Wife Beating Reporter Gets a Mega-Surprise When He Goes to Write His Anti-Gun Hit Piece


Neil Steinberg
Neil Steinberg

In the wake of the Orlando massacre, Chicago Sun Times reporter Neil Steinberg, a leftist, set out to buy an “assault rifle” (AR-15) hoping to show how easy it is to do no doubt.

He couldn’t buy an “assault rifle” because he has a drinking problem and spousal abuse problems. Did the left-wing reporter learn anything from this? No, of course not. He learned that terrorists can buy guns but he can’t. However, there is a good reason for that.

His spouse might think he’s a terrorist. We should ask her or them if there is more than one wife.

In his column titled “Would-be Terrorists Can Buy Guns, But a Reporter? No,” he whines that a journalist in Philadelphia was able to buy an “assault rifle” in less than 10 minutes.

Alas, the gun store later called him to say they had to cancel the sale but they wouldn’t tell him why and they don’t have to give him a reason.

Steinberg tried to say he was denied the sale because he’s a reporter. “[H]ating the media is right behind hating the government as a pastime for many gun owners,” he writes. “They damn you for being ignorant then hide when you try to find out.”

The gun store then sent Steinberg’s newspaper a statement, which read in part: “it was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife.”

Steinberg didn’t want to include that information in his article but his newspaper made him.

He didn’t lie on his application which asks if he was “convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor” since he wasn’t convicted because he wiggled his way out of it. He also didn’t pop up on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check because he doesn’t have a conviction.

He’s apparently well-known, however, as a drunk and a wife beater because he’s written about it. The staff at the gun store knew about his past and that’s why he was denied the sale.

The dealer at Maxon’s Shooters Supply has the final say and didn’t want to take a chance.

Steinberg was very aggressive and threatening after he was denied, telling the dealer he was going to write about it.

“Journalist” is not a protected class, BTW,” the store later wrote on its Facebook page. “We contacted his editor and said that, while we don’t normally provide a reason for a denial, in this case to correct the record before you publish, here’s why; we pasted a couple links of press accounts of his past behavior and his admission of same. He’s free to believe or disbelieve that’s why he was denied, but that *is* why he was denied. There was no “We’ll see you in court!!!!” type of language from us – we simply want to set the record straight. That it undermined his thesis and rendered the column incoherent isn’t really our problem, is it? Thanks for your support.”

The FBI background check would have allowed him to get a gun.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Paul Simmons
Paul Simmons
6 years ago

I wonder if the Feds will prosecute this case since it’s very much in the public eye. Then again, treason seems to be fine these days so why should lying on a Federal firearms form cause much alarm?
I guess the only satisfaction gun owners can look for is this guy proving what an idiot he is…

6 years ago

So a ‘terrorist’, who had been investigated by the FBI, was subsequently determined to pose no threat and no longer under investigation, and was not placed on either the Terrorist Watch List or the No-Fly List, was cleared to buy a gun by the FBI.

But an alleged ‘reporter’, obviously intending to advocate for tighter restrictions on gun sales is denied because he was flagged for alcohol and domestic abuse issues, and gets his panties in a wad.

This author is an ignorant POS who takes the opportunity to denigrate even the store’s employees by mentioning their tattoos, and the mid-50′ appearance of its patrons..

He takes pride in his cleverness of quoting Mike, after he was asked not to, by essentially just eliminating quotation marks. No wonder Mike doesn’t read newspapers anymore because of ‘reporters’ like him.

He denigrates his neighbors with the high fence and goes on to speculate that they must be gun owners. Maybe they have the high fence because they own a large lion that doesn’t like reporters. The fence around my property is for your safety, not mine.

He quotes (presumably) another neighbor, who claims “that her brother-in-law owns 100 guns”. For some people, any number greater than 3 or 4 is 100, particularly if it is a hoplophobic liberal referring to guns. The neighbor goes on to allege that she knows that the reason for ‘100 guns’ is because “he’s afraid”. C’mon, really???

He goes on to regurgitate the anti-gun lobby’s lies:

First, “there’s the danger of the gun itself”; what danger is he referring to? A gun is only dangerous in the hands of negligent, stupid, or murderous people, but not in the hands of your typical peaceful, and law-abiding Americans; a gun, by itself, never hurt anyone.

Next, he ‘knows’ that, “the person you are most likely to shoot, statistically, is yourself”. While it is true that the majority of gunshot wounds are self-inflicted, his presumption is that the only reason you would buy a gun in the first place is to shoot someone. But that’s just how the hoplophobic liberal mind works. After all, if you’re not going to shoot someone, what good is a gun?

Yet over 100 million Americans, with over 300 million guns, including about 10 million so-called ‘assault weapons’, who fire over a billion rounds of ammunition each year, and use their guns every day for the legitimate purposes of recreation, hunting, competition, and to defend the life and limb of themselves and their loved ones, will never pose any threat to either themselves or their similarly law-abiding neighbors.

He laments that, “A reporter in Philadelphia bought an assault rifle in seven minutes; 40 percent of gun transactions in the U.S. have no background checks”. There are at least three problems with his claim;

1) His deceitful implication is that it only took 7 minutes because no background check was required. In fact, the Columnist, Helen Ubinas of the Daily News bought the gun from a licensed gun dealer, which means a background check was conducted.

2) Why does the time required to complete a purchase matter? When I go into a store to buy something, I want to get it over with as quickly as possible. Kudos to any gun store that can help you select a gun, get the paperwork filled out, run the NICS check, ring you up, and get you out the door in 7 minutes. But the columnist herself admits she was in the store considerably longer than just 7 minutes.

3) The 40% number is BS. The bottom line is that this number came from a 22-year-old 1994 telephone survey of 251 people nationwide who were asked where the guns in their household had been acquired. In fact, the actual number was 35.7%, not 40%. Many of the responses were uncertain, or ‘probably’ from one source or another. Importantly, the Brady Law had only be enacted a few months earlier which requires dealers to perform background checks on gun buyers. Therefore, probably most of the guns being asked about were purchased before the law went into effect. Even one of the study’s coauthors clarified that the actual number was somewhere between 14% and 22%, depending on definition.

WaPo rates the claim with “3 Pinocchios”.

Politifact rates it ‘Mostly False’:

And Factcheck.Org explains why it is completely meaningless:

He claims that congress “passed a law making it illegal for the federal government to fund research into gun violence.” That is not true at all. They are simply prohibited from advocating or promoting gun control, but again, the anti-gun lobby is truth-adverse.

In 1979, gun control supporters within the CDC’s parent agency, the U.S. Public Health Service, thought they could increase support for gun control by defining firearms as a disease. Its official goal then became, “…to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership, starting with a 25% reduction by the turn of the century.”

The Winter 1993 CDC official publication, Public Health Policy for Preventing Violence, offered among its strategies for preventing firearm injuries; “restrictive licensing (for example, only police, military, guards, and so on)” and “prohibit gun ownership.” (See p. 19)

A CDC grant to the Trauma Foundation, a San Francisco gun control group, was subsequently used to advocate for gun control by advising “advocates” to “organize a picket at gun manufacturing sites” and to “work for campaign finance reform to weaken the gun lobby’s political clout.”

These are but a few examples of your tax dollars at work.

Since its 1996 appropriations bill, Congress has included language (Dickey amendment) which stipulates, “none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”; this is the “ban” the anti-gun lobby disingenuously refers to.

In short, the CDC has funded politically-motivated and grossly flawed studies and other efforts for the expressed purpose of promoting gun control. Congress has only required that the CDC stop promoting gun control, which should be not at all controversial.