Is “A Trigger Lock for the Gun Lobby” a “Reasonable Restriction?”
Posted by FirearmsTruth on July 28, 2009 · Leave a Comment
The Christian Science Monitor has once again gone on the offensive, taking full on aim at firearm owners. The editorial board has made a broadside in their recent editorial:
“After years of being pushed around by the pistol-packing gun lobby, many lawmakers on Capitol Hill and in state capitals are finally pushing back. They have successfully blocked efforts by the National Rifle Association to expand certain ‘conceal-and-carry’ provisions. Now they must go the extra step and actually advance reasonable restrictions on firearms.”
But like most in the mainstream media, the only “reasonable restriction” is clearly a total ban of guns by any private citizen, even if the editorial tries to pretend otherwise in the closing kicker:
“Gun-control advocates don’t seek to take away Second Amendment rights, as is so often and tirelessly alleged by the gun-rights side.”
What the MSM never fully explains, which the CSM does not either, is exactly what “reasonable restriction.” This is something that is never addressed. Isn’t the prohibition of handguns in Washington, D.C., or the nearly impossible hurdles one needs to go through in San Francisco, Chicago and New York beyond “reasonable?”
Have any of these reporters, editors or others at the Christian Science Monitor (or most in the MSM) ever tried to get a pistol permit?
As a member of the MSM, and a gun owner I can attest that it is difficult enough to get a rifle/shotgun permit in New York City. To do so I was fingerprinted, needed to prove my address, have notarized letters and pay fees that many consider excessive. And to get a pistol permit I would need to pay more fees, go through further background checks (even though I’m already in the NYC Police Department computer system), get more notarized letters and then wait!
This goes way beyond the waiting period to buy a pistol or revolver I should add, this is about waiting for the pistol permit to be processed. How is that entirely “reasonable?” That just strikes of being “restrictive.”
