| Opinion/The Review

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

The great guns debate: Grabbers rise anew

Email Newsletters

Click here to sign up for one of our email newsletters.

Letters home ...

Traveling abroad for personal, educational or professional reasons?

Why not share your impressions — and those of residents of foreign countries about the United States — with Trib readers in 150 words?

The world's a big place. Bring it home with Letters Home.

Contact Colin McNickle (412-320-7836 or

Daily Photo Galleries

'American Coyotes' Series

Traveling by Jeep, boat and foot, Tribune-Review investigative reporter Carl Prine and photojournalist Justin Merriman covered nearly 2,000 miles over two months along the border with Mexico to report on coyotes — the human traffickers who bring illegal immigrants into the United States. Most are Americans working for money and/or drugs. This series reports how their operations have a major impact on life for residents and the environment along the border — and beyond.

Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2013, 8:56 p.m.

Post-Sandy Hook, the great debate over guns has sunken to new levels of deceit and misrepresentation, all in the name of unconstitutional gun-grabbing. Consider legislation being proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

The California Democrat seeks to dishonestly redefine “assault weapons” — heretofore machine-gun-type weaponry banned nearly 30 years ago — to be just about any weapon that liberals think looks especially menacing or they simply don't like. She proposes measures clearly in violation of the Second Amendment.

Under Ms. Feinstein's nomenclature, millions of quite common and quite popular semiautomatic handguns, shotguns and rifles (the latter two simply because they have a pistol-like grip) would be banned. Outlawed, too, generally, would be magazines, fixed or detachable, capable of holding 10 or more rounds. (As if a six-round magazine makes a difference, given the mere seconds it takes to change one.)

According to one analysis, not one handgun could survive the legislation.

And adding a new level of tyranny to this Bill of Rights nose-thumbing, the Feinstein measure additionally would go after existing owners of these newly offending weapons. Their guns would have to be registered with the government (including telling the feds where they're stored). The guns could not be transferred. Should the owner die, the government would seize and destroy them.

What's the real threat here — guns or the government? Consider it a rhetorical question.

Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Editorials

  1. Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
  2. Greensburg Tuesday takes
  3. Mon-Yough Tuesday takes
  4. The Export-Import Bank: The Senate’s shame
  5. Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
  6. The wind ruse: A failed policy
  7. Connellsville police seek help in crime crackdown
  8. U.N. Watch: The ‘race’ is on
  9. Grabbing guns: Obama overreach?