WaPo v. NRA Round 5?


WaPo is on a bit of an anti-gun, anti-NRA, pro-ATF bender. Doesn't mean that they don't have some good points.

I swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Part of that document has some stuff about the right to keep and arm bears. Or something like that.

I didn't see anything about assault rifles. I also didn't see anything about enabling the ATF to track where guns used in crimes and used in Mexico come from.

Assault rifles bad.
Tracking the path of guns from manufacture to legal sale to illegal sale to crime is a good thing.

Doesn't mean the ATF isn't sometimes overstepping its bounds - as happens with all gov't agencies once in a while. By all means, fight them when they trample your right to free commerce and privacy. But unfettered access to guns just isn't a good thing for society, and as it stands it's way too easy to make a straw purchase. Or to turn the other way when someone not kosher is getting ahold of firearms.

Yes, the WaPo is lying with statistics here and there.

We don't need militias. We don't need assault rifles. We do need to keep track of who buys guns and what happens to them.

You might be a champion for individual rights and freedoms out in the countryside where everyone knows each other and you need a gun for protection and hunting. By all means. Keep doing what you're doing. But in the bad parts of Chicago, Newark, Detroit, D.C. and Los Angeles - it's a bit different. Now it's a war, and keeping assault rifles and Tec-9's out of criminals hands' is a big priority or you're looking at a lot of dead police officers. And a failing state down in Mexico, where the cops are so outgunned and underpaid that there's no way in hell you can expect them to resist just taking the bribe and turning the other way.

No comments:

Post a Comment