blogging like it's still cool.
That article is full of blatant inaccuracies. "That’s because forty per cent of the guns purchased in the United States are bought from private sellers at gun shows, or through other private exchanges, such as classified ads, which fall under what is known as the “gun-show loophole” and are thus unregulated." There is NO research data to support this. Period. I've never seen this claimed anywhere else before and there is no claim to even a biased gun control group to lay substantiation to the claim. Since the New Yorker is supposed to be well reasoned and educated people, perhaps they should retake their freshman English classes and learn their operators and the subjects of sentence structure when assaulting Constitutional law. LOL: So we should restrict all progress to the first 24 pound, non-networked laptop when it comes to firearms. Perfect.I love how more English language and meaning is ignored by espousing Madison's initial draft with regards to "well regulated" (which also means well drilled or well practiced). Shameful reporting.Further, as the article likes to state, there have been historic bans on concealed carry. Yet history also shows that those laws did not negate the openly carried muskets and pistols of the founding era. Some prohibitions did exist upon "sensitive places" at "sensitive time," yet as implied there was not an outright ban on "bearing" arms in public. Wow...what a lame excuse for an article. It's written like a 12 year old English student that tries to say I started out eating breakfast, then stopped mid bowl of cereal to start some laundry, then at noon I went to the pool...Little substance, large platitudes, soft on data, facts, and half-truth history, and large on propaganda. Part puff/opinion piece it seems you could have found a much more fair and representational article of the history that didn't try to frame the debate into politics and emotional misguidance.
well find me one and I'll post it, Henny.
Post a Comment