BCT Editorial – 5/9/07

This page was last updated on May 14, 2007.

Alarm bells; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 9, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Civil liberties make for strange bedfellows.

“The Associated Press reports the National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

“The NRA’s argument is that ‘‘the word ‘suspect’ has no legal meaning, particularly when it comes to denying constitutional liberties.’’

“Current law requires gun dealers to conduct a criminal background check and deny sales if a gun purchaser falls under a specified prohibition. According to The AP, there is no legal basis to deny a sale if a purchaser is on a terror watch list.

“What could be wrong with denying someone who is on the terror watch list access to firearms? Plenty. Innocent people have their names on that list, and it has made their lives miserable. That’s especially true for people who have a hard time getting through airports in the United States because their names are the same as or close to those on a watch list.”

[RWC] Given the history of Times editorials, I could opine the NRA and the Times are protecting two different groups of people.

The NRA is concerned a nebulous definition of “suspect” could lead to de facto gun laws keeping firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Remember, terrorists and other criminals will find a way to arm themselves regardless of what the law says.

The Times is a different story. To the best of my recollection, Times editorials have condemned just about every program targeted specifically at terrorists. (Given all my critiques of Times editorials, I’m sure I would remember an editorial that said, “Way to go, President Bush.”) Based on its editorials, it wouldn’t be too hard to conclude the Times believes terrorists should be a protected group. In reality, though, it my opinion the editorials are simply the result of placing politics above national security.

“All we can say to the NRA is welcome to the fight. Alarm bells are finally starting to go off around the country against the Bush administration’s encroachment on civil liberties.”

[RWC] I haven’t reviewed the subject bill so I can’t comment on its content. The purpose of this critique is to address the Times credibility on this topic.

When you read an editorial complaining about a loss of civil rights, remember this is the same paper that’s published at least 14 editorials in support of smoking bans on private property and supported the seizing of non-blighted property currently in use and giving it to someone else.