“As a candidate for president, Sen. Barack Obama nonetheless pledged to revive the assault-weapons ban,” The Washington Post reminds its readers. “These weapons serve no conceivable lawful purpose.” Aside from self-defense, sport shooting and hunting. “Mayors and police chiefs, whose constituencies pay the bloodiest price for traffic in such guns, have pleaded for sensible laws.” Actually, so-called assault weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes. And liberal mayors and police chiefs who call for stricter gun control tend to do so because they live in the only enclaves in America whose constituencies support stricter gun control. Places where the average voter don’t know an assault rifle from a bolt gun, and don’t care because they don’t own a gun of any sort. And if they do, it’s a handgun. But they probably don’t. Moving on . . .

In Mexico, where assault weapons purchased in the United States have been responsible for tens of thousands of murders, Mr. Obama’s counterpart, Felipé Calderon, has lodged similar requests.

Oh FFS. The Post has no evidence to support that claim, save the repudiated and misleading information supplied to them by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (and Really Big Fires) regarding guns submitted for trace by the aforementioned ATF. An entirely dubious data sample of guns which were, on average, 14 years old.

Nor is the WaPo particularly interested in finding out if smuggled American assault rifles guns were responsible for “tens of thousands of murders.” Instead of rooting around at the sharp end, seeing what’s what in Mexico, they spent their money on a year-long Pulitzer Prize-sniffing series tracing traced American guns to the point-of-sale, intimating that all guns traced by the ATF were guns used in crimes. Which they weren’t.

But President Obama has taken only minor steps toward redeeming Candidate Obama’s promise . . .

This could be the one time when I’m glad that politicians are lying you-know-what-bags willing to say anything to get elected.

And the argument would be this: Sensible regulations could save lives. Maybe little can be done to prevent a deranged individual from doing harm to others. But there are steps that could limit the harm he can do.

Vague much? Define sensible. And tell us what these steps of which you speak. Then we’ll talk.

8 Responses to Washington Post Editorial Gets It Wrong on Gun Control. Again.

  1. I be suprise Washington Post would know what assault weapons are. After all rest mainstream media kept call handgun magazines high cap clips. If your hangun was m1 grand that work but be handgun any more.

  2. You can call Obama a lot of things – Leftist, Marxist, Statist, Alinsky-ite, whatever, but he is, first and foremost, a politician who wants to keep his job. You don’t keep your job in the US by starting fights you can’t win and by taking on opponents that you don’t need to take on. Clinton always had a hard on for guns [insert obligatory Lewinsky reference here] and he pushed it far beyond what any pragmatic or objective political observer would have done. And it cost him. It not only cost him (the House and the Senate from 1995 until the end of his presidency), it also very likely cost his protege Gore the election. The 2000 election was Gore’s to lose and many of the “red” states that Gore lost were middle-of-the-road “blue” or “purple” states when Clinton was in office.

    My point being – Obama is not Clinton. He may be philosophically opposed to gun rights as a matter of general principle, but he doesn’t have that Ahab-like fixation on guns that Clinton did. Hence I seriously doubt that Obama would propose a revival of the AW ban (much to the chagrin of black rifle sellers who would see their profits skyrocket in the months preceding such a law’s enaction.)

  3. “[B]ut he is, first and foremost, a politician who wants to keep his job.”

    Nix. It’s not about the job. It’s about the power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *