NPR's take on the Second Amendment:

[copenhagen]

http://www.onthemedia.org/episodes/2008/03/28/segments/95878

I happened to hear this last night whilst listening to the news on NPR and cleaning my M1A. Needless to say I was quite upset, and spent the rest of my evening trying to track it down online, and then wrote them a comment (I am Seth Sutter) and sent them an email, and alerted the NRA.

I thought you guys might want to know about what Public Radio has to say about your gun rights.

 

[mountainclmbr]

Wow! It looks like NPR got spanked really good in the comments. Being Elitists they will blow it off.

 

[FireMax]

NPR is hopelessly liberal. I have overheard people in public talk about listening to NPR, and I immediately assume (probably correctly) that they are liberal.

Public broadcasting paid for by the government is usually liberal. I am not sure why this is, but it is an undeniable fact. It would seem that, since the country is approx 50% conservative, that our views would be equally represented on the public air-waves which our tax dollars pay for. I promise to send money to any viable conservative candidate for President who promises to destroy these liberal infested programs on our public air-waves.

 

[Northern Sod Breaker]

Radio has gone the way of the TV. Still afew good stations though. 1120 KFAB and 1040 WHO are still worth listening to. I don't watch any radio or tv with "Public" before or after the name.

 

[5Wire]

Seth posted: I happened to hear this last night whilst listening to the news on NPR and cleaning my M1A. Needless to say I was quite upset, and spent the rest of my evening trying to track it down online, and then wrote them a comment (I am Seth Sutter) and sent them an email, and alerted the NRA.

I love the irony, I heard the broadcast while driving to the range where I shoot. It really pissed me off. I shot terribly, and bitched about the broadcast to other club members. When I got home I also posted (R H Frost) and I was still mad and posted again.

Goodonya, Seth, for tipping off NRA. For some reason, I forgot to do that.

 

[73 Jock]

from onthemedia.org
But I think the legal question, the Constitutional question, you know, here's what the courts have held for decades and this has not wavered. I think that's where we sort of fell asleep at the switch, because it seems to me, as you said, that when you look at the polls, most Americans have no idea what the state of the law was.

Those stupid common people had no idea there was no individual right. Why didn't we try harder to spin the "militia" lie all these years. We are in a complete panic.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Wow, you people got worked up over that???

If that got you riled up and you saw it as some sort of "liberal" or "left wing" commentary you are really looking at it through "right wing" blinders.

All they did was present the facts pretty clearly, non-emotionally, and in an unbiased manner and then discussed the legal history of gun control and the 2A. They did not take a pro or anti stance but instead talked about the previous history of law and even discussed how that has changed greatly among the foremost legal scholars over the past few decades. They then even questioned the medias portrayal of the gun issue.

If anything it seemed that they were saying "this is how things have stacked up over the last few decades but the tide seems to be turning toward sthe opinion of it being an individual right and the media has let the public down by focusing on the Brady vs. NRA side of things instead of dealing with the legal facts."

Once again, a pretty intelligent, fair and balanced report by NPR twisted by people with a personal bent into something it was not. I really makes our side look bad when people try to turn something this fairly presented into a smear job. It really shows how afraid of an opposing opinion some people are that they try take offense at something that isn't there.

 

[thrgunsmith]

the collective right theory is a liberal invention

NPR is clearly has a strong liberal bias.

Lots of folks are fooled by their calm demeanor and lack of "foxnews" hysterics.
They think NPR is impartial. RUBBISH!

 

[Playboypenguin]

NPR is clearly has a strong liberal bias.

Really? Examples of their bias? It clearly isn't present here.

 

[thrgunsmith]

that means looking and listening to rubbish

I'm not going to provide you with any evidence because it is clear as day!
I used to listen to it and considered it impartial, then I quit smoking pot and became a gun owner.
Anytime I listen to it now my head begins to explode.
Some people are holocaust deniers and some people think NPR is impartial.
No accounting for taste I guess.
I'm not trying to change your mind playboy, I just call em as I see um.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I'm not going to provide you with any evidence because it is clear as day!

Really, then it should be easy to present it.

Something isn't biased just because "Rush say so."

 

[thrgunsmith]

I'm not trying to change your mind playboy, I just call em as I see um.

I'm not trying to change your mind playboy, I just call em as I see um.

 

[5Wire]

Playboy, are you playing some kind of provocative game here? Do you really think that On the Media broadcast was an unbiased presentation?

I'm pretty sure I don't want to go through the whole transcription just to play along or to prove a point. So I'll just start with the opening question and its answer. Emphasis in bold is mine.

BOB GARFIELD: And I'm Bob Garfield. The right to bear arms, that's what the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees. Right? Maybe. On March 19th the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that likely will determine an issue that has been settled in the court since 1939, but not in the public policy debate.

The issue decided in 1939 had and has nothing at all to do with the current issue. This is explained in the comments at the NPR linked site. The Miller case was the first time since its ratification that any question about the Second Amendment was, or needed to be, addressed by the Supreme Court.

So, using the NPR standard, 1939 minus 1788. That's 152 years of settled law at the time of Miller, and until now, 221 years before the question of the individual's Right to Arms has required confirmation.

Skip to the substantive response...

...And this was really a shocker. And the Supreme Court really had to look at this issue very, very closely for the first time in 70 years.

Same explanation. The answer doesn't address the verity of the question's context. The question has an erroneous assumption. The response accepts the (erroneous) assumption. Then the expression of surprise that we dummies didn't realize the truth of the obvious ( but erroneous) assumption. Well it is NPR, they'll set us straight in the rest of the segment building on that same, false Major Premise.

The public policy debate referred to, I suggest, is that initiated in modern times by Brady, VPC, or whatever range of anti-gun organizations you want. But I digress.

The segment is outright propaganda. It gets worse as the segment continues, as you must know, Playboy. But if you'd care to support why the broadcast was an even handed, clear, account of any substantive issue around the Court and what's going on. I'd love to hear your argument.

Here's the transcript.

 

[Playboypenguin]

5wire

Where is the bias? Where are they saying something that isn't true?

The issue decided in 1939 had and has nothing at all to do with the current issue as posted in the comments in NPR link. The Miller case was the first time since its ratification that there any question about the Second Amendment was or needed to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Are you trying to say that the supreme court declared the 2A to be a guarantee of an "individual right" in 1939? Because that was not the case.

Same explanation. The answer doesn't address the verity of the question. The question has an erroneous assumption. The response accepts the (erroneous) assumption. Then the expression of surprise that we dummies didn't realize the truth of the obvious ( but erroneous) assumption. Well it is NPR, they'll set us straight.

And what is the erroneous assumption? Is it something that is erroneous simply because it does not correspond with your interpretation? No offense, but your whole paragraph here is just a bunch of babble with no substance. try talking a little more plainly and presenting an actual point.

The only thing I can decipher is that you think they are calling us dumb when they never do any such thing. They simply state the courts have been saying one thing for many years but are now starting to interpret things differently and that the media has not done a good job of presenting the facts clearly.

 

[divemedic]

PK< I will point it out.

The first sentence of the first paragraph of the NPR page reads:

Think the 2nd Amendment provides individuals legal protection for the ‘right to bear arms’?

Click on that link. You will read:

Who could have known that growing up in the wilds of Sacramento, Calif., fostered in Kennedy such romantic nostalgia for the good old days of grizzly hunting?

and this:

After all these years of deep conservative suspicion of turning over policy matters to the courts, the Roberts Court has fallen in love with a new constitutional right.

Listening to the broadcast, they almost immediately repeat the lie that the Miller case declared the second to be a collective right. Nowhere does the case say that, that is a VPC/Liberal talking point.

She then goes on to say that the American public believes (wrongly, in her opinion) that there is an individual right contained in the 2A, and she blames "the gun lobby" for this belief. She says that it is not an accident that the NRA only has the second half of the 2A on the side of their building.

That gets us through the first half of the broadcast. I think that is enough.

 

[Playboypenguin]

She then goes on to say that the American public believes (wrongly, in her opinion) that there is an individual right contained in the 2A, and she blames "the gun lobby" for this belief.

She (who I believe is a guest on the show) states that the people believe the courts have definitively declared that their is an "individual guarantee" which is not the case. In reality the courts have always veered to the other side of the argument...or else we would not need the NRA at all.

She then goes on to say that this long held opinion seems to be changing in the courts and that the countries "liberal scholars" seem to be leaning towards the opinion that the 2A does indeed guarnatee an individual right. That sounds pretty positive to me.

She says people have the wrong impression of what the courts have said because of the media simply reporting what the Brady side says and what the NRA says and the host actually challenges and says that the media is possibly to blame for not covering the facts instead of the argument.

She says that it is not an accident that the NRA only has the second half of the 2A on the side of their building

The NRA does only have the second half on their headquarters...and I am sure it is not an accident.

 

[5Wire]

Are you trying to say that the supreme court declared the 2A to be a guarantee of an "individual right" in 1939? Because that was not the case.

Nope. I'm saying that the question of individual versus collective right never came up. NPR is saying it's been adjudicated a collective right by the SC in 1939. That's what was said, implied, referred to, throughout the segment.

Almost everybody else thinks the Second Amendment is an Individual Right and has done so for over 200 years. That's what the issue is to be decided: individual or collective (or both). NPR is not the Supreme Court, thank goodness. There is no "always" for the SC on the Second Amendment. It has been the lower courts after 1939 that went against the assumption of individual rights after years of there having been no question that it was, indeed, an individual right. Many states express the individuality more unambiguously.

If NPR had made an even presentation, we wouldn't have had DAHLIA LITHWICK telling us what the "other side" has in support of its position. NRA, or any of dozens of constitutional scholars presenting the case could have made it fairer. And just where in DC, is Brady headquarters? The location of either organization is irrelevant to the issue.

The erroneous assumption, I'll remind you, issues from the fact that the Collective Right is no more Settled Law than is the Individual Right as far as the SC is concerned right now. That point was not prominent or even present in the OTM segment. It was, in fact, implicitly denied by its omission. I would add, however, that the justices are going to have to decide whether or not the use of the words "the People" is to have a consistent interpretation throughout the document.

Now, I've presented facts to you, Playboy. I've supported my position. Please show me my errors in fact or in my argument. Then, if you would, please demonstrate by facts and logic why you are correct in your thumbs up review of this foul use public funds.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Almost everybody else thinks the Second Amendment is an Individual Right and has done so for over 200 years.

Really??? Please link the court decisions (prior to this case) that have stated that the 2A is clear guarantee of an individual right? I must have missed all those...and so must have most of the country or we would not need the NRA.

The erroneous assumption, I'll remind you, is that the Collective Right is no more Settled Law than is the Individual Right as far as the SC is concerned right now.

How is this assumption erroneous? Where is evidence that the courts have said otherwise?

The 1939 decision declared that the NFA was not in violation of the 2A and still left a clear link between militias and the right to bear arms. In fact they went as far as to say an item that did not play a clear role in the "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" was not protected.

 

[5Wire]

Please link the court decisions (prior to this case) that have stated that the 2A is clear guarantee of an individual right? I must have missed all those...

Yup, we missed the same Supreme Court decisions that were never made on either side of the argument, Playboy. The Supreme Court, Playboy, is evaluating the question. The Supreme Court is not everybody else. Show me where everybody else thinks it's a collective right.

Before your post above, I made my other statement clearer: "The erroneous assumption, I'll remind you, issues from..." But I can see I'm wasting my time. You are not presenting arguments, you're being contentious and getting attention from it.

 

[predator86]

who is seth sutter?? other than copenhagen.....

and the name seth sutter is supposed to mean something?? by the way im Jesse Rechtzigel.