Ghoulish Media & Second Amendment Repression?

I'm linking to these little pieces on Instapundit, as it echos my very first (or second?) blog post ever:

THE PRESS WANTS TO SHOW BODIES from Katrina. It didn't want to show bodies, or jumpers, on 9/11, for fear that doing so would inflame the public.
I can only conclude that this time around, the press thinks it's a good thing to inflame the public. What could the difference be?
UPDATE: Heh.

...Dave Kopel has done some legal research and concludes:
I'll have an article on the New Orleans gun confiscation on Reason.com. But there's one part of the story that's too important to wait: the confiscation is plainly illegal. . . .
The particular Louisiana statute which allows emergency controls on firearms also clearly disallows the complete prohibition being imposed by the New Orleans chief of police.

As Mr. Reynolds notes, perhaps the NRA can do for law-abiding American citizens what the ACLU does for American-hating citizens...obviously, the media will not point out this anti-constitutional abuse of property rights. Who will stand up for the American whom carries a gun to protect his home and his family from thugs? In a city with no leadership, with a police force that either abandoned its posts or joined the mob, how can we allow the citizenry to be forcibly disarmed?

And as the anniversary of 9/11 approaches, will the media lift its self-imposed censorship to show us the horrors of that day? Unlikely; they do not what us to know what we are fighting for. But pictures of the Katrina dead, yes, because that can be spun into anti-Bush propoganda (or so they still believe). I will be watching some of the coverage tommorrow, looking to see who is putting on the anti-American spin the hardest, who are disrespecting the victims...


Link here http://instapundit.com/archives/025449.php
and here: http://instapundit.com/archives/025446.php
Archive Link: http://jerseynut.blogspot.com/2005/03/in-honor-of-my-first-comment.html