Published: Saturday, Jan. 26, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
So unserious, overreaching and legless is Sen. Dianne Feinstein's latest attempt to erase the Second Amendment that The New York Times, the official newspaper of the campaign to prohibit “gun” and “rights” in the same sentence, was forced on Friday to relegate its reportage of the measure to page A15.
The California Democrat's proposal is the boldest, broadest and most frontal attack on the Bill of Rights in modern history. Under the bogus moniker of “assault weapons,” it seeks to ban scores of semiautomatic rifles and handguns most popular with gun enthusiasts, whether they be hunters or sport shooters, largely because they're semiautomatics, have large magazines and might have the cosmetics (based on a single “characteristic,” government-determined, of course) of a military weapon.
Equally spurious is the ancillary proposal to mandate registration — for a steep fee, of course — of government-determined grandfathered weapons and, at the same time, create a new government registry of those firearms. Suspect Second Amendment practitioners that these owners are, they'll be fingerprinted.
In addition to trampling the Second Amendment, Ms. Feinstein thumbs her nose at the Fifth Amendment and, rest assured, if you're a “violator” and refuse to comply, the government will be all too willing to violate your Fourth Amendment rights.
And these trollops of totalitarianism have the temerity to mock those who are pushing back? Good grief.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The Thursday wrap
- On regulatory ‘autopilot’: Anchors on the economy
- Nelson Mandela: The real legacy
- The Monsour monstrosity
- ObamaCare & minimum wages: A double whammy
- Sunday pops
- The Box
- PSERS time bomb: Tick, tick, tick, tick ...
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Saturday essay: A special tinsel