Could you point out the specific part of the story where the CBS journalist makes the “travesty” claim, or where he editorializes in favor of tighter gun controls?
As far as i can tell, that was a fairly straightforward story about the current level of identification and background checks required to purchase an AR-15 rifle. They interviewed a guy who supports tighter restrictions, and they interviewed a guy who wants fewer restrictions. They showed footage from previous incidents, and from a protest outside the NRA headquarters.
Also, even if one were to concede that the general tone of the story seemed to come down a little bit on the side of more rigorous background checks and longer waiting periods, your point is still stupid. The fact that someone wants a more rigorous set of background checks and a lengthier waiting period before purchasing certain types of weapons does not mean that person is coming to take away your guns.
The background check worked. I’m not sure what CBS is taking issue with. If they wanted to find something interesting out, they should have sent a known felon to try to buy the gun.
Actually, I’m wondering where you found “travesty” in that article. Nor could I find “sham” or “mockery.”
It seems like a balanced and informative article to me. It tells you how long it takes to buy a gun in different states, and the ID necessary. They quote a law professor who compares buying a gun to buying coffee, which I concede is exaggeration, but they give just as much ink to a gun nut who thinks the answer is to abolish gun-free zones.
Well, you’re the only one who’s claiming that they’re taking issue with anything. As i said, it seems to be largely an informational piece.
Or maybe they could have sent a guy who committed domestic abuse against his wife, had been investigated twice by the FBI for links to Islamic terrorist groups, and who had been heard (and reported) by co-workers for talking about killing people and making inflammatory statements about the Boston marathon bombers.
He would have got the gun, no problem. In fact, he did, about two weeks ago.
Amend the Constitution. And since you’re saying self defense isn’t a right, that also implies a duty to protect on the part of the government and it’s agents. So waiting for backup is no longer going to be an option. Government agents have a duty to save the innocent no matter the risk to their own lives if self defense is not a right.
Of course this also means that government agents themselves are no longer entitled to be armed except for things like SWAT teams. This also means the rich have to give up their armed bodyguards.
Do you have an explicitly enumerated right to own a car that cannot be abridged under any circumstances? And yet, for some reason, I get the feeling you aren’t walking everywhere. This post is so drastically removed from what I actually said or could have been interpreted to mean that I honestly don’t believe it’s worth taking seriously.
Something is either a right or it isn’t. If I don’t have a right of self defense, then the state has a duty to protect. There is a middle ground on gun policy, but on the basic concept of rights, there isn’t.
Of course you can limit which guns can be owned. An assault rifle ban is certainly constitutional. You just can’t disallow private gun ownership, or make people justify their reasons for owning a gun. You can’t ban pepper sprays, or stun guns either.
Well, that’s not totally true, you can ban certain classes of devices, but only if equally effective self-defense devices are available. This is actually an issue in Europe, where there is strict gun control AND things like pepper spray are illegal.
To pull an **adaher **-- this is why sane people think people like you don’t give a shit when 49 people die at the hands of the freedom loving patriot who got his gun.
Did you entirely forget the debate surrounding the Patriot Act? That if you didn’t agree with all the liberty-reducing measures in it that you were soft on the terrorists?
I had good reason to write what I did. THe NY Times is acting as if gun sales to private citizens is a bad thing. Then you had the idiot professor saying it was like buying coffee at Starbucks. Strange, I don’t recall Starbucks even demanding ID, much less putting you through a background check or making you fill out forms. There’s you nominee for dumb liberal of the month right there.
Yes, I know. You don’t give two sloppy shits about 49 dead people as long as The Church of the Holy Gun remains sancrosanct. You’ve made that abundantly clear.
Okay, so does that mean you believe that rights should be subordinate to security? You’re a big supporter of the Patriot Act, wiretaps without warrants, etc.?