Newsweek!
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/24/bullet-initiative-354203.htmlthe wording on that cover is atrocious, and clearly newsweek letting their hatred of rights show brighter than ever, especially when you actually read the article.
the irony of this article is that (once you get past the terribly obvious bait headline and the first half of bullshit about what the author wants to ban), the author makes some perfectly reasonable arguments and statements of truth.
“First, anyone who wants to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon should be given one. All states allow for concealed carry, but many states—like California, New Jersey and Maryland—have what are called “may issue” statutes, meaning people who qualify for a license might not be allowed to receive one. In some states, it’s up to county officials to decide who gets to carry a gun inside his or her coat. Here’s reality: A criminal or disturbed person will carry a concealed weapon, licensed or not. Under the universal background check system, anyone walking into a state office seeking a concealed carry permit has already been screened; there’s no reason to deny that person a license if he or she meets the additional requirements.
Then there are the gun accessories that have spooky names, but are mostly designed to protect the shooter. For example, flash suppressors have been outlawed on the belief they will be used to minimize the chance of spotting a shooter. That is a consequence of the device, not its purpose. In truth, the main reason flash suppressors exist is to disburse burning gases that exit the muzzle of a long-arm gun; this minimizes the chance that the shooter will be blinded in low-light environments. Danger to the public from this accessory: none.
Other accessories also pose minimal danger, and they protect or help gun owners. For example, the barrel shroud and the folding stock were banned in 1994, then legalized in 2003. Gun control advocates have been pushing for them to be declared illegal once again. The reasons are silly. The shroud cools the barrel of the gun, making sure it does not overheat during rapid firing. It is scary looking but doesn’t pose any realistic threat. A folding or collapsing stock is used on a long gun and makes it easier to store or transport the weapon. These were outlawed out of a fear that killers would be able to hide their rifles; again, not a reasonable consideration in a world filled with semi-automatic pistols.
It’s also time to end this nonsense about “cop killer bullets.” Although this topic has been debated since the late 1980s, there is still no accepted definition for this ammo. Earlier this year, though, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed banning armor-piercing 5.56-millimeter M855 “green tip” rifle rounds as cop killers. Some gun owners use this bullet in big, heavy AR-15 pistols, so ATF decided that the M855 green tip posed a threat to police officers who wear body armor. Problem is, not only is this exceptionally popular rifle ammunition, but ATF can point to no instance in which an officer was shot through body armor by an M855. Faced with outrage by gun owners, ATF dropped the proposal. It should stay dropped.
And so should efforts to ban assault weapons. One fact few gun opponents seem to know: Assault weapons don’t exist. There are assault rifles, but the broader category of weapons that were banned in 1994 and legalized in 2003 are a political construct. Again, many of them look scary because of the cosmetic features added by gun manufacturers.”
He dispels a lot of myths here. unfortunately, this real information is sandwiched between poorly justified arguments against magazine capacity by citing ONE incident, while ignoring how little it had to do with the deadlier incident he cites immediately afterward (the VT shooting where the shooter’s pistol only used 15 and 10 rd magazines), irrational hatred of suppressors (doubly strange since he readily acknowledges how most other accessories are for user safety, despite that being the first and foremost purpose of a suppressor) and general inability to back up his ban calls with real data.
The headline is retarded and obvious agenda. but i’ll give the author one thing. of all the people asking for a “compromise”, he actually offers an actual compromise (a compromise that no one here, including myself wants, but nonetheless, not a “compromise” where we lose everything and that’s it) where some people actually GAIN rights, he respects the right to CCW, and understands guns and gun terminology enough to know how stupid the rest of the media usually is.
So instead of branding him evil, i think he’s more misguided, and potentially one of us if he keeps doing his research. im honestly surprised, i didnt expect this much from newsweek, in either sense. I didnt expect them to be so dishonest and openly condescending with their headline, nor did i expect a publication with this much hatred of guns to actually defend CCW.
but it's worth a read. if a staunch anti gun publication is actually giving up on the idea that we as gun owners need to give up our rights without anything in return, does that mean we're winning the culture war? to reiterate, i dont want a compromise, and we shouldnt have to. but i dunno, i see it as some small measure of progress when we're going from "give up your guns, you hsouldnt have them " to "give up your guns, and we'll let you concealed carry without trouble".
it doesnt sound like much, but just think about how hard it was for newsweek to print a sentence like "First, anyone who wants to obtain a license to carry a concealed weapon should be given one.". I mean, that must have hurt their editors a lot to send that to the press.