terryg wrote:Actually, I thought it was pretty balanced article overall.
It could have been worse, but I found this part to reveal a sense of the author's views:
Gun-control advocates, meanwhile, are completely frustrated with Congress's unwillingness to strengthen gun laws, despite the mounting body count over the years. For them, an assault-weapons ban is a first step toward bringing some rationality to this country's gun policy.
The implication, of course, is that the author believes the laws are weak. But there isn't a gun-grabber alive that would accept the
existing level of restrictions on guns to be applied to their speech rights, and yet, that is what we, the gun-owning public, put up with in order to exercise an enumerated Constitutional right which includes the words "shall not be infringed." That is the ONLY amendment in the entire bill of rights that contains those words, and yet it is already very much infringed, and gun grabbers want to make that infringement downright draconian.
If the author was deliberately without bias, he would have phrased it this way:
Gun-control advocates, meanwhile, are completely frustrated with Congress's unwillingness to make gun laws more restrictive, despite the shooting tragedies over the years. For them, an assault-weapons ban is a first step toward getting guns out of the hands of citizens.
However, a TRUTHFUL author would have written it this way:
Gun-control advocates, meanwhile, are completely frustrated with Congress's unwillingness to trample the 2nd Amendment, even in the face of a complete breakdown of our mental healthcare system over the years. For them, an assault-weapons ban is a first step toward establishing a police state where they can force their policies on a defenseless populace.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”
― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"
#TINVOWOOT
100%
