Um, I think the ban was on all semi-automatics, not just the "powerful" ones... This, in the very city which houses and hosts our Federal government, which is charged with carrying out, protecting and preserving the integrity of our Constitution. Huh? ... Also, the FBI needs a list to remember the name "Osama Bin Laden"? What is this person talking about? There is no such "loophole".
RFM's comment, "If the US version of democracy fails, history can look at the voting public's support of the adolescent NRA mentality as a significant reason." You weren't kidding.
Ummm, how does the right to defend yourself and your family/home get rewritten as "basic gun controls"? With their best efforts the NRA couldn't do nearly as much damage to this country as Obama has in the last couple of years.
The NYT only selects a handful that disagree with them. I guess they try to make it look by the number of comments that agree with them, that there is huge support for their argument. The truth is I have submitted a lot of comments over the years that disagree with them, but never get published
Don't be silly. 10 year olds get them as gifts. I can't seem to find that "...right to be free from crime..." thing anywhere. I DO however, see the part about the right to keep and bear arms being laid out pretty clearly -- it says "...shall not be infringed..." Wait, wait... I'm having a "leap of intuitive logic" here... hang on... ... maybe, just maybe... Maybe the part about the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed is because it's the closest way possible to produce some semblence of freedom from crime? The idea of a "terrorist watch list" is ludicrous. Unicorn droppings.
Hmmm if the NRA really is guilty of the things the article is suggesting then perhaps I should have renewed my membership this year. Also, I always find this argument of restricting firearms to people on the "terror watch list" fascinating. I watched the Senate hearings earlier this year when Mayor Bloomberg, as one of the leaders of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, testified in favor of this restriction. He, of course, tempered this argument by reaffirming is support for the 2nd Amendment and the constitution. He did not explain; however, the process by which government could legally deprive someone of their 2nd Amendment protection without the 14th amendment's due process protection. After all, the means by which an individual is put onto the terror watch list is unknown to the public, much less how one would get off the list. Remember when Senator Kennedy was put on the "terror watch list"?
Obviously, this particular editorial writer has never experienced violent crime or known anyone who has. Funny how even the most ardent antis seen to have an epiphany moment if that ever happens to them. Or maybe, it's just a case of ...
Ok, i agree with all your comments, but i think you are missing a part of the picture here. IT"S THE @#$^%&$ NEW YORK TIMES!!! I mean they think CHuckie Schumer (D-NY) is GREAT. THey are Happy that former blue-dog Kirstin Gillibrand has joined lock step with CHuckie! I am ALL for reading opposing views and responding, but this is like trying to convince noah that all he had was a "really wet month". Now responding by changing the minds of individuals. Great. Thinking to change anything about the UBER-LIBERL NYT? I could sooner move a mountain wih my mind. Now ya-all see why i want to move down there?
The NYT is really upset over the NRA's D'Cruz lawsuit. D'Cruz is 18, an American of Latino descent, and is trained in the use of arms. The NYT's panic and use of all the fear speak tells volumes at how much the left fears at the precedent Heller and McDonald give in reinforcing the 2A's fundamental nature to our Constitution.