another biased anti gun hut piece from al jaretessean

[1pointofview]

TN gun laws, or lack thereof, under attack

[RobertNashville]

I expected a less biased piece from Brian...I'm disappointed.

It does, however, pinpoint one of several reasons why I will NEVER buy the Tennessean newspaper; I'm bombarded with liberal garbage every day so I'm sure as hell not going to pay to get more of it.

[gunrunner32]

Not very impressed by the article, it actually makes me a little mad when I read biased propaganda like this.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

After all, it is the Tennessean.

[mikegideon]

After all, it is the Tennessean.

DING... We have a winner

EDIT: It could have been much worse. Brian was careful to avoid the "guns in bars" slogan, and a couple of other things.

Edited January 22, 2012 by mikegideon

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I remember you offering to help Brian with one of his articles. That was a noble

attempt. You tried to use reason. His education and employer must have trumped

it.

Ah, one of these days when those guys are wondering what went wrong and our

country looks like a bad hangover from a PC game, they'll figure it out, just like in

Mother Russia. That's only if the rats are fully exposed and we somehow get everyone

off welfare and government dependence. Yeh, right.

But you did try! Worth a lot right there, Mike.

[mikegideon]

Some people will never figure it out. Anyone that believes it is a real solution has their head up their ass. There are tons of examples where the Bloomberg plan doesn't work. Look at his POS home town.

We need to ban liberals. Wait... that won't work either.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Second that!

[1pointofview]

Well I seem to remember a lot of people taking up for Brian a few weeks ago and I seem to remember telling folks that working for the tennessean trumps common sense

[DaveTN]

<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="http://ads.revsci.net/adserver/ako?activate&csid=j06575"></script><script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="http://pix04.revsci.net/J06575/a4/0/0/pcx.js?csid=J06575"></script>

EDIT: It could have been much worse. Brian was careful to avoid the "guns in bars" slogan, and a couple of other things.

I wouldn’t say he avoided it; maybe walked around the slogan.

Tennessee has passed laws allowing people to bring guns into state parks and bars and restaurants

[R_Bert]

After all, it is the Tennessean.

Seems like I recall Mr. Haas making a point a few days ago that it was all about web hits and keeping an "issue" alive. Should have seen this coming.

[Raoul]

After all, it is the Tennessean.

For a rag named the Tennessean it sure isn't very Tennessean...

[1pointofview]

Seems like I recall Mr. Haas making a point a few days ago that it was all about web hits and keeping an "issue" alive. Should have seen this coming.

The real issue that he should keep alive and highlight is the ignorance of the progressive anti constitutional attacks from his paper and the minority mindset they seem to carry the torch for

[bigwakes]

Can I suggest that we no longer help Brian with his liberal crap and let him write his opinions without our help?

His story was written long before the 14 page thread was ever started. There have been very few stories that have made me as angry as that one. Way to go Brian.

[Garufa]

I tried to warn him.

The major newpapers in this state are not satisfied in leaving gun-related issues alone. Every few months they feel the need to bring it up again, I guess in some high and mighty gesture to foment public discussion.

That unnecessary article is a fine example.

Edited January 23, 2012 by Garufa

[QuietDan]

Well, I say leave the man alone. Everybody's got to eat, and Mr Haas eats from his writing. I imagine there are days when he kicks the wall, but if he has rent or a mortgage, a car-payment, and perhaps a wife and kids, he cannot say 'the hell with you all' and just quit his job.

It's really not Mr Haas' fault that his editor (un-named and unknown to us) is apparently a Marxist ideologue (and it's not an ad hominem attack if it is true, nor is it an ad hominem attack when qualified by 'apparently,' suggesting it is possible and is therefore an opinion). I imagine Mr Haas did not pick the headline. I imagine Mr Haas did not pick the photo of the stereotypical Tennessee backwoods shotgunner character. I imagine Mr Haas did not select the low angled picture of the counter-top transaction, photographed to be sinister looking, with religio/racist overtones too clear to be accidental. Editors do the picking, and the picking of the trappings of the story, in headline and photo selection, is clearly biased. And, more disappointingly, these biases are executed in a subtle manner, allowing all to maintain plausible deniability. "We're not really biased, it's all an accident and a mis-perception."

I also note with regret no quotes from the Founding Fathers, nor Supreme Court decisions, either for or against.

As far as Mr Haas taking a "fair and balanced" approach, it's not so much for him to judge, protest as much as he likes. He is, rather, a product of his upbringing and training and cannot objectively measure his own balance. He may feel or think he is balanced, but you can't truly measure yourself objectively. Rather, it is more for his audience to judge, and right now I'm thinking this story is a Fail on the "fair and balanced" front.

To not talk with Mr Haas on this forum as he prepares a gun story is, in military terms, "to yield the field to the adversary." To not talk to Mr Haas does not mean that his editor will not assign the story or that Mr Haas will not write the story. They'll just be forced to interview only anti-gun people and no pro-gun facts will make it into the story. Just because you don't win all the battles doesn't mean you don't keep fighting the war. I see bits & pieces of our discussions here echoed and reflected in Mr Haas' story. Given the nature of the leftist leadership of the Tennessean (and it's not 'ad hominem' if it's true . . . ), we got just about as much out of the article as we could expect.

There are tons and tons of comments on the story on the Tennessean's website, and a lot of them reflect the facts of the issue, and many of the rest, as predicted, are almost completely uninformed comments from the puppy-hugger brigade who put in no thought and no research, but plenty of feeeeeeelings, in their posts. Other informed individuals are correcting the comments-in-error, and I hope some of those corrections are coming from people who post here.

God Bless you all. I doubt this will be the last gun story in the Tennessean.

Edited January 23, 2012 by QuietDan

[Guest GT_Rat]

I think Brian misses the point that the people who blatantly sell to those who they know can't pass a background check aren't going to start doing so just because the government says so. Yeah, they MIGHT get in trouble for it but a good enough lawyer is going to plea it down to a misdemeanor charge and they'll likely continue doing so with more caution to not sell guns than can be traced to them. Or, much like alcohol sales during prohibition, or illegal drug sales now, it will just be driven underground. Those that are selling aren't going to sell guns that they know can be traced back to them and those that buy them aren't likely to tell who they got it from. Requiring background checks for person to person sales is just another example of keeping the honest people honest and adding more cost (background checks aren't free remember) and government meddling in private business into the mix.

[Guest klwehunt]

I noticed in the article he mentioned the shooting at Va.tech and the Gifford shooting in Ariz. in both cases the guns were bought legally.In the V.T.shooting he passed backgroud check but because of a left wing do gooder law they could'nt report a nutcase by the doctors that knew he was a nut.Same thing in Ariz.people knew he was a nut and he had threatened her life more than once yet she had NO security at all.The good sheriff of that county had sent cars to his house on demestic violence but no charges. Demestic violence is the only misdemeaner to lose your gun rights.Point is we have enough laws (more than enough)and the people that enforce them sometimes drop the ball.More laws is not going to make anyone safer.

[MattCary]

One of the more eloquent among us should write a letter to the editor...

[mikegideon]

One of the more eloquent among us should write a letter to the editor...

... or Sarah Brady. Then, you can go out back and yell at a tree. You'll accomplish more.

[Oh Shoot]

I must be alone in thinking it was fairly balanced?

Both sides represented on the issue, pretty good synopsis of gun law trends in the US.

Included The Rabbi's statement against checks toward the end, from a dealer who admits he would increase income if they were required.

What was so biased? Did you expect Brian to simply flat out stump against background checks? Not even mention the pro-registration side's actions or points of view? Or what?

- OS

edit: NM, I see this was continued on the original main thread:

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/handguns/67681-tennessean-private-sale-also-anyone-have-contact-bill-goodman-re-gun-show-13.html

Edited January 23, 2012 by OhShoot

[mikegideon]

I must be alone in thinking it was fairly balanced?

- OS

Maybe so

[Westwindmike]

Tried to pull up the link to the story. It is no longer available.

[TMF]

It's still there:

TN gun laws, or lack thereof, under attack | The Tennessean | tennessean.com

[tnhawk]

I expected a less biased piece from Brian...I'm disappointed.

It does, however, pinpoint one of several reasons why I will NEVER buy the Tennessean newspaper; I'm bombarded with liberal garbage every day so I'm sure as hell not going to pay to get more of it.

If this article doesn't raise your blood pressure, read (but don't purchase) the editorial page of the Monday Commie Appeal in Memphis - "Guns and love don't mix".