Over at pagunblog.com (a.k.a., Shall Not Be Questioned) TTAG antagonist Sebastian focuses his editorial ire on yesterday’s New York Times article For Some, Owning Guns Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Liking Them. While I blogged the article’s freak show absurdity, Sebastian went freak hunting. After scouring the net in vain for any record of gun-hating gun owner and self-professed competitive shooter Michael Kundu’s competitive record, Sebastian dug deeper. “This is not the first time Kundu has been in the media pitching himself as a self-hating, anti-hunting gun owner. CNN has taken the bait too. So who is Michael Kundu? . . .
Well, he was School Board President for Marysville School District who ended up in hot water in the past for writing a racist e-mail as a school board president. Also, as School Board President, he attempted to censor dissenting viewpoints on global warming from being discussed in schools.
Perhaps more telling, Kundu’s associated with Sea Shepherd, who were recently declared pirates by the 9th Circuit . . .
Sea Shepherd’s own web site says he was Pacific Northwest coordinator for the group in 1997. You can see a profile of him here. Additionally, his activities have earned him the ire of native Americans.
Thank God for the Internet and bloggers like Sebastian dedicated to telling the truth about guns, if not the truth about The Truth About Guns. [h/t Tom S]
Thank you for posting this story. I was already passing it along yesterday via social media and grassroots sites. Our Democrat-dominated legislature here is shameful and petty, and operates without principle or apparent fear of political and legal reprisal. Our Sheriffs, except for a very few in the obvious gulag counties, firmly support The Constitution as you can see here:
http://constitutionclub.ning.com/forum/topics/county-sheriff-s-honor-roll?commentId=6585610%3AComment%3A11859
Some no-name blogger uncovers the truth that reporters at the New York Times were unable to find.
Either the New York Times has incompetent “journalists” or they are willfully spreading misinformation — e.g. propaganda. Neither shows me that the New York Times is an actual Newspaper as far as the First Amendment is concerned.
I hold the First Amendment protection of the Press to be as sacred as the Second Amendment. However, the First Amendment does not protect the Press so that they can distribute propaganda any more than the Second Amendment protects criminals for carrying firearms to rob banks.
> First Amendment does not protect the Press so that they can distribute
> propaganda
Nope, you are wrong on that account. The First Amendment helps protect the ability to call “bull sh!t” on NYT, but the NYT can and does disguise itself as news. Political opinion is supported….what we should do is call out the Times for what it is.
I appreciate your sentiments Pascal. Here is how I see it.
Our society needs factual, accurate news/information just as our society needs a healthy food supply. A “news” organization that willfully spreads misinformation is just as damaging as an agricultural organization that willfully spreads poisoned food.
I agree that we need the First Amendment to protect news organizations that publish controversial or even politically unpopular content. And we even need the First Amendment to protect organizations that produce fictional content.
What we cannot allow (legally, ethically, or morally) are “news” organizations that willfully distribute lies as truth.
If an armed citizen willfully brandishes or shoots at an innocent citizen, that armed citizen, by their own actions, became a criminal and faces years in prison. Imagine how much more accurate news would be if journalists faced the same possibility of imprisonment for willfully spreading lies as truth.
You are correct. Lying journalists are terrorists and should be labelled as such. At the very least, keep them under constant surveillance, and certainly forbid them gun ownership.
Henceforth, I will refer to the NYT as a terrorist organization. Probably the WP, now that they have shown their true colors and fired their ombudsman because he was actually showing their true colors.
The criteria for lying should be the same as for suing a newspaper for libel: reckless disregard for the truth.
While your argument has quite a bit of appeal, especially given that the MFM sees iteslf as nothing more than a palace guard for Obama and the Dem party, any sort of law to actually enforce those requirements would immediately be turned against the few conservative and libertarian news outlets, including this blog. The law would be applied be the leftist mandarins who dominate the civil service and the judiciary to the benefit of the leftists who run the MFM.
The First Amendment protect lies as much as the truth. If it only protected the truth then it wouldn’t be worth much. The internet generations has this absurd idea that back in the good old days newspapers were often wrong but not necessarily lying. Anybody who has studied the early days of the Republic would see what kind of nonsense this idea is. The press has always been partisan and has always lied to support a particular agenda. The press has always been there to misinform as well as inform.
The guy is married to a Senator and is a friggin ASTRONAUT!!!!
Of course he sailed through the background check. Seriously? They are gonna bust this guys balls?
9mm luger, please.
You can’t have enough ammo because… a click is a terrible thing to hear.
He may be an assto naught but a rocket scientist he ain’t. I keep seeing people saying that an astronaut should be smarter. Nobody ever said they are that smart. Some bad apples in ever bunch. Kelly and Lisa Nowak come from the same bunch. If you don’t remember Nowak she was the rocket scientist who drove cross county diapers to try kill her lovers wife.
TO: Chad Patterson, et al
RE: Flashlights….
….only point out where YOU are.
Rather than a flashlight, get a Crimson Trace laser targeting system mounted on the weapon.
If you need a flashlight, use one in your non-firing hand and hold it off-set from your body….opponents will fire at the light…hoping to hit you.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[When going to a gunfight, bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns. — Marine Corps Rules for Gunfighting]
Chuck(le)
Grog mad at editorial! Grog threaten civil war! Grog smash LA TIMES!!!!
“Moderate” simply means someone who takes no stand and instead gives in to whichever party shouts the loudest. They are governed by emotion. They are the voting equivalent of mercenaries and tend to lean in whatever direction the wind blows.
This is not to be confused with open-mindedness and those who use critical thinking to make their choices, overcoming both emotions and party doctrine. We need more of these people.
Good job bloggers.
I keep one on each of my house guns, you reach for the pistol and you also have a light.
Just be sure to strobe the room and not use the light as a flashlight, as for pointing a firearm at someone, how does this differ from when you “slice the pie” when clearing a room?
I’ve found weapon lights to be a silly idea.
My home always has some for of low ambient lighting, nightlight in the kitchen and bathrooms, aquarium lights in the living room.. it’s enough for me to see.
And well, think or a moment on where that light is. Now, picture what is directly behind that light.
Your head. You illuminate the bad guy AND give him a point of focus to shoot at at the same time. You’re better off with ambient light and no extra baggage on your gun.
Robert, you can’t know that those measures will have no beneficial effect. If you said they’d have too little to make them worth it, at least that would be truthful. But you’re really over the top with all that certainty.
Let me make a prediction since I’m making an early comment here. Not one of your sycophantic followers will have the integrity and honesty to call you on that.
I may disagree with magazine size restrictions, but I can at least see some logic in why anyone would pursue them. In a couple of mass shootings – Tucson and Long Island Railroad – the perpetrators were, after all, stopped while reloading.
What seems entirely illogical is to ban AR-15 while continuing to sell the sporting-looking rifle Breivik used in Norway. Unless one is out to ban all semi-automatic rifles, which seems quite unlikely, it makes no logical sense at all to ban AR-15. I find it hard to see anything but a hidden agenda in the “assault weapon” bans. This particular rifle also happens to qualify as the “militia rifle” if there ever was one, so there are, in my view, very serious constitutional issues as well.
Personally, I could learn to live with magazine size limits, provided they were more reasonable than 10 rounds – perhaps somewhere between 15 and 20 for handguns. I would find it much, much harder to swallow that Americans couldn’t own an AR-15 at all, be it with a small or large, fixed or detachable magazine.
This is why we must fight them at every turn. The AR-15 shooter’s fight is your fight, even if you just have a 20 gauge for shooting clays. Heck, it’s your fight even if you have no guns at all.