Free Markets, Free People


Joe Biden is counting on the “legitimate media” in the gun control effort

Obviously, even Joe Biden is not dumb enough to call it the official propaganda arm, but apparently you “social media” types are, well, illegitimate:

Biden said that it was important for the media to dissuade the American public from the idea that the Obama administration was prepared to do something unconstitutional on guns.

“To be very blunt with you, we’re counting on all of you, the legitimate news media to cover these discussions because the truth is that times have changed,” Biden added, warning that people would continue to “misrepresent” the White House’s plans for gun control.

“The social media that exists out there, the tragedies that have occurred, the Supreme Court decision affirming that its an individual right to bear arms – all give a lie to the argument that what we’re trying to do is somehow unconstitutional, or somehow goes after the legitimate right to own and bear arms and to hunt and protect yourselves,” Biden added.

Of course, Joe Biden has never been known to tell a whopper, has he?

And yes, he thinks we’re all idiots out here in flyover land.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

21 Responses to Joe Biden is counting on the “legitimate media” in the gun control effort

  • “misrepresent” the White House’s plans for gun control”

    Unless gun control means hitting what they aim at, there is no misrepresentation possible if they are talking about registration and restriction.

  • Nothing we’re going to do is going to fundamentally alter or eliminate the possibility of another mass shooting or guarantee that we will bring gun deaths down to a thousand a year from what we’re at now,” Biden told reporters after meeting with Senate Democrats in the Capitol.
    These new gun laws are for what purpose ?

  • Nothing is going to get done in congress because Harry Reid is bought by the NRA just like he is bought by the Casino’s and a few other special interests, and we all know that Harry can obfuscate and block better than any senate leader there ever was. So in this one case the NRA’s decision to support him has hurt the country in a lot of ways, but helps in this one way.

    • Harry can obfuscate and block better than any senate leader there ever was.
      I’m sorry, but Robert Byrd was the best.

  • “The social media that exists out there, the tragedies that have occurred, the Supreme Court decision affirming that its an individual right to bear arms – all give a lie to the argument that what we’re trying to do is somehow unconstitutional, or somehow goes after the legitimate right to own and bear arms and to hunt and protect yourselves,”
    The weird part is that if you actually parse that out, he thinks that tragedies and the Heller decision … support his goals and support their Constitutionality.
    Which is odd, since I recall Heller talking about “in common use” as a test…

    Either he doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he’s just lying. Honestly, my money’s more on the former – Biden is completely incompetent.

    (Also, kyleN … what are you talking about? The NRA didn’t “buy” Reid.
    You know who owns him? Casinos own him.
    Note that the NRA isn’t even on the list of donors – because the petty $5k they gave him in 2010 is nothing; they give people with non-horrible ratings donations, to let them know the NRA is watching, and that the NRA rewards gun-positive actions. They don’t care about his votes a decade previous – they care about his votes recently.
    That’s all because the NRA doesn’t buy politicians. They influence voters with ratings.
    Reid got a B rating, yes … and his opponent in 2010 got an A rating. That’s how the NRA always works; act (or, for a new candidate, talk) pro-gun, get a good rating. Act anti-gun, get a bad rating.
    Saying that the NRA is “buying” politicians by informing voters of <I>how the politicians voted on the issues</I> is… shall we say, a bit of a stretch?
    And no, they didn’t endorse Reid in 2010, either. )

    • well i stand corrected, I had always heard there was a very close relationship with Reid and the NRA, but at the risk of offending you further I will state categorically that the NRA is nothing more than a special interest group just like every other special interest group. Now I, and most of us here happen to agree with their goals, but they are slimy politicians just the same.

      • I am a special interest, too.  So is the TEA Party.  What a lunk-headed thing to say!

        • Not lunk headed at all. Just a tad cynical. And my own cynicism is edging towards the same territory.

          • Holy crap!  The U.S. was designed to be government of the “special interest”, by the “special interest”, and for the “special interest”.  WTF do you think the First Amendment is about…????  To someone else EVERYBODY is a “special interest”.  It’s a meaningless pejorative….

          • Special interest – we must ONLY use that term in the same way we would use the word “Conservative”.

            That is, to mean something BAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDDDD.

            Let’s get with the program gentlemen, please.

          • I’ve tried to decide recently if being a cynic is helping, at all.   But damn, it’s hard not to be one these days.

            50% approval ratings and all.

        • OFA is a special interest group

      • Who isn’t a special interest group?

        My dog, cats, wife and children are all special interest groups. As am I, and all my neighbors. And everyone else.

        As special interist groups go, the NRA is very clear, upfront and honest with respect to their interests. Compare to AARP or Planned Parenthood or NAACP.

    • KyleN is not completely out to lunch.

      It did tug at my memory so google searches turned up things like this.

      http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/07/01/nra-now-leans-toward-endorsing-harry-reid/

      • While I don’t like Reid one bit, NRA maintains its power by its willingness to cross the asile. If it refused to endorse otherwise slimy Democrats who are willing to support gun rights, they would be no incentive for slimy Democrats to be anything but slimy.

        That’s not a nice thing when dealing with Obamacare and other such garbage, but it is the most effective way to deal with gun control specifically, which is kinda the NRA’s thing.

        NRA’s effectiveness in part is due to the fact that it isn’t a chapter of the GOP. My tool kit contains different tools, as does our political tool kit–only so many thing can be fixed if all you have is a hammer.

  • I think its Savage that refers to the Whitehouse reporters as ‘Whitehouse stenographers’. 

  • I’ll also note that Gun Owners of America, which is a more hardline gun rights org., opposed “shall issue” CCW permits on the basis that a permit shouldn’t be required. NRA and those who pushed for permits have done a much better job in obtaining CCW access.

    More freedom is usually more better. Even if the increased freedom isn’t perfect and utopian. That’s one of my take aways from reading a bit on the early devlopment of freedom among the Dutch and English in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, and it also applies in our modern fight for freedom.

    CCW makes handguns a practical means of self defense for a wide range of people who might not all be interested in gun rights and gun ownership if the practical aspect of self defense wasn’t there. Further, “shall issue” CCW teaches people that an armed community doesn’t have to look like a caricature of the wild west. So “shall issue” CCW furthers gun rights in multiple ways, and has even resulted in states like AZ and AK allowing permitless CCW–a result the GOA would have never achieved by their approach.

  • So Joe proposes and the Democrats in Misery dispose.

    The thugs at the state level run out an propose a 90 day period leading to confiscation.

    Not that they’ll get away with it, at least, not in Missouri.