Thursday, January 07, 2010

Earning His Bags Of Dog-Product

Undaunted by us ignernt, red-necked heathens, the Indy (so very Red) Star fires back with what supposedly passes for an editorial.

In a classic case of straining to gulp down well-pulped gnats while swallering camels neat, no chaser, readers are informed that "gun enthusiasts" like Tam and I are "absolutist opponents of gun control" (hey, he got that part right!) who have no reason to be frettin' that our new (and as yet, unconfirmed -- remember, city-county counsellors, I vote and I vote hard) Public Safety Director, Dr. Frank Straub, "has come here to disarm law-abiding Indianapolis residents."

Gee, would that be the man who said we had "way too many people that own guns," and only backed down -- partially -- when his words were pointed out and complained about? Would that be the man from a state where you have to beg specific permission to even own a handgun?

(Sidebar: I think our Mayor is a decent man, though he's no gunnie; he appears to be beset by advisors taking advantage of his inexperience in politics, dazzled by the contrast between his own relative innocence and the m4d skilz of Experts From Back East. Forget them, Mayor Ballard; they didn't put you in office and they won't keep you in office, either).

And from there, our would-be molder[1] of public opinion moves on to bemoan the horror of "Indiana's lack of limits on the number of guns that can be legally bought at one time...." Tam addresses this canard.

Mr. Editor-man doesn't bother to cite any numbers; he doesn't have any: most states have no limit on the number of guns you can buy at any one time, and, contrarily, if anyone, anywhere buys more than one handgun from the same dealer in a week, the dealer's got to file an ATF Form 3310.4, which goes not just to the feds but to the local chief law enforcement officer, too, who in this instance would be, oh dear, oh dear, it's right on the tip of my....Hey! That'll be Dr. Frank Straub! Well, how about that. So there already is A Law That Does Something About That, one of those Federal laws the good Doctor says don't hardly exist, one that hands him the very data the Star wishes he'd receive.[2] (Um, it's called "research." Just because I can do mine by calling across the room, "Hey, Tam, what's that multi-handgun purchase form...?" is no excuse for a bigtime J-school grad not doin' his homework).

And we're then treated to self-congratulation over the paper's October scare-piece, in which a tiny fraction of Indiana Licenses To Carry Handgun were granted to persons who were either not proper persons to receive them at the time or got into trouble later, the vast majority of whom had already had their permits yanked (and in most examples, their personal selves tossed into the hoosegow) by the very State government The (Fabian) Star accuses of being "lax." (The original story cited 211, which as of today's bit has morphed into "hundreds," technically correct but misleading) .

The editorial closes with, "That 'change of culture' that so worries Straub's critics ought to be welcomed by those who believe in balancing individual rights and public safety." (Odd how Chicago, with its "balance" tilted way over to a stringent handgun ban, is less safe than wide-open wild-West Indianapolis. Hully gee, could the conventional authoritarian wisdom be wrong?)

Okay, you said it; how about this? Newspaper editorials inflame the reader's passions and not always wisely, as you have recently shown the police. Therefore, would it not be a proper "balancing" of "public rights and individual safety" if the Public Safety Director, or some expert in his office, received advance copies of all of The (still-Red) Star's editorial content and decided which would be proper to publish and which are best not, lest they lead to wrongdoing? Why not?

Answer me that and maybe I'll try to set you straight about the next amendment on the list. 'Til then, hands off!

"Public safety?" My safety in public is materially enhanced by the guns I own and train with.

...See you at the range?
1. Stachybotrys chartarum, I'll bet, from the way it makes me sneeze.

2. Per Tam, it most likely goes to the county Sheriff, in Dr. Straub's chain of command; so he can still get a copy. Facts: I do try to check them and will correct myself when I'm mistaken.


Fuzzy Curmudgeon said...

The press calls for the kind of infringment of 2nd Amendment rights that, if turned against their 1st Amendment rights, they would be the first to be screaming their heads off about.

Hypocrites, all of them.

Robert Langham said...

Actually Nathan, if it's "progressives" doing the infringements of the First Amendment, the press hardly makes a squeek.