BradyWatch: anything is an assault weapon

Always upbeat, the Brady Campaign has mustered up the energy to write another depressing blog post about a histrionic account of a police shooting:

Last week, two Philadelphia police officers faced multiple convicts with an arsenal of high-powered assault weapons, including an AK-47, a SKS, an AR-15, and a TEC 9, as well as three pistols.

The trouble is, the SKS was never classified as an “assault weapon” anywhere. And there’s no indication that the pistols would have been classified as “assault weapons” either. One suspects that in their mind, any gun used to shoot a police officer is an “assault weapon”, but this is a losing battle. The ban expired six years ago and nobody who values their office is making any noise to bring it back.

Bias alert: killing terrorists is soooooo bad!

The New York Times ran a story today entitled, “Four Militants Killed Near Gaza Coast by Israeli Navy”. The story itself reveals that the men were divers from the al Aksa Martyrs Brigades trying to penetrate the blockade. But what picture does the Times run with it? This one:

Those poor poor terrorists! They’re so misunderstood! Can you imagine the reaction if that kind of picture were run with a story about the U.S. Military killing terrorists? I can guarantee you the picture would be of some stoic-looking marines, not the grieving families of the slain terrorists. Why the double standard? Why is it good when we kill terrorists but bad when Israel does it?

BradyWatch: making up the news

Jeff Soyer has the skinny.

In a nutshell, The Brady Campaign sez: “Poll: Most Americans Oppose Open Carry of Firearms“. But where did that poll come from? An organization that has this to say about themselves:

Our principals are leading information and political campaign strategists, serving as tacticians and senior advisors to a wide range of advocacy groups, labor unions, non-profits, . . .

[…]

We’re a woman-owned business with a commitment to diversity. We have a strong client screen built upon our core values, working only for pro-choice candidates, clients with whom our labor friends can work, and good corporate citizens.

[…]

Most of all, we’re a firm of true believers – each one of us feels privileged to work with our clients to advance progressive ideals – it’s the primary ‘intangible’ benefit of Lake Research Partners.

[…]

The right message to the right audience wins the day. LRP is one of the most reputable firms in providing issue advocacy organizations with research that shapes the debate and leads to winning policy outcomes.

I can just feel the impartiality!

Seen on the wall of the New York Times editorial office

Robb Allen has posted another informative graphic in his Journalist’s Guide to Various Firearm Parts:

Rights? We don’t need no steenkin’ rights!

Straight from the New York Times’ editorial desk comes a breathless, fearmongering plea to deny due process to Americans appearing on a secret government list. Yes, really:

Congress, for example, is cowering before the gun lobby insistence that even terrorist suspects who are placed on the “no-fly list” must not be denied the right to buy and bear arms.

Oh, you mean the list that you can’t see and don’t know if you’re on? The list that if you’re on, you can’t get off without 51 senators voting for it? The list that’s so error-ridden that Nelson Mandela and Ted Kennedy were on? And it’s not like this list is ever used in a retaliatory manner.

This is one of the most illiberal things I’ve ever seen. I’m genuinely puzzled that these people don’t see the obvious liberty connection. I mean, during the Bush years, they were all rightly outraged about the government wiretapping American citizens suspected of terrorism without a warrant. And yet, now they’re willing to throw due process out the window to deny firearms to people on a secret, unalterable, error-ridden list maintained by unelected bureaucrats? Do they really hate guns enough to gut one of the fundamental protections of our criminal justice system?

Want supreme irony? Here’s a 2006 piece by the Times criticizing the no-fly list itself. LOL. But wait, it gets better! Throwing out the second amendment isn’t enough:

Congress must hold the line and let the public in on the looming campaign machinations [of the NRA]. It should not allow groups on the right or left to spend freely from the political shadows.

Wow, the first amendment, too? What’s next, arguing that gun owners should be tortured for any crimes they commit? I remember the New York Times’ principled opposition to government overreaching in the name of combatting terrorism during the Bush years. Why don’t they? And people wonder why it’s often claimed that republicans and democrats are two sides of the same coin.

Update: The NSSF says something similar.

An oldie but a goodie

Via the awesomely-named TheShoulderThingThatGoesUp (Google it if you don’t get the reference. If you’re really lazy, click here).