out their new public-relations campaigns.

Of course, there won't be anything truly unique to the substance of their arguments – just new twists to the same old efforts to deny constitutional rights to freedom-loving Americans.

As usual, their information will be more akin to disinformation. The next time a school-related shooting occurs, all of America will be forced to endure, once again, the endless mantra about the "evil of guns," and how "guns kill children." We'll be treated to a barrage of demands for more restrictions on the sale and ownership of guns. And in all of the interviews and free air-time the mainstream media will give the anti-Second Amendment activists, I'm betting that not once will you see a reporter or journalist question their "facts."

Reflect on that for a moment. When the nation was shocked by the terrible tragedy of Columbine, did you hear even one network journalist challenge one of these activists with a question similar to: "The renegade teens involved in the shootings were breaking dozens of laws in the planning and execution of their deplorable acts, what makes you think that any new restrictions on gun ownership would stop teens who have decided to become cold-blooded murderers?"

No, the interviewers and network hosts will listen to the mantra of the anti-freedom talking heads intently, with a look of empathy and concern on their faces – expressions which are designed to develop a sense of support for the mantra in the minds of the viewer. Remember, television is all about images, and the network execs are experts in knowing what type of images to use to convey their messages. Some TV journalists will be so bold as to actually use specific, carefully scripted words to further the cause of the anti-Second Amendment crowd, but most will be more shrewd, relying heavily on the carefully selected powerful images to influence the public.

Another public-relations tactic you can count on are interviews with the grief-stricken parents of victims of gun violence who, simply put, are all too often "used" and deceived by the gun-banning crowd to further their own agenda. It's sad, but true. And it's time someone said it.

In "The Seven Myths of Gun Control" by Richard Poe, he outlines many of the media fallacies on the issue of gun ownership – including the astounding statistic that TV news stories calling for stricter gun laws outnumber news stories upholding Second Amendment rights by a ratio of 10 to one. But don't look for that fact to be reported, or for the truth about how preserving the Second Amendment saves lives, as was so eloquently documented by journalist Jon Dougherty in WND's ground-breaking issue of Whistleblower last September entitled, "Guns in America: Myth-busting research says firearms in more hands result in less crime."

What you also won't hear much about in the continuing coverage of 9-11 this fall, and beyond, is the simple fact that armed pilots would have made the difference in stopping the worst terrorist attack in the history of the United States. Pilots are among the most intelligent and carefully screened group of professionals in the world – they are even required to report speeding tickets and other automobile traffic violations so that behavior patterns can be analyzed. Everything from their sleeping habits to their reactions to stressful situations is monitored. Add to that the simple fact that over half of them are former military pilots, and you've got every reason necessary to allow them to carry guns that may very well save the lives of both their passengers and unsuspecting people on the ground like those who work in skyscrapers such as the former World Trade Center or government buildings like the Pentagon.

No, you won't hear much from TV network news about all the right reasons to arm pilots, because the media elite have to stick to their basic message: "Guns are bad."

Freedom-loving organizations like the National Rifle Association continuously battle the lies and deception of those who seek to make law-abiding citizens impotent in our efforts to protect our homes, our families, and even our nation's skyways.

Reader beware: The educational calendar year is the prime season for the gun mis-education campaign. So, here's a tip: When you want to find out the truth about guns, freedom and crime, don't rely on network news. Check out the NRA website, and rely on news organizations like WorldNetDaily which believe that the guiding editorial principles of every news outlet should be reporting the truth and the preservation and restoration of the United States Constitution.

"No, you won't hear much from TV network news about all the right reasons to arm pilots, because the media elite have to stick to their basic message: "Guns are bad."

Although it's usually a good bet that I'm in agreement with Rebecca, I've got to disagree with her here.

Two years ago what she said above would have been true, but the Democratic Party has currently banned its members from being publicly anti-gun in all competitive races this year.

More astounding, liberal Democratic Senators from prime gun-control states such as Boxer in California are PUBLICLY demanding that pilots be armed, a seismic shift in political positions from a mere 11 months ago.

Why? Because we kicked their asses. Our pro-gun, pro-civil-rights message drew union-member after union-member over to our cause.

Oh, and there is a more insidious reason: liberals no longer need the gun-control argument.

Oh, they're still for it, and they'd ban us common folks from being within a mile of a firearm if they had the unlimited power to do it.

But they don't need it because they have every one of their special-interest groups tied up in their coalition WITHOUT using the gun-control issue to draw any of them in.

Greens are still going to vote for Democrats (or Naderites), regardless of whether said Democrat is pro-gun (read: Zell Miller, Charles Stenholm).

Likewise with Gays and Blacks and 1960's-fantasizing Feminists. The same holds true for teachers, welfare recipients, and government employees.

On the other hand, farmers and union-members are prime candidates to flee from the Democratic Party whenever they encounter a Democratic politician who is for taking their guns.

So the gun-control issue has become worse than just superfluous Maoism to the Democratic Party, it's also become a liability. More than likely the Democrats won't revisit the issue until they seize a sizeable majority of national power again (at which point they'll take on the task of banning guns with a vengence and malice not seen since Hitler sent stormtroopers door to door in Warsaw).

For the short-term, we've won. We're arming pilots (a pro-gun-rights victory) and moving in the right direction rather than implementing more bans.

Politics has/have shifted in America. The old rules no longer apply. Democrats and the media can no longer be counted on to blindly promote idiotic "ban guns" messages.

And frankly, this makes them more dangerous and less vulnerable. Who would have thought that the Democrats would have been capable of adapting to the altered post-9/11 reality, especially so quickly? Who would have guessed that the Democrats could drop one of their allegedly "core" principles as though it was some trivial piece of trash, never to be thought of again?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.