Fatuous in Florida

The South Florida Sun-Sentinel editorial board has weighed in on* the Constitutionally guaranteed fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms--they don't like it.

The particular arms they currently claim citizens have no right to bear are those that the civilian disarmament lobby has labeled "assault weapons."

And with each shooting, there is one unmistakable truth — the average person has absolutely no need for an assault rifle. They have one purpose — to hurt or kill people, namely cops. And the assault weapons ban needs to be reinstated by Congress.

Who knew? When Mikhail Kalashnikov was lying in his hospital bed in 1941, he designed the AK-47--not to stop the Nazi murderers who were advancing across his country, bringing death and mayhem every step of the way--he just wanted to kill Florida cops.

The recent shooting death of a Miami-Dade police officer was, of course, too tempting a target for these guardians of the First Amendment to fail to exploit:

Earlier this month, Miami-Dade officer Jose Somohano was killed. An AK-47 was found at the scene of the shooting.

What our purveyors of journalistic excellence fail to point out is that the rifle the killer used was not an AK-47--it was a MAK-90, a firearm that the expired "assault weapon" ban did not address in any way (not to mention the fact that the "ban" did not actually ban any of the firearms it covered--any manufactured/imported before the law went into effect could be bought, sold, or possessed just like any other firearm). They also did not bother to mention that every firearm that Shawn LaBeet (the murderer) owned was in contravention of several firearms laws. Those gun laws certainly seem to work swimmingly, don't they?

Don't worry, though--our valiant journalists do not wish to ban homeland defense rifles (my preferred term) for everyone--the "Only Ones" can have them, and "people shouldn't be opposed to" that.

Understandably, officers in more South Florida police agencies have been arming themselves — at their own expense — with patrol rifles to be on more even footing with criminals — particularly gangs — they encounter.

Officers in Miami-Dade can, for the first time, carry assault-type rifles. Deputies with the Broward Sheriff's Office must take a 16-hour training course in the weapons, and take yearly qualifications tests. Some deputies have spent up to $1,800 to have specially-equipped, semi-automatic Colt AR-15s. And they have to be able to justify when they handle one on duty. The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office and city agencies like Delray Beach have also started training more officers to use the rifles.

People shouldn't be opposed to cops having these weapons. [my emphasis added]

And the editors aren't done telling the readers what they should think (very helpful of them to do our thinking for us, isn't it?).

What people should oppose — strongly — is the guy across the street having one.

I suppose it kind of depends on who lives across the street from you, but speaking personally, I certainly feel a whole lot better about lifesaving firepower being in the hands of anyone in my neighborhood than I do about a gun (and handcuffs, and pepper spray, and a nightstick, and a taser, and a badge) in the hands of paragons of law enforcement such as this "gentleman,", or this one, or any of these, or hell--you get the idea--I'll run out of energy to type long before I run out of examples of cops whom I wouldn't trust with a slingshot (thanks, War on Guns, and I hope you don't mind all of my borrowing, David).

In 1775, do you think the editors of the Sun-Sentinel would have supported the idea of muskets, powder, and ball in the hands of American patriots, or do you suspect that maybe they would have considered the British troops to be that era's equivalent of the "Only Ones"?

Bless the Sun-Sentinel editorial board, and may their chains rest lightly upon them.

*UPDATE: I notice that the South Florida Sun-Sentinel seems to have removed that op-ed piece from the archive, despite their usual practice being to keep articles freely available for thirty days (the article in question appeared on Sept. 22). Didn't like the attention, you suppose? But, for those who would like to see the article, all is not lost--for the moment it's available in Google's cache. If that goes (I'm not sure if it's kept around forever), I did a screen capture:

(click to enlarge)