I know you’ll be shocked to know this…

7 Comments

But apparently the leftist gun-grabbing assgobblers in the media twist facts. The latest evidence of this comes in the form of a sniveling Washington Post editorial from a Philip Bump. Now, I don’t expect much from the Post as a general rule as far as objectivity goes, and no their token pet “conservative” Jennifer Rubin hardly counts. But this guy Lump Bump is amusingly biased. Hell, you could tell that just by his impressive resume of progtarded publications.

Philip Bump writes about politics for The Fix. He previously wrote for The Wire, the news blog of The Atlantic magazine. He has contributed to The Daily Beast, The Atlantic, The Daily, and the Huffington Post. Philip is based in New York City.

Well, gosh! We can certainly expect a balanced opinion from this drooling Lump Bump.

NOT!

But I figured I’d take a minute and quickly show you just how Lump Bump uses mental acrobatics to achieve his goal, which is to somehow shame Congress into implementing more gun control.

His first few sentences alone should be instructive, and for the ignorant and those who have a clear political agenda, the gymnastics are par for the course.

A new poll from Quinnipiac University sheds more light on one of the more remarkable aspects of U.S. politics: Americans overwhelmingly support expanding background checks for gun purchases. Yet when the issue came up for a vote in the Senate last year, enough senators opposed a compromise proposal to expand background checks that supporters couldn’t overcome a filibuster. But why not?

In the latest survey, 92 percent of respondents favored “background checks for all buyers.”

Here’s the problem with the way the poll question is phrased and the way Lump Bump portrays it: we already have background checks for all gun buyers. Anytime you go into any store that sells firearms, the store is required by federal law to run a background check. Any licensed firearms dealer must run the check, which also can deny an individual a gun purchase on the recommendation of psychiatrists, mental health institutions and family members.

That is the current law. Any person wishing to purchase a gun will undergo a background check.

What we DON’T have is background checks for private transactions, which the hysterical gun grabbers will tell you comprise 40 percent of all gun purchases. That particular statistic, even though it is continuously trotted out by hoplophobes in an effort to push their agenda of basically outlawing private firearms transfers, has been discredited many times over.

First – it is already a felony for private sellers to sell a firearm to a person who they reasonably believe could not pass a background check. In other words, I’m not going to sell one of my pistols to a dude sporting gang colors and tattoos, who smells like weed, and has several bags of what appears to be coke strewn about the trunk of his car, OK?

And second – the “survey” on which this “40 percent” figure is based was conducted about a year after mandatory background checks became law. In other words, the vast majority of respondents likely purchased firearms before the Brady background checks became law. Additionally, this survey asked only 2500 people where they purchased guns. Talk about your tiny little samples!

Fact is we just don’t know how many firearms are purchased without a background check.  But we do know how criminals purchase their firearms – by their own admissions.

In 2001, the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted a survey of state and federal prisoners in an effort to find out how criminals get firearms that they use in their crimes. Do you know what it found?

  • Only 18.4 percent of criminals purchased firearms from a retail store or pawn shop.
  • 1.7 percent got guns from a flea market or gun show, blowing that “gun show loophole” theory right out of the water.
  • The vast majority – 40.5 percent – got their guns from family and friends – whether paid for, borrowed, stolen or traded.
  • And another 30.9 percent got guns through the black market or other illegal means – theft, off the street, their drug dealer, etc.

For gun grabbers who are too stupid to understand what that means, let me put it simply: no existing background check, and no expanded background check will stop criminals from obtaining guns. Last year, Illinois governor Pat Quinn signed an ineffective and stunningly stupid law requiring expanded background checks be conducted for all gun purchases. I’m sure you’ve seen how well that law has worked in the warzone of Chicago, right?

And this brings me to the real point of this post.

EXPANDED BACKGROUND CHECKS.

EXPANDED.

BACKGROUND.

CHECKS.

Lump Bump claims in his steaming heap of bovine leavings that 92 percent of Americans support EXPANDING background checks, according to the latest Quinnipiac poll, but that’s just not true.

The poll asked a very general question: Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

And the total reply was 92 percent in the affirmative. It asked nothing about EXPANDED background checks. The interesting part is the phraseology of the question, because it leaves the interpretation up to the respondent. Does the question ask about expanding background checks, or does it mean the already-existing background check system in which anyone who purchases a firearm must undergo a background check? It’s pretty convenient for Lump Bump to interpret the responses to suit his agenda when the question asked was vague enough to allow it.

Additionally, according to the poll, the nation is evenly split on the question of increased gun control. Expanding background checks does mean increased gun control, and exactly 50 percent of respondents want to see increased gun control. So it’s hard for me to believe that expanded background checks do not equal increased gun control in most people’s minds. And it’s hard for me to believe that at least 50 percent of the respondents weren’t voicing support for already existing background checks.

But Lump Bump wouldn’t let little things like facts stand in his way. The majority of Americans support expanded background checks, he whines, when thee research indicates no such thing. Why doesn’t Congress?

Perhaps because as power-hungry and disgustingly morally corrupt as most politicians are, they understand that alienating gun owners, who actually… you know… vote, might not be the best idea to further their careers.

NEWSFLASH: Ed Schultz is a dipshit!

6 Comments

How does someone as loutish and ignorant as Ed Schultz get a job in media? Hell, how does a moron like that get a job anywhere?

What am I talking about?

This.

Tweet1

No, really! What in the actual fuck? (h/t: This Ain’t Hell)

It is true that the Nazis didn’t just target Jews, but also homosexuals, gypsies and people with disabilities.

But let’s get a bit real here. Two-thirds of the Jews who lived in Europe at the time were exterminated, along with Poles, random prisoners of war, transsexuals, homosexuals, Romani, political opponents, etc.

But to ignorantly claim that really, it was the homosexuals who were targeted. They were the real victims. They were the ones persecuted. It was all about the gays… How fucking ridiculous do you have to be to spew something so incredible?

Why does this abhorrent, reprehensible slob still have a job?

Oh… I forgot. It’s MSNBC. They just erased the Tweet and went on with their lives.

Unfortunately, dipshits, the Internet is forever.

So Long and Thanks for All the Fish

11 Comments

It’s about time Piers Morgan took a hike.

Arrogant Euro-snob Piers Morgan bade a farewell to his American CNN audiences Friday after tanking his show’s ratings for several years with preachy rhetoric, boring harangue and abuse of guests with whom he disagreed.

via So Long and Thanks for All the Fish.

“Journalist” Attacks 9-Year Old

15 Comments

This is my third contribution to JPFO for the week.

Journaljizzer attacks a little girl from the safety of his keyboard, knowing that said little girl can probably kick his ass in real life.

This guy is a jackass.

Shyanne Roberts is a competitive shooter who is skilled in numerous firearms, and who has been wowing fans at tournaments for the past two years. Columnist Mike Kelly is claiming her sport of choice is creepy.

via “Journalist” Attacks 9-Year Old.

GUNS AS A HEALTH ISSUE

11 Comments

The Washington Post’s editorial board is once again flogging its well-worn, neurotic, hysterical fixation with gun control by disingenuously conflating health care and guns.

via GUNS AS A HEALTH ISSUE.

This is my second article this week for JPFO. Enjoy.

This new FCC initiative worries me (UPDATE – dropped for now)

5 Comments

If you haven’t heard yet, the Obama Administration wants to know more about the news. According to one FCC Commissioner writing in the Wall Street Journal recently, the FCC is sticking its rather large proboscis into newsrooms across the country. Ajit Pai is uncomfortable with this new FCC initiative that seeks to do a study of “Critical Information Needs,” across the country by sending  researchers to interview reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.

Sounds harmless, right? Not so much.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of “critical information” such as the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their “news philosophy” and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.

The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: “Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?” Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.

This is disturbing. A government agency with the power to hand out licenses that can essentially decide whether or not a news organization will continue operating has developed standards for “critical information” decided by… political appointees, one of whom happens to be Mignon Clyburn, daughter of Democrat Congressman James Clyburn.

A government agency is all of a sudden setting standards about what is “critical information” for American audiences. Screw what the public wants! The bureaucrats know better!

A government agency is spending taxpayer money to find out what media outlets should cover, based on criteria its bureaucrats think is appropriate for you – the American audience.

The FCC commissioned the University of Southern California Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism and the University of Wisconsin-Madison Center for Communication and Democracy to do a study defining what information is “critical” for citizens to have. The scholars decided that “critical information” is information that people need to “live safe and healthy lives” and to “have full access to educational, employment, and business opportunities,” among other things.

Who decides what you should watch? Apparently some “academics” using your money commissioned by your government. They know best, so just sit down and have a nice cup of shut the fuck up, plebe. They know better.  You just need to pay your taxes and obey.

The FCC says it won’t force newsrooms and their employees to participate in this study,  and that it’s completely optional. But how difficult is it to imagine this horde of nanny state nitwits denying a news outlet its license if it chose to exercise its option not to participate in this farce?

How difficult is it to see how the presence of an FCC bureaucrat “studying” these “critical” standards in newsrooms could be coercive and intimidating?

How difficult is it to see how FCC presence at MSNBC could ignore the obvious bias of those screeching shrews, while frowning meaningfully at the screeching shrews at Fox News and pointing out obvious political bias?

The use of taxpayer funds to “study” newsrooms around the country is bad enough. I don’t see where the Constitution grants the Executive Branch the authority to determine what constitutes “critical information” for American audiences to consume, nor is there any authority that allows the FCC to pressure newsrooms – overtly or implicitly – to air what politicians and their appointed pet bureaucrats want them to air.

The presence of the FCC in newsrooms – no matter what the claims of the bureaucrats about it being simple research – will be coercive and disruptive, as well as unnecessarily intrusive.

I know I am many times critical of the mainstream media. They cover the Duck Dynasty flap as if it were real news, while ignoring violence in the Ukraine. They feverishly follow Miley Cyrus and that degenerate Bieber kid, as if their presence in our collective consciousness was as necessary as the air we breathe. Most of the time, they air such unbelievable crap, that I turn off my TV in disgust. But that is my choice as an audience member, and I certainly don’t need some bureaucrat telling me what is essential watching for my well being, or dictating to the mediots what they should air to please me.

I’m perfectly capable of making decisions for myself, thank ya!

UPDATE: After a public outcry, it seems the FCC decided it would drop the study until a “new study design is final.”

“By law, the FCC must report to Congress every three years on the barriers that may prevent entrepreneurs and small business from competing in the media marketplace, and pursue policies to eliminate those barriers. To fulfill that obligation in a meaningful way, the FCC’s Office of Communications Business Opportunities consulted with academic researchers in 2012 and selected a contractor to design a study which would inform the FCC’s report to Congress. 

[...]

“However, in the course of FCC review and public comment, concerns were raised that some of the questions may not have been appropriate. Chairman Wheeler agreed that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required. …

Let’s Call a Penalty on the NFL’s Anti-Gun Bias

7 Comments

Nicki:

What Dan said.

Originally posted on International Liberty:

There are certain groups of people who support gun control for very logical reasons.

Criminals are obviously big fans of gun control because they prefer unarmed victims.

Dictators also are big supporters of gun control because they want unarmed subjects.

Other segments of the population like gun control for inexplicable ideological reasons.

International bureaucrats advocate for gun control because they apparently think government should be daddy and citizens should be children.

Foreign politicians impose gun control because…well, I’m not sure why, but probably because they’re weenies.

And some American politicians want gun control because it appears they viscerally oppose individual freedom.

But I’m at a loss to understand why other segments of the population are on the wrong side of the gun issue. Why, for instance, does the National Football League have a policy prohibiting this very simple and innocuous ad from airing during the Super Bowl?

You…

View original 336 more words

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: