Time was, the NY Times would publish nonsense like this in the A section and call it 'news'. Thankfully, those days have passed. They can't get away with that class of lie anymore. but based on the content of that piece you can clearly see that lying, is still the order of the day when it comes to gun issues.
I think that 'battlefield weapons' label is new. It's inaccurate - as most of the things you read about guns in the NY Times are. But it's a cute turn of phrase. It's at least better than the thoroughly discredited and refuted 'assault weapons' turn.
The central point of the Times piece is that we need even more laws that infringe upon the rights of law abiding Americans in order to prevent the ATF and the justice department from abusing it's power. As usual, the piece is all about the terror that liberals feel when faced with firearms, and has nothing to do with the facts on the ground.
The 'facts' about where the guns in Mexico come from can be found here.
But to summarize:
1. Most of the guns in Mexico weren't affected by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.
2. Actual 'Assault weapons' are still (largely) illegal in the US, and have been since 1933.
3. Most of the guns in Mexico come from sources other than the US civilian market.
4. The 1994 Assault Weapons ban did not affect fully automatic weapons.
4. The 1994 Assault Weapons ban did not affect 'battlefield weapons'.
As usual, the times editors have no intention of letting the evidence get in the way when demanding further restriction of US citizens rights. It's an old argument, and it's tired, but its all liberals have - so I guess they're going to stick with it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment