Are they finally getting the hint?

BAMCIS · Mar 25, 2014

An editorial from Doomberg Businessweek, uh, I mean Bloomberg Businessweek news regarding Georgia;s "guns everwhere" law:
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-03-25/how-to-understand-georgias-guns-everywhere-law-four-blunt-points?campaign_id=yhoo

The best response to gun-rights extremism is a focus on fighting crime. Rather than engage with the NRA on the cultural battlefield, where gun-rights advocates have the upper hand, liberals should focus on the most-pressing problem related to firearms—that their prevalence in American society makes our violent crime more lethal. Broadly speaking, this approach would have liberals emphasize more aggressive enforcement of existing laws against illegal gun possession, rather than obsess about situations that allow law-abiding citizens to own guns and carry them on their person. Still speaking broadly, the anti-crime approach would have liberals ask how the extraordinary successes in reducing violent crime in places like New York—where gun control laws have not changed for decades—can be replicated elsewhere.

The last paragraph:

The upshot: Rather than argue that guns are evil or that gun enthusiasts are nuts, liberal skeptics should push back with concrete proposals for keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals, the mentally ill, and children.

A couple of thoughts here. Is there any doubt of the liberal media bias? This story was not "labeled" as an editorial, but that's exactly what it is. An editorial calling itself news.

And just as the title says, are these idiots finally getting the hint? We've been saying for quite a long time to enforce the laws already on the books, not enact new ones.

Oh and some of the comments below the story are priceless and give hope.

JohnnyD · Mar 25, 2014

At least they are starting to get the point and realize that the majority doesn't share their views.

Sstrand · Mar 25, 2014

Don't be fooled, that is just a "head fake!" . . .

Sheldon

44mag2ndamend · Mar 25, 2014

Sstrand said:
Don't be fooled, that is just a "head fake!" . . .

Sheldon

What do you mean? I do not understand the "head fake" term?

Jamie6.5 · Mar 26, 2014

Except the premise the article is based on, that our violent crime rate is "more lethal" is bunk/BS/hogwash/horsepucky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_murder_rate
Even the U.N. (you know, those folks that want your guns) sourced data shows we are nowhere near the top in murder as a result of violent crime.
http://www.roadtopeace.org/research.php?itemid=890

The Bloomies have lost, or are losing their battle on EVERY front except in the population centers of the N.E.
And they are about to have a fight on their hands even there, where things have the potential to get REAL UGLY real fast. And they know it.
So, for the moment they have decided to settle for background checks, as defacto registration schemes.
Yes, it's a head fake, IMO.

Definition of "head fake" is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_fake