Monday, March 20, 2006

Boston Globe Anti-Gun - Who Knew?

Here's a real shocker to kick off your week. The Boston Globe, believe it or not, has published yet another anti-gun [gasp!] editorial, that contains inaccurate [shocking!] and misleading [say it ain't so!] statements.

A glut of guns

In a nutshell, this is just an extension of Mayor Menino's recently adopted strategy of passing the buck and blaming "the other guy" for his own shortcomings. Just one more attempt to place the responsibility for the actions of Boston's criminal population on the shoulders of the law-abiding citizens and the gun laws of our neighboring states.

With so many ways to divert guns illegally, it is hard to know where to begin.

Let's see...demonstrating the resolve and the ability to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate the violent criminals who are using these guns in the commission of violent crimes might be a good place to start.

Allowing law-abiding citizens to legally defend themselves from said criminal scumbags might not be a bad idea either.

Good answers are offered by Robert Ricker, a former lobbyist and attorney for gun makers and gun rights groups who is now a major critic of extreme elements of the gun lobby.

Yeah, "good answers" like suing the gun manfacurers for the illegal use of their products by criminals, who obtained their products through illegal channels.

Requiring background checks before any purchase at gun shows, says Ricker, would be the best route to disrupt the illicit trade. Massachusetts already requires checks for such sales, including those by private parties. But gun show rules are looser in New Hampshire and Maine, which explains why weapons from these states are cropping up in Boston.

Which explains, of course, why I had to undergo a background check prior to purchasng a gun in New Hampshire last year at one of these "bloodbath boutiques". For a more detailed debunking of this most recent campaign of lies and hyperbole to come out of the gun-fearing blissninnies' camp, see my earlier post on the subject: 12-Step Program for MA Gun Buyers.

Once again, what we're seeing here is the anti-gun rights lobby clinging to the fantasy that all we need are just a few more gun control laws, and our problems will vanish into thin air.

These people, in their never-ending quest to force you and me to live in their fantasy world of gumdrops and sugarplums, will tell you with a straight face that the individuals responsible for illegally trafficking firearms across state lines will cease their unlawful activity when suddenly faced with the prospect of breaking ten gun laws, instead of eight or nine.

Ricker also backs laws to outlaw the purchase of more than one handgun in any 30-day period.

Of course he does. He's cut from the same cloth as Massachusetts Senator John "Can I git me a huntin' license here?" Kerry and our state senator Jarrett "B.A. Baracus School of Firearms" Barrios. They never met a gun control law they didn't like.

Such laws would not affect sportsmen...

...such as trout fisherman.

Not only is that statement blatantly false, it's lacking in its relevance to the discussion of gun rights in general. And don't even get me started on what our esteemed junior senator's true feelings are on the sporting purposes of firearms.

I could think of dozens of ways that such a law would adversely affect someone looking to purchase firearms for recreational purposes.

"Sorry guys, I can't join you on your hunting trip. I need a new deer rifle, and I just bought a new .22 target pistol last week. Maybe next month, OK?"


"Gee, that matched pair of Colt Peacemakers would make a fine addition to my collection of single action revolvers. I'll take one."

I could think of several more where it would affect the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase firearms for personal defense. But, then again, the gun-control zealots, along with their willing accomplices at the Boston Globe and the Massachusetts State House, do not recognize armed self-defense as a legitimate reason for the private ownership of firearms.

...but would greatly disrupt bulk purchases by straw buyers fronting for convicted criminals who are prohibited from buying from licensed dealers.

Here's an idea, let's get rid of all our "compassionate" judges who are doing everything in their power to put these convicted criminals back out on the streets as quickly as possible.

The underlying causes of gun violence in Boston are complex, and the solutions elusive. While authorities sort those out, it makes sense to attack the problem at the supply side.

Because a community crawling with knife-wielding criminals is more desirable that one populated with an armed, law-abiding citizenry. Gotta maintain the voter base, I suppose.

And, for this week's "Compare and Conrast" case study, we get this article from the New Hampshire Union Leader discussing the increase in crime that is accompanying the economic growth and development of the City of Manchester (hmmm...prosperity causing crime - there's a new one for Menino's official play book, "Passing the Buck For Dummies").

Arrest made in store robbery, stabbing

“There’s some dangerous people out there,” [Manchester Alderman, and retired police officer, Armand] Forest said.

What? You mean it's not the fault of dangerous, yet entirely inanimate, objects? Holding individuals accountable for their actions? That's not a very progressive way of thinking there, Mr. Forest.

"I want to believe that this is maybe a fad for a little while ... I don’t think this is going to last forever."

He added: “We just got an influx of undesirable people here, and we have to do something to deal with it."

Come again? What's all this crazy talk about "undesirable people" causing crime?

Has Mayor Menino been notified of this startling new development?