Political Commentary

Authored by Daria Chase
February 23, 2016
That the editorial stance of the state’s daily newspaper is anti-gun should be no surprise to anyone. Ever since the terrorist attack in San Bernardino the anti-gun drumbeat has been incessant. To be fair, they occasionally run a pro-2A letter or opinion piece –sometimes written by me.

Following are the gist of two letters to the editor I wrote in January that the editorial board did not see fit to print.

In a Sunday night debate in January watched by almost no one, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders dueled (pun intended) over who is the most anti-gun candidate. Senator Sanders who represents Vermont, a Constitutional carry state, ended in a virtual tie with Clinton in the first-in-the nation Iowa caucuses and beat her in the New Hampshire primary. Clinton, who did better in the Nevada caucuses appears to be worried that her coronation as the Democrat candidate for president will be thwarted this year just as it was by Barak Obama in 2008.

Clinton says she is in favor of allowing gun manufacturers to be sued for negligence because they make a product that works the way it is supposed to. That would mean the end of firearms manufacture and distribution in this country which is exactly what the anti-gun lobby wants.

Clinton and Sanders both genuflected in the direction of the contingency fee trial lawyers who are licking their chops over the possibility of class action lawsuits and who pour millions into the campaigns of Democrat candidates for elected office.

Sanders, according to Clinton, flip-flopped on the so-called “Charlestown loophole” which allows gun dealers to deliver a firearm if the FBI does not respond to a request for a background check within 3 days. The law was enacted in 2005 because when Mrs. Clinton’s husband was president the background check database was often mysteriously offline thereby preventing people from buying guns.

At the formal announcement of the “executive actions” he was taking to prevent gun violence President Obama shed tears when he spoke of the first grade children that were massacred at Newton, Conn. Too bad none of the measures would have prevented Adam Lanza from killing his mother, stealing her guns and driving to Sandy Hook Elementary School and shooting the kids.

If Obama is so concerned why did it take him three years to act? Is he as upset at the killing of a young woman by an illegal immigrant felon in a “sanctuary city” with a gun stolen from a government official?

Obama said that 92% of Americans favored expanding background checks for gun purchases as though criminals, terrorists and the mentally deranged are going to get their guns legally. He cited the myth that 40% of all firearms are sold without background checks. This factoid has been thoroughly discredited by many sources including Politifact.

The 40% statistic is based on a report issued over 20 years ago by the National Institute of Justice. The NIJ took a 1994 telephone survey of 2,568 households which asked where the guns in the house were obtained. Only 251 respondents answered and of those 35.7% said the guns were purchased from someone other than a licensed dealer. The “researchers” decided to round this up to 40%. Very scientific!

All this rhetoric is an attempt to prove their creds to the liberal base of the Democrat party and raise money for their campaigns.

“Sigmund Sauer” August
February 21, 2016

Add Comment