And this ridiculous about face isn't the only illogical idea or uninformed claim the piece makes, either. Just about every word in this piece proves that the editorial board of the Sun-Sentinel is wholly uninformed about the Constitution and the technical aspects of firearms, not to mention being uninformed about the various gun banning bills floating about Congress and the several states at this very moment.
The piece begins sarcastically telling South Floridians to "get a grip. Not on their weapons, but on their senses," because of the run on purchases of ammo and guns that has swept the country since Obama's election.
First, there was the big run on guns, both locally and nationally, when it was feared the Obama administration would quickly enact tougher gun legislation that would make it difficult to own guns.
Didn't happen. And doesn't figure to happen, particularly since the Supreme Court has reinforced the right of an individual to bear arms.
What does the Sun-Sentinal mean when they say that Obama's gun ban "didn't happen"? Is the Sun-Sentinel saying that because Obama didn't get around to addressing guns in these first 35 days of his term in office that it is a foregone conclusion that he won't do so? Are they seriously trying to claim that because four whole weeks have passed without the Obama administration's first moves on the subject then we can all rest assured that he will NEVER make such a move? What an absurd premise. Obama has also not moved on actually closing Guantanamo Bay (despite his toothless Executive Order) nor has he made a move on the payoff to Big Labor with the Employee Free Choice Act. Are we to assume that he will never address these issues since he didn't do it in the first 35 days of his presidency?
Come on, Sun-Sentinel, are you really that foolish? Or is it that you think the readers are really that stupid?
Then we get this illogical paragraph:
One firearms shop manager in Davie told the Sun Sentinel he received a shipment of five 1,000-round boxes of .223 caliber rifle cartridges, and sold all five boxes in one day. At $450 a box. During a recession. A Delray Beach shop manager said customers were buying rounds for AR-15s and AK-47s in large quantities, and said "the rumor mill's going nuts."
Did the Sun-Sentinel use incorrect words on purpose to make its story sound more dramatic? First of all a "1,000-round box" is not a box, but a crate that holds 50 boxes of ammunition. A box of .223 caliber cartridges only contains 20 rounds. Secondly, the story makes it sound as if a single customer pad "$450 a box," but that is the cost of the entire crate of cartridges, not the cost of the individual boxes of cartridges (the cost is closer to $25 for a box of 20 rounds). More likely, customers bought several boxes apiece, none of them spending the "$450" that the entire crate costs as cited by the story.
The Sun-Sentinel then uses it faulty accounting of ammo sold to make a wild conclusion:
As for who is buying the ammo, a Pompano Beach dealer said, "Everybody. Your normal Joe is now buying four, five boxes..."
Which means that in South Florida, the "normal Joe" who lives next-door might be filling up a spare room with ammo for an AR-15. Hardly a calming thought.
So that "normal Joe" who is, according to the Sun-Sentinel, "filling up a spare room with ammo," did so with "four or five boxes" of ammo? So, a guy that just bought five boxes of ammo containing 120 rounds -- a haul that takes up about a 20 inch square space -- is "filling" a room with ammo? Those must be some awfully small rooms!! Or, as is actually the case, the Sun-Sentinel is taking leave of facts and indulging in hysteria.
The Sun-Sentinel also seems to think that the .223 round is exclusively for "military-style assault weapons." But apparently the Sun-Sentinel is unaware that this is a common round for small rifles used for "varmint" hunting and target practice. In fact, it is one of the most popular calibers in the entire country, hardly just for military purposes.
Now this idiotic example of uninformed blather begins by scoffing at anyone worried that banning guns is in the offing. It says that citizens rushing to gun stores to buy guns and ammo are stupidly falling prey to "hysteria." No one wants to ban guns, the reader is sternly scolded. And then the Sun-Sentinel ends its piece with this:
Semi-automatic weapons should be banned, because the "normal Joe" simply doesn't need one, for protection or anything else. But the ban has expired, and having more guns and ammo on the streets simply makes South Florida a more dangerous place, for cops and regular citizens alike.
It's time for the hysteria to stop.
BOTTOM LINE: No need for this craziness.
Now isn't that a head spinner? The piece begins by pointing out the stupidity of fears about gun bans, yet it ends advocating for a gun ban?
So, um... doesn't the end nullify the beginning? Doesn't the advocacy for banning guns substantiate the fears and "hysteria" that the piece was supposed to be dampening?
On top of all of this, we see the Sun-Sentinel using the gun banner's biggest lie by pretending that the word "semi-automatic" is a meaningful way to separate what are ostensibly "normal" guns (i.e. guns for hunting, target practice and protection purposes) from "military arms." The truth is, however, that the words "semi-automatic" do not describe the purpose of a gun. There are all sorts of guns that are semi-automatic that have no military application whatever. It would be like claiming that cars with automatic transmissions should be banned because the military uses the automatic transmission in some of its vehicles.
Sadly, it seems the anti-Constitutional left has succeeded in making those uniformed about the reality of guns duly frightened by misusing words where guns are concerned.
Additionally, it is simply a statistical untruth that access to legal guns and ammunition automatically makes a community a "more dangerous place, for cops and regular citizens alike." There is no place in this country where a wild upswing in violence has been seen when guns become widely legal and more freely available to the citizenry.
But, even the bland assurances of the Sun-Sentinel is not nearly enough to dissuade worry about the march of gun banners everywhere. Currently there is the "Blair Holt" bill (H.R. 45) sitting ready to be addressed in the House of Representatives. This bill is a sweeping gun bill that goes far in restrictions on gun ownership. And as to Obama, there is ample evidence of his warm feelings for gun banners. Aside from Obama's entire anti-Second Amendment legislative history, there is his latest pick of Gil Kerlikowske as the next so-called drug czar. Kerlikowske is a long-time foe of Second Amendments rights. Then, back in Obama's home town Chicago, there is Illinois State Representative Kenneth Dunkin that wants to create an expensive new form of indemnity insurance that gun owners will be forced to purchase to be "allowed" to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Examples like this criss-cross the country, so its not easy to agree with the Sun-Sentinel that gun banners are non-existent.
No, what he have here is a newspaper editorial board that is at the same time woefully uninformed of the facts about guns, yet seem to imagine that its strong opinion is one worth heeding nonetheless. The Sun-Sentinel's anti-gun hysteria is, indeed, some "craziness" that should stop.
