Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts!

Posted on by

From Time magazine:

National Rifle Association v. Chicago / McDonald v. Chicago
At issue: Second Amendment rights to gun ownership.

A pair of cases challenge Chicago’s 27-year-old ban on handgun sales within the city limits. Originally designed to curb violence in the city, the ban has long irked Second Amendment advocates, who take an expansive view of the amendment’s wording that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But the Supreme Court had long held that the Second Amendment pertained only to federal laws, until a 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a ban on handguns and automatic weapons in Washington, D.C. The ruling marked the first time the Supreme Court acknowledged an individual right to bear arms, and it opened the door for these challenges to the Chicago regulation.

Do you notice anything wrong with that?

Bad question. It would be easier to answer, “Do you notice anything right with that?” But I’ll answer the harder question:

  • It’s not just or even primarily about a ban on handgun sales within the city limits. It a ban on possession within the city limits.
  • D.C. v. Heller had nothing to do with automatic weapons — unless you want to abide by D.C. definition of automatic weapon which included semi-autos.
  • This was not the first time the SC acknowledged an individual right to bear arms. Check out U S v. Cruikshank which said “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.” Or even U S v. Miller which allowed Miller had standing. See also An individual right.

It is very, very rare that when I read an article in the MSM where I know a fair amount about the topic that I don’t see substantial errors in the presentation of the material. I can only conclude the articles where I don’t know all that much about the material are also filled with errors. Hence, I cannot trust the MSM to provide me facts. Facts are apparently irrelevant to them.

Kevin made a post about this in the last year or so with, IIRC, a fancy name. I only had about three hours of sleep last night and am much too tired and cranky to go looking for it. And I still have more work work to do tonight…

Share

5 thoughts on “Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts!”

  1. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

    I’d challenge that. The Amendment doesn’t say, “Congress shall make no law…” (as the First does). I would therefor argue that the proscription thus lain is absolute — not only forbidding the Federal government, but ANY actor — state or private — at any level of polity.

    I don’t even seen a conflict between private property rights and RKBA, except possibly as a matter of courtesy. But to attempt to deny someone the right of self-defense on your property should be seen as despicable in its bigotry.

    And punishable under civil rights laws.

    M

  2. “Hence, I cannot trust the MSM to provide me facts. Facts are apparently irrelevant to them.”

    That has been noticed for quite a few years now. I like to check several sources to a story when I can.

    “If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed.”
    -Mark Twain

    “The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.”
    -Thomas Jefferson

  4. Most of the “big time” media (like the LA Times, NY Times, etc.) used to have “fact checkers” on staff and they spent their whole time researching facts in stories so they didn’t make dumb mistakes. I’ve also noticed that this seems to have become a thing of the past, perhaps due to the budget cutbacks a lot of the media have gone through. Another reason might be the new “24-hour news cycle” which seems to be sloppier than the old format for distributing news. Nowadays, anyone can be a journalist, even someone like Drudge or Limbaugh, and they don’t need no fact checkers so why should the MSM have them?

    Anyway, it is discouraging to see mistakes in a lot of stories.

  5. Joe, the really sad thing is that many anti’s will cite Miller and Cruikshank as being supportive to their side, ignoring the very plain language affirming the 2nd as an individual right.

Comments are closed.