Article from TIME

[parrothead2581]

I'm shocked it is not more overtly anti gun. Frankly, I am happy to read something even mildly positive about firearms right now.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...l?iid=tsmodule

[Irishman]

I have to say thats the most apolitical article I've seen lately.
+1 thanks for the read

[#18indycolts]

quoted from article:

The recession is another factor in the sales jump. Guns are expensive — Baker, for example, paid $200 for her shotgun

lets not turn them on to H&K's, colts, bushmaster, sigs..etc.

[Dingoboyx]

Was a good read.... didn't even make me cringe

well done, mate

[USAFNoDak]

I did see 3 major, glaring errors, however.

1. It's no coincidence that a record number of background checks occurred in November, the month Barack Obama was elected President and the Democrats took control of Congress.

Wrong! Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006. Where has this reporter been?

2. The last Democratic President, Bill Clinton, put into law an assault-weapons ban in 1994. President George W. Bush allowed that ban to expire, but last month Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, said the Administration wanted to reinstate Clinton's ban.

Wrong! Congress allowed that ban to expire. George W. Bush did nothing.

3. For gun-control advocates, this dynamic is bitterly ironic. Tough government talk against firearms, amplified by the Obama Administration's popularity, has actually helped spark a sales increase. It's yet another cost of good intentions.

Wrong! It's a reaction to, and a result of, bad government. Who says those intentions are "good"? I think that intentions of infringing on our right to keep and bear arms are BAD intentions. They may think that they are doing "good". However, I say they are naive in the extreme if they think that gun control will reduce crime. The AWB of 94, which was Bill Clinton's and the democrats' baby, had a 10 year sunset clause. The 10 year period was put in place so that a study of the law could be conducted to determine if it had any positive effects on reducing violent crimes. The result: (F) Failed! Thus, it was allowed to expire as, rightly, it should have.


So are journalists just this ignorant about the facts, or is there the smell of a rotting agenda here? The article isn't too bad, but the shot at Bush is lame and false. I suspect many people don't realize that democrats have been running both houses of Congress since 2006. That way, all of the blame goes towards Bush for the last two years of ineptitude. I'm not saying he didn't have some ineptness, but what about the last two years of congress? What the H E double hockey sticks did they do that helped the situation in this country over the two years they controlled all of Congress?

[CortJestir]

Yep, good article on firearms, finally...

I also enjoyed the accompanying photo essay.

[JWT]

Would not have expected an article like that in Time. Would have expected an anti gun article - really a pleasant surprise to see something slanted toward the positive.