It’s not about the guns

Re another hack writing in the NY Daily News (something in the water there?)

Let’s See:

This time it was just amendments on the floor of the U.S. Senate, one simply asking that no one on a no-fly list be allowed to purchase a gun in this country.

OK, it “Simply” asked that Americans be denied a constitutionally protected right based on a secret list, with no due process, means of redress or even ability to know one is ON the list until denied access to basic rights. Yeah, that’s simple and reasonable.

Strangely, nowhere does this hack mention that the Republicans, supported by the NRA, had an alternative available, but it failed, not because it couldn’t get a majority vote, but because the DEMOCRATS filibustered it, preventing any vote at all.

What was this Republican bill? Well, it basically said that if someone on a terrorist watchlist tried to buy a gun, the sale would be delayed while an investigation was conducted. If the investigation determined the attempted purchaser was involved in terrorism, they would be ARRESTED and PROSECUTED…you know…that whole due process thing. Otherwise, the sale would be allowed…you know…exercising rights and all that.

Seems like a pretty straightforward compromise to me. The Democrats get a little of what they want, while due process and constitutional rights are protected. Win-win right? Not for the Democrats, who love to compromise as long as compromise is defined as “Democrats get everything they want and Republicans get nothing”.

Apparently, Democrats don’t want terrorists off the streets, only to be denied the ability to buy a gun from a dealer. As long as they only kill people with pressure cooker bombs and not with guns, the dems are OK with it.

Oh…and by the way…no mention of the FACT that none of the proposed amendments would have had any affect whatsoever on the attack in Orlando, or on any of the other recent “sudden Jihad syndrome” attacks.

There’s a reason for that. This really doesn’t have anything to do with Orlando; it has nothing to do with terrorism in general; it really has nothing to do with guns. It has to do with “never letting a crisis go to waste”. It is a pure case of “saltatus cruoris”…dancing in the blood of innocents. The Democrats are doing nothing less than exploiting the victims of tragedy to try to advance their longstanding agenda…and in my humble opinion, it’s disgusting.

And the beat goes on…

Why do so many people who are so blissfully and intentionally ignorant about the uses, purposes and capabilities of guns insist upon trying to tell us what kinds of guns we “need” and what kinds are just “too much gun”?

First, she damns with faint praise “The NRA’s terror watch list suggestion” without ever mentioning what it actually is.

She links to an NRA-ILA release that basically reiterates the stand the NRA has taken on terror watch lists for quite a long time and then tries to imply that it’s a new policy in response to the Orlando shooting.

Basically, the NRA’s position is that using terror watch lists to TEMPORARILY halt a sale of a firearm would be OK, as long as there is due process…meaning there is an investigation and if the accused turns out to actually BE a terrorist, they should be prosecuted. On the other hand, if the investigation turns up nothing, the gun sale should be processed.

Of course this is not enough for the anti-gunners…it “doesn’t go far enough”. Why? Because the anti-gunners support violating the rights of US citizens wholesale. Damn due process, damn the constitution, damn the consequences, they want our guns.

Then the author proceeds to the obligatory stage of her post and demonstrates unequivocally that she knows nothing about the subject upon which she feels she should have the final say.

The AR-15 — the common name for similar, Colt-produced M16s for civilians, or the Sig Sauer MCX rifle, which was the actual weapon used in the Orlando shooting — can shoot about 40 rounds per second. Hunters can take out grizzly bears with two rounds.

40 rounds per second: hmm…basic math is HARD…let’s see…40 rounds per second times 60 seconds per minute: that’s 2400 rounds per minute. Here’s a video of an MG-42, which fires at a rate of 1200 to 1500 rounds per minute…which, by the way, is considered a high rate of fire for a single barreled machine gun:

What do you think? Can you pull a trigger twice that fast? (MG-42 is fully automatic…keeps shooting repeatedly as long as you hold the trigger down, an AR-15 is semi-automatic…fires once for each trigger pull).

The link she provides to demonstrate that, using an AR-15, “hunters can take out grizzly bears with two rounds” demonstrates no such thing.

It’s a field and stream forum thread where someone asks how many shots it takes to take down a bear. No mention of the AR-15 or .223…although one responder pointed out that it only takes a single .22 round to avoid a bear attack…just shoot your companion in the ankle and run…but I digress.

Of course, toward the end of her ignorant nonsensical post, she makes the inevitable plea: “It seems at least worth talking about”…but no comments are allowed on the site the article is posted to.

Apparently her idea of “talking about” means she gets to spout whatever vacuous nonsense pops into her silly head, but no one else is allowed to respond.

As usual.

Philadelphia reporter discovers she lives in a free country…is appalled.

A Philadelphia reporter yesterday decried the fact that she was able to purchase a self-loading rifle and that the requisite background check only took 7 minutes

Seven minutes. From the moment I handed the salesperson my driver’s license to the moment I passed my background check.

It’s obscene.

Makes one wonder: what is it that this reporter knows about herself that causes her to think she should have been delayed in exercising a fundamental right? Based on the tenor of the entire story, the author makes it clear she doesn’t believe she should have been “allowed” to purchase a gun at all…or at the least should have had to articulate a reason for doing so.

Why is that? Why, in a country that used to be known as the “Land of the free and the home of the brave” would someone EXPECT to have to justify the exercise of a right explicitly spelled out in the Constitution?

What does she know about herself that we don’t know…what does she know about herself that makes her believe so strongly that she shouldn’t be allowed to own a self-loading rifle?

Maybe we SHOULD enact some common sense gun control: Perhaps journalists, Muslims and liberals should all be added to the list of “prohibited persons”.

Sounds familiar doesn’t it?

In his most recent “study” published by the New England Journal of Medicine, anti-gun shill researcher Dr. Garen Wintemute* apparently strays from the approved anti-gun talking points and admits that the “gun show loophole” is fictional:

In fact, there is no gun-show loophole as such. Federal law is silent on the issue of gun shows and permits private-party gun sales to occur anywhere. As a result, such a limited measure might well have no detectable effect on the rates of firearm-related violent crime. Gun shows account for a small percentage of all gun sales in the United States — between 4 and 9%, according to the best estimates available.1 Similarly, they account for just 3 to 8% of all private-party gun sales. Legislation to close the gun-show loophole would not affect the great majority of private-party sales, and motivated illicit buyers could simply find private sellers elsewhere. (In addition, closing the alleged loophole would not necessarily reduce, by more than a small amount, the importance of gun shows as a source of guns used in crimes. Most sales at gun shows — more than 80%, according to unpublished data3 — are made by licensed retailers, not private parties, and data from gun-trafficking investigations indicate that two thirds of the guns used in crimes that have been linked to gun shows were sold by licensed retailers.2)

Of course, his “solution” is not to drop the issue completely, but to expand the proposed prohibition to cover ALL private sales, no matter where they occur.

His blatant admission may seem like a slam-dunk win for our side, but I’m not so sure.

You see, Prior to Heller and McDonald, the anti-gunners felt that they had to mask their agenda and take it in baby steps in order to mislead the public about their true end goal.

This very well may be the first indication of a new tack.  Helmke, Horowitz, Hennigan et. al. are singing the praises of the McDonald and Heller decisions because of the ramifications to the “slippery slope” argument.

Do they now feel safe to press ahead with their agenda more openly since the claim that their true end goal of total civilian disarmament is now ostensibly “off the table”?.

Well, I’m here to tell you, the danger is still here and it’s still real.

When we have a population which seems convinced, through years of media and educational malfeasance, that rights are granted by government and can be taken away simply by amending the Constitution, that proverbial slope still has plenty of lubrication.

In the current climate, it may seem unrealistic to think that they could actually achieve a repeal of the Second Amendment, but what about decades or even generations from now?

If they are allowed to incrementally reduce the numbers of gun owners, the types, quantities and calibers of firearms we’re “allowed” to own, to continually add to the list of “prohibited persons”, to reduce the right to keep and bear arms to a licensed, taxed, and registered privilege for the rich and connected, how long will it be before they, with the full collusion of a willing media, after significantly reducing the numbers of gun owners and users, convince a majority of the remaining public that the Second Amendment is outmoded, archaic and should be repealed?

Wait! you say.  It takes a three-fourths majority of the states to pass a Constitutional Amendment doesn’t it?  Why yes, yes it does…but it only takes 50.000000001 percent of the population of each state to convince that state to ratify.   In other words, an amendment could easily pass with significantly less than 75% popular support.  Theoretically, it could pass with 100% support from the states while only garnering the tiniest margin over 50% popular support among the people.

This may not be a real danger today, but if we become complacent.  If we rest on our laurels.  If we fail to take the threat seriously enough, will we be condemning our children, grand-children or great-grandchildren to lives of servitude and serfdom?

“We defend freedom here or it is gone. There is no place to run, only to make a stand. And if we fail, I think we face telling our children, and our children’s children, what it was we found more precious than freedom. Because I am sure someday — if we fail in this — there will be a generation that will ask.””
 –Ronald Reagan

The bottom line is:  They will never rest…so neither can we.

Hat tip to Turk Turon

*Corrected the spelling of his name.  Noticed the mistake thanks to Uncle’s post and link.

Crossposted on The Sentinel

The real purpose

Just in case you needed further evidence of the true goal of the gun controllers, reaction to the McDonald case is providing it.

While police confiscation rates over the past decade were still extremely high, research shows that guns are indeed harder to buy and more expensive in Chicago than in other cities.

To keep the price of guns high, the city (or state) could also consider imposing an excise tax on gun transactions along the lines of a cigarette or soda tax. A government’s most efficient means to discourage a given behavior, after all, is to make it prohibitive to purchase.

As usual, they measure success by how difficult it is to obtain guns.

Notably, there is no attempt at all to measure the success of gun control in terms of crime rates or statistics.

Because it’s not about crime.

It’s not really even about guns.

It’s about control.

Justice Scalia’s Concurring Opinion

As most everyone probably already knows, in the predicted 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court released it’s opinion this morning in the case of McDonald v The People’s Republic of Chicago, holding that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the States, basically declaring Chicago’s gun ban unconstitutional.

The entire decision (including concurring and dissenting opinions) can be downloaded here (pdf file).

Everyone and their cousin is going to be evaluation and commenting on the decision itself (the first 52 pages) and there is some good stuff in there, but I’m sure it will be adequately dissected by much smarter people than me.

What I wanted to comment upon was Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion, which wasn’t so much expressing concurrence with the majority, but is basically a fisking of Justice Stevens’ dissent.

Justice Stevens attempted to cloak his dissent in the garb of combating judicial activism. From his dissent:

Moreover, the suggestion that invigorating the Privileges or Immuni­ties Clause will reduce judicial discretion…strikes me as implausible, if not exactly backwards. “For the very reason that it has so long remained a clean slate, a revital­ized Privileges or Immunities Clause holds special hazards for judges who are mindful that their proper task is not to write their personal views of appropriate public policy into the Constitution.”

Justice Scalia basically threw the BS flag and commenced to issue a brutal, point by point smackdown. The whole thing is worth reading, but some of the juicier bits [citations and footnotes removed for brevity and readability -ed]:

Exactly what is covered is not clear. But whatever else is in, he knows that the right to keep and bear arms is out, despite its being as “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” … as a right can be… I can find no other explanation for such certitude except that JUSTICE STEVENS, despite his forswearing of “personal and private notions,”… deeply believes it should be out.

The subjective nature of JUSTICE STEVENS’ standard is also apparent from his claim that it is the courts’ preroga­tive—indeed their duty—to update the Due Process Clause so that it encompasses new freedoms the Framers were too narrow-minded to imagine… Courts, he proclaims, must “do justice to [the Clause’s] urgent call and its open texture” by exercising the “interpretive discretion the latter embodies.”… (Why the people are not up to the task of deciding what new rights to protect, even though it is they who are authorized to make changes…is never ex­plained.) And it would be “judicial abdication” for a judge to “tur[n] his back” on his task of determining what the Fourteenth Amendment covers by “outsourc[ing]” the job to “historical sentiment,”…that is, by being guided by what the American people throughout our his­tory have thought. It is only we judges, exercising our “own reasoned judgment,”…who can be en­trusted with deciding the Due Process Clause’s scope— which rights serve the Amendment’s “central values,” …which basically means picking the rights we want to protect and discarding those we do not.

The idea that interpretive pluralism would reduce courts’ ability to impose their will on the ignorant masses is not merely naïve, but absurd. If there are no right answers, there are no wrong answers either.

He describes as “an important tool for guiding judicial discretion” “sensitivity to the interaction between the intrinsic aspects of liberty and the practical realities of contemporary society.”… I cannot say whether that sensitivity will really guide judges because I have no idea what it is. Is it some sixth sense instilled in judges when they ascend to the bench? Or does it mean judges are more constrained when they agonize about the cosmic conflict between liberty and its potentially harmful conse­quences?

If JUSTICE STEVENS’ account of the constraints of his approach did not demonstrate that they do not exist, his application of that approach to the case before us leaves no doubt. He offers several reasons for concluding that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is not fundamental enough to be applied against the States. None is persuasive, but more pertinent to my purpose, each is either intrinsically indeterminate, would preclude incorporation of rights we have already held incorporated, or both. His approach therefore does nothing to stop a judge from arriving at any conclusion he sets out to reach.

JUSTICE STEVENS next suggests that the Second Amendment right is not fundamental because it is “differ­ent in kind” from other rights we have recognized… In one respect, of course, the right to keep and bear arms is different from some other rights we have held the Clause protects and he would recognize: It is deeply grounded in our nation’s history and tradition. But JUSTICE STEVENS has a different distinction in mind: Even though he does “not doubt for a moment that many Americans . . . see [firearms] as critical to their way of life as well as to their security,” he pronounces that owning a handgun is not “critical to leading a life of autonomy, dignity, or political equality.”… Who says? Deciding what is essential to an enlightened, liberty-filled life is an inherently political, moral judgment—the an­tithesis of an objective approach that reaches conclusions by applying neutral rules to verifiable evidence.

A second reason JUSTICE STEVENS says we should ab­stain is that the States have shown they are “capable” of protecting the right at issue, and if anything have pro­tected it too much… That reflects an assump­tion that judges can distinguish between a proper democ­ratic decision to leave things alone (which we should honor), and a case of democratic market failure (which we should step in to correct). I would not—and no judge should—presume to have that sort of omniscience, which seems to me far more “arrogant”…than confin­ing courts’ focus to our own national heritage.

After all, he notes, the people have been wrong before…and courts may conclude they are wrong in the future. JUSTICE STEVENS abhors a system in which “majorities or powerful interest groups always get their way”…but replaces it with a system in which unelected and life­ tenured judges always get their way. That such usurpa­tion is effected unabashedly…with “the judge’s cards . . . laid on the table,”…makes it even worse. In a vibrant democracy, usurpation should have to be accomplished in the dark. It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ ap­proach, not the Court’s, that puts democracy in peril.

Good, old fashioned, classic, in-your-face Judge Fight.

My Conclusion: AAA IS, in fact, anti-gun

Last week I posted about a statement made to the media by AAA Mid Atlantic spokesman John Townsend:

“More than 1,500 people are killed or injured in road rage incidents each year in this country and when you add a gun to the mix the situation is more likely to spiral out of control,” said AAA John B. Townsend II. “Gun-toting drivers are more likely to become involved in road rage incidents, study after study has confirmed.”

I e-mailed him a link to the post and invited him to comment.  He did so, but basically did nothing more than dance around the issue without answering the question.

I again e-mailed Mr. Townsend and asked him to clarify.  He has, to date declined.  I also CC’d another AAA Mid Atlantic Public Affairs official on that thread and invited clarification or a statement from him as well.

Nothing.

Finally, I placed a call to the national AAA Public Affairs Office (202-942-2050).  The person I spoke to told me that the individual who could answer my question, Mr. Troy Green was out of the office that day but assured me that he would call me back.  I left my number, but also got his direct number as well (202-942-2082).

Having not heard anything from him as of early this week, I called Mr Green’s direct number but only got his voice mail.  I left a message outlining my question, left my number and requested a callback.

Alas, I’ve heard nothing.

I think I’ve given both AAA Mid Atlantic and the national AAA Public Affairs people plenty of time to respond and clear this issue up if they desired.  The fact that they have chosen not to disavow the anti-gun owner sentiments expressed by Mr. Townsend in the news article necessitates my drawing the conclusion that they support his statement and do not support the right of law abiding gun owners to exercise self defense while traveling in automobiles.

Having drawn that conclusion, I must determine AAA auto clubs to be enemies of the Constitution and the rights protected by it and, as such, will never join, endorse, or support their organization in any way.

I will not try to tell other gun owners what decision to make…trying to force people into living life in a particular way is the domain of liberals and hoplophobes…but I think it is important that gun owners be fully informed when making decisions as to which businesses and groups to patronize so I’d ask that this information be spread far and wide.

The American Automobile Association is no friend to gun owners.

Crossposted on The Sentinel

Fort Drum violating the Rights of its Soldiers

Following in the footsteps of Fort Campell Kentucky and Fort Bliss Texas, leadership at Fort Drum New York are not only violating the Constitutional rights of their personnel, they are not only issuing illegal orders, they are apparently doing it in contradiction of their own base regulations.

I have been informed by people (who shall remain nameless for obvious reasons) assigned to Fort Drum, that personnel are being asked if they own any firearms or other “dangerous weapons” (which includes BB guns and Paintball guns). If they answer in the affirmative, they are then handed the two page form depicted to the right and ORDERED to fill it out. They are told that it is irrelevant whether they live in private housing or on base, that all members attached to the installation must register their firearms.

A search for “Fort Drum Regulation 190-6” referenced on the form turned up this pdf document.

The relevant portions:

5. RESPONSIBILITIES.

c. Individuals will be responsible for:
(1) Ensuring that all authorized privately owned weapons are properly stored and, if required by this regulation, properly registered in accordance with paragraph 6a of this regulation. Temporary storage is available at the Military Police Station, Building P-10715, pending assignment to a permanent unit and for temporary duty not to exceed 72 hrs. [emphasis added]

6. REGISTRATION CONTROL AND POSSESSION OF PRIVATELY OWNED SMALL ARMS, AMMUNITION, AND OTHER DANGEROUS WEAPONS.
a. Personnel residing in Fort Drum family housing will register all privately owned firearms in their possession within 72 hours subsequent to permanent unit assignment on the installation or into an on post housing area. Firearms in temporary storage at the Military Police Station must be removed within 72 hours of assignment to a permanent unit by the unit armorer and the weapon(s) owner. [emphasis added]

Additionally, the base web site, in its summary of regulations, reiterates this policy:

While there is no requirement to register rifles and shotguns in New York, there is a requirement to register them, and other dangerous weapons (i.e. pellet and BB guns and any other weapon that fires a projectile) on Fort Drum, and if you live in off-post Army Community Housing. [emphasis added]

The Directorate of Emergency Services, however, seems a bit unclear on the policy. In this statement regarding personal firearms, carried on the website of the base newspaper (The Mountaineer) attributed to the DES, it is clearly stated that they expect all firearms to be registered:

Soldiers and family members residing on Fort Drum must register all privately owned firearms in their possession within 72 hours of receiving permanent unit assignment or accepting on-post housing. All Soldiers who reside off post must register all privately owned firearms within 72 hours of receiving permanent unit assignment or within 72 hours of receiving weapons in New York. [emphasis added]

After getting no responses to e-mails, I called the Directorate of Emergency Services and spoke with someone named Patrick. He refused to answer any questions directly and referred me to the Public Affairs Officer. I finally got in contact with the PAO, Julie. She informed me, in no uncertain terms, that base policy was to ONLY register the firearms of those personnel who reside in Army housing. She assured me that she was very familiar with this issue as it had come up before and she is a gun owner herself; that the base policy as I was reading it is correct: personnel residing in private housing are not required to register their long guns on base, they only need comply with New York State Law.

Being that this directly contradicted the policy acknowledged by the Directorate of Emergency Services in their notice in the Mountaineer, I felt that I needed clarification directly from the DES themselves. I called back to the DES and spoke to Patrick again.

He again refused to answer my questions, but he let slip a couple of clear indicators. He asked the date of the copy of regulation 190-6 that I had available. When I replied that it is dated 1999, he immediately told me that that regulation is out of date. He said that the regulation had been revised around the 2005-2007 time frame. He said he did not know whether the updated instruction was online or not, or how I could get a copy. He also expressed great surprise that the PAO had answered the question the way she had. He clearly implied that he thought that she was wrong, but wouldn’t say so directly.

He told me that the only person authorized to speak with me was the Director himself, who wasn’t available that day (last Friday) and requested that I call back on Monday. Well, I was busy with my real job and didn’t get a chance to call on Monday, in fact, it wasn’t until Wednesday that I called back, but when I did, I was told that the Director was out of the office, they took my name, number and the subject of my call (I just told them it was regarding the base policy on registration of firearms), and was assured that he would call me back.

It’s now Friday and I’ve heard nothing. I think it’s probably safe to assume that they don’t want to talk with me about this. I’ve tried a couple of different avenues to get a copy of the updated regulation, but have had no success. I will keep tying and, if worse comes to worst, I’ll file a Freedom of Information Act Request. When and if I get a new copy of the regulation, I’ll update this post…but, in the meantime, I must assume that what I found on their own base web site is current and up to date.

Whether the regulation has been changed or not, AT BEST, the leadership at Fort Drum is issuing illegal orders and blatantly violating the Constitutional Rights of the very people who’ve sworn their lives and their sacred honor to defending those rights and that Constitution.

And, at worst, they are disregarding and disobeying their OWN BASE REGULATIONS in doing so.

We cannot let this stand. Bloggers, please spread the word about this and everyone, please contact your Senators and Representatives and urge them to demand that these leaders support and obey the Constitution that they’ve sworn to protect and defend.

If you’d care to contact the base itself about this issue. Here is some contact information:

Garrison Commander: (315) 772-5501
Garrison Command Sergeant Major: (315) 772-1830
Public Affairs Officer: (315) 772-8286 drum.pao@us.army.mil
Director Of Emergency Services: (315) 772-5721

NRA Black Ops

I noticed this Mother Jones story yesterday:

A Mother Jones investigation has found that McFate and Sapone are, in fact, the same person. And this discovery has caused the leaders of gun violence prevention organizations to conclude that for years they have been penetrated—at the highest levels—by the NRA or other pro-gun parties.

The first thing that struck me was the breathless tone of the report:
 
McFate’s (now former) colleagues note that she was well-positioned for many years to provide the NRA—or any other gun rights groups—the plans, secrets, and inside gossip of practically the entire gun violence prevention movement.
Shocked to learn that McFate was a spy, gun control advocates have pondered the obvious questions: … To whom in the gun lobby did she report? The NRA? The firearms manufacturing industry? Did her covert effort extend beyond mere intelligence gathering? Did she manage to shape the decisions and actions of anti-gun groups to the gun lobby’s liking? And was she the only one?
Who, exactly, so these people think they are?  The frakking NSA?  They make this sound like it’s some sort of national security matter.
Why would they think they need secrecy?  I have no doubt that they’ve “penetrated” the NRA and other gun rights organizations.  It wouldn’t be hard.  Got $35?  You can become an NRA member and attend board meetings.  Heck, you don’t even have to be a member to attend most functions.  The “evil gun lobby” tends to be very vocal and open about our plans and purposes and always have been.
We don’t hold public meetings and then get upset when a part of the public that attends doesn’t agree with us.  We don’t hold public demonstrations and then cry because more people who oppose our message show up than support it.  We don’t cancel publicly advertised meetings held in public buildings just because our opponents show up to see what’s going on.  
We don’t have to scurry away from the light like cockroaches.
Today, the editorials and blog posts are coming hot and heavy decrying the NRA’s “underhanded tactics” and “dishonesty”
To the Brady Campaign, VPC et al:  You established the ground rules for this game.  You’ve changed the names of your organizations to mislead the public about your policy goals, you’ve obfuscated and misled about your membership numbers, lied about the historical record, misstated statistics (or invented them out of thin air), created false-flag organizations to mislead gun owners or the uninformed, Ginned up catchphrases and terms specifically designed to mislead, etc. etc. etc.
You are liars.  You are frauds.  You are afraid for the public to become privy of the goings on at “the highest levels” of your organization because then the public might realize that everything you do is based upon misleading the public and scheming about how to word things just so or use just the right sound bites or how you can mask your true agenda the most effectively.
Heck, to be honest, I didn’t think the NRA had it in them.  Good on ’em.
It sucks to be beat at your own game doesn’t it?

And the Beat goes on

[Update] Interestingly, the article now requires a subscription to read.  It didn’t earlier…I wonder what changed over the course of a few hours? [Update to the update] I figured it out…the article was published online on July 9…it was published in their print version due out tomorrow (July 31).  Apparently, when the article went to print, they changed its status from free to subscription required.[/Update to the update]  Anyway, the reason I went back is because my friend reminded me that I didn’t include the search terms that people may be looking for in reference to this editorial, so…the title is “Guns and Health”, published online on July 9, 2008 and the authors were Jeffrey M. Drazen, Stephen Morrissey and Gregory D. Curfman.
Since they found it necessary to require a subscription to read it from their site, I redirected the below link to a pdf copy that I downloaded when it was still provided for free. [/Update]

A friend of mine who’s wife is an MD and a gun owner forwarded this editorial from the New England Journal of Medicine to me.  

It was actually published a couple of weeks ago and is very similar to an article that several bloggers hit on that was put out a week or so before the Heller decision.
It’s nothing really new:  Lamentations about the fact that SCOTUS has acknowledged that the Second Amendment actually means what it says, rather than what they wish it meant.

The Supreme Court has launched the country on a risky epidemiologic experiment. The announcement by the Court last month of its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 which struck down a ban on handgun ownership in the nation’s capital, has set the stage for legal challenges to gun regulation in other major American cities.

The mandatory predictions of impending disaster.

If there is a widespread loosening of gun regulations, we will learn over the next few years — in a before-and-after experiment — whether the laws we had in place had a significant impact in mitigating death and injury from handguns. In our opinion, there is little reason to expect an optimistic result; research has shown and logic would dictate that fewer restrictions on handguns will result in a substantial increase in injury and death.

Out of context statistics…

In 2005, the last year with complete data, there were more than 30,000 deaths and 70,000 nonfatal injuries from firearms.3 About one quarter of the nonfatal injuries and a tenth of the deaths were in children and adolescents. To place these numbers in perspective, 10 times as many Americans die each year from firearms as have died in the Iraq war during the past 5 years.

…used to draw unsupported conclusions.

Firearm injuries represent a major public health problem that seems certain to be exacerbated with less handgun regulation. [emphasis added]

Citing studies that have been thoroughly debunked.

For example, a careful study demonstrated that the 1976 restrictive handgun law in the District of Columbia, which was the focus of the Heller case, resulted in an immediate decline of approximately 25% in homicides and suicides by firearms, but there was no such decline in adjacent areas that did not have restrictive laws.

And, of course, the Jekyll and Hyde shift from supporting federal regulation to advocating local control when it happens to be convenient to them.

Given the diversity of geography and population in the United States, lawmakers throughout the country need the freedom and flexibility to apply gun regulations that are appropriate to their jurisdictions.

Basically, just your standard issue PSH coming from a dedicated anti-gun lobby group.  
It is a shame to see such manifestly intelligent people going through these mental gymnastics in an effort to support an unsupportable position.  Surely they realize how ridiculous they look.