There are a lot of smart journalists out there. They’re intelligent, insightful, and competent people who know how to get to the truth of a story.
But there are also a lot of arrogant jackwagons who think they know better than everyone else around them because of their experiences, never admitting that those experiences might be limited.
A prime example is an editorial out of Bozeman, Montana. It seems the editorial board seems to believe that it knows more about what Montanans want than the folks who elect state officials do. They start by describing Washington state’s I-1639, then go on to say:
Washington joins other states that have passed tougher gun laws. The moves are symptomatic of voter frustration with the seeming inability of Congress to move on the issue. All lawmakers on both the state and national levels should take heed. In the wake of numerous mass killings in recent years – most involving assault-style guns – a clear majority of all Americans want to see some action.
It’s highly unlikely the Republican-controlled Montana Legislature will follow this trend. In fact there probably will be efforts to loosen restrictions on gun rights. Expect another proposal to permit students, staff and faculty to carry firearms on state college and university campuses. Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock is certain to veto such bill if it were to pass. But once a Republican takes the statehouse – and one will eventually – we could actually see guns on campuses.
That’s not what Montanans want.
The board then describes a whole slate of gun control laws they think Republicans in Montana should be passing instead.
Talk about a head scratcher.
Republicans routinely side with the pro-gun side of the coin. Not doing so can be a detriment to their political aspirations since pro-gun voters look to the Republican Party for their candidates. What the board wants these Republicans to do is offer up a middle finger to these voters and do what a group of Ivory Tower elites in Bozeman want them to do.
Is there any wonder why people look at the media as out of touch?
While editorials are the usual place for a certain degree of bias, the idea that this is something that most voters in Montana want is bizarre. The truth is, probably the majority of those who the board members associate with think this way, so they assume the rest of Montana feels the same.
However, if Montanans did, it’s likely you’d have seen a lot more anti-gun candidates get elected in the state.
The board is convinced that they know more than the officials elected by the people, but they’re not thinking about the pro-gun sentiment that crosses the state.
Then, to top it off, the editorial board trots out the old canard of how no one is coming after your hunting weapons.
First, the Second Amendment has jack squat to do with hunting. It’s about defending yourself and this nation. That means all those nasty guns that make editorial boards all over the country wet themselves with fear and has given at least one columnist a supposed case of PTSD. That means handguns and semi-automatic rifles and anything else.
Second, you’re a fool if you believe that. It’s only a matter of time before someone does something horrible with a bolt-action rifle–a certain individual on a clock tower at the University of Texas proved that was possible–and then we’ll hear all about needing to step up efforts to control those as well. They’ll be re-branded as “sniper rifles,” and we’ll hear all about how the most ruthless killers in the United States military use similar weapons to kill from miles away.
The actual people of Montana understand this, and they aren’t interested in whatever it is an editorial board in Bozeman wants to sell.