Law School Conservative

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is learning money can't buy everything.  Sure, it can pay for fancy television ads to push your latest gun-control scheme, but it doesn't mean television stations are going to run them. 

In Wichita, Kansas, two stations have refused to run ads by Bloomberg's anti-gun group because the stations say the ad is misleading.  Bloomberg's countered, claiming the stations are "censoring" him.

Here's news for Bloomberg:  These stations are responsible for the accuracy of any "issue ad" that they broadcast.  If they can't verify the claims you made, that's your fault, not theirs.  You can make as many misleading ads as you want, but stations aren't under any obligation to run them. 

Leave it to Bloomberg to complain about people taking responsibility for their own actions.  And leave it to Bloomberg to avoid his own responsibility for being truthful.  He might be able to get away with that attitude in the Big Apple, but he's starting to learn the hard way that he's not America's mayor.

The mainstream media continue their blackout on good news about gun owners, so don't expect the media to tell you about the latest survey from the Pew Center any time soon.

The Center polled Americans about their attitude towards the NRA, and the results would make any politician green with envy. 

The survey found that 52 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the NRA, while only 32 percent had an unfavorable view.  Those are better ratings than any of these anti-gun politicians:

Hillary Clinton- 48 percent favorable, 50 percent unfavorable.

John Kerry- 42 percent favorable, 54 percent unfavorable.

Nancy Pelosi- 44 percent favorable, 46 percent unfavorable.

Michael Bloomberg- 25 percent favorable, 50 percent unfavorable.

Remember these numbers the next time the media try to portray these politicians as speaking for the majority of Americans. 

They don't.  We do.  And every day, our numbers grow.

In Pennsylvania, anti-gun politicians are trying to pass a bill requiring registration of every firearm in the state. 

At a cost of ten bucks per gun, this bill would tax three million gun owners and treat them like criminals.  Actually, it would treat law-abiding gun owners worse than many criminals in Pennsylvania.  With registration, the state would know exactly where gun owners live and how many guns they own. 

But criminals won't register their guns.  And courts have actually ruled that they don't have to!  Forcing a criminal to register his illegally owned firearm is a violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, believe it or not.  So the Fifth Amendment rights of criminals are apparently more important than the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.  That's wrong!

Besides, the cops in Pennsylvania have better things to do than keep tabs on lawful gun owners.  A report issued by the state earlier this week found that there are almost 1.5 million outstanding warrants in the state, including thousands issued for violent crimes, including homicide.

Instead of focusing their attention on the people who aren't breaking the law, why don't these anti-gun politicians help cops track down these wanted criminals?  Are these politicians anti-crime, or just anti-gun?  And why aren't the media asking the questions?

By: Carlos S. Ramirez

A new poll of GOP presidential probables was released this week by NBC. Not surprisingly, Rudi Giuliani is still leading with 33% of the vote, which is down from 38% last month.

John McCain is still in second place, with 22% of the vote, down from 24% last month, but he has narrowed the gap between himself and Giuliani from 14 to 11 points.

Fred Thompson, who was not mentioned in NBC’s poll last month is in third place with 17% of the vote.

Mitt Romney is in a notable 4th place at 12%, up 4 points from last month’s 8%.

The poll can be found here.

I’d write about the democrat polls, but after the debate yesterday (more on that pathetic exercise in finger pointing later), the polls might change.

By now, we've all seen the images, no matter how hard we might have tried to avoid them.  The face of a killer, staring at us from our newspapers and TV screens.  We've heard his insane rantings, nonsensical, but forced down our throats by a media more concerned about ratings than right and wrong. 

We've heard the justification by some members of the media, which always end up being something like "Everyone else is doing it, so why shouldn't we?"  Well, here's why. 

Forensic Psychiatrist Michael Welner, appearing on "ABC News," called airing the footage a "social catastrophe."  He begged the media to stop giving the madman a platform from beyond the grave, saying, "You cannot saturate the American public with this kind of message."  Columnist Peggy Noonan wrote, "Brian Williams introduced the madman's collection as 'what can only be described as a multi-media manifesto.' But it can be described in other ways. 'The self-serving meanderings of a crazy, self-indulgent narcissist' is one. But if you called it that, you couldn't lead with it. You couldn't rationalize the decision."  What the media really did is perform the last act of this madman's sick play.

I'm not blaming the media for what happened at Virginia Tech.  That responsibility ultimately rests with the killer himself.  But the press is responsible for what is does, for the images it presents us, and there's not a doubt in my mind that the press coverage of this individual gave comfort and validation to others with the same twisted evil in their hearts.

After Welner and other medical experts spoke out loudly against the media, many organizations scaled back their coverage, but even this week the president of NBC News called the decision to air the madman's mulit-media manifesto "good journalism".  I don't think he could be more wrong.

At some point, journalists need to ask themselves if the stories that air are benefiting the public, of just feeding into natural voyeuristic tendencies.  Tabloid stories about Anna Nicole Smith are one thing, but to apply that same journalistic mentality to a story about a mass murderer is not only irresponsible, it's sick.  The American public expressed its disgust at how the media has handled the story.  I hope the media's been listening, but I'm not holding my breath.

By: Carlos S. Ramirez

Instead of writing individual posts about all of these, I am writing one big post.

Boston mayor comes up with a weird proposal to punish gun offenders.

VA Governor Tim Kaine seeks more mental health info for gun purchases.

The York (PA) Daily Record, on the PA gun registration bill.

The Cincinnati Post shreds 4 myths about gun control.

It's been more than a week now since a mass murderer struck on the campus of Virginia Tech, and as the NRA joins the debate on policies and laws, there are a few things I want to point out.

It wasn't 24 hours after the horrific shootings that the politicians started flapping their lips.  Congressman Jim Moran suggested that somehow the tragedy was the fault of Republicans and President Bush.  Barack Obama compared the evil events in Blacksburg to outsourcing jobs overseas.  Senator Dianne Feinstein called for a new dialogue on gun control.  Mayor Bloomberg spoke of the events in Blacksburg as he pushed to stop the Tiahrt Amendment from being renewed.  And that's just the politicians.

Gun control advocates had a field day.  Within hours, the Brady Campaign had a "Donate Now!" button on their website.  The Violence Policy Center was blaming "lax gun laws" in Virginia for the murders, instead of placing the blame on the madman.  John Rosenthal, head of Stop Handgun Violence in Massachusetts, even suggested that the gun laws in that state make it less likely for mass murder to occur there. 

While this was going on, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine made a statement that seemed to fall mostly on deaf ears.  He said, "People who want to take this within 24 hours of the event and make it, you know, their political hobby horse to ride, I've got nothing but loathing for them. To those who want to, you know, try to make this into some little crusade, you know, I say take that elsewhere. Let this community deal with grieving individuals and be sensitive to those needs."

I absolutely agree with that statement.  We've been debating gun control in this country for decades now.  What does it hurt to pause for a few days in the midst of a tragedy to let the families of the victims grieve in peace, without being turned into a poster child either for gun rights or gun control?  The answer, frankly, is it doesn't hurt anyone.  Sure, you might not get to appear on national television to promote your agenda, but there's a time and a place for that.  Even the brightest television studio lights can't hide the fact that you're standing in the shadow of an enormous tragedy in order to further your cause. 

There is a time and a place for the discussion, the debate, and even the argument over gun control.  I believe there is a time to resume this conversation.  That is not hours after an event like this takes place.  I wish my opponents felt the same way.

By: Carlos S. Ramirez

Only one year after taking whatever respect and credibility ABC’s The View had left, and completely destroying the show, Rosie O’Donnel is reportedly leaving the show after her contract expires in June.

I’m going to go ahead and read between the lines. ABC told her to cut the conspiracy theory crap, to stop taking swipes at Donald Trump, and to stop dropping the F-bomb in front of paying customers and teenage girls. In response, Rosie most likely used a 4-letter word. Then ABC used one back.

Rumors are now circulating that she will take on a crusade against spoons for making her fat.

Good Riddance.