Cincinnati NBC reporter Eric Flack obediently beats the drum for more gun control

By Tim Inwood

If you had put your hand to your ear and listened to the East, you would have heard the presses going at the Brady Campaign as they put out press releases begging the media to begin to bang the drums calling for new gun control laws. Ever the obedient creature, the press obeyed.

For the past several months I have noted shrill voices coming across the television and radio calling for much needed new gun control regulations.

The talking heads have called for banning .50 caliber rifles, as well as reinstating the worthless Clinton Semi-automatic firearms ban. Worse, they want to expand the parameters of the original ban to include innocuous guns like the little Ruger 10/22. As of late, the call has been to close the "Gun Show Loophole".

On Thursday the 15th, I was contacted by Eric Flack of WLWT Channel 5 News in Cincinnati. He told me he was doing a story on criminals obtaining guns at gun shows and wanted someone to come down and talk with them. We talked for several minutes and finally agreed that I would come down around 8PM for a studio interview. I had my apprehensions about doing this:

The media rarely gives gun owners a fair shake, and sadly this was no exception. In a four minute report, I was on air for ten seconds at best.

By Fred Thompson
Republican Candidate for President
Fred08.com

Here's another reason why it's important that we appoint judges who use the Constitution as more than a set of suggestions.

Today [Tuesday, November 20], the Supreme Court decided to hear the case of District of Columbia v. Heller.

Six plaintiffs from Washington, D.C. challenged the provisions of the D.C. Code that prohibited them from owning or carrying a handgun. They argued that the rules were an unconstitutional abridgment of their Second Amendment rights. The Second Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, provides, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The District argued, as many gun-control advocates do, that these words only guarantee a collective "right" to bear arms while serving the government. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected this approach and instead adopted an "individual rights" view of the Second Amendment. The D.C. Circuit is far from alone. The Fifth Circuit and many leading legal scholars, including the self-acknowledged liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, have also come to adopt such an individual rights view.

I've always understood the Second Amendment to mean what it says - it guarantees a citizen the right to "keep and bear" firearms, and that's why I've been supportive of efforts to have the D.C. law overturned.

Click 'Read More' for the entire commentary.