Pants on fire. You know, if the LA Times editorials would even try to make it look like they cared about “the truth”, this wouldn’t be so bad, but when you say stuff like what I’ve pasted below, it just makes you look ignorant.
That’s anathema to the NRA, which wants no one to abridge gang members’ right to slaughter one another.
[NRA is] now out to block any restriction on gun freedom, even the freedom of felons and the mentally ill to buy guns.
Really? Got a source to back up that ridiculous claim or are you just repeating the standard liberal talking points? I ask rhetorically of course, because I know you’re just repeating the talking points. I do appreciate that you didn’t start your editorial with the nearly ubiquitous “Well I’m a gun owner but” statement that we see so often.
And the reason that NRA is backing McCain instead of Obama is because McCain’s past sins against the right to keep and bear arms pale in comparison to our buddy Barack. Indeed, Obama had an opportunity to display his loyalty to the Second Amendment, when members of Congress signed an Amicus brief support an “individual rights” decision in the DC vs Heller case. But instead of coming out in favor of the individual rights, Obama didn’t sign the brief – but John McCain did.
When it comes to guns, dear LA Times, Barack Obama is how we say “all talk and no walk”.