NY Times gets it wrong
The gun-banning segments of the population seem to be more worked up about the Zumbo affair than the gun enthusiasts.
The New York Times incorporated its typical liberal slant into an article analyzing the Zumbo incident. If you don't know, Jim Zumbo recently recieved much criticism for calling AR15's "terrorist rifles." The NY Times starts off by saying:
"[Assault Rifles are] generally understood to be the kind of gun that soldiers use in wars and terrorists use on the evening news."
They then go on to opine: "You will find only a handful of postings suggesting cautiously that the overnight destruction of a man's career might not be the proudest moment for the advocates of gun rights. One or two say that instead of cementing their reputations for reflexively enshrining gun ownership above everything, they might have asked Mr. Zumbo what he was talking about. They might even have had a healthy debate. But they shot first."
The NY Times seems to be the recent epidome of irresponsible journalism. First of all, the term "assault rifle" refers to a semi-automatic rifle with certain non-functional features such as a bayonet lug. Military personel almost always carry fully-automatic weapons (machine guns). "Assault rifles" therefore are not "the kind of gun that soldiers use in wars."
Second of all, no one is responsible for the overnight destruction of Jim Zumbo's career except for Jim Zumbo. Is there any doubt that if Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU, spoke out in favor of the Patriot Act that she would loose her job? Is there any doubt that if a figure head of the NAACP supported racial profiling, that they would be disowned?
Gun enthusiasts around the US are unanimous in their opposition to assault weapon bans in the same way that the NAACP is unanimously against racial profiling and the ACLU is unanimously against the Patriot Act.
Click here to read the article: New York Times article on Zumbo