Who asks this question? The Huffington Post? The New York Times?
Let us read a little further.
The question is posed somewhat differently: “That is, has the application of modern military design to civilian firearms produced a class of weapons too dangerous to be in general circulation?”
The answer by what must be a very liberal publication is, “We say: Yes.”
After describing the horrific crime committed by Adam Lanza “in the blink of an eye,” and “armed with a ‘sporting’ version of the US military’s principal assault weapon, plus two equally deadly handguns,” this left-wing publication asks, “Did he have to pull a trigger to discharge each round?” and answers, “Yes,” but adds:
…the fact is that the volume of fire produced by Lanza’s semi-automatic arsenal was substantively the same as the fully automatic “gangster guns” effectively outlawed by Congress in 1934 and again in 1968.
After some additional discussion on the 2nd Amendment, the 2008 and 2010 Supreme Court decisions and on the “politics of guns” we read:
There are enough privately owned firearms in America almost literally to arm every adult citizen.
And Adam Lanza’s rifle of choice — the M-16 knock-off Bushmaster — is insanely popular, just for starters.
Which underscores the fact that historically there is scant political will for weapons control. And it’s unlikely that there will be, once the Sandy Hook slaughter fades from the nation’s consciousness.
But that won’t negate the need for reform. Weapons designed expressly to kill human beings, and then modified (wink wink) to meet the federal machine-gun ban, have no legitimate place in American society.
Time to get rid of them.
Time to get rid of them?
All this in an editorial in the conservative New York Post?
Rub your eyes and read it all here.