“Bill Jenkins isn’t your classic gun control lobbyist,” nwitimes.com asserts. “In fact, he isn’t even a lobbyist or a formal activist. He is an Illinois gun owner and a father who lost a child to gun violence.” Once again, the mainstream media is ready, willing and able to wave the bloody shirt on behalf of gun control advocates. In this case, Mr. Jenkins’ is lobbying—sorry, speaking out on behalf of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s firearms registration and taxation plans for Illinois . . .
Jenkins gets pole position in writer Samson Adams’ thinly disguised polemic. As you’d expect. In left-leaning journalists’ twisted world view, professional victims are sexy. Tragic. Noble. Focused. Dedicated. Interesting. And easy.
“My son was shot and killed in 1997,” Jenkins tells Adams, “and … I don’t want bad guys to have guns, it’s simple.”
Adams should’ve ended it there. Unfortunately (for all of us) he doesn’t get paid to write Valentine’s Day cards to tyrannical government schemes that piss on the U.S. constitution. So the reporter dutifully trots out Jenkins’ opposition.
Enter Illinois State Rifle Association executive director, Richard Pearson. Pearson reckons Hizzoner’s plan to register all Illinois gun owners’ firearms and impose a $65 registration fee (plus $25 per anum) is “a tax on a civil liberty.” Oh, and did you know that Pearson is a gun nut?
Besides opposing it because he sees it as a violation of the 2nd Amendment, Pearson said he believes gun possession is a necessity for self-defense and he wouldn’t want to hinder people’s ability to purchase and keep a firearm.
He even has used one himself, when a jewelry store he owned in Normal was close to being robbed.
“A guy came in and shut the door and locked it with a latch. He said, ‘What would you do if I tried to rob you?’ I always carry a .45 with me, and I showed him my .45 and said, ‘I will shoot you,'” Pearson said with pride.
The would-be robber left straightaway, he said.
Note: You and I will read that story as vindication. The average reader will take it as a tale of someone who needs medication. And his gun rights removed. Sure, it’s a true story. But not exactly the best one to illustrate the anti-registration and taxation position. Which is why it’s there.
How do I know for sure that Samson is playing favorites?
Right from the git-go Samson’s framing the “debate” as a conflict between a non-professional gun control moderate (perfectly untrue) and a professional gun nut. If Jenkins “isn’t your classic gun rights advocate,” why not find a “normal” person to make the case against the scheme? You know: someone who hasn’t done the Clint Eastwood snappy rejoinder thing.
Second, Samson gives Jenkins the last word. In any [thinly disguised] advocacy piece, as in life, the guy who gets the last word wins. And quite the chilling word it is too.
For Jenkins, the idea that an authority is keeping tabs on people’s firearms is a good thing, whether it is the state or city doing the monitoring.
“People behave better in our society when they know somebody is watching,” he said.
Which is exactly what TTAG will continue to do regarding the mainstream media’s coverage of our second amendment right to keep and bear arms.