The N.R.A. objected to the letter’s support for a federal ban on the sale of assault weapons and ammunition, a buyback program to reduce the number of guns in circulation, limits on the purchase of ammunition, mandatory safety training for gun owners, and mandatory waiting periods before completing a purchase.
These sane, mainstream proposals will not prevent law-abiding citizens from acquiring and keeping firearms.
THE EDITORIAL BOARD of the New York Times
March 17, 2014
The Gun Lobby’s Latest Bizarre Crusade
[And as long as it is possible for law-abiding citizens to acquire and keep firearms the NYT editorial board will insist further infringement is “sane and mainstream”. What they don’t address is that such infringement does not accomplish any worthwhile goal and is clearly unconstitutional. They want bans on guns and ammunition in common use.
Don’t ever let anyone get away telling you that “no one wants to take your guns”. The Editorial Board of the New York Times is just one of many that have repeatedly said they do want to take them.—Joe]
Update: A comment from Mark Alger:
John Lott’s scholarship demonstrates clearly that restrictions on gun ownership do not have a positive effect on violent crime. That is to say, reality does not comport with the writer’s claim that infringements on the RKBA is sane, as they ignore the facts — reality. And, given that the overwhelming majority of We the People support RKBA, the outlook is NOT mainstream; it’s fringe, extremist, backwater. But, what’s dispositive is that RKBA **is** a right, long recognized in common law, infringed or abridged only by tyrants, and (almost an aside) recognized and protected as such by our Constitution. I therefor urge you to add this post to the crap for brains category.
Done. “Crap for Brains” category has been added.