Monday, April 19, 2010

The NYT on the Loophole

The New York Times published an editorial commemorating the 11th anniversary of the Columbine massacre.

Two rallies by gun rights celebrants and anti- government polemicists are planned Monday on both sides of Washington’s Potomac River. They will invoke the Second Amendment and the Battles of Lexington and Concord. A more apt, and tragic, anniversary to keep in mind is the Columbine school massacre of 1999. Eleven years later, and Congress has failed to close the gun show loophole that made the carnage possible.

Two Columbine students had a friend obtain four high-powered weapons, no-questions-asked, from gun show “hobbyist” dealers, and then used them to kill 12 children and a teacher. Since then, the gun lobby and its all-too-willing Congressional enablers have managed to block all efforts to require buyers at weekend gun shows to undergo the same background checks required of buyers at federally registered gun shops.

Polls show the public favors closing the gun show loophole by a wide margin, but the people’s right to safety is nothing when compared with the gun lobby’s clout.

At a park in Virginia just across from the nation’s capital, marchers will be openly strutting with their weapons, as the state’s “open carry” law permits. Participants at the other rally on the National Mall are being told that it is illegal to flash guns, so they must dare to leave them home. Just up the Hill in Congress, the gun lobby’s ever-compliant caucus is fighting that ban too.

One hundred or so lawmakers have shown more courage and sense, signing on to a bill — sponsored by Representatives Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, and Michael Castle, Republican of Delaware — to close the gun show loophole. It is hard to imagine the founding patriots would not support this legislation. It demands the political courage to value human life over the bravado of the gun culture.

I can see why gun owners don't like the New York Times, the paper which is perhaps the most renowned in the entire world for its quality reporting. But, when they say things like "the people’s right to safety is nothing when compared with the gun lobby’s clout," you've got to expect a certain animosity from the gun crowd.

I also liked it when they said, "to value human life over the bravado of the gun culture" takes "political courage."

What's your opinion?

15 comments:

  1. So what made the guns used in the killings "high powered weapons"? More yellow journalism from NYT. Surprise. Surprise.

    Incidentally, didn't the illegal straw purchaser that obtained the guns for the nuts buy them from a licensed dealer at the gun show? Not a "Hobbyist Dealer", whatever that is? The criminal passed the background check and did the necessary paperwork and that is why they were traced immediately after the incident. Of course this all did nothing to stop criminals hell bent on murder.

    More lies from a biased media to push an agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Meanwhile, gunloons celebrate NRA member Timothy McVeigh Day by waving guns at DC.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mikeb: "I can see why gun owners don't like the New York Times, the paper which is perhaps the most renowned in the entire world for its quality reporting.


    On the contrary; I love the New York Times and read it daily. I love its quality reporting, which often contains facts that contradict the claims of gun control advocates. I love its editorials for a different reason: They are often easy to shoot holes in.

    Case in point: They claim the Columbine shootings as evidence of the need for background checks at gun shows. Yet the buyer of the guns used at Columbine would have passed any background checks! Either a failure of logic or an attempt at BS by the Times.

    Not even mentioned by the Times is the ridiculous attempt that gun control advocates sometimes use to try to explain away such deceit: After meeting with gun control advocates, the Columbine straw buyer tried to "redeem" herself by making a statement that (for no credible reason) she would not have bought guns if a check was done -- even though she would easily pass!

    ReplyDelete
  4. FishyJay is engaging in the same silly tactic all gunloons use when their views are exposed as less than honest.

    The fact is the NRA heroes of Columbine used a straw purchaser to buy most, but not all of, their guns. NRA superstars Klebold and Harris bought a TEC-9 from an individual. Omitted by FishyJay is the fact, the straw pusrchaser did not undergo any background check at the gun show.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  5. Meanwhile, gunloons celebrate NRA member Timothy McVeigh Day by waving guns at DC.

    Funny, because I don't see anyone celebrating McVeigh nor "waving guns" at DC.

    Try again Jade. Is lying your default response?

    ReplyDelete
  6. So, is that to say Columbine is not a good example of why we need the background checks? Fine, we need them because they make sense, period.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The gun controllers are the ones who made it harder for "Hobbyist Dealers" (back then, they called them "kitchen table dealers") to do background checks by increasing the cost of an FFL by 600%. Now they want a law that requires these same "kitchen table dealers" to do background checks?

    Sounds like a bunch of disingenuous nonsense to me. What's the real reason for closing this "loophole"?

    ReplyDelete
  8. BTW, the big Tim McVeigh Celebration Day on the shores of the Potomac was pretty sparsely attended. It looks like about 30 domestic terrorists showed up; there were probably more media people in attendance than actual members of the small penis brigade.

    --JadeGold

    ReplyDelete
  9. See what you're ilk offers MikeB?

    Penis talk in lieu of a rational position and intelligent discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "It looks like about 30 domestic terrorists showed up; there were probably more media people in attendance than actual members of the small penis brigade."

    And how many pro-gun people showed up?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Mikeb: "So, is that to say Columbine is not a good example of why we need the background checks? Fine, we need them because they make sense, period."

    An honest statement -- UNLIKE that of the NY Times editorial writers.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 30, huh?

    "hundreds" on the Mall and "75 to 100 at a national park" across the River - http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/04/19/gun-rally.html

    "about 75" - http://www.vancouversun.com/news/owners+protest+Obama+Marxist+agenda/2926317/story.html

    "As many as 2,000 gathered in the shadow of the Washington Monument, and about 50 people at Gravelly Point and Fort Hunt parks in Virginia." - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/19/AR2010041904291.html

    "about 75 to 100 people" - http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/world/breakingnews/gun-activists-rally-in-dc-and-virginia-in-support-of-right-to-bear-arms-91537879.html

    So it seems JadeGold is only off by a factor of 3 to 30. For him, that is not bad.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The gun control side would make a lot more progress if they just stop demonizing gun shows, stop incorrectly using the word “loophole”, stop using a tragedy to push an unrelated agenda, and just stop the constant hyperbole. Many on the “rights” side, including myself, support background checks, but I for one get really annoyed by all this “gun show loophole” hoopla.

    ReplyDelete
  14. You're right TS. But, you and I know very well what we mean by "loophole." So, unless you make a bid deal about the inappropriate word, we communicate perfectly.

    AztecRed, The real reason for closing the "loophole" is exactly what they say, to make it harder for disqualified people to buy guns.

    ReplyDelete
  15. MikeB, of the list I mentioned the misuse of the word “loophole” is the least significant. If they drop the rest of the hoopla, I’d be content with calling it a “loophole”. Have you ever rationalized to us why in CA after getting all the gun show regulations they asked for, they continued forward with a total ban on gun shows?

    ReplyDelete