New York Times Misleads again on Guns...
An editorial (you will need a log-in) in the New York Times today gave it a good shot to once again mislead the public concerning assault weapons and gun control.
First, there is this statement that implies gun control isn't nearly as good as it should be: "Federal agents could only watch as the crazy quilt of loopholes that passes for gun control..." Well, there are more restrictions and controls on buying and selling firearms than any other industry in the Nation. If the problem as they state is that people on the Fed's watch list of terrorism suspects are getting firearms, legally, then put them in the same class of people who are prohibited from purchasing firearms. End of story, since then when the dealer did a background check, a screen would come up telling him/her not to sell the individual a firearm.
That way, the terrorism suspect would know that he should go get a gun illegally instead.
Next, the article states: "Welcome to the new world of homeland security, where all the national resolve to be alert is clearly butting into the citizenry's near-almighty right to bear arms." In my opinion, given that the right to keep and bear arms is the Second Amendment to our Constitution, it is an "almighty right". Just like the First Amendment, and all the rest.
Then we have this statement: "...terror suspects' easy access to combat rifles..." [emphasis added]. To me, combat rifle conjures up images of fully automatic machine guns, as it probably does in most people's minds that aren't well versed in firearms. Well, machine guns have been illegal since the 1950's (or thereabouts). What they are getting are basically hunting rifles. This seems like a deliberate ploy to mislead the public. They also mention that the suspects were cleared to buy "assault rifles". Well, there is no such thing as an "assault rifle". The Clinton Gun Ban defined these rifles solely on what the rifle looked like - cosmetic features with no regard to what the rifle could do. Why? Because if they defined assault rifles based on performance, they would have to ban all rifles, including the rifles in my basement. The public isn't "ready" for that yet.
Finally, there is this statement slandering then Attorney General John Ashcroft: "...when it was disclosed that John Ashcroft, a gun rights zealot who was attorney general at the time..." [emphasis added]. "Gun rights zealot" conjures up a nut in my mind - why didn't they just say...when it was disclosed that John Ashcroft, a defender of our Second Amendment against anti-gun zealots, who was attorney general at the time...
No, that would be counterproductive to their real agenda.
First, there is this statement that implies gun control isn't nearly as good as it should be: "Federal agents could only watch as the crazy quilt of loopholes that passes for gun control..." Well, there are more restrictions and controls on buying and selling firearms than any other industry in the Nation. If the problem as they state is that people on the Fed's watch list of terrorism suspects are getting firearms, legally, then put them in the same class of people who are prohibited from purchasing firearms. End of story, since then when the dealer did a background check, a screen would come up telling him/her not to sell the individual a firearm.
That way, the terrorism suspect would know that he should go get a gun illegally instead.
Next, the article states: "Welcome to the new world of homeland security, where all the national resolve to be alert is clearly butting into the citizenry's near-almighty right to bear arms." In my opinion, given that the right to keep and bear arms is the Second Amendment to our Constitution, it is an "almighty right". Just like the First Amendment, and all the rest.
Then we have this statement: "...terror suspects' easy access to combat rifles..." [emphasis added]. To me, combat rifle conjures up images of fully automatic machine guns, as it probably does in most people's minds that aren't well versed in firearms. Well, machine guns have been illegal since the 1950's (or thereabouts). What they are getting are basically hunting rifles. This seems like a deliberate ploy to mislead the public. They also mention that the suspects were cleared to buy "assault rifles". Well, there is no such thing as an "assault rifle". The Clinton Gun Ban defined these rifles solely on what the rifle looked like - cosmetic features with no regard to what the rifle could do. Why? Because if they defined assault rifles based on performance, they would have to ban all rifles, including the rifles in my basement. The public isn't "ready" for that yet.
Finally, there is this statement slandering then Attorney General John Ashcroft: "...when it was disclosed that John Ashcroft, a gun rights zealot who was attorney general at the time..." [emphasis added]. "Gun rights zealot" conjures up a nut in my mind - why didn't they just say...when it was disclosed that John Ashcroft, a defender of our Second Amendment against anti-gun zealots, who was attorney general at the time...
No, that would be counterproductive to their real agenda.
posted by Paul | 3:35 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment |
<< Home