Michelle Malkin goes to bat for gun-owners; Smack-down for Bloomberg & Roanoke Times

[cngerms]

The ever-lovely Michelle Malkin comes out swinging for the pro-2nd Amendment community and blackens the eyes of the Roanoke Times and NYC Tyrant Michael Bloomberg. Send her a thank you email, please!
[email protected]

This article was linked through www.lauraingraham.com so I assume Laura Ingraham discussed this on her radio program on 3/21/07. I'll listen and let you know.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0321200...witch_hunt_opedcolumnists_michelle_malkin.htm

MEDIA WITCH HUNT
By MICHELLE MALKIN


March 21, 2007 -- 'THE Second Amendment," Charlton Heston used to say, "is America's first freedom." The Second secures the rest. It's a message narcissistic journalists need to hear again.
A decade ago, Heston chastised the media in a National Press Club speech for its ignorance, apathy and open hostility toward gun owners' rights: "Clearly, too many have used freedom of the press as a weapon not only to strangle our free speech, but to erode and ultimately destroy the right to keep and bear arms as well.

"In doing so you promoted your profession to that of constitutional judge and jury . . . . It is a frightening misuse of constitutional privilege, and I pray that you will come to your senses and see that these abuses are curbed."

Alas, Heston's prayers have yet to be answered. While courts have recently bolstered Second Amendment rights, endangering gun owners in the name of free speech continues to be the blood sport of the Fourth Estate.

Under the sanctimonious guise of "Sunshine Week," the Roanoke (Va.) Times two weeks ago published an online database of registered holders of concealed-handgun permit in the paper's community. The database included the names and street addresses of some 135,000 Virginians with permits to carry concealed weapons.

Columnist Christian Trejbal patted himself on the back for making it easy to snoop: "I can hear the shocked indignation of gun-toters already: It's nobody's business but mine if I want to pack heat. Au contraire. Because the government handles the permitting, it is everyone's business."

Trejbal denied that compiling the concealed-carry-permit-holders list was "about being for or against guns." But he exposed his true agenda when he compared law-abiding gun owners to . . . sex offenders: "A state that eagerly puts sex-offender data online complete with an interactive map could easily do the same with gun permits, but it does not."

The Roanoke Times showed reckless disregard for the safety of the license holders and reckless disregard for accuracy. In his column, Trejbal admitted that he knew some of the information he had obtained was inaccurate - but published it anyway: "As a Sunshine Week gift, The Roanoke Times has placed the entire database, mistakes and all, online at roanoke.com/gunpermits. You can search to find out if neighbors, carpool partners, elected officials or anyone else has permission to carry a gun."

After an uproar among gun-owners, including domestic-violence victims licensed to carry, the Times finally decided to yank the database.

But Trejbal seems not to feel much remorse: "Did we make it easier [to obtain the information]? Yes. But it's still a public record."

Let's review: He published a list he knew contained inaccuracies. His paper admits the decision endangered gun owners. He compiled a convenient shopping list for criminals - and smacked law-abiding gun owners in the face with his comparison of their choice to exercise their rights with sex offenders.

Public disclosure of concealed-carry licenses varies from state to state. Eighteen states protect permit holders' privacy from public view. Virginia is one of 17 states that make licensee records public.

If information is public, does it make it right for a newspaper to publish it? The media exercise discretion all the time in withholding the names of minors or rape victims. Why should the privacy of law-abiding holders of concealed-handgun permits be treated with any less concern?

While the Roanoake Times has retreated, the witch hunt against gun owners continues. In New York City, Mayor Bloomberg last year launched a "sting" operation targeting gun shops in five states for allegedly selling guns illegally.

Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman of the Second Amendment Foundation note that Bloomberg sent unauthorized private investigators to conduct the operation - without notifying the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF): "The odor ripened when Bloomberg filed civil lawsuits against these gun shops, rather than turn over evidence to the proper authorities for criminal prosecution."

Bloomberg has, of course, earned the praise of the anti-Second Amendment media for his stunt. The unholy alliance between Big Nanny politicians and journalists threatens us all.

[email protected]

 

[Limeyfellow]

Just a shame that its hard to take any of the cases she states as truth because she has a habit of making them up, like that case where she claimed they caught guys with rpgs at the end of a military runway in the US, and well known for character assassinations based solely on slander.

In the end she just makes the cause of gunrights soiled by her presence and we don't need her screwing up decades of hard work.

 

[cngerms]

I believe the website you're looking for is MoveOn.org

Limeyfellow quotes:

Socialism Apologetics 101:

In the most famous socialist states in Europe they tend to have less gun laws than the US. Good examples being the likes of Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Finland and so on. Socialism has nothing much to do with firearms and different branches of it have far different rules on the role of firearms, many believing its essential for the security of the state and to prevent the manipulation by the few over the masses.

Remember to hate America first:

Quote:
Because, you KNOW there are still people who will deny these "peace-loving
bastions of islam" would do a dirty thing like that....

Eh? We done the same things numerous times with special forces disguised as local forces in Ira, Afghanistan, El Salvador, Guantamano, Vietnam, Columbia and a bunch of other conflicts. Who would have thought we would do a dirty thing like that.

It's spelled 'Reagan':

So you be really made if its a choice between Hillary Clinton and Rudolph Giuliani I am guessing. Its like all those people who voted for a gun hated like Ronald Reagon just because he was a Republican or George Bush Sr. Republicans have more than their fair share of gungrabbers especially in the current administration.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad= Muslim George W. Bush:

The guy is not even close to Hitler's standard.

I would say he is closer to a muslim version of George Bush if anything. They use religion and makes comments of the endtimes and moral issues to get the base to vote for them. They also seem to both appeal to more rural citizens by claiming social conservatism and improving the poor of the country's living condition, except neither have really done much about it. This is done through appealing to patriotism and fear of change and lots of attack ads and labeling those who think different as traitors and enemies in a very black and white sense

They both seem to have a disturbing lack a knowledge in foreign affairs and diplomatic training. Thats resulted in a hell of alot of conflicts in the world today and greater distrust to both nations through the words of the leaders of each country. It has resulted in national interests and supporters interests taking over rather than whats good for everybody, or the planet.

Then both have ordered the start of investigating new nuclear technology, the US with nuclear bunker busters, pulled out of all the treaties associated with limiting them. Iran assumed to be with weapons and civilian reactor technology.

Compared to Hitler though, Ahmadinejad is a complete amataur without the charismatic power, ability to command and sheer brutalness.

Obama wanted to renew AWB of 1994 (Chicago Tribune), but that's an INCONVENIENT TRUTH for Limeyfellow:

Obama couldn't be any more a gungrabber than Bush and Cheney are. They regularly boasted in the past about how they don't believe anything they don't deem a sporting firearm should be allowed for the people, supported the awb and banned the import of military weapon barrels on kits. If they had their way we be severly limited, not to mention the likes of Trent Lott and company.

Obama hasn't mentioned firearms restrictions. If anything he has supported gunrights and firearms from being taken away by the feds in an emergency and other gunrights in the past. I think people seem to be making up scare stories about Obama. Especially linking his name to Osama and regular mentioning of his middle name, which just happens to be one of the most common names in the world. Its really dirty politics.

The most antigun candidate running for presidency is probrobly Rudy Guiliani. I also noticed in the Democrat 2000 and 2004 presidential election platform we didn't see a mention of gun control at all. We did however in 2000 see it on the other side. Its one of the biggest con games I seen that any party is all antigun or progun. We have to remember the Brady law and awb were big bipartisan laws, and their major lobbyists for these laws included the likes of Ronald Reagon. >>>>> Again, it's "REAGAN"

Bush, Cheney & Lott = Gun-grabbers; Hillary Clinton = Firearms Champion

I would be more concerned with Bush and Cheney who both are on record at wanting to ban these types of firearms altogether. Not to mention Lott and company who make Clinton look like a raving militia woman.

NewsMax = BIASED LIARS

Its Newsmax. Enough said really. They been lying their arses off for years and so clearly biased they make Fox News look like Michael Moore.

FoxNews = No common sense

Really, do you expect any common sense news from Fox News.

Who knew we wanted to be French-like?

Its car-bine in Britain. Around here in the US everyone I know says Car-bean so I put it down to just the funny way americans speak and how they changed all the words around because they wanted to be more French like. I tend to switch between both depending on who I am talking too.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

The King's Zinglish

. . . depending on who I am talking too.

That's it.

I'm telling Pax.

If yer gonna make fun of us funny talking Amercuns, y'all could at least use actual English.

Yes, we know it's a popular ritual to put down Americans, but if you're going to exercise that rite, at least write right, right?

Oh . . . and for the record:

Michelle Malkin rocks.

 

[gunsmith]

I have been in love with Michelle for years.

Lefties hate when intelligent and attractive women disagree with them.

 

[GlenJ]

Michelle is one of the true conservatives out there. Another one is Anne Coulter.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Anne Coulter does a good job of regularly making an idiot of herself.

I did send Michelle a thank you email though, even though I disagree with her 50% of the time (she supports the ww2 Japanese interment camps for instance)

 

[cngerms]

I have been in love with Michelle for years.

Does Michelle know about this, gunsmith? We're not going to see you on the evening news being handcuffed on her front lawn, are we? I adore the woman myself. Nothing like beauty AND conservative brains to send a man reeling.

BTW, this is the second time Michelle Malkin has stepped up to the plate for the 2nd Am. community in about a week. Laura Ingraham has been discussing the DC Gun Ban reversal recently as well, but I haven't listened to yesterday's broadcast yet where she most likely discussed Michelle's column. I and many others have been emailing the talk radio folks asking them to give us a mention. I've been trying to keep track of which ones help us so they can receive an honorable mention on this forum. Please let me know if you hear anything.

 

[cngerms]

Yes, we know it's a popular ritual to put down Americans, but if you're going to exercise that rite, at least write right, right?

WRITE!

 

[tinygnat219]

Limeyfellow,

You are completely incorrect on this one. I have been following the Roanoke Times' debacle here and Michelle Malkin hits it on the head. You need to check the facts out on this one.

She is also correct on Bloomberg. He's sued 5 dealers in VA, forcing 2 out of business 1 to settle, and 2 are fighting it. He didn't use New York City or State Law Enforcement, nor did he cooperate with VA State Police, or the BATF. The BATF has recently ruled that it will not file charges because no crimes had been committed by the stores.

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Just a shame that its hard to take any of the cases she states as truth because she has a habit of making them up, like that case where she claimed they caught guys with rpgs at the end of a military runway in the US, and well known for character assassinations based solely on slander.

In the end she just makes the cause of gunrights soiled by her presence and we don't need her screwing up decades of hard work.

I don't follow Michelle Malkin all that closely, but from what I have seen she is almost always right on the money. I don't think anyone who basically blogs about current events can be right 100% of the time, but as far as "making up" stories, or "character assassinations based solely on slander", can you provide any links?

 

[fedlaw]

Let's review: He published a list he knew contained inaccuracies. His paper admits the decision endangered gun owners. He compiled a convenient shopping list for criminals - and smacked law-abiding gun owners in the face with his comparison of their choice to exercise their rights with sex offenders.

Perhaps the writer was trying to justify his choice by comparing it to a lawful and constitutionally protected right?

 

[Tim James]

"In doing so you promoted [the press] to that of constitutional judge and jury . . . . It is a frightening misuse of constitutional privilege, and I pray that you will come to your senses and see that these abuses are curbed."

I'm new to firearms and this is the first time I've heard this quote from Heston. After reading a good reminder about the natural right to bear arms in another thread, I started thinking about the natural rights of the press. You should be able to write whatever you want on a piece of paper and let people buy it and believe it if they choose, but does the press get extra "privilege" by being able to muck around in government documents or something?

 

[cngerms]

I'm new to firearms and this is the first time I've heard this quote from Heston. After reading a good reminder about the natural right to bear arms in another thread, I started thinking about the natural rights of the press. You should be able to write whatever you want on a piece of paper and let people buy it and believe it if they choose, but does the press get extra "privilege" by being able to muck around in government documents or something?

I agree the press should be allowed to publish what they wish...... until they slander or endanger someone. They've done both with Trejbal's op-ed piece. They had a legal right to obtain the CHP holder list, but they don't have the right to publicly equate CHP holders with sex offenders. That may not meet the legal definition of slander, but it meets my definition.

I say, let the free-market forces come to bear on the Roanoke Times.

 

[gunsmith]

cngerms

Alas, she is a married woman.
If she is ever single again I shall inform her of my feelings...I am an old fat broke gun nut...how could she resist my charms?