On Sunday's This Week, host George Stephanopoulos repeatedly brought up the debate over whether to bar guns from people on the federal terror watch list or the no-fly list without delving into any of the arguments against doing so.

The ABC host brought up the issue with both guests Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson, and raised the issue again during the Roundtable segment, but never noted either the specific criticisms that the list gets from both the left and the right, or the argument against tipping off suspects under secret investigation which barring them from purchasing guns would cause.

Appearing as a guest on Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, far left California Democratic Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom doubled down on the wisdom of being a sitting duck at a mass shooting as he refused to acknowledge any possible advantage to being armed in the event of such an attack.

After Newsom, who has already announced he will run for governor in 2018, and host Maher went through a liberal wish list of items already passed or soon to be pushed in California, Maher surprisingly hit Newsom from the right on the issue of whether it's better to be armed in a restaurant with the ability to shoot back if a mass shooter storms in.

Over two years ago, even the Secretary General at Interpol, an outfit one might expect to be unreceptive to individiuals' right to self-defense, said that one approach to the problem that terrorist groups are more frequently choosing to attack any place that people may congregate is "to say we want an armed citizenry."

By contrast, Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky clearly isn't interested in giving potential terrorist victims a chance to defend themselves. She's more interested in using the Paris attacks as a springboard for advocating stricter gun laws. The press is failing to report what opportunists like Schakowsky are saying, likely because they realize that most of the American people are strongly opposed to such efforts.

The Washington Post's Erik Wemple and certain "I walked through Bedford Stuy alone" reporters are contending that, in Wemple's words, "the term 'no-go zone' is best left in retirement." No sir, it needs to be defined appropriately, then used when appropriate.

Avoiding use of the term enables a dangerous detachment from reality. There is already quite a surplus of that. Patrick J. McDonnell at the Los Angeles Times, who seems to believe that he proved something by visiting the jihadi-infested neighborhood of Molenbeek and getting out alive, demonstrated how out of touch he is by referring on Monday — three days after the Paris terror attacks and at least two days after the parties involved and their backgrounds were firmly established — to "the so-called Belgian connection in the Paris attacks." Holy moly, Patrick. What about Molenbeek being "home to two" of the Paris attack terrorists who died during their attacks and to the plots' mastermind, Salah Abdeslam, do you not comprehend?

Shortly after the Charlie Hebdo Islamic terrorist murders in Paris in January, the establishment press attacked those who dared to state something quite obvious about "no-go zones" in parts of Europe, i.e., that they exist. The media summarily and unilaterally declared that "no-go zones" were a myth propagated by the likes of Fox News, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, longtime terror expert Steven Emerson, and others — despite several direct references to them in media accounts, including the New York Times, going back as far as 2002.

Well, a not very funny thing has happened during the attempt to hunt down those involved in planning Friday's coordinated terrorist bloodbath in Paris.