Question for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel editorial staff

So, folks, would you refer to Tyler Peterson’s gun as an “assault weapon,” or a “patrol rifle”?

An off-duty sheriff’s deputy used a police-style AR-15 rifle to kill six people at an early-morning party in a small Wisconsin town, officials said Monday.

By the way, I have no idea what distinguishes a “police-style” AR-15 rifle from other AR-15’s.

UPDATE: I notice that the South Florida Sun-Sentinel seems to have removed the op-ed piece that refers to “patrol rifles” from the archive, despite their usual practice being to keep articles freely available for thirty days (the article in question appeared on Sept. 22). Didn’t like the attention, you suppose? But, for those who would like to see the article, all is not lost–for the moment it’s available in Google’s cache. If that goes (I’m not sure if it’s kept around forever), I did a screen capture:

(click to enlarge)

I should mention that I sent the editorial board an email asking this question (and also why the original editorial was removed from the website so quickly). I have a hunch that if my email is the only one they get, it will be ignored–perhaps some folks will join me in this inquiry. Click on the title of this blog post for contact information.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Question for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel editorial staff”

  1. joe Says:

    Lessee…. if he was on duty it musta been patrol rifle and off duty then it had to be an evil assault rifle……..

  2. 45superman Says:

    Ah–so this type of firearm has a kind of a Jekyll/Hyde thing going on. No wonder people find them so scary.

  3. Anonymous Says:

    That does it… We MUST BAN any and all non-military government employees from carrying weapons!

    Seriously, it’s funny how the ‘gov’t knows best’ liberal media is concentrating on “how could this guy have become a cop?” instead of outlawing guns (as they would have if the perp was a civilian). In effect, they are calling for more gov’t instead of more guns. Just think if one of the victims would have been carrying.. Probably less victims — maybe none because the nutball wouldn’t have felt so safe blowing away people who may have been armed.

    Think about it… After this shooting, it is now statistically more likely that a person would be murdered by a gov’t employee with an assault rifle than a ‘civilian’ with one.

    I’ve always said that if it came down to either/or, I’d feel safer with my neighbors owning guns than the gov’t having them. I believe the founding fathers would agree…

  4. 45superman Says:

    I’ve always said that if it came down to either/or, I’d feel safer with my neighbors owning guns than the gov’t having them. I believe the founding fathers would agree…

    I have very little doubt that they would indeed, Anon. Unfortunately, many politicians and most of the media seem to believe that they are wiser than the men who founded this nation.

  5. 10ksnooker Says:

    One thing for sure, the bubble burst on “safe in the hand’s of law enforcement” didn’t it?

    It will all be fine if we elect Hillary Matters, won’t it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: