Previous Post
Next Post

It’s nice to hear a mea culpa from a Time magazine writer about the mainstream media’s anti-gun bias. It would have been even nicer if the Washington correspondent had admitted his own and his employer’s willingness to support the cause by making **** up. Case in point: How U.S. Gun Laws Make All of North America Less SafeWhich contains the classic line “Weapons obtained and smuggled back from border states in the U.S. take up the bulk of the cartels’ firepower.” Not to put too fine a point on it, that’s flat-out ‘effing ridiculous. In the last five years, some 100k Mexican military troops have defected to the cartels, bringing at least one U.S.-government sanctioned fully automatic rifle with them. Perhaps more? To quote from Brian Eno’s My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, you judge me, you make yourself look bad.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Doesn’t matter what the truth is, the mindless masses will believe it because they saw it on “the news.”

    And even if it were true, who cares? If the thugs of some foreign cesspool abuse our hard-won and hard-kept rights, that’s their problem. If someone steals my car and runs someone down with it, it wasn’t me that made the neighborhood unsafe, it was the thief.

  2. I’m shocked — SHOCKED — at this fool’s claim of bias in the MSM. How absurd. Next thing you know, some looney-tune is gonna say that water is wet.

  3. I’ve always found TIME to be one of the more better written, objective and straightforward news publications. That being said, they like every other journalist who knows nothing about guns or anything gun related, are talking pretty much out of their —in such a rush to get the story, they do no research, no nothing…I see better evidence of googling in here….

  4. Any time someone tries to make this claim about U.S. guns in Mexico, smack them upside the head. The entire thing rests on statistics that show most of the guns Mexican officials ask U.S. officials to trace turn out to be from the U.S. (you see different numbers, but always a high percentage).

    Duh. In other words, most guns that Mexican officials have reason to suspect are from the U.S. turn out to be from the U.S.. It says nothing at all about the total number of guns in Mexico, the number found at crime scenes, etc., but an entire media narrative has been built up based on what is, at best, a half-truth. That’s without even considering the point made by Robert about guns from Mexican troops.

    Even a liberal group like admits we have no idea what the broader percentages are.

  5. The average American is pro gun control as well. If you ask the question properly: “Do you think guns should require the same regulations as cars? Training, testing, insurance, registration? “. The overwhelming majority of Americans agree with this kind of common sense approach.

    Unfortunately, the debate is driven by the right-wing and left wing extreme, so there is no common ground.

    • Let’s say we accept your analogy:

      Gun licenses at 16 years old.

      No waiting period to buy one.

      Definitely a “shall issue” regime – how many people who are not legally blind are denied a drivers license?

      Full reciprocity between the states – I can move from Utah to Massachusetts and just trade in my gunners license for a new one.

      Licenses are valid throughout the states – I can drive, I mean carry, my gun in any state in the Union as long as I have a valid license.

      I could get to like this version of gun control.

    • The difference is that practically no one thinks cars are inherently evil, whereas a large percentage of gun-control advocates think firearms are the root of all death and evil. And while there is no constitutional amendment specifically protecting anyone’s right to keep and drive vehicles, there is one protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms. Making guns subject to the same regulations as cars would be tantamount to repealing the 2nd Amendment, and unless everyone agrees to give up that constitutional right, those so-called “common sense” regulations will never happen.

      • You hit the nail on the head. Most antis believe that guns have no legitimate purpose as their sole function is to kill. They go no further in their analysis. The flaw in their reasoning is that eliminating guns will not eliminate crime, murder, or violence. In fact, I was looking at the FBI stats tonight, and about 1/3 of murders are committed with guns, 1/3 with knives and other weapons, and 1/3 just by beating someone to death with hands and feet. Thus there is no reason to suspect that the murder rate will be changed at all by eliminating certain methods.

      • Regulating guns is not repealing the 2nd Amendment. 2A specifically states that the rights are needed so thatAmerica can have a “well regulated militia.”

        The Supreme Court has listed many gun restrictions and prohibitions that do not violate the 2nd Amendment. These include licensing, for example. And as much as I enjoy the conversations on this board, the people here do not have a greater grasp of constitutional law than the Supreme Court.

        The Constitution does not protect cars, mostly because no one ever thought car rights needed protection. I think you can safely assume that if cars were capable of spraying hundreds of bullets into crowds, the average American would agree that the regulation on that feature should would be more careful than Florida’s “shall issue” lunacy.

        But even so, the original statement was not about what rights you have, or think you have. It was that the media, and the average American, believes that assault rifles and 100-round magazines should be regulated.

        The media is not being hyper-liberal in this example, they are accurately reflecting the views of the public.

        In fact, the media is closer to what the average person wants than Congress is. Congress has been cowed by the NRA, while most news organizations have not.

    • The security of me, my family, and what remains of this country’s liberty don’t depend on cars.

      Your suggestion of turning a “right” into a “privilege” is the common sense of a subject.

      • The security of your family does not depend on 100 round mags, either. In fact, there is hardly any argument to be made that you need a 30-round clip to protect your family.

        More to the point, when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing. Arguing that it is a “right” is pure speculation.

        I suppose there may come a time when armed gangs start roaming the streets and a 8-rounder would put you at a disadvantage. But if this happens, you will get killed either way. I suspect in reality, you would prefer that the gangs have as few 30-round clips as possible.

        • More to the point, when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing.

          The same could be said for telephones or the internet. Would you argue that the 1st Amendment only applies if you’re communicating via a method used when the 1st A was written?

        • Mass communication existed, though. That is the same principle. 100-round magazines are not the same thing at all.

        • Mass communication existed, though. 100-round magazines are not the same thing as 100-copy newspapers.

        • Large-scale communication existed, though. 100-round magazines are not the same thing as 100-copy newspapers.

  6. Looks like Obama might be making a move after all, even if a smallish one.

    ““But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldier and not in the hands of crooks. They belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities,” he added.”

    Exactly which country does he think he’s the President of? Are there any countries that actually still use the AK-47 as a service weapon? Indonesia uses the Pindad SS1 and Kenya uses the G3.

  7. Newspeak aka Newsweek just announced that they are turning print only – the bulk of the writers who drove subscribers away from that rag now work at Time. Let them keep doing what they are doing, and let pro gunners vote proper candidates. Time will go belly up in the future like Newsweek did. Keep a bottle of Tullamore Dew / Veuve Cliquot or whatever else you like aside and let is quietly age while this happens. When Time gets buried, raise a happy toast.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here