You expect leftists to write ignorant editorials about guns. Dare I say, there’s something reassuring in just how reliable it is. In fact you may suspect the world has gone mad if leftists start embracing gun rights. But The Boston Globe reached new levels of paranoid stupidity this time.
I can’t even find the words…
— Boston Globe Opinion (@GlobeOpinion) June 16, 2016
The gun lobby, powered by the National Rifle Association, has succeeded in pressuring states to keep — or make — the names and addresses of gun owners off limits, citing a right to privacy. But it’s no secret that guns are everywhere, including in more than one-third of US households with children under age 18, according to the Pew Research Center. There’s a compelling public interest in making available more details about their location. Knowing that there were more than 350,000 active gun licenses in Massachusetts — as of last year — or even knowing the number of licenses per capita by community, isn’t specific enough to be of any use.
Yes, the same right to privacy these same leftists say gives them the right to abort their own children, which unlike the Second Amendment, is not found in the Constitution. But please, do go on…
Gun advocates worry about the unintended consequences of opening up access to ownership records. Some argue it would make them vulnerable to theft, though it’s doubtful that many thieves would risk breaking into a home whose residents are potentially armed. Critics of making permit information available also say it stigmatizes legal gun ownership.
Right, because releasing gun owners’ personal information does all those things. If I have a gun permit because of death threats from “peaceful” Muslims… my permit in a database and possible personal information would be made available to said Muslims. You can see why one might object to such a database. Or am I just being a racist?
Also, thanks for making a perfect point: “…it’s doubtful that many thieves would risk breaking into a home whose residents are potentially armed.”
In other words The Boston Globe ADMITS guns, or even the idea of an armed individual DETERS CRIME. Thanks for making our point for us, you ninnies.
There could also be exemptions for law enforcement officials, victims of domestic violence, and others who might be compromised by having their gun permit data open for public viewing.
Ah, so the law would only apply to some people! But not all Americans, just the Americans the brilliant wizards at The Boston Globe deem worthy of owning guns. The law applying to people on a case-by-case basis. Yeah, what could go wrong?
Making gun records public isn’t intended to malign permit-holders, nor does it imply that they represent a threat. If anything, increasing access to information about the whereabouts of firearms may keep people from succumbing to irrational fear at a time when reason is in short supply.
Those words in that order make no sense whatsoever.
But I’ll do my best to analyze the meaning here. Notice first how The Boston Globe says “nor does it imply that [gun owners] represent a threat.” Crafty. That phrase acts the same way as “I don’t mean to brag, but… [followed by brags].” Because yes, obviously publishing the records of people who own guns implies people who own guns are dangerous. Hence wanting to “increase access to information about the whereabouts of firearms.” Like people who own weapons are registered sex offenders.
Because yes, that’s how leftists see gun owners: criminal offenders. Maybe worse than a sex pervert, after all pedophilia is the next leftist cause celeb. To them there is nothing more horrifically terrible (yes, I used “horrifically” such are the needs of the times) than a person who owns a gun. For any reason whatsoever. Most of all to defend one’s self, home, property (read Armed Robbers Raid a Barbershop. Get CUT DOWN by 2 Concealed Carry Holders…). To a leftist, if you need defense, call the police. They might get there in 30 minutes, so do your best until then. RELY ON THE GOVERNMENT NOT ON YOURSELVES.
Whoops. All caps. Got on the soapbox for a moment there.
So no, Boston Globe. Publishing the addresses of firearm owners? I believe that’s “othering” people. You’re trying to target them. Ostracize them. Digitally emblazon them with a star. Brand them as villains.
But here’s another point to consider, since you’ve already drawn a conclusion that guns deter criminals (thanks again): by publishing the address of people with guns, you’re omitting people without guns as a way to deter criminals. In other words, for criminals, your list?
Knowing which houses have guns and which do not? Man. And here criminals thought they’d have to, like, protect themselves when going about their criminalness.