All the news that's fit to invent. From your friends at the NYT

[94z07]

Two Early Tests on Guns
Published: February 19, 2009

The Obama administration has chosen to defend a bad rule rushed through during former President George W. Bush’s final days in office that allows concealed, loaded firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The rule is a gift to the gun lobby.

Ok here in the opening paragraph the writer says the rule is “bad”. That sounds like a judgment not a reporting of facts. The invocation of “the gun lobby” is meant to rile up your liberal neighbors. The correct sentence would have been, “The rule protects individual privacy.”

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for a 90-day internal assessment of the rule’s environmental impacts, offering some hope that the administration might later reverse an unwise policy. But for now, the administration’s operating position is contained in a Justice Department brief filed last Friday. It seeks to block a preliminary injunction of the rule sought by gun control and environmental groups.

Ok here it’s “unwise” without any explination of how it is unwise. Notice the gun control and environmental groups are not identified as anti-freedom lobby and environmental fear mongers. Ok really though the author should have used the same word as in the first paragraph, “lobby”.

Although concealed, loaded weapons obviously have no place in the national parks, the Justice Department brief asserts that the rule “will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety.” We can only hope that the Justice Department’s position does not reflect a broader weakening of President Obama’s stated commitment to sensible gun control policies.

“weapons obviously have no place in the national parks” First it is not obvious at all. I am sure that the young girl abducted (later raped and killed) in a park here in Georgia would rather have shot the bad guy instead of what did happen to her. "No place" would that also include LEO's?

Another early test of that commitment is coming soon. It involves the so-called Tiahrt Amendment, which is strongly supported by the gun lobby. The amendment denies police and local governments access to essential information about guns used to commit crimes. The question is whether Mr. Obama’s forthcoming budget blueprint will include language aiming to repeal it.

Again with the “gun lobby” ooh I’m scared of them! And here is an outright failure to read and understand that is so typical of the leftists. The author claims “denies police…access…” Really? Let’s read from the amendment: The Tiahrt amendment ensures that trace data is available to federal, state, and local agencies "in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution". So who did the fact checking for this “reporter”?

Mr. Obama is well aware of its pernicious effects. As a senator, he sponsored legislation supported by Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and a coalition of more than 30 national and state law enforcement organizations to remove the amendment’s restrictions on access to crime gun tracing data. His White House Web site calls for the rule’s repeal.

There was nothing in the amendment to be removed. If this is true then Obama is an idiot. LEO's have always had access. Who doesn't have access? Anti-freedom groups and the press. Yeah the same jackasses who publish edited lists of CCW holders want access to every FFL gun purchase.

There is a good chance that the rollback of the Tiahrt Amendment could finally be achieved this year. The issue has nothing to do with the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms and everything to do with public safety. The only real purpose served by the Tiahrt restrictions is to protect shady gun dealers and gun traffickers from detection, arrest and punishment.

Oh Really? The Congressional Research Service has repeatedly said "firearm trace data may be biased" and "cannot be used to test for statistical significance between firearm traces in general and the wider population of firearms available to criminals or the wider American public."[1] These limitations exist because the "tracing system is an operational system designed to help law enforcement agencies identify the ownership path of individual firearms. It was not designed to collect statistics."

Much depends on the new president’s willingness to risk offending gun extremists by submitting a budget plan that includes language explicitly repealing this unfortunate and unproductive amendment. Mr. Obama should not back down.

Well there’s the end of the “story” with no payoff on the previous use of “bad” and “unwise”. Notice “gun extremists” is a crafted phrase meant to lull people into thinking that this is not about every single gun that passes through an FFL and is meant to paint gun owners as whackos.

ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/opinion/20fri2.html

[4EvrLearning]

94z07: I hope you sent a copy of your analysis to the NYT. They deserve to be called on the carpet for this biased "reporting." It would be interesting to hear their reply, should you get one.

[bcj1755]

But the mainstream media is fair and impartial and is not working for the left THIS is why I stopped watching TV almost completely.

[RunningOnMT]

Good rebuttal to the Times article. 94z07. Are you auditioning for a reporting job with them? I don't think they can use you...you had your facts straight.

[ponycar17]

Amen ROMT. That outfit is about as dang dumb as they get. Although the item is published in "Opinion" you can bet the paper as a whole holds this view. Don't worry though, they are on their way out of the scene. How can a mecca of liberal media such as NYT find themselves mortgaging the building they ONCE owned, and renting out unused floors due to hard times?... To me, it shows people are wising up.

Again, I'll post these gems. If you have a sandal-wearing, organic-buying, white guilt, pansy ass anti-gun flower child in your life you'd like to lambaste with irrefutable fact, read and memorize as much as possible. The 'Brady' bunch has nothing on these facts.

http://www.gunfacts.info/
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stop0584.pdf

Make their heads hurt with shear fact!!!!!

[glocknut]

Two Early Tests on Guns
Published: February 19, 2009

The Obama administration has chosen to defend a bad rule rushed through during former President George W. Bush’s final days in office that allows concealed, loaded firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges. The rule is a gift to the gun lobby.

No Sh*t?!!! Where was this article snagged from again?
The Onion?

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has asked for a 90-day internal assessment of the rule’s environmental impacts....

Invironmental Impact?!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE

358winchester and I have more of an "Inviromental Impact" that concealed carry ever will!!!!!!

Invironmental impact.... snicker snicker

mike
gn

[94z07]

Originally Posted by ponycar17

Although the item is published in "Opinion" you can bet the paper as a whole holds this view.

You are right about the whole paper. The article appears in their editorial section. An editorial is the official position of the paper. A column is the position of the columnist. And a news article is supposed to be straght news.

Originally Posted by glocknut

Where was this article snagged from again?
The Onion?

LOL I love the Onion. Sadly this was from the real NYT tho. The link is in the bottom of the OP.

Yeah I get that you were joking I just wanted to be clear. No offense, GN.

[glocknut]

Originally Posted by 94z07

Yeah I get that you were joking I just wanted to be clear. No offense, GN.

Almost everything i say is an attempt at humor... ie... i cannot pass by an opportunity to be a smart@$$! And if an oportunity does not exist...I MAKE ONE!!!!

mike
gn

[1shot1k]

Originally Posted by 4EvrLearning

94z07: I hope you sent a copy of your analysis to the NYT. They deserve to be called on the carpet for this biased "reporting." It would be interesting to hear their reply, should you get one.

+1 good report and observations......hell yes..send it for objectivity....

[topper]

america would not need any gun laws IF people would just use common sense. i say a full 99% of folks do handle firearms safely, but it's always some nut or nut group that wants to use firearms for illegal purposes (robbery, rape, murder, etc) and that is what screws the system for the rest of us. before the 1960's we did not have any restrictions on buying or selling or transferring firearms, except for fully automatic weapons. now we have so many restrictions and more on the horizon. we will never get back to unrestricted access to firearms, but if a concerted effort is launched, we may be able to keep the present and hopefully future administrations from further restricting firearms access or any more tracking like licensing, fingerprinting, etc. wake up america, lets do it now before it's too late. i, for one, do not like the idea of some idiot politician telling me i cannot use or own a firearm when it is guarenteed the 2nd amendment. we fought one war to get rid of an oppressive ruler(king george) and now we might have to do it again to regain ALL of our freedoms from another oppresive ruler.

[45nut]

And you were expecting something else from the NYT, like maybe the truth or at the very least, objective reporting or an opinion by a conservative? For the love of God man, they can't even SEE the truth, much less recognize and report it!

glocknut,

Calm down man, you're having too much fun here.

[AL MOUNT]

Originally Posted by glocknut

Invironmental Impact?!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE

358winchester and I have more of an "Inviromental Impact" that concealed carry ever will!!!!!! mike gn

No Chit Cherlock.....

You two could give new meaning to the term "Self Propelled" ...

[bcj1755]

Hey look, it's the Obamamobile!