NY article credits liberal profs w/ judicial "shift" on 2A

[Patriot]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us

[Omega13device]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us...=1&_r=1&ref=us

Bias is when you only give one side of the argument...so I don't get how why you think quoting the Brady Campaign makes this biased. Not that I like the Brady Campaign, but a good reporter should cover the people who like that as well as those who don't.

[Technical Ted]

Well, it was the liberal Cato Institute that backed Parker v District of Columbia which was successful despite the NRA's objections. http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm

[Patriot]

Bias is when you only give one side of the argument...so I don't get how why you think quoting the Brady Campaign makes this biased. Not that I like the Brady Campaign, but a good reporter should cover the people who like that as well as those who don't.

Because quoting the Brady Campaign, which is far from a disinterested party, without adequately qualifying the source ('a grassroots gun-control advocacy group' or 'stated his organization's position') is borderline IMHO. Given that his statement - "The overwhelming weight of scholarly opinion supports the near-unanimous view of the federal courts" may not be a statement of fact indicates to me that it should be presented as such.

If a Mr. Smith from the fictional N. Tabacum Foundation said 'cigarettes do not cause lung cancer,' that is an opinion that - without context - may appear as a statement of fact. Saying Mr Smith, a representative of N Tabacum Foundation, a tobacco advocacy group, said "..." is different, because now a reader has an idea of where he is coming from.

It boils down to the credibility of the source. In this matter, I would not consider the CRPA, NRA, Brady Campaign, and VPC to be particularly credible sources. This is exacerbated by the fact that an objective survey of jurisprudence and scholarly material is difficult and subjective in itself. The NRA could very well say the exact opposite with equal fervor. Since obviously this all cannot be condensed into an article, my idea of the appropriate consideration is to qualify the source.

The NY Time article's using "view", "belief", "interpretation" to describe the individual position is entirely appropriate. What I took to task as being somewhat bias is a failure to do the same thing for the other side. This would be a non-issue if it weren't for the obfuscatory title "the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence," which I feel requires clarification. The 'average' person has an idea of who the NRA is and where they come from. In how many cases can the same be said of the Brady Campaign? Handgun Control Inc., in contrast, conveys a fairly good idea of what the organization is about.

This is relatively minor issue (hence an excellent argument), but hopefully now you understand where I'm coming from.

"The restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." -- George Orwell.

[Pryde]

Well, it was the libertarian Cato Institute that backed Parker v District of Columbia which was successful despite the NRA's objections. http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker_pleadings.htm

Fixed it for you.

[Mssr. Eleganté]

Fixed it for you.

Maybe Technical Ted was using the word "liberal" in the "Classical Liberal" sense. You know, like those "liberals" Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan.

[spgk380]

But! ahh! ho--?!

How can this be? Liberal professors are supposed to be the gun grabber's closest ally and staunchest supporters! Now where are they going to turn to justify their historical invention?

[Solidmch]

Ill take my right anyway I can get them.