atlanta cnn riot
(AP Photo/Brynn Anderson)
◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

Although [Judge Roger] Benitez’s detailed analysis of Second Amendment jurisprudence should serve as the more important takeaway from Friday’s decision [declaring California’s assault weapons ban unconstitutional], as coverage of the decision has already shown, when guns are involved, the narrative and public opinion prove key. That same coverage proves a second corollary: When guns are subject, the left-leaning press serves as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

“Federal judge overturns California’s ban on assault weapons and likens AR-15 to Swiss Army knife,” a CNN headline read, parroting Newsom’s talking point. “This judge compared the AR-15 – a weapon of war that’s used on the battlefield – to a Swiss Army Knife [and that comparison] completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who’ve lost loved ones to this weapon,” the embattled California governor said in a press release.

[California Attorney General Rob] Bonta likewise ignored the depth of the nearly 100-page opinion to intone “there is no sound basis in law, fact, or common sense for equating assault rifles with swiss army knives — especially on Gun Violence Awareness Day and after the recent shootings in our own California communities,” in a news release issued shortly after the opinion dropped.

CNN added to its coverage the statement from activist Fred Guttenberg, who lost his daughter in a shooting in 2018: “My daughter is in a cemetery because a Swiss Army Knife was not used, because it was an AR-15. If a Swiss Army Knife were used, my daughter and most of those other kids and adults would be alive today.”

The Washington Post, USA Today, and virtually every legacy outlet ran the same spin. And spin it was because Judge Benitez’s opener, noting that “like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment,” provided but a simple illustration of a minor point the long-time federal judge made later: that merely because a civilian rifle has characteristics that are useful in the military “does not detract from the constitutional protection afforded for self-defense.”

But instead of delving into Benitez’s reasoning, the corrupt media constructed a Swiss strawman to torch, ignoring both the federal judge’s analysis and the many press-peddled urban legends about “assault weapons” Benitez countered. In fact, most of the media ignore the larger point Benitez made concerning knives, namely that murderers use knives much more often than they do any kind of rifle.

— Margot Cleveland in Don’t Believe Leftist Lies About A Federal Judge’s End To California’s Gun Ban

◀Previous Post
Next Post▶

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

64 COMMENTS

  1. Ironic since anybody who wants nationwide coverage of their suicides get it! They must take responsibility for glorifying mass shootings for suicide by cop.

    • “…the AR-15 – a weapon of war that’s used on the battlefield …”

      And there goes all of your credibility, lame-stream media!!

  2. “the left-leaning press serves as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.”

    I’ve removed the part before the comma, since it is superfluous.

  4. The antis are going to need a costco order of tissues to catch all their tears. You have lost the judiciary and freedom will once again begin to ring. Now go cry yourself silly 😀

  6. Well the author is of when he says, “When guns are subject, the left-leaning press serves as a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.” The press is a full advocate of every single DemoRat talking point and goes so far as to self-censure coverage anytime their fellow travels get caught committing crimes or otherwise screwing-up. They can never be trusted.

    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to enumerate and therefore recognize a pre-existing Right of the People, that pre-dates the establishment of ALL Earth Governments. Since this Right was granted to us by our Creator, the state can not legal take it away or render it moot.

    The Best Part is that we are winning and need to keep the pressure up on our elected officials. Almost all DemoRats and a lot of Republi-Cons would love to pass gun legislation right now, but they can’t because they love their seats and the power and wealth it brings them even more.

    So keep call your representatives and comment on the new proposed BATFE rules, etc. The DemoRats have all 3 branches of government and can’t get Gun Control passed. We will win, if we continue to advocate for our Rights.

  7. Heck they’ve banned knives in Britain. Swiss or not…I haven’t hung a SAK on my AR-yet! Perhaps this case can WIN at SCOTUS😏

    • It’s much worse than merely a knife. They have banned ANY device carries for the purpose of self-defense.

    • i’d have an anatomically correct jamie lee curtis barbie.
      and maybe “operation” with caitlin jenner procedures. but move the bulb from the nose.

  9. Facts, statistics are irrelevant when they represent gun deaths! I want to feel 100% safe, wherever I am. It is up to government to protect me from harm, of any kind. I have a right to life, and to be happy. It is for the government to ensure those rights. And do it without heavy involvement of police.

    If only one American goes through life in fear of being killed for no reason, America has failed, presenting no reason for existing. While there are numerous items that can be used for killing someone, we need to start with guns; eliminate them from places where nice people live, work and shop.

    Once we are free of “legal” guns, we can turn to those other implements that can be used to kill the innocent. We are the richest nation on the planet. We talk about going to Mars, so we can fix this gun problem.

    No matter the cost, if it saves only one death, the effort would show the world we are a caring, compassionate people, and safe for immigrants of every type to simply make their way into our country.

    Love me some sweet smelling mind pablum.

    • I am thinking that your whole rant was in the spirit of sarcasm. The fact remains that if you are 100% safe, you are 100% unfree. Want to feel safe, and still be free? Carry a gun, and learn how to use it. You are 100% responsible for your own safety.

      • “I am thinking that your whole rant was in the spirit of sarcasm.”

        And ridicule !

        Good on ya’ for looking beyond the surface.

  10. ” . . . a civilian rifle has characteristics that are useful in the military ‘does not detract from the constitutional protection afforded for self-defense.’ ”

    Benitez got it backwards. It is because “a well regulated militia is necessary . . . ” that an “arm’s” characteristics being useful in the military makes it especially eligible for 2A protection.

    Suppose an arm’s characteristics made it not at all useful in the military. Or, it’s characteristics were such that it was of little use in the military. A garrote would fit the first supposition, a punt gun the second. In such a case a court might reasonably find that it was not an arm at all under the 2A. Or, that to the extent it really is an 2A arm it isn’t entitled to as much protection as those highly suited to military purposes.

    The alternative available to the court would seem to be to draw a sharp boundary. It would be compelled to decide whether a garrote was ever used for any military purpose; or, used often enough. E.g. to silently eliminate a sentry. Or, that the punt gun is never used or that ordnance experts opine that it’s characteristics would never be useful in military activities.

    Under this alternative it would be compelled to decide whether other lawful purposes entitle the arm to protection. E.g., if a garrote is suitable for cutting cheese; or, a punt gun is suitable for eliminating crows.

    It seems to me that under either of these approaches, it is unquestionably the case that a type of arm indisputably useful in military applications enjoys the highest degree of protection under the 2A. Thus, the AR-15 in America has a higher claim than even the handgun in-the-home. The AR-15 is “necessary” to the “security of a free state” whereas the handgun is merely a core right to self-defense of life.

  11. What an idiot! CNN “journalist”.

    “This judge compared the AR-15 – a weapon of war that’s used on the battlefield .”
    No Army in the World issues the AR15 to their soldiers.
    They completely missed the point.
    They “cherry picked” and twisted the Judge’s words.
    Democrats are so disgusting.
    The Government already said the AR15 is NOT a “weapon of war”.
    From The Western Journal, 6/8/21.
    “The phrase ‘Military Equipment’ means (1) Drums and other magazines for firearms to 50 caliber (12.7 mm) inclusive with a capacity greater than 50 rounds, regardless of the jurisdiction of the firearm, and specially designed parts and components therefor; (2) Parts and components specifically designed for conversion of a semi-automatic firearm to a fully automatic firearm; (3) Accessories or attachments specifically designed to automatically stabilize aim (other than gun rests) or for automatic targeting, and specifically designed parts and components therefor.”

    The AR-15 is none of these, obviously. It isn’t fully automatic, it (definitionally) doesn’t turn a weapon into a fully automatic firearm, it certainly isn’t .50 caliber.

    In other words, it’s not a “weapon of war.” Far from it.

    • Nope, still playing around with what is and what ain’t. The second ammendment is about having weapons of war. There’s no bump stock, pistol brace, belt fed, limitation to it.

      • That is correct! The prohibition of full-auto and select-fire arms is also unconstitutional. At the time of the founding of this country, many of the personal arms of the citizens were superior to those of the standing army, as any improvements are made in the private sector, as it is now:

        “[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.”
        – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

  12. The first sentence in anti-gun an op-ed in the Tampa trib today, specifically about the ruling.

    “I have spent the past 42 years practicing and teaching principles of rationality. As I learned during my doctoral education in rhetoric, rationality is at the core of our humanity, ….”

    When you claim to be an expert in rhetoric, I stop reading your thoughts about guns LOL.

  13. What the hell is Fred Guttenberg doing complaining about a judge speaking about a Ca law that he says is unconstitutional? He should be complaining about why the shooter in his daughter’s case wasn’t stopped by police first.

      • Chuck Michel AND million,

        Hey, we’ve ALL been waiting (far too long, IMHO) for SCOTUS to FINALLY pull its collective head from its collective fourth point of contact. If you’re familiar with the history of the 9th Circus, they are well aware that IF the Court actually considers Miller on the merits, it will uphold Benitez.

        SCOTUS is, and has been, just completely dodging the fact that the Circuit Courts of Appeal in general, and the 9th Circus in particular, have played merry hell with the (relatively) straightforward opinion in Heller. Disagreement among the Circuits is SUPPOSED to be one of the prime reasons for SCOTUS to grant cert. – and NO two Circuits are applying Heller the same way (mostly differing over the standard of review). Further, Miller and Judge Benitez’ other ruling (that is STILL pending on appeal with the 9th) in the Duncan v. Becerra case cover slightly different aspects of the 2A. I’d love to see SCOTUS take up Miller, Duncan AND N.Y. Pistol, issue a joint opinon along the lines of “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you idiots not understand??” But I won’t hold my breath.

        • There is no way that Miller can get there on time. It will be held pending Corlett, just as the other cases are being held. The Ninth is assuming that the Supremes may issue a decision as to the standard of review that they would be bound to “apply” (in some fashion that pays lip service and no more to the Supreme Court directives).

        • Mark,

          And I, too, think that is a more likely result – consider my “I’d love to see . . . ” to be more in the nature of wishcasting. However, SCOTUS has been known to hold cases and basically address a group of related issues. Standard of review is clearly the key component, but I think SCOTUS also needs to deal with the modern confusion about whether the2A does (per Miller v. U.S.), or does not (sorta per Heller), protect “military” weapons. And just what the hell IS a “military weapon”. Within my lifetime, M1 carbines were being issued to U.S. troops (in Viet Nam, for instance) for some purposes – and no one is currently arguing, that I am aware of, that an M1 carbine is an “assault weapon”. Or a Garand M1, currently being distributed and sold by the CMP. Yet both are UNDENIABLY actual “weapons of war”. The rhetoric used by the “gun control” zealots is confused and illogical, to say the least.

  16. It is quite amazing that we need a judge to clarify the most simple U.S. law on the books, which is impossible to misunderstand by anyone who can read:

    “…the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED.”

    Are liberals so stupid that a judge’s ruling on this matter is even necessary ???

    Yeah, I guess they are stupid, idiotic, and insane morons. They are vile, demonic and hateful people, whose only goal in life is to cheat, steal and kill, which they all have done in abundance.

    I say we should agree with them on one point. Let’s really defund ALL police, local, state and federal.

    We will then see who the survivors will be, and I’m willing to bet, it will not be the liberal hordes.

    • LastoftheOldOnes,

      Of COURSE they’re that stupid – after all, we have prime examples right here, proudly flaunthing their ahistorical “theories” about what the 2A “really means” (yeah, I’m talkin’ to you, MinorIQ). But, at the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter what the 2A says, or means, or whatever. All that matters is their irrational hatred of free people owning, keeping and bearing the tools to maintain that freedom. For them, it’s religious, not legal – or logical.

  17. They sound like two communist dictators talking over the facts in deference to the political agenda that will eventually lead to the slaughter of millions.

  18. Well yet again, the media hypes gun violence as an act of violence committed not at the hands of the criminal but an act of violence committed by an inanimate object. When a gun is used by a criminal in an act of violence, the criminal somehow becomes a innocent victim themselves.

  20. Is Corporate Media’s response that surprising? To acknowledge the Judge’s ruling as correct would undercut the last 60 years of Media Lies and Obfuscations.

    To be honest, I would be more surprised if they recognized the Common Sense in the Judge’s ruling.

  21. “Fred Guttenberg, who lost his daughter in a shooting in 2018: “My daughter is in a cemetery because a Swiss Army Knife was not used, because it was an AR-15.”

    Wrong, there were many many failures that led to the unfortunate murder of his daughter but to blame the AR-15 is pure idiotic. Policies of the school and school board including “gun free safe zone” mentality leading to poor onsite security/procedures and poor handling of known problem students and the ineptness and cowardness of on site armed officer and Sheriff’s department were primarily the blame. A few anonymous trained and armed teachers/staff could have save a lot of lives or even prevented attack from ever happening.

    Sorry Fred, but my rights including being able to protect my family don’t end with your feelings.

  23. In research of human subjects, a survey is a list of questions aimed for extracting specific data from a particular group of people. Surveys may be conducted by phone, mail,
    via the internet, and also at street corners or in malls.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here