Let the Non-Debate Begin!

The Milwaukee (Wisc.)  Journal Sentinel's position has been well known for years; they're against current "gun control" laws, and think there should be more of them.

Their "Editorial Page Editor", David D. Haynes, has some scathing comments in his screed regarding the blame due to the National Rifle Association

What gun debate? There is no gun debate in Washington, D.C.:

There is zero chance that the shooting of U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise earlier this week will change anything about the gun debate in Washington, D.C. That’s because there is no gun debate in Washington, D.C. The NRA has won. Not the debate — the gun lobby remains very wrong on the facts. But the group had won the politics — big time.

So apparently Dave's outrage is based on on laws which were enacted due to the urging of the NRA, which has as one of its primary goals to protect our Constitutional rights to "Keep and Bear Arms".

I'm not sure if he is equally adamant in his condemnation of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which shares some of these goals.   Haynes didn't say.

But Haynes is certain that the NRA has goals which he cannot support.  And he purports to speak as an "insider" in the firearms owners' community:

I have been a gun owner all my life. I’ve shot long guns of every kind and a variety of handguns. I have no problem with people owning them for legitimate purposes. I own a half dozen of my own firearms, several of which have been handed down for generations within our family.
But as a gun owner and outdoorsman, I also have no concerns with expanded background checks or limits on the kinds of firearms an individual can own. Civilians don’t need military-style assault rifles, which are nothing but tools for killing people. Civilians don’t need easier access to silencers or armor-piercing bullets, either, which a bill that was to be debated Wednesday in a House committee would allow. After the shooting, the debate was canceled — for now.

[emphasis added]

Let's ask Dave.