Replies

What an utterly and unabashedly biased anti-gun article this is. From the first sentence to the very last:

The Justice Department has declared that the Constitution gives individuals the right to own a gun..
The Constitution does no such thing. The Bill of Rights merely states that the inherent and existing right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the Federal government.
In briefs filed late Monday with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Justice Department rejected the long-held interpretation that the 2nd Amendment guarantees gun rights only to militias, not to individuals.
Long-held by who? Liberals. And even liberal scholars have come to the conclusion that the whackjob liberals who maintain this non-sequitur position are wrong. Laurence Tribe, among others, have come to the conclusion that the text in the second amendment means what it says. This author exhibits extreme bias.
but scholars and gun-control advocates said they were alarmed because they believe the "radical" shift in position threatens to undermine a wide range of gun laws already on the books.
Who do they cite as their 'scholar'? "Franklin Zimring, a preeminent scholar on gun law at UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, said in an interview." That's right, boys and girls -- they hold Frank Zimring, an unknown scholar at BERKLEY of all places, in higher esteem than Laurence Tribe, who is the NATIONS best known and most widely acknowledged authority on Constitutional Law.
The LA Slimes does not even bother to hide their bias, unsupportable premises, and incongruent conclusions.
This action is proof positive that the worst fears about Atty. Gen. Ashcroft have come true: His extreme ideology on guns has now become government policy," Barnes said.
This is the last line in the article. As you might already known, in journalism, this is called the 'stinger'. It is intended that this is the message you take away from a given article. You can often tell how extremely biased an author is by examining the very last sentence.

So, what do we have? We have this LA Slimes creep citing an unknown Berkley professor and a bunch of gun-control freaks, using the terms "radical" and "deeply troubling" and so on in this article. It is absurd, and it is indicative of the reason that the LA Slimes and other papers are losing circulation by 5 to 7 percent in a single year. The sooner these Socialist, Statist propaganda rags fold, the better.

JOIN THE SECOND AMENDMENT SISTERS

So, what do we have? We have this LA Slimes creep citing an unknown Berkley professor and a bunch of gun-control freaks, using the terms "radical" and "deeply troubling" and so on in this article. It is absurd, and it is indicative of the reason that the LA Slimes and other papers are losing circulation by 5 to 7 percent in a single year. The sooner these Socialist, Statist propaganda rags fold, the better.

This is what "free trade" brought the world. Terrorists and tyrants hiring ex-USSR nuclear warhead engineers, and the LA Slimes hiring editorial staff from the folks laid off by Pravda and Izvestia. Sheesh.

Right on about the anti-gun bias. But to me what's really insulting is that they will look you right in the eye and declare that it is a "balanced" story; which to me is a gross insult to my intelligence.

but scholars and gun-control advocates said they were alarmed because they believe the "radical" shift in position threatens to undermine a wide range of gun laws already on the books

Unfortunately I don't think they have that much to worry about. The GOP is too chicken to offer anything more than lip service. Note this statement quoted in today's Washington Times:

"I don't think anybody in the House is looking for an opportunity to fight about guns," said House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican. "Were it at all possible to ignore it [the McCain-Lieberman gun show bill], we will. Otherwise we'll just have to fight it out in conference."

In other words, God forbid they should have to stand on principle.

Abot the only truthful parts of the article is that this argument was contained in a footnote to the brief and that the courts enforcing the right as stated would perforce need to declare most of the gun control laws unconstitutional. Since people have a right to keep and bear arms suitable for militia service how on earth can any limitation on magazine size be appropriate when infantry units have belt fed weapons? How can a liscense be required to exercise a RIGHT? How can a liscense be required to buy and sell the means of exercise of a right? At minimum the people of the USA have a right to keep and bear the standard miliary arms of the Army of the USA.

Shall not be infringed is a much stronger restriction on the Federal and state governments than no law. An infringement does not need a law.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

Well said Laz old boy !.....well said !!

Stay Safe !

Concise, articulate rebuttal. Every point of which is absolutely true.

From the tone of this article, GWB, Ashcroft, and Ted Olsen really hit a nerve in the Left-wing press and gun-banning camps!

I distinctly heard a squeal from the author.

Nice!