The Colorado Shootings

It is apparent that events are occurring that require opinionated observation. To that point, we will be deferring the restart of our platform creation to discuss the Colorado shootings on two key tiers: gun laws and the media as a whole as it reported on this tragic event.

As to gun control, The Madison Conservative still believes, as was discussed after the Arizona shootings, that there can be limits on magazines with 100 bullets and still respect the full integrity of the second amendment. The Madison Conservative is heartened by Supreme Court Justice Scalias’ recent comments that there can be certain limitations on arms, but that the issue first needs to be addressed at the state level.

In the absence of true leadership, it seems that there is a simple answer to the immediate concerns on the issue of gun control. The solution would avoid the infringement on the constitutional guarantees of the second amendment and simultaneously allow Congress to do what it enjoys doing most – creating tax legislation in search of money from any source.

To wit:

Do not attempt to regulate assault weapons at this time, but put a fifty dollar tax on the ammunition needed for said weapons. This will protect that portion of the citizenry who employ firearms for sport or security, as those arms do not utilize assault weapon munitions, but the tax would allow the government an easier way to track purchases of the assault weapon magazines.

It is understood that such an idea is simplistic and perhaps unrealistic in that simplicity, but the debate must be had and the full constitutionality of assault weapon bans must be addressed. The tax would follow constitutional protocols that require a tax to be paid before it can be addressed through the judicial process.

The media seems to be of late an easy target for individuals and blog posts to criticize and critique for the woes of the nation and for perceived predispositions to one slice of the political spectrum. The Madison Conservative avoids that save for specific instances that require an exploration of the decision process employed by a media outlets editorial theology.

To wit:

In the immediate aftermath of the shootings, while specifics were unclear and details ambiguous at best, ABC News, at the national network level, opted to pronounce that they had found an individual with the name of the assailant appearing on the Colorado Tea Party list.

The question demands to be asked:

Why on earth was ABC News looking for a Tea Party connection first, and without properly vetting the information at all proceed to present that information, quickly proven absolutely wrong, to the nation? Many may protest that the mass media has a political agenda, but attempting to associate a deranged murderer with a political party is much more than a political agenda and ABC News must be held accountable. Imagine the hue and cry if ABC News had reported that the killer was a donor to the Obama campaign, and then that information was found to be false.

Secondly, and more importantly, a father of one of the victims challenged CNN, live, on air, to cease providing the name and photo of the killer, pointing out that it was merely feeding the need for similar individuals to attain the fame they are seeking. It has been a low point indeed for the media as a whole not to follow this suggestion. Many years ago it was considered comedic to race onto a baseball field during the game to garner some television attention. Major League Baseball quickly understood the goal of such imbeciles and implemented a protocol that any such individual would never again be on camera, hence the rare ‘on field delay’ provided by the sportscasters. And this is for just a baseball game; why do the media not understand this and merely report on the facts without providing personal information and mug shots.

The American people must demand responsibility from their free press.

Finally, amidst all of the convoluted rationale provided by all corners, here is the official transcript of President Obama’s remarks relative to ‘you didn’t build that’ fiasco. Taken in context, as many have stated, it appears worse than what is being shown on endless  loops on cable news.

To wit:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own.

I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there.

It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that.

Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Mr. President – this is not referring to merely ‘roads and bridges’.

The comments have not been taken out of context – incorrectly edited, perhaps, but not out of context.

The smart, hard working American electorate deserve better.