Publius
Active Member
That editorial is an example of why I stopped subscribing to the North Korean Sun. I wanted to be informed of local news but after almost chocking to death during breakfast on a few of their editorials, I told my wife, who was a fan of their coupons, that we simply could not keep sending our money to people like that. Here is the comment I left in their comment section:
The Baltimore Sun is for the Democrat Party exactly what the Volkisher Beobachter was for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (a.k.a. Nazi Party). It's almost inconceivable that at a time when the Justice Department is persecuting journalists, the Baltimore Sun’s editorial board would have a harsh view of the rights of fellow Americans being violated. But that is exactly what it does in this piece. It is arguing that it is reasonable to make people wait 100 days to take a handgun or rifle home because most of those waiting already have guns. A parallel to the 1st amendment would be to argue that library users can wait 100 days to check out a book because most library users already have books. It is a preposterous and frightening argument, first and foremost for its complete lack of due process. It does not matter what the Baltimore Sun or O’Malley think. What matters is what our Bill of Right says and the fact that it is being infringed. The argument "oh the MSP is doing what it can" is irrelevant. You cannot make people wait 100 days to take a firearm home, period. The law alludes to a 7-day wait, not 100 days. It would never have become law if it said "the MSP can take an undetermined amount of time to run a check". Never. A judge needs to smack this mess down quick and force the MSP to run just a NICS check on an emergency basis.
The Baltimore Sun is for the Democrat Party exactly what the Volkisher Beobachter was for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (a.k.a. Nazi Party). It's almost inconceivable that at a time when the Justice Department is persecuting journalists, the Baltimore Sun’s editorial board would have a harsh view of the rights of fellow Americans being violated. But that is exactly what it does in this piece. It is arguing that it is reasonable to make people wait 100 days to take a handgun or rifle home because most of those waiting already have guns. A parallel to the 1st amendment would be to argue that library users can wait 100 days to check out a book because most library users already have books. It is a preposterous and frightening argument, first and foremost for its complete lack of due process. It does not matter what the Baltimore Sun or O’Malley think. What matters is what our Bill of Right says and the fact that it is being infringed. The argument "oh the MSP is doing what it can" is irrelevant. You cannot make people wait 100 days to take a firearm home, period. The law alludes to a 7-day wait, not 100 days. It would never have become law if it said "the MSP can take an undetermined amount of time to run a check". Never. A judge needs to smack this mess down quick and force the MSP to run just a NICS check on an emergency basis.
, and gun owners who complain about it are compared to unreasonable whiners who will next sue over not having "customer service representatives available on weekends to answer their questions."
