Quote from the Arizona Daily Star (February 20, 2011)
We hope you'll try to set aside your most fervent emotions about guns in America and join us in considering the issue dispassionately, with the goal of finding answers that protect both our freedom and our public safety.
Arizona Daily Star
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Ratified 1791)
Once again, Kevin Baker of "The Smallest Minority" has posted a 2-RKBA topic which is rife ... RIFE, I say! .. with meaty juices of Second Amendment Controversy.
The ADS (Arizona Daily Star ... derogatorily referred to in the comments as "The Red Star") has introduced a 'series of articles' designed to 'explore' the intricacies of the Second Amendment.
Curiously. the subjects selected by ADS seem focused on two issues: the ability of "crazy people' to buy guns (and ammunition, and magazines); and the types of guns and magazines 'anybody' can legally purchase. It kind of sounds like the same thing, doesn't it? And when you read the opinion piece, they sort of sound ... against ... the Second Amendment, don't they?
Although the exemplars in the article focus on mass-murder by gun and are related by a single focus -- arguably crazy people who shoot a lot of innocents --- and although the NCIS system already uses the force of existing law to weed out firearms purchases by 'arguably crazy people who are likely to shoot a lot of innocents', the ADS jumps right into the issues with both feet.
As long, that is, as the "issues" include 'high-capacity magazines' and guns that have 'no legitimate use' or purpose other than to kill a lot of innocent people, really quickly.
The introductory article pays lip-service to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, but immediately undermines its presumed objectivity by defining the questions it has decided to 'explore'.
As Baker suggests, read the comments. It's very clear that the folks who actually have to LIVE in Arizona (what was the name of the DOONSBURY character who was always working on his tan .. Zonker Harris? Who else would choose to reside in the Grand Canyon State?) don't always agree with it's editorial bias. And of course, 95% of the time the comments are meatiest part of any internet newspaper article. (The exception is Florida, where the commenters are the looniest people who can type, in the whole world. Arizona and Florida should trade nicknames; Arizona should be "The Sunshine State", and Florida should be either "The Loony State", or "The Where Old People Go To Die State". But I digress.)
Personally, I have always enjoyed reading the ADS; the articles are generally well-crafted, and it usually selects an interesting mix of subject matter for both local and national audiences.
Until this opinion article appeared, and it undermined my previous high opinion of the rag.
On the other hand, I note that there are a number of entertainers whose performances I have always enjoyed, in their chosen milieu; but I deplore and detest their political views. I wish they would just, as the saying goes, "Shut Up And Sing".
A small sampling of these ignorant but gifted entertainers:
- Barbra Streisand
- Bette Midler
- Alec Bladwin
The fact remains, the ADS is just another 'entity' which I enjoy; but they should really, really avoid offering their opinions in public.
Like ... Alec Baldwin