This is in reference to Dennis Pragers discussion with a guest today regarding the Omaha shooting and his idea that the media is biased in its reporting of this case and similar cases.

Dennis Pragers logic by which he arrives at his conclusions, albeit much of his conclusions or opinions aren't arrived at via logical deduction but rather the etheric moral compass of his Prager-ized Judeo-Christian mentality, is severely flawed in many respects.  

Case in point.  This gun free zone issue and the idea that the media is part of some global conspiracy against reporting the fact that some of these terrible massacres have occurred in gun free zones. Last time I checked protocols such as 'a gun free zone' are up to the property ownership to determine.  Also, it may be equally important to ask the question why didn't the security guards and/or on-site mall policemen respond more quickly.  Now this last question is absurd of course but it's equally absurd to connect the media in some chain of responsibility to those guilty of pulling the trigger on innocent victims in various public places. But I get the gist of his complaint regarding this illusory 'non-reporting' by the 'media'; the proverbial 'they'.    

There has been a few violent occurrences at a local gun range here in Tampa, FL.  Of these few, one occurred this year where a man held 3 people hostage inside that gun range.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/13/Hillsborough/Hostage_crisis_at_Tam.shtml

Now I would imagine the patrons of this gun range more than likely had plenty of opportunities to take this guy out but they didn't and they were surrounded by guns and weapons. This wasn't a gun free zone.  

You see I'm not here to pick any sides to this issue of gun-control or the fact that the media is some extension of the devils propaganda machine that Dennis and his ilk would have you believe.  Rather these folks, such as Dennis, love to make noise about issues that are just par for the course in terms of every day life in America. Again 'mountains out of mole hills'.  But if it weren't for these little hills of sand Dennis would probably be out of a job.  Perhaps?

But in terms of the 2nd Amendment here are few more closing thoughts.  I've recently changed my mind from a strictly hand-gun gun control perspective to a liberal proponent of the 2nd Amendment as it relates to all types and iterations of the gun and/or rifle.  Not because I think I need to protect my self against the oh so random 'shooter', which in speaking to probabilities is less likely to occur to me than say getting hit by  lightning, but rather  I am suspect of our Government and I believe in reserving the rights of the common American citizen the ability to protect his or her self against the tyranny of their own Government.  I really don't think we have a fighting chance if the martial arms of our Gov't wanted to flex it's muscles upon it's own but at least we'd go down fighting just like our forefathers did as they eagerly fought for their own freedom.

Additionally, for all those who think that more guns in the hands of citizens would result in less crime and shootings such as the one in Omaha please take this in consideration. We have all seen the damage an irresponsible driver can cause on the road and we take that as a given risk in our every day lives.  Now picture the situation in Omaha or VA Tech, I can't trust that everyone that has the right to bear a concealed weapon has the cognizance nor ability to use and implement that same weapon. It could turn into a free for all with weapons drawn and shots fired and confusion as to who exactly is the perpetrator due to the fact that everyone is now 'the shooter'.  But perhaps that would help in the whole scheme of things.  A Darwinian process of elimination; those that are intelligent enough to see the futility in the perspective may go about their regular gun-less lives while the other John Wayne types are left to shoot amongst themselves.

RRed