Compared to most of the mouth-foaming progressive activist and propagandists that make up the New York Times stable of pundits, I suppose you could call David Brooks a sort-of conservative, everything being relative. But he also poses as a public intellectual and “the adult in the room,” which is why his recent disinformation while serving as a guest on the PBS NewsHour last week is so damning.
In a discussion about gun control, Brooks responded to host host Judy Woodruff query, “You agree the likelihood of there being any more federal action on guns is very unlikely?” by saying,
I have never understood why an Australian-style gun buyback is an affront to anybody. It’s an open choice. You can sell your gun or not. But if we’re going to reduce 400 million guns, it would take something like that, not even just banning future purchases. I mean, we have got 400 million here!
Really David? You can’t understand the objections to an Australian-style buy-back? Maybe you need try informing yourself about another country’s policies before you endorse them, and your own country’s Constitution before you presume to lecture on what policies are objectionable in the U.S.
The Australian buy-back program wasn’t an “open choice,” it was mandatory. That’s what lawyers call “a material distinction.” Depending on what weapons were targeted, a mandatory, forced sale of guns would almost certainly be a Second Amendment breach, and it would also be unenforceable without house-to-house government confiscations. Do you understand why that would be an “affront” to Americans?
Naturally, Woodruff didn’t have the wit, integrity or knowledge to correct her guest, so now all those PBS fans will nod in agreement when Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton, as they have in the past, cite Australia as an attractive model for “sensible” gun control.
Pointer and Facts: Newsbusters