Alpine Summit

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

Again, With the Liberal Bias

Shamalama links to an AP story about Miers owning a gun.

AUSTIN, Texas – Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, who once owned a .45-caliber revolver, is not licensed to carry a concealed handgun in Texas. State officials refused Monday to reveal whether she has ever been licensed.

Miers' brother gave her the Smith & Wesson handgun when he was worried about her living alone in Dallas. Judge Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court, a longtime friend of Miers', has said she kept the gun for a long time.

It's interesting, because all the article says is she owned the gun--not that she carried it around with her. This is a perfect example of how the MSM spins and distorts a story to make it sound like there was wrongdoing or some kind of improper conduct. Not to mention the subject matter. Luckily, they do mention the distinction:

A person in Texas can own a gun without a concealed handgun license. Texas is one of 43 states that allow concealed weapons, and more than 230,000 residents are registered under the law.

This is probably shocking and disturbing in the mind of a liberal, and since a liberal wrote this (most likely), figured it would add to the ominous nature of Miers owning a gun. Shamalama's hyperbole was descriptive.

A person who may end up as one of the justices of the United States Supreme Court actually owned a gun! You know, one of those Items Of War that go out, on their own, and kill people.

This is also the biggest non-story I've ever seen! Who cares if she owned a gun?! If there was some kind of law broken that involved the gun then that's a different story; but to simply mention that someone owns/owned a gun at some point in history really isn't news-- unless of course, you have a political axe to grind against your political enemies, or wish to fire up opponents.

While I'm on the subject of Miers, I might as well elaborate on why I really don't care about this nomination. While I am a bit upset Bush is picking another crony for a high-level job, I'm utterly convinced that the worst-case scenario is that the Supreme Court remains the way it is since she's replacing Sandra O'Connor--who was thought to be conservative when nominated, but turned out to be liberal on many issues. Best-case scenario: we get more conservatives on the bench and liberal legal battles will fail. Either way, I'm happy.