Be sure you are signed up for JPFO's periodical Email Alerts.
JOIN JPFO TODAY
Get a very aggressive defense of your rights.
Click on the above.
Help us avoid errors.
Should you prefer a full page of JPFO’s main links, then
Read these classic
rebuttals to "Gun Control"
E. J. Dionne, Jr
"Have we gone stark raving mad?" E. J. Dionne, Jr. asks in his latest Washington Post hit piece against the human right to keep and bear arms.
What is the latest "provocation" to send the senior fellow in governance studies, government professor and government loyalist into a hoplophobic tizzy? Georgia had the temerity to pass a law reducing a few, but hardly all of the state's infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. Real radical stuff, like removing duplicative record keeping requirements, recognizing that artificial property lines don't change personalities to turn moral and rational people homicidal once they cross them, keeping poor people in public housing from being disarmed...
That last one certainly contradicts all that "for the downtrodden" championing "progressives" pretend they care about. And for all the noise gun-grabbers make about "reasonable compromises," it appears they only mean for the concessions to come from one side.
For someone who maintains "the wall of separation is a liberal idea. I do think that keeping the state independent of religion is one reason why religion has thrived in the United States," Dionne certainly comes unhinged at the thought of the state leaving the decision to be armed up to the house of worship. He also fails to mention that Georgia was one of the few exceptions to this practice among the states.
Disregarding the exceptionally lawful nature of concealed carriers, Dionne relies on innuendo to imply peaceable gun owners will suddenly turn homicidal in bars, or get into brawls in the first place. He also conveniently neglects to mention that carry with the owner's permission has been in place in Georgia since 2010, that it's illegal to shoot someone unless in self defense, and that if guns, alcohol and human beings truly cannot coexist, then, just to be logically consistent, every home that contains all three ought to either dry up or disarm, the latter no doubt being his preferred choice.
The misrepresentations and sins of commission and omission continue. Georgia is hardly the first state to allow lawful gun possession in government buildings. And as for state preemption, as opposed to a patchwork quilt of conflicting and confusing municipal edicts that no one could comply with (leaving the only choice to guarantee remaining "legal" would be to disarm), Dionne does not specify what other articles in the Bill of Rights should also be subject to "home rule" revocation. Nor does his side ever bring up such arguments when imposing more restrictive top-down edicts that localities are forced to comply with.
"People with a gun license who try to carry a weapon onto an airplane get a nice break under this bill," he asserts, in perhaps the most deceptive statement in his rant. No one may legally try to carry a weapon onto an airplane, or past secured airport areas. To suggest otherwise is just not true.
Of course there's more, but this is, after all, E. J. Dionne we're talking about, and it's not exactly like the guy has established a track record of fair, balanced, accurate, or even non-hysterical reporting on guns, as opposed to being a doctrinaire cheerleader for a state monopoly of violence, exactly what JPFO exists to educate about and warn against.
Dionne is the self-styled innovator who tried to convince his readers a "new gun argument" was parroting talking points about meddling with hunters, and what we really needed was Mike Bloomberg assembling a team of anti-gun mayors. His definition of "gun sanity," (and this is what happens when you allow "progressives" to define the terms) is "tough action on guns." And he maintains NRA "wields power that would make an Afghan warlord jealous," disregarding that those are people the big powers have been unable to break – at tremendous sustained cost.
But that's not why he said it. Dionne just wanted to equate NRA with violence and tribal insurgents. That fits right in with using the term "gun supremacists" in his latest attack on Georgia's peaceable gun owners, and it's no coincidence this professional wordsmith selected a word broadly associated with racism. The antis have been trying to peg gun owners as haters because it's to their advantage to convince a critical mass of the public to view us as evil. They've tried it often enough.
The thing is, it's not our side trying to disarm people of different races and cultures, it's Dionne's. And as JPFO has been instrumental in demonstrating, ever since its founder, the late Aaron Zelman, changed the paradigm of the debate, the biggest threat to human life and dignity has always been the monsters enabled by government supremacists like E. J. Dionne, Jr. and his patrons at The Washington Post.
David Codrea is a field editor at GUNS Magazine, penning their monthly "Rights Watch" column. He provides regular reporting and commentary at Gun Rights Examiner and blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.