PBS NewsHour uses tax dollars to shill for gun control

AP Photo/Andrew Selsky, File

PBS isn’t completely funded by the American taxpayer, but it still gets money from good, old Uncle Sam. Further, anytime Congress tries to cut that funding, we’re told how essential PBS is for the public good, that we would be depriving people of quality television.


This might be a fine argument to make were it not for the problems with public television.

You see, I and a lot of other people don’t like our tax dollars going toward anti-gun advocacy.

On Monday evening, PBS NewsHour co-anchors Geoff Bennett and Amna Nawaz delivered taxpayer-funded anti-gun activism as the two hosted back-to-back segments that pushed for more gun restrictions.

After Nawaz prodded Congresswoman Judy Chu (D-CA) to call for more gun control in response to the Monterey Park mass shooting in California, Bennett let UCLA Professor Adam Winkler argue that California’s gun laws are still not strict enough compared to other countries.

After she incorrectly claimed that a gunman might “evade” background checks by purchasing from a “gun store” instead of a “typical store” — whatever that means — Nawaz did not correct her guest’s misinformation as she followed up by asking about President Joe Biden’s support for more gun control: “You spoke with President Biden today. You tweeted earlier. Did he make any pledges to you about additional executive action that he can take when it comes to gun safety?”


Now, it would be easy to argue that this is just someone who doesn’t really understand the topic trying to get the news story were it not for both the bizarre refusal to follow up the claim that a gunman can evade background checks by going to a “gun store” instead some other kind of place.

But Nawaz wasn’t alone in what happened.

Opening the next segment, Bennett admitted that California’s gun laws are the strictest in the country, but suggested more restrictions are still needed:

California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Studies show that those laws are effective, but they are apparently not enough in a country where gun ownership is considered a constitutional right.

It’s considered a constitutional right because it’s in the Constitution. That’s generally how a right gets that name. The Constitution doesn’t grant rights, but it preserves particular rights, which is what we mean when we call one “constitutional.”

To claim it’s “considered a constitutional right” suggests that Bennett thinks there are some grounds for disagreement.

Now, I get that some people don’t think it should be protected, but that’s a far cry from saying that it’s just some people’s opinion that it’s protected, which is essentially what Bennett’s comment implies.


And this is PBS, a network that is funded in part by taxpayer dollars and yet is apparently trying to undermine our right to keep and bear arms.

It’s time to cut them off entirely. They beg for money often enough that they can just beg for a bit more to make up the shortfall from the federal government finally cutting them off.

Look, people are free to say what they wish. They have a fundamental, God-given right to be wrong about pretty much everything under the sun.

What they don’t have a right to, though, is access to our tax dollars to fund their assault on our Second Amendment rights.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member