When Kamala Harris ran for president in 2020, she referred to as for a compulsory buyback of “assault weapons,” which is political-speak for a obligatory confiscation of non-public property by armed brokers of the federal government.
The media by no means pressed Harris concerning the particulars, equivalent to how she deliberate to outline “assault weapons,” how she supposed to skirt the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of america Structure, or how far she was prepared to go if law-abiding gun homeowners refused to give up their arms to the federal government. It didn’t matter. Harris was tabbed as an anti-gun radical, which without end endeared her to the legacy media and their company bosses.
Harris hasn’t talked about her armed confiscation plans just lately, however she doesn’t must. After Joe Biden resigned from the presidential race by way of social media and Harris was given the frontrunner mantle, in fact the media jumped to supply no matter help they might. In any case, here’s a politician who advocated seizing “assault weapons” by pressure, which inserts the media’s anti-gun narrative 100-percent.
Working example: When March for Our Lives – the New York Metropolis-based nonprofit with $1.3 million in belongings that pays its secretary David Hogg an annual wage of $56,974 for a mere 10-hour work week – determined to endorse a politician, Harris, for the primary time in its six-year historical past, the media completely erupted with help.
Even Rolling Stone revealed a glowing report, which was primarily based solely on a written assertion from the nonprofit. Evidently, the March youngsters had been too busy marching to reply the cellphone.
“Harris leads the who leads [sic] the brand new White Home Workplace of Gun Violence Prevention, and in March visited Marjory Stoneman Douglas Excessive College in Parkland, touring the classroom the place the mass taking pictures came about. March for Our Lives lauded Harris as a lawmaker actively engaged with their mission,” Rolling Stone wrote.
In an interview with ABC Information, Natalie Fall, government director of March for Our Lives, stated, “We see lots of power round Vice President Harris on this election; there’s no denying that. I believe all people’s seeing it proper now.”
England’s Sky Information, which is owned by Comcast, couldn’t get an interview with Harris, however nonetheless wished to supply their help. In a narrative revealed Monday, Sky Information cited feedback from one among Harris’ earlier speeches.
“Our nation is being torn aside by the tragedy of all of it and torn aside by the worry and trauma that outcomes from gun violence,” Harris stated in a 2023 speech. “President Biden and I consider within the second modification, [sic] however we additionally know frequent sense options are at hand.”
Betsy Reed, a U.S.-based editor for The Guardian, additionally British, revealed a narrative Thursday in help of Harris’ first marketing campaign advert – a tv advert.
“All through that advert, a Legislation & Order SVU-like deep male voice instantly compares Harris and Trump, starting, ‘He’s a world chief in mood tantrums. She by no means loses her cool. She prosecuted intercourse predators. He’s one.’ It ends by calling Harris the ‘anti-Trump,’” Reed wrote.
Media Bias Defined
Why is the company media so slavish in its help of Harris? Why are reporters, editors and producers so prepared to go to the mattresses for a one-term Veep who even the Dems admit hasn’t finished an entire lot? The reply is easy: Weapons are unhealthy, the media believes, so any politician who opposes civilian firearm possession is a hero.
In the present day’s company media practices a groupthink that vilifies anybody who helps the Second Modification. Through the years, I’ve tracked examples of this collective pondering. Listed here are probably the most present examples.
That is what the media truly believes:
Weapons are evil. All weapons must be banned. Nobody wants a gun.
All gun homeowners are gun-nuts, rubes, hicks and hillbillies.
All pro-gun lawmakers are loopy. Vilify them at will. Something goes.
All anti-gun lawmakers are heroes. They need to be praised and shielded from scorn.
All anti-gun laws – even when its unworkable, equivalent to micro-stamping or “sensible gun” know-how – must be necessary and strongly supported.
All pro-gun laws must be framed as loopy and ridiculed utilizing outright lies and excessive examples.
All pro-gun teams are obstructing the aim of complete civilian disarmament and must be ridiculed and vilified. No point out ought to ever be manufactured from their coaching, hunter training and gun security packages.
Hid carry – particularly Constitutional Carry – is lethal and results in extra violence. It must be criticized at each alternative, as ought to those that carry hid firearms.
If a hid service makes use of their firearm to avoid wasting a life, it shouldn’t be reported until they’re sued or criminally charged.
Anybody who challenges this accepted standard knowledge – particularly one other journalist – is the enemy.
With these factors as their information posts, it’s no marvel the media is instantly trying to construct Kamala Harris into one thing she isn’t—a very good chief.
