Tuesday, March 4, 2014

Has the Courant gone gun-shy?

After calling for police action against "scofflaws," it appears the Hartford Courant has gone mostly silent in its coverage of Connecticut's largely ignored gun registration law.

But the Courant has continued to print letters to the editor, most in recent weeks seem in opposition to the registration law and enforcement of it.

Here's an excerpt from one:
Self-defense is a God-given right. Choosing otherwise is an active personal choice. A pacifist's choice does not confer the right to arrogate their gun control will on any other American. Someone's imagined right to safety never trumps anyone else's rights. Repeat never. 
And another:
My solution: Let the folks who want to retain their gun ownership as protected in the Constitution reside east of the river, and the folks who support the bans and registration live west of the river, closer to their gun-hating cousins in New York.
Can anyone explain how registering firearm magazines would prevent a sociopath from murdering his mother and stealing her guns? Can anyone explain how banning assault weapons would help parents to recognize their son's mental health problems? We are told these are common-sense gun laws, but the police investigation on the Newtown attack reported it was an issue with the deteriorating mental health of the attacker, not a gun control issue.
Of course, there is a letter or two in favor of the law, like this one:
At the first sign that someone has an illegal weapon , they should be immediately tried and imprisoned. These are the people we must be worried and concerned about -- the ones who need to keep their ownership secret.
Other news sites and blogs around the nation continue to treat the Connecticut law and rising tensions caused by non-compliance as a developing news story. But in recent weeks, the Courant seems to shy away from blow-by-blow coverage, almost as if it's afraid of the hornets nest it stirred when it called for police action.

Gotta wonder if the Courant may be rethinking its editorial position.

1 comment:

  1. Government, regardless of jurisdiction should be required to perform a root cause analysis regarding ANY issue government believes a law can control. Of course government should be required to find out where in the Constitution they get the power to do so. Third, they should have to perform a cost/benefit analysis and explain any funding issues the law would potentially cause which would require the taxpayer's to fund.