Fox News Tackles My “Thoughts and Prayers” *Washington Post* Piece

Here is last night’s Shannon Bream show on Fox.   Fast forward to the 36:40 mark to see court evangelical Robert Jeffress and radio host Ethan Bearman discuss my recent Washington Post article on the connection between abortion and gun control.

I still want Jeffress to turn to his Twitter feed and his media outlets and propose serious gun reforms as an extension of his commitment to human dignity and life.

ADDENDUM:

It looks like Fox News removed the video. I think you might be able to see it on Jeffress’s Twitter feed:

 

6 thoughts on “Fox News Tackles My “Thoughts and Prayers” *Washington Post* Piece

  1. What the 2A means is in dispute in various respects especially in regard to civilian ownership of certain types of firearms so what the Founders closed off is a basic matter of dispute. So, I don’t think that is going to get us very far here. There are various gun regulations that are allowed under the Heller case that have not been passed. Others are more tricky calls. Being “armed,” e.g., with a shotgun and the guns and ammo used in mass shootings is not the same thing though obviously there is a lot of debate over ability to line draw. But, there is a speaking to the converted here.

    Like

  2. John, instead of Jeffress, maybe you should call out a Christian guy you frequently reference when it’s convenient to point him a noted evangelical for criticizing Trump – David French. Since we know French applies his Christian faith in his critiques of Trump, I imagine he does so also on this issue, although he doesn’t specifically mention it in the references below.

    He’s written about the topic a couple of times over the last two years here and here.

    Jeffress is too easy a target and his arguments can be standard rhetoric that is just as vapid as the phrase “weapons of war”.

    French writes: “I fully recognize that there are many millions of Americans who flatly disagree with the notion that armed citizens either can or should try to deter tyranny. Either their trust in the government is so complete (or their sense of futility in the face of its armed might so great) that they don’t believe private ownership of weapons is a meaningful check on lawless government action, or they believe that the cost of widespread civilian gun ownership is simply too high to pay in exchange for a theoretical check on state power. That’s a debate worth having — in the context of a long-term progressive effort to repeal the Second Amendment. But for now, the Founders have settled question.”

    Dems regularly call out Republicans to show “courage” to “stand up to the NRA”. Let’s see some Dems show the courage to call for a repeal of the Second Amendment. If it’s outdated and archaic as you argue, why don’t they make that a top priority in their campaigns? Why not run for president with one of the primary campaign promises being a repeal of the 2nd?

    If this is a big moral issue, then they should be willing to risk losing a presidential election in order to stand on principle, correct?

    And if Madison wrote the 2nd in the context of a “now defunct colonial militia system”, he also wrote the 1st it in a pre-internet age, so why not consider limitations on the 1st? If the Founders couldn’t conceive of AR-style rifles, nor could they conceive of the internet. Shouldn’t we let Congress pass laws to restrict what can be said on the internet? Start a regulatory war on “hate speech”. Why is it OK to try to gut or very narrowly define one Amendment and not another.

    If we can make arbitrary rules about magazine capacity in the name of the “common good”, why not arbitrary rules to govern and restrict “hate speech” or limit it’s “capacity” on the internet or even limit what publishers can produce? Maybe, let’s say, no more than 10 books or articles. Nobody “needs” hate speech and if government regulating speech means fewer people will be motivated to acts of violence, then why should we let children die over the 1st Amendment?

    Like

  3. Alex,

    My impression was that everyone came off as well as could be expected. Ms. Bream gave both guests equal access to express opinions. Mr. Bearman did not come across as an anti-gun extremist nor did Pastor Jeffress come across as an NRA spokesman but rather as a man willing to look at the big picture.

    As the old saying goes, however, the Devil is in the details. Bearman and his allies would probably oppose restrictions on violent internet content as a violation of the First Amendment. He seemed to hint as much when he offered that he was careful what he would want his children to watch. Translation: Every family and not the government should have this responsibility. This liberal faction would probably also oppose morality instruction in the public schools even if the content were scrubbed of sectarian influence. Pastor Jeffress allowed that we could explore the possibility expanded background checks for certain gun purchases. Again, the problem here is how that information might be used and maintained by overly zealous or even dangerously authoritarian federal officials in the future. In summary, both guests spoke in generalities and abstractions. Everyone wants a safer American scene just as everyone wants a chicken in every pot, a new car in every garage, and a free ticket to The Super Bowl.

    In defense of Ms. Bream, there wasn’t adequate time in the segment to dig deeper. That would likely require a full show with actual subject matter experts——not the radio talk show host and the pastor as well-intentioned as they both are.

    Like

  4. Are you happy with how your article was represented and discussed? It seemed to me Shannon Bream and Fox News did a good job presenting the argument made by your article. Jeffress maybe not so much.

    Like

Comments are closed.