Ammo For Sale

« « Rule four | Home | Way of the multi-gun » »

Gun blogging in the Christian Science Monitor

The Christian Science Monitor is istorically anti-gun and not bashful lying about gun issues. There was that time they told us, for instance, that Obama’s views on guns lined up with yours and that time they lied about Florida’s gun laws and that time they advocated the gun industry create it’s own licensing and registration system. In fact, here’s a whole list of mentions of their anti-gun hackery on this blog. The list is long.

Anyway, I was a bit odd to see they were at the NRA convention. And writing about gun bloggers:

But here’s the real news: In the press box, bloggers outnumbered national reporters by a good margin. And officially, nearly 50 bloggers — compared to 100 mainstream print journalists — were accredited by the NRA press office to attend the 138th annual convention.

Excellent. But, really, there is no need for the press to show up? They’ll take dictation from the Brady Campaign or just reprint their documents as news items.

Who’s a sad clown:

“If you compare the pro-gun activity in the blogosphere versus the pro-gun-control activity, the scales have just tipped tremendously in their favor,” says Josh Sugarmann, founder of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, which advocates for more gun control in the US. “There’s much more engagement, more involvement, and they clearly have more free time than people on our side of the issue do.”

And you know what’s amazing? We do it on our own time. Josh Sugarmann is a reasonably well paid shill for an anti-gun group. And the only results from his efforts I see are a Huffington blog and google searches passed off as studies. What’s even more amazing is if you look at the list of goofs the VPC has made, you have to wonder how the press can lend them any credibility. I mean, assuming they don’t have an agenda.

It seems that Reasoned Discoursetm could be in play.

Update: Comments are showing up now. Blog software approval.

5 Responses to “Gun blogging in the Christian Science Monitor”

  1. Joe Huffman Says:

    The CSM article had, at last count, 79 comments to it. This is compared to two late last night. It appears the moderators weren’t at work yesterday and the comments piled up.

    My comment was not among them but 77 of the comments were pro-gun so I can’t claim it was due to my viewpoint it didn’t make it.

    I give them a pass on the “Reasoned Discoursetm” accusation.

  2. SayUncle Says:

    well, this morning when I looked, there were two. Now, there are more.

  3. Mikee Says:

    There may have been a spam filter killing your comment because you added links. After all, can’t have you supporting your comment with evidence, now!

  4. BobG Says:

    “What’s even more amazing is if you look at the list of goofs the VPC has made, you have to wonder how the press can lend them any credibility.”

    Since when does anyone with a brain lend the press any credibility, these days?

  5. Sebastian-PGP Says:

    I remember Casey Anderson of Ceasefire Maryland lamenting to me at the end of a day of lobbying and testifying in the MD legislature that there wasn’t much money to be made in gun control.

    I pointed out that he was getting paid at least something, as were the other 3 shills from Ceasefire MD (one of whom I took shooting in a later life for her…heheh). The 200 or so private citizens who were arguing the other side (yup, even in MD…on game day we outnumber the shit out of them) were, like me, people taking a day off work and hanging out there all day for our 3 minute chance to speak on our own dime.