The Latest Time Magazine Cover

[Hopalong]

On pg 4 the editor writes " gun owners know better than anyone else that an AR-15 has little or no sporting purpose"

And pg. 32, "there is absolutely no rational or sporting reason for an individual to have a semiautomatic weapon or a gun clip that can fire 50 to 100 rounds at a time"

Wow

When people stop talking about the Second Amendment in terms of sporting or hunting purposes, we'll have won. It's not a out either of those things, it's about protection, be it from an assailant or from government tyranny. Period.

 

[Kchen986]

I also love how people with absolutely no military experience loudly proclaim that small arms are of no use against a well trained and equipped army. A couple of recent contradictory examples come to mind.

 

[jrumann59]

Really a beta mag. Hahaha thats like showing a mustang with 4 flats and saying, "this car is too fast." Anti just do not under stand just because its made does not mean that it actually works or is quality.

 

[Tactics]

I have been searching for this magazine at the local grocery store ever since I saw the cover on the news, but I have had no luck. I will try and find it this weekend but it sounds like a waste of time. I know it is for the week of August 6th.

 

[racinghoss]

I started reading it while waiting at the orthodontist for my daughter's appt. I did not get to finish it, but what I read was ignorant at best.

 

[Hopalong]

Just finished reading the article. I think it's a really fascinating piece.

1. He provides a full-page graphic of things like mass shootings per year, victims per mass shooting, drops in violent crime, and popular opinion regarding gun control. All of these graphics are very clearly pro-gun. EDIT: And anti-AWB. It shows that the AWB did squat in terms of mass shooting incidents or deaths.

2. In spite of this, the text of the article is decidedly anti-gun in tone. Anti-NRA in particular. A lot of your typical emotional/social policy appeal.

3. In spite of that, the author's conclusions are surprisingly moderate. He states that we need to have a conversation about gun control, but what he really focuses on is training requirements and background checks, not what we would call gun control.

Given the host publication, I'm very pleased with this piece overall.

 

[teratos]

Just finished reading the article. I think it's a really fascinating piece.

1. He provides a full-page graphic of things like mass shootings per year, victims per mass shooting, drops in violent crime, and popular opinion regarding gun control. All of these graphics are very clearly pro-gun.

2. In spite of this, the text of the article is decidedly anti-gun in tone. Anti-NRA in particular. A lot of your typical emotional/social policy appeal.

3. In spite of that, the author's conclusions are surprisingly moderate. He states that we need to have a conversation about gun control, but what he really focuses on is training requirements and background checks, not what we would call gun control.

Given the host publication, I'm very pleased with this piece overall.

Even a lot of gun people are not real thrilled with the NRA. Despite being a life member, I have my gripes with them. I think the SAF has done far more in a short period of time than the NRA ever has. Let's not even talk about some of the concessions the NRA has made over the years.

While I am not thrilled with the idea of mandatory training requirements, I have no problems with background checks. We should have a very narrowly defined list of reasons which make someone a "prohibited individual", and should make sure they do not try to purchase firearms. The penalties for such individuals possessing firearms (even when not in the commission of a crime) should be quite severe. I feel that training is something that all responsible gun owners should seek out on their own. I don't think it is the end of the world if that is made mandatory.

Thanks for the synopsis of the article for those of us who haven't read it. It is nice to hear that there are some (at least) neutral pieces out there.

 

[jonnyl]

On pg 4 the editor writes " gun owners know better than anyone else that an AR-15 has little or no sporting purpose"

And pg. 32, "there is absolutely no rational or sporting reason for an individual to have a semiautomatic weapon or a gun clip that can fire 50 to 100 rounds at a time"

Wow

Sport is a bonus - The 2nd A is most specifically about fighting weapons. The author should have asked some of the Korea town store owners how they felt about having fighting weapons in LA in 1992.

I get really sick of hearing "sporting use"....

I love sporting, and HOPE that's all I ever have to use my guns for.

 

[Hopalong]

Even a lot of gun people are not real thrilled with the NRA. Despite being a life member, I have my gripes with them. I think the SAF has done far more in a short period of time than the NRA ever has. Let's not even talk about some of the concessions the NRA has made over the years.

The NRA has become far too political for my tastes. At some point, they went from lobbying for gun rights to trying to get pro-gun legislators elected, and after that it just went downhill. Their heart's in the right place though.

 

[booker]

In related news, "How the iPhone Owns You," "Nalgene Bottles RULE!," and "Nike Shoes Win 200m Gold in London."

I wonder if any thought was put into whether the cover photo should be on safe or in the fire position.

 

[zoostation]

Gotta love the unspoken messages too. The stark lettering on a black cover with an ominous red colored AR-15.

 

[ivanthescourge]

I hate the sporting purpose argument. The 2nd amendment mentions nothing about hunting. And have these idiots ever gone hunting? How do they know the amount of rounds needed? Bleh. Makes me sick.

 

[teratos]

I hate the sporting purpose argument. The 2nd amendment mentions nothing about hunting. And have these idiots ever gone hunting? How do they know the amount of rounds needed? Bleh. Makes me sick.

That drives me batty, too. I think that spelling out EXACTLY what the 2A means is unpalatable to some. Yes, the government should be afraid of the People. Yes, the People should have the means to oust the government by force if necessary. I like telling people you can ban hunting entirely, and still not violate the 2A. Makes them think.

 

[Mark75H]

That drives me batty, too. I think that spelling out EXACTLY what the 2A means is unpalatable to some. Yes, the government should be afraid of the People. Yes, the People should have the means to oust the government by force if necessary. I like telling people you can ban hunting entirely, and still not violate the 2A. Makes them think.

Exactly! The Founding Fathers knew there were only 2 choices, the people would be afraid of the government or the government would be afraid of the people. They had lived with the first and decided on a society based on the second.

 

[Biggfoot44]

Just to date myself , once upon a time , Time had a cover story about *Handgun Deaths* . Highlighted a seemingly huge number for a particular week, and and a section that gave a short blurb about each.

Well I actually read each. About half were suicides , typically eldery men with either painful terminal illnesses or debilitating loss of quality of life. Add in felons shot by LE. Then unambigious felons shot by private citizens. Several were too short on specifics to tell for sure , but were at least arguably SD . Only about 10% were unambigiously victims killed by Bad Guys.

Of course the message of the article was divergent from the facts presented in their own article.

Back in this era , Time had an Editorial thaat due to the state of the Country and the World , Time would no longer be a *News* publication , but their consciences required them to be advocates for Positive Change.

At the time , US News & World Report as left as being the newsweekly that came closest to strieght up facts.