GUNS, GUNS, GUNS

Back to the font again today and I wasn’t left high and dry. The New York Times has an editorial bemoaning the Federal Government’s shielding gun manufacturers from being sued every time a gang-banger gets killed. Now, I respect the Times’ right to believe that gun makers should be responsible for the irresponsible use of their products. I think they are completely wrong (are you surprised?), but I respect their opinion.

What I can’t respect is the “paper of record” drawing analogies where obviously there is none. Check out the first paragraph:

“It's puzzling: a society that figured out that it could not stem the use of alcohol and tobacco by minors without punishing the people who profit from those sales still has not done much to keep the wrong people from owning guns. Now Congress is poised to take a step back from that goal.”

Holding liquor stores and bars responsible for not selling liquor to minors is not the same thing as holding Smith & Wesson responsible to the sniper killings by those two gay, black men in Washington. The analogy is incredibly wrong on many levels; the correct analogy should would then say:

1. The gun store that sold the rifle was responsible for not selling the gun to a minor.
2. Or, holding Seagram’s responsible because Junior went into his mommy’s liquor cabinet, downed a fifth, stole the car and ran over the neighbor.

The Times goes on and on about how so many local gun laws are bypassed by people buying the weapons out of state. If only Congress would act on that, maybe gun deaths would go down!! I have an idea, how about if we make the interstate trafficking in guns illegal, wouldn’t that make the Times happy? Obviously not, because that’s ALREADY illegal!!

No, the New York Times just wants people to be relieved of personal responsibility and at the same time put the screws to businesses.