Gentlemen:
Either your editorial writer (and whatever editor oversees him or her) is ignorant or seriously deluded, or your editorial comments are calculated to obfuscate the facts and conceal the truth. Whichever is the case ... shame on you.
Your editorial writer claims that "firearms kill 30,000 Americans annually." Really? According to statistics compiled by the FBI, through 2011 (the most current year on the FBI's website, in 2010 there were a TOTAL of 8,874 murders committed with firearms -- of all types. For 2011 the TOTAL number of murders committed with firearms (all types) was 8,583 ... a reduction of 291, or slightly over three percent. If your writer's 30,000 number is to be believed, that leaves approximately 21,400 deaths by firearm that were NOT classified as murders. Some can undoubtedly be ascribed to accidents, but I very much doubt that the number of accidental deaths by forearm even approaches 21,400. How about justifiable homicides, which certainly include police officers who kill criminals in the course of their duties, as well as ordinary citizens who use firearms to defend themselves AGAINST armed assaults?
The way you tossed out that (unsupported) 30,000 number, you make it appear that it represents 30,000 murders by firearm every year. That's not true, and I'm certain that you know full well that it's not true.
Your editorial writer than speaks of banning "weapons of war," and semi-automatic firearms that "spray." Realty check: First, the M16s and M4s used by our military are not semi-automatic firearms, they are fully automatic. They are, essentially, submachine guns. And we ordinary citizens cannot buy those, because the law doesn't allow it. Semi-automatic firearms do not "spray" -- they fire ONE shot each time the trigger is pulled, and no more. Intentional misinformation #2.
Your writer then mentions new laws limiting magazine capacity to a "sane" number of rounds. What is so "sane" about 10 rounds, or 7 as in the original New York SAFE Act? If 10 rounds is "sane" and all anyone should need, why is it that police officers routinely carry handguns with almost double that capacity, and are routinely issued carbines for their patrol cars that carry more than twice that number? If the police (who have personal body armor, radios, and assistance moments away) need double or triple your "sane" number of rounds to avoid being outgunned by the criminals, please explain how it is in any way "sane" to prohibit ordinary citizens from carrying the same number of rounds that the police believe to be essential.
Finally, your writer engages in massive hyperbole in writing that "... America has moved toward blood-soaked Second Amendment absolutism."
Aside from the fact that there is no evidence that strict adherence to the Second Amendment has resulted in blood running in the streets, as your hysterical mewlings imply, what you seem to intentionally overlook is that the Second Amendment, alone of all the ten amendments comprising the Bill of Rights, IS absolute. The Second Amendment says that the RIGHT to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed." Unlike the Fourth Amendment, which proscribes "unreasonable" searches and seizures, the Second Amendment does NOT say that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be "unreasonably" infringed; to the contrary, it is an absolute statement, that the right SHALL NOT BE infringed. End ... period ... full stop.
Your hysterical editorial would be humorous if not for the fact that many of your readers will probably think there's a grain of truth behind it. Fortunately, there are also many readers who understand that the editorial is not founded in facts or truth, and that instead it represents the author's own irrational phobias.
Respectfully,
[Aguila Blanca]
