Media political activism is evident everywhere, all the time, but today's Supreme Court decision on preventing people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms is the latest. It is also a primer on how to see the political narratives they constantly use. Here is a couple of paragraphs from the Washington Post report on the story. The bolded words and phrases are specific to progressive Democrat positions and political narratives on this issue. The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a federal law that prevents people who are subject to domestic-violence restraining orders from having firearms — its first major Second Amendment decision since a 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights. The court said the Constitution permits laws that strip guns from those deemed dangerous, one of a number of firearms restrictions that have been imperiled since the conservative majority bolstered gun rights in the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland praised the court’s decision, saying the law “protects victims” by keeping guns out of the hands of people who threaten them. “As the Justice Department argued, and as the Court reaffirmed today, that commonsense prohibition is entirely consistent with the Court’s precedent and the text and history of the Second Amendment,” Garland said in a statement. Rather than discuss the rationale for the decision, WaPo focuses on repeating the gun control political narratives and attacking the Supreme Court.

• 3 regarding the '2022 Bruen case' and the Supreme Court.
  • 2022 ruling that expanded gun rights
  • the conservative majority bolstered gun rights
  • the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
• 1 restating the political narrative that firearms restrictions that have been imperiled.
• 1 restating the often used narrative 'commonsense' prohibition.

This discussion could and should go into the fact that this was an 8-1 decision!  I thought the media and progressive attacks on the Supreme Court said that no fair minded and non-partisan decisions could be reached.  Well there have been several and here is another one, on gun control even.  But, no, lets ignore that because it does not support our political narrative regarding the dangers of the conservative supreme court. And, what about Justice Thomas as the only dissenting justice? It supports the narratives around Justive Thomas that he was the one who dissented and he dissented on gun control.  But, it doesn't help the preferred narratives to go into why he dissented.  He is concerned over the simple of issuance of a TRO being abused to limit gun ownership.  Domestic abusers, as the other justices states, should not be able to acquire firearms.  But do you come an take away someones firearms if they are in a contentious divorce?  This is an important discussion to have, but, not one that is of interest to WaPo because it does not support the gun control political narratives. The language we use regarding political issues defines the debate on those issues.  And, our 'mass' media control the language and the emphasis.