More Top Stories:

Gun Rights Activist: The New York Times Deliberately Distorted My Views On Gun Registration

Now the New York Times apparently wants in on the act. According to yet another Second Amendment activist, a writer for the New York Times op-ed page distorted the words of the gun rights activist to make him appear as though he favors national gun registration.

“The primary issue is that Berlow’s selective editing gave the impression that I/we support gun registration,” Folloder told The Federalist via e-mail. “We don’t.”

Jeff Folloder, the executive director of the N.F.A. Trade and Collectors Association, says his members have learned to live with gun registration and lose no sleep worrying about confiscation. “There are still an enormous number of people who think if they register and purchase an N.F.A. weapon, they’re giving A.T.F. permission to come knock on their door at any time, and that’s just not true,” Mr. Folloder told me. “You’re not giving up any rights.”

Folloder takes great issue with Berlow’s characterization of their conversation.

“Many of my quotes/attributions from that past interview were taken out of context,” Folloder told The Federalist. “I detailed to the author that one of the rumors that we have to constantly dispel is the fiction that registering an NFA weapons gives ATF permission to come inspect or kick in your door without cause or warrant.”

“I specifically said that registering an NFA weapon does not mean that you give up any search and seizure rights,” Folloder continued. “Of course, that morphed into ‘not giving up any rights.’”

“Berlow, through manipulation and editing, implied that I/we think that a gun registration scheme is effective,” Folloder concluded. “It’s not.”

In addition to ripping Folloder’s words out of context, Berlow also badly botched the history behind the regulation of certain items by the National Firearms Act, or NFA. Here’s what Berlow wrote about the NFA:

But the longstanding National Firearms Act not only already mandated the registration of all owners of machine guns, short-barreled rifles, silencers and other weapons deemed highly dangerous at the time, it created a national database of those gun owners with their mug shots and fingerprints, and a detailed description of each weapon purchased, including its serial number.

The characterization of a silencer–the accurate name of which is actually a “suppressor,” since it doesn’t silence a gun’s report at all–as a “weapon[] deemed highly dangerous at the time,” is laughable to anyone who’s used a suppressor or taken the time to understand the device’s purpose and history.

First developed and sold by Hiram Maxim in 1902, a suppressor is nothing more than a hollow metallic cylinder with internal baffles to help slow the diffusion of gas as a round is fired from a gun. Unlike in the movies, where a suppressor magically turns the BANG! of a gun into nothing more than a pew-pew whisper, suppressors in real life merely reduce, rather than eliminate, the noise created…

 if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, and the people are not warned, and the sword comes and takes any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.


Opinions posted on are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
%d bloggers like this: