Today's Washington Post editorial clings to the liberal anti-gun rights view that only the government should have access to "military weapons," by which of course they mean semiautomatic "assault rifles" like the AR-15. Of course, government corruption and incompetence has long been an avenue by which criminals have obtained weapons, the Fast & Furious gunrunning scandal being an instructive case in point.
But alas, the drug-running scandal was curious missing from the January 11 editorial in which the Post argued that in addition to an assault weapons ban, the U.S. government needs to crack down on international gun-smuggling, particularly on the Mexican border:
The White House would be wise to consider at least two other measures that polls suggest enjoy public support. One would be to require universal background checks for gun sales, closing a loophole in which more than 40 percent of sales, and perhaps up to half, are not subject to such checks, including through the Internet and at gun shows. The other would be federal legislation to tighten the definitions and penalties for gun trafficking, a problem that plagues the border with Mexico.
Of course the Obama administration let such weapons flow across the Mexican border without being tracked, failing to inform the Mexican government, by the way. By contrast, the Bush administration's Wide Receiver program was smaller in size and scope, the weapons were tracked, and the Mexican government knew of (and cooperated with) the operation.
While the Washington Post editorial board warns Biden against ‘overreaching,’ they should be more worried about their overt political censorship when it comes to scandal within this administration. There are some things that are just indefensible, regardless if you print them or not.