Lately, the New York Times has been a font of anti-gun sad-pandaism. The editors can’t stand that pro-gun people are winning victories in Congress, in the states, and in public opinion. They can’t stand the fact they’re losing. Sad, sad pandas. I feel (almost) sorry for them. At least I’m trying not to engage too openly in shadenfreude, which is not a pretty emotion.
This time our intrepid editors are bemoaning a proposed gun law. Senator John Thune of South Dakota hopes to add an amendment to a military spending bill that would provide gun owners with reciprocity throughout the United States or at least most of it.
The editorial is short on facts. There’s no mention of how the amendment would affect states that don’t have concealed carry laws at all, if there would be intrastate limits on where one could carry (meaning one would have to master the laws of all the states in which one travels), how it would handle Vermont-style systems, and other pertinent facts.
The editorial is long on emotion. It describes the proposal as “…the latest assault on public safety….” It states that it would make illegal gun trafficking between states easier (not sure how, but I’m just reporting here). If cites statistics that describe presumably unlawful killings by permittees, but the numbers cover a two year period and seem cherry picked (unable to tell without more facts--those are good things).
Finally, it hopes Chuck Schumer and Frank Lautenberg are able to defeat the amendment. But, the writers sound desperate. They sound like they’re crying panda tears.
Let’s really make them really unhappy and give our congresscritters a call and support this amendment.
This time our intrepid editors are bemoaning a proposed gun law. Senator John Thune of South Dakota hopes to add an amendment to a military spending bill that would provide gun owners with reciprocity throughout the United States or at least most of it.
The editorial is short on facts. There’s no mention of how the amendment would affect states that don’t have concealed carry laws at all, if there would be intrastate limits on where one could carry (meaning one would have to master the laws of all the states in which one travels), how it would handle Vermont-style systems, and other pertinent facts.
The editorial is long on emotion. It describes the proposal as “…the latest assault on public safety….” It states that it would make illegal gun trafficking between states easier (not sure how, but I’m just reporting here). If cites statistics that describe presumably unlawful killings by permittees, but the numbers cover a two year period and seem cherry picked (unable to tell without more facts--those are good things).
Finally, it hopes Chuck Schumer and Frank Lautenberg are able to defeat the amendment. But, the writers sound desperate. They sound like they’re crying panda tears.
Let’s really make them really unhappy and give our congresscritters a call and support this amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment