The first order of business for the Editor of EINNEWS.COM (a media outlet that, unsurprisingly, doesn’t allow comments on their online articles) inwas to urge people who disagree with him to contact him via e-mail.
The fact that he specifically solicited e-mail tells me that he’s looking forward to hearing from those who disagree with him. Why would he be looking forward to it? Well, because when the conversation takes place in the relative privacy of an e-mail exchange, he’s free to cherry pick the parts he wants to publicize. To capitalize on the understandable anger of those who get annoyed when people blatantly lie to support an agenda that involves stripping Americans of a Constitutionally guaranteed right. To use that anger and those cherry picked comments to paint gun owners in an unflattering light in a future article.
I think I’d rather address his rant here, in public view, where everyone can freely read my entire response and judge for themselves who has the facts and truth on their side.
Because of the NRA, it’s okay for people in the U.S. to buy automatic assault weapons…
If it’s legal in that State and Locality, after submitting an application to the ATF including fingerprints and the approval of the local Chief Law Enforcement Officer, being subjected to an FBI investigation in addition to the normal National Instant background Check System... More checks, registering the firearm with the Federal Government and paying a $200 “tax” over and above the exorbitant price of the automatic weapon (caused by an artificial restriction of supply due to federal laws). Other than that, anyone can buy one…and it’s all the NRA’s fault.
… to circumvent permit laws…
Pure BS. What measure currently in force and supported by the NRA, allows anyone to circumvent permit laws? This is a blatant falsehood…which, when I was growing up, my parents used to call “a lie”; lying was pretty universally seen as a bad thing back then and was considered a good reason to disbelieve anything further that the liar had to say.
…to carry concealed weapons, to be armed at bars, schools and churches…
OK. I’ll grant that those things are true in some states. But what makes it a bad thing that law abiding, permitted citizens are allowed to defend themselves in those places…specifically? Other than emotional rantings and dire prognostications about “blood in the streets” and “shootouts at the OK corral”, what quantitative data indicates that those measures, in the states that they have been enacted, pose any danger whatsoever to the general public? If a particular liberty cannot be demonstrated to be detrimental, are purely emotional arguments without any demonstrable benefit to society a good enough reason to infringe upon it? Personally, I’d say no.
…and essentially to buy, sell, do or use any weapon.
I’m not sure what he means by “do…any weapon”. Considering the penchant that anti-gunners have for sexualizing and sensualizing firearms and the use of them, perhaps it has something to do with a fantasy of his…otherwise, I have no idea what that means.
As far as “essentially to buy, sell…or use any weapon”… except for the weapons that are a part of the National Firearms Act, like short barreled shotguns and rifles, automatic weapons, silcencers, explosive devices, handguns with forward pistol grips, handguns that can fit a rifle style stock, imported firearms that don’t pass some arbitrary “sporting purpose” test, etc etc etc.
I guess the “essentially” part gives him some cover. Basically what that means is that he knew ahead of time that was was about to follow was…um…slightly exaggerated.
The purchaser’s mental health doesn’t seem to matter. Neither does past criminal activity.
Which is, of course, why the NRA supports federal laws prohibiting convicted felons and the mentally incompetent from so much as TOUCHING a firearm or ammunition.
Nor does the opinion of law enforcement officers who face the real threat of being outgunned by law breakers.
I didn’t realize that the politically appointed polic chiefs of the reliably anti-gun International Association of Chiefs of Police “face the real threat” of anything more serious than a paper cut during the normal course of their professional duties. I further didn’t realize that the position of an organization that represents 88 other countries (that don’t have Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms) has any relevance whatsoever to policies and lawmaking in this one. It seems strange that so many beat cops that I know support the NRA and the Second Amendment. Several of the leaders of the Virginia Citizens Defense League are former police officers and John Sigler, the last President of the NRA was a member of the Dover Deleware Police Department for almost 20 years and retired as the Captain.
Apparently, it is not the opinion of ALL law enforcement officers that runs counter to the NRA’s goals…as the author implies. I’d be willing to bet that the majority of officers that actually DO “face the real threat of being outgunned by lawbreakers” and are actually citizens of THIS country support the NRA and the Second Amendment.
On the judicial front, the NRA won its case at Ohio’s supreme court, overturning the city of Clyde’s attempt to keep illegal weapons out of its municipal parks. And so on.
Another lie. The city of Clyde was attempting to keep LEGAL weapons carried by LAWFUL gun owners properly permitted by the state of Ohio, out of municipal parks. It was before, and is still now, illegal to have illegal weapons in that city’s parks…and in every other park, church, restaurant, school or any other location in the United States.
Rather, the big fear should be that people are carrying guns everywhere…
Funny how those people whom the author fears carrying guns everywhere, have such a low rate of criminal activity. Methinks the author’s fear is irrational.
…and that many people have serious arsenals of weapons…
Exactly how is my “arsenal” a threat to him? How many fieararms in a collection is an acceptable number? Two? Three? Five? I can only carry one or two at a time, what difference does it make how many are at home, safely locked away in my gun safe, only to come out every once in a while for a trip to the range? Do the evil mind beams that guns emit, turning otherwise law abiding citizens into bloodthirsty murderers, multiply with every firearm owned?
…including grenades and other explosive weapons, legally purchased.
Actually, grenades and explosive weapons are regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. They can be obtained legally, after the hoops mentioned above in the paragraph about “automatic assault weapons” are jumped through…if you could find them to buy. The author’s clear implication that these types of weapons are available and legal to buy just like any other firearm is false.
That’s enough. I could go on, but I think I’ve made the point. Mr. Rothstein’s rant was rife with inaccuracies, misleading implications, hyperbole and outright falsehoods. If he is willing to spread misinformation in the items that I pointed out, why should anyone take anything he writes at face value?