The Daily Caller is “launching a multi-part guide for readers not entirely up to snuff.” I’m disappointed in one aspect of the article, because the media keeps ignoring the elephant in the room when it comes to the ban on magazines, which is the fact that police are exempted from it. They don’t bother asking why police are exempted from the magazine ban if “theyâ€™re for hunting people.” The police don’t hunt people, do they? You can’t declare the magazine ban to be common sense until you explain why the police need to shoot as many people as fast as possible. It seems to be common sense that the police carry guns to protect themselves from the criminal element, those same criminals that prey on the law abiding. So it stands to reason if police need magazines that hold more than ten rounds ordinary people do as well.
I am happy, however, they were willing to ask Bloomberg some difficult questions, which he doesn’t seem to appreciate:
When TheDC asked Mayor Bloomberg how the expanded checks were supposed to prevent those â€œalready-prohibited dangerous personsâ€ from continuing to be â€œdangerous persons,â€ he became a little testy. Others in the crowd turned their head when the question â€” if 99.9 percent of gun owners are â€œlaw-abidingâ€ citizens already following the current legal measures, how will increased measures stop the one percent of bad guys who already engage in illegal activities in the first place? â€” was asked.
You have to be amazed at how much our opponents are used to the press not doing their jobs in questioning their agenda. I hope to see more of this. But I’d like it if journalists took a closer look at some of the proposals. You can’t just go on what the gun control folks say. They are deceitful, and will mislead people, especially journalists. Don’t trust, and verify, verify, verify.
2 thoughts on “Daily Caller’s Guide”
From the article
“If weâ€™re going to prevent guns from falling into the hands of violent criminals, the mentally unstable and other already-prohibited dangerous persons, we need a comprehensive background check system with no loopholes.â€
The fact that Loughner was able to buy a gun wasn’t a loophole in the system, the police didn’t do their jobs. They had their chances to do something, and he should have been in the system, but he wasn’t. I really wish a journalist would ask that question, why didn’t the police in Tucson take action against Loughner?
Someone posted the DC article on the Brady FB page, and it has 12 likes so far. Apparently their supporters are phoning in the like as they can’t be bothered to read the linked article.
Comments are closed.