DC vs. Heller through other eyes

Obviously, here in the States, DC vs. Heller is a pretty big deal.  However, as such things are, it’s an issue of international significance.

News.Scotsman.com has Heller coverage.  The side they’re on is pretty clear.

Against a background of campus shootings and a high murder rate, gun control activists are hoping the court will agree individual states can pass their own gun control laws.

Another article in the Globe and Mail from Canada.  I actually have to give the Globe & Mail some credit, because their article was extremely well balanced, and if anything, it appeared to favor the pro-gun side.  They didn’t even call the NRA “the gun lobby”.  Check out the quote below, pretty balanced.

Among those groups urging the court to throw out the handgun ban were Pink Pistols, Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership and the NRA. Many law-enforcement agencies, the National Network to End Domestic Violence and the American Bar Association want gun control laws ruled constitutional.

And finally, all the way from Red China, the state run news agency.  Honestly, of all the international coverage I’ve found it was actually the most unbiased – just the facts.

For the first time in roughly 70 years, the U.S. Supreme Court took up a gun control case on Tuesday, trying to determine whether ban on handguns’ ownership by the District of Columbia violates the Constitutional rights.

I always find looking at other nation’s news coverage of our Constitutional issues to be quite illuminating, even the hint here and there of editorial bias can betray so much information on how we’re perceived abroad.  I can then take that and sort of gain an insight on how people here in the US who aren’t exactly big fans of gun control think.

The one international group I was looking for a statement from didn’t have anything up on their website; I guess Rebecca Peters and IANSA is still stinging from getting trounced by Wayne LaPierre in that debate a couple of years back.


  1. Perhaps, they meant “gun-related crimes, or [all types of] accidents.”

    Or, they’re just a bunch of dishonest scumbags.

  2. “Or, they’re just a bunch of dishonest scumbags.”

    That gets my vote. It’s not hard to look up the FACTS these days on the internet and one would assume that the media knows how to do so since Joe Average can. It’s willful lying on the media’s part, period.

    So yes, they’re a bunch of dishonest scumbags.

Comments are closed.