Philippine Daily Pravda’s Renewed Tabloid War Versus Gun Owners
The pro-Aquino Philippine Daily Inquirer, the country’s obvious version of the Soviet Pravda, has renewed its dishonest, sensationalized war against peaceful, freedom-loving gun owners in the Philippines.
Observe that this newspaper is now exploiting a new year’s stray bullet incident to promote total gun control and confiscation. Probably it learned a lot from the anti-gun rights strategy of the liberal, leftist media in the United States.
In its January 4, 2013 editorial, the daily Pravda writes: “Filipinos may view American society as sick because of the Colorado and Connecticut massacres, but something akin to these tragedies happened here last New Year’s Eve.”
Let’s just be very clear. I think only members of the Inquirer’s editorial board and Filipino anti-gun possession leftists/statists view the United States as “sick” due to a shooting tragedy that was shamelessly exploited by anti-Second Amendment liberal media and leftist gun-grabbers like Piers Morgan, Dianne Feinstein, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, hypocrite Michael Moore, and another hypocrite media man David Gregory.
The propaganda editorial cited a police report about increase in the number (41 reported cases) of stray-bullet incidents.
The editorial’s lead paragraph was supported by the usual appeal-to-emotion rhetoric that talks about the number and age of the stray-bullet victims.
The editorial states:
“What all this means is that health and police authorities may have succeeded in discouraging the public from using dangerous pyrotechnics but have been classic failures in stemming the far more risky tendency of gun owners, probably police and military personnel themselves, to use the merriment as cover for their trigger-happy ways.”
Observe how it generalizes “gun owners”. How about those “illegal” or unregistered gun owners?
“Once more, Nicole Ella’s death shows that illegal firing is usually committed by members of the police, military, or militia—men authorized to carry firearms but who are apparently oblivious to the responsibility that goes with it.”
If it was committed by a member of the police, a registered gun owner, or an illegal owner of paltik or home-made gun, then, the solution is law-enforcement not gun confiscation.
“And if men in uniform aren’t firing their guns illegally, they’re doing sloppy work in rounding up loose firearms. Even Chief Supt. Leonardo Espina, the director of the National Capital Region Police Office, has said that it might take time to locate the gun from where the bullet that killed Nicole Ella had come because of the sheer number of undocumented firearms; the ballpark figure usually given is at least a million!”
See the sheer contradiction there? The Philippine Daily Pravda wants to confiscate and ban all guns owned by private individuals when it is aware that ‘some’ or ‘many’ men in uniform abuse their authority.
Well, I think the Pravda editors are still unaware that guns have long been part of human existence and reality. If we could just pray guns away or make them suddenly disappear, I would probably support their anti-gun agenda. But history and reality has it that guns will remain accessible to some people, particularly criminals and leftist rebels who want to replace our fascist system with absolute socialism.
How did the rebels and religious terrorists acquire their guns in the first place? It seems that Inquirer/Pravda editors and writers are currently living in a world of gunless unicorns.
Consider the title of this article that obviously looks or sounds shameless and insidious: “242 gun owners living in Nicole neighborhood”
From the article: “According to the PNP’s Firearms and Explosives Office, there are 242 registered guns in Tala. Of this, 138 are registered under a security agency, which operates from the area, while 104 are owned by private individuals, including the 45 who own .45-caliber pistols.”
That statement doesn’t prove a thing, because the incident simply admits a lot of possibilities. So, there are over 240 registered gun owners in a heavily populated area? Big deal!
How many people own unregistered or unlicensed guns? How many own paltik or home-made guns?
What if the perpetrator were owner of a gun registered under a security agency? Should the government start a crackdown on gun-owning security agencies? Should it add more restrictions?
What if the stray-bullet shooter were a member of the police force, which is not impossible?
The Philippine Pravda’s renewed attack on gun ownership in these parts obviously aims to target all peaceful, innocent, freedom-loving gun owners.
What is very much obvious is that the news outlet’s editorial board has been shamelessly trying to exploit a tragedy to promote its gun ban and confiscation agenda.
Now there’s this tragic shooting incident in Kawit Cavite involving a suspected drug addict and drug dealer who indiscriminately shot and killed eight other people and wounded nine others. The mass shooter, Ronald Bae, who once ran for village chief, reportedly used a a semi-automatic pistol.
The gunman was killed by police at the scene of the crime.
Most reports didn’t state whether the weapon used was registered or not. Now it has been confirmed that the gun in question was unregistered.
Any anti-gun advocate can easily exploit this incident to promote total gun ban and confiscation. However, I believe that it would only take a concealed-carrier (unfortunately Philippines doesn’t have concealed carry laws) to stop the gunman from killing more people.
But Inquirer columnist Neal Cruz, a rabid gun control advocate, holds a very different view.
In his January 3, 2013 op-ed, Cruz calls for “a law that will drastically curtail gun possession.”
He further lamented: “
“Our officials, especially the President, should face the fact that we have too many guns in private hands, and that it is time to do something about it. Let us not wait until we have mass shootings like those happening more frequently in the United States. We already have the beginnings of it in the Maguindanao massacre. Let us not have another one.”
Wait! Is this op-ed writer trying to say our very strict gun control laws failed to work? Is he trying to say a lot of people still die in the hands of gun-toting criminals who don’t obey and respect the law?
If that’s indeed the case, the solution, Mr. Cruz, is not to disarm innocent, freedom-loving Filipinos who simply want to protect themselves against criminals. Let the law-abiding people have guns for self-defense!
The problem is, Mr. Cruz deeply believes that gun possession leads to tragedy.
What Cruz said is simply against history, as most totalitarian societies had to disarm their people first before committing genocide or atrocious crimes. The truth is, gun control leads to tragedy. Historically, gun control has always preceded dictatorship.
He stated in this August 16, 2012 column:
“The series of multiple killings in the United States was caused by the laxity of its rules on gun possession. The Maguindanao massacre here became possible because of the availability of many guns to the Ampatuans. The time is nearing when we will be like America, now called the murder capital of the world. It is time to wake up and pass laws that would tighten the rules on gun possession.”
What he said is a big, big lie. The truth is, gun deaths are more rampant in states that impose tighter gun control laws, like Obama’s Chicago.
In his book or study titled “More Guns, Less Crime”, John Lott, of Yale University, debunked the claim that gun possession leads to more crimes.
However, we can talk about gun rights or gun control without using statistics or cost-benefit analysis.
In his Forbes op-ed, Harry Binswanger says that we can “reject entirely the collectivist mindset.” That is, we can ignore the clashing arguments between pro-gun advocates (that guns save lives) and gun-grabbers (that gun ownership leads to crimes) and focus only on the individualist approach.
The principle is “individual rights”–your rights and mine.
Rights define the proper limits of state action. They recognize the areas within which the individual is sovereign, entitled to act on his own judgment, free from interference by his fellow man and by the state. The fundamental right is the right to life. Its expressions are the right to liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. As the Declaration states, government is established “to secure these rights.”
To secure them against what? There is only one thing that can deprive a man of his life, liberty, or property: physical force. Only guns, clubs, chains, jails, or some form of nonconsensual physical contact can kill you, injure you, or negate your ability to act on your own judgment. The proper job of government is to protect the individual’s rights by wielding retaliatory force against the force initiated by criminals or foreign aggressors.
Precisely. The right to bear arms is an individual rights, and the right to self-defense is part of man’s natural or innate rights that no other man or governments could violate or get rid of.
He further writes:
The fact that a certain percentage of domestic quarrels end in a shooting is no grounds for saying your ownership of a gun is a threat to the members of your household. Likewise, the fact that there are a certain number of accidental injuries from guns is no justification for regulating or banning the ownership of guns for everyone. And the tragic fact that the psychotic killer at Newtown used a gun to kill school children is zero grounds for disarming teachers and school personnel.
The government may respond only to specific threats, objectively evident. It has no right to initiate force against the innocent. And a gun owner is innocent until specific evidence arises that he is threatening to initiate force.
Laws prohibiting or regulating guns across the board represent the evil of preventive law and should be abolished.
All I can say to that statement is, AMEN.