Today, I bring you an article entitled, 'Liberals rewriting the language of gun control', by Melvan Jacob of the Chicago Tribune. Below is my response and below that, room for your comment, unless you prefer to send an email but please keep your comments smart and civil. Don't attack others personally, and keep your language decent.
The phrase “gun control” may be disappearing from the American debate, jettisoned by the very people who have long favored gun control. Initiatives are now described as attempts to promote “gun safety” or prevent “criminal access to guns” or pass “gun violence legislation.”
This month, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who has a master’s degree in speech and communication from Northwestern University, urged gun reform activists to make sure their pitch emphasizes the war on crime. “It’s all about criminal access,” Emanuel said. “It’s not about gun control. It’s about criminal access. That changes the debate.”
On Thursday, Vice President Joe Biden was asked about “gun control” at a Google+ online event and said: “I don’t view it as gun control. I view it as gun safety.” The Atlantic’s Molly Ball likened the shift in rhetoric to estate tax opponents complaining about the “death tax” and gay-marriage activists calling for “marriage equality” — in both cases, finding a more effective way to frame their positions.
Jonathon Schuldt, an assistant professor of communication at Cornell University, noted that Americans care deeply for personal freedom, making “control” a word that evokes government regulation and may have negative connotations.“It’s really easy to justify why one is against ‘control,’ ” he said. “But it’s way harder to be against ‘safety.’ ” “Subtle, tiny word changes can have a surprisingly big effect on public opinion,” Schuldt said. “Gun control” has a long history in American politics.
A groundbreaking federal law was even called that — the Gun Control Act of 1968. But that was an era when even the National Rifle Association endorsed some new gun restrictions, and even Democratic President John Kennedy carried an NRA card. These days, the opponents on the gun issue seem more polarized, with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., referring to “gun grabbers” and Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., calling the NRA “enablers of mass murder.”
Yet with the abandonment of “gun control” and the focus on “criminal use,” perhaps left and right are moving closer together, at least rhetorically. “It’s not about keeping bad guns out of the hands of good people,” Biden said. “It’s about keeping all guns out of the hands of bad people.” Which doesn’t sound much different from the conservatives’ old bumper sticker: “Guns don’t kill people — people do.”
Are Barack Obama and Joe Biden little more than political operatives who got elected by masquerading as centrists and reelected by repeatedly calling Mitt Romney an insensitive rich guy? No Presidential duo in the last 50 years has attracted nearly as many financiers, paid off more financial supporters with government jobs, fired more personal insults at those with whom they disagree with or given more non-substantive interviews. As time passes, will it become evident even to the disinterested that these two are at best superficial thinkers and anything but leaders?
Americans are still asking, "Where are the survivors of Benghazi that the President was willing to let die with his orders of "Stand Down". Both he an Hillary are very careful keeping these 25 survivors away from the media but they have a tale to tell. Were they left for dead before they were rescued by two brave men? Why are they incarcerated and held incommunicado. Why have they been silenced by the administration? Are they even still alive? What are their names, where do they live, which country are they being held in against their will? Will Americans ever get any answers?
Unfortunately, too much of the blame goes to certain main street media; for lack of a more descriptive, albeit accurate term, who are supposed to be the 'adversary to power' no matter which party is in the White House or runs Congress but most of these main street media types currently act as nothing more than Obama's apologists. Even Greta van Susteren says, “Apparently, President Obama wants his usual media pass and Fox challenges his policies — which happens to be the media’s job,” Have certain main street media totally abdicated their traditional 4th estate role? Would Obama and Reid and the rest feel so secure in their pomposity and position of power if these media types were doing their job?
When I was in Journalism at Centennial College in the early '70's, I was taught that is the task of the fourth estate to challenge Government and their policies. The German Press failed to do so from 1933 onwards and the result was Hitler. The Russian Press failed do so and they got purges and the Gulags. The Chinese Press is not doing so and there is consequently no real opposition. Will anyone challenge Obama on his policies? Has anyone vetted or investigated him? When you consider all of the tales he has given, especially during the 2008 Campaign, a little oversight could be a good idea. What about the fact that median family income has fallen by $3,000 or house prices by 30%, or the fact that the REAL unemployment figure is closer 15% than the 7.8% he claims.