1 year, 4 months ago
David French says:
The New York Times is in the midst of an editorial crusade against guns, and it’s doing it in standard New York Times fashion: supplementing its own house editorial with classic counterintuitive op-eds — in this case an infantry officer and a cop weigh in on behalf of the paper’s position. (Note to young writers: The absolute best way to get prime space in America’s most famous newspaper is to write a leftist op-ed while holding down a stereotypically conservative job). While I certainly respect his experience with weapons, I daresay that the infantry officer represents a minority viewpoint amongst his own brothers-in-arms …
Well, I don’t know enough to respect this officer’s experience with weapons. I respect my son’s experience with weapons. He was in the 2/6 Marines, Golf Company, 3rd Platoon, combat tour of Fallujah in 2007. He thinks this officer’s opinion is ridiculous and juvenile. Besides, in discussing the issue he toils mightily over such notions as understanding collateral damage because of the backstop behind your target. These are basic issues to the firearms owner, and you simply don’t shoot if you can harm innocent victims in an urban setting in America.
But the most juvenile statement is this.
Those who truly believe that need to be carrying a gun right now, wherever they are. They need to keep it closer than I kept my weapon in Iraq. In Iraq my fellow soldiers’ lives were on the line. Soldiers’ lives are important — but our families’ safety is even more precious.
Those who truly believe that anyone should be able to buy semiautomatic weapons will need a gun at soccer practice, at church, at “Batman” movies. That’s the only logical choice. And civilian life will feel almost like being in Iraq.
I carry my weapon from room to room with me at home, to church, and so on like he says. And I don’t feel at all like I’m in Iraq. My son doesn’t feel like he is still in Iraq. In fact, I think the officer is lying about this. I don’t really think he feels like he is in Iraq. I think he is using this as a dishonest literary device.
On to other lies. Joy Ann-Reid is all in a fit. She says:
… how many Rocky Mountain hunters deem it necessary to stockpile 6,000 rounds of ammunition and enough military-style assault weaponry to take on the Taliban? I’m guessing not many.
… the NRA has morphed from a supporter of responsible gun ownership into a lobbying and fundraising juggernaut, and some would argue, a handmaiden of mass murder.
LaPierre specializes in extremism: calling the federal agents who took part in Waco and Ruby Ridge “jackbooted thugs,” prompting former President George H.W. Bush to quit the NRA in protest in 1995.
He has earned a veritable Ph.D. in paranoia; fantasizing that the United Nations was plotting to somehow confiscate every gun in the United States …
The door has been slammed on the gun debate right up to the White House, except for billionaire New York mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who has no political party, is terming out and doesn’t need, or fear, the gun lobby’s money.
Regarding the issue of U.N. confiscatory measures, Joy hasn’t read my U.N. Arms Treaty: Dreams Of International Gun Control. She also needs to read my category on SWAT Raids to learn about jackbooted thugs. But I don’t believe that she really believes that the NRA, which is comprised of and gets its funding from citizens, is a hand maiden of mass murder. I think she is lying, and using this as a dishonest literary device. And I think Joy knows that just about the only thing America is doing right now is debating guns. I don’t think she really believes that the “door has been slammed” on gun debate. I think Joy is using that as a dishonest literary device too.
Finally, Stewart Patrick really wants the U.N. Arms Treaty to be ratified. He says:
An international arms treaty would work to stem the flow of licit and illicit arms into unstable countries and regions, and prevent such weapons from falling into the wrong hands. However, despite three years of preparations and nearly a decade of advocacy campaigns, there remains a lack of consensus on the scope, criteria, and implementation of the treaty. The usual suspects, Russia, China, and—to a certain extent—the United States, are among the most influential of a handful of countries raising objections, particularly over the proposed inclusion of small arms and ammunition, human rights criteria, and regulatory measures. And to compound matters, the United States continues to face domestic opposition to its participation in the treaty negotiations.
[ ... ]
In response to the charges that the treaty would coopt U.S. national sovereignty, arms control experts argue that the treaty would have “little to no impact” on existing regulatory processes, and that American businesses would not assume any additional regulatory burdens. The United States already has in place a rigorous export control system, defined as the “gold standard.” Instead, the treaty is primarily aimed at countries in which rigorous controls and oversight are absent, in an attempt to harmonize and coordinate standards worldwide.
I think Mr. Patrick is a liar. I think he knows that the treaty wouldn’t do anything at all to stem the tide of weapons from rogue nations, and I think he also knows that it would affect the ownership of weapons within the U.S.
Andy Ostroy wants to get rid of the damn guns.
This is a simple issue, people. It’s a choice between allowing mass killers to easily purchase assault weapons and ammunition… or not. We can stick our collective heads in the sand and “come together” to talk about God, prayer, healing and sing Kumbaya, but none of that — let me repeat…none of that — will stop the blood from spilling again.
And let me say that we can confiscate every known, legal weapon in America and it will not, let me repeat, it will not affect the fact that criminals violate the law and commit crimes, sometimes violent crimes. Andy isn’t considering the price of gun control.
So instead of getting rid of the damn guns, I say we keep the guns and get rid of the damn lies.