Hat tip to reader Carl from Chicago for pointing out this hilarious poor choice of words on the part of the Joyce Foundation:
I’m sure what they meant to say was research into ways to ensure that guns are only owned by the law abiding, but it can be read another way, which humorously is closer to Joyce’s actual position on private ownership of firearms.
Oooops! Guess the cat’s out of the bag now!
It’s always good to see Murphy messing with the other side from time to tiime!
I don’t think that they made a mistake. This is what they want to do.
I don’t get it. Really. The text reads fine to me, I don’t see the double entendre.
If they had said:
“For support of research on policies that can more effectively restrict firearm ownership {OF|ON} law-abiding persons.”
I’d understand your point.
Having said that, I hope the money spent shows how firearm ownership by law-abiding persons reduces crime rate and improves society in general. I hope they draw money away from real threats to our rights and prove their antithesis in the process.
To my knowledge, here have been at least one kidnapping of a doctor from the Hopkins hospital parking deck,which is located in the middle of Baltimore’s inner city slums.
I wonder if the study will include visits to the street corners around Hopkins, with interviews of the local youths who are primary agents of the city’s violence.
I’d love to know the logic behind donating such an odd figure. I mean, do those 24 cents at the end help JHU buy something? Why such an exact amount and not, say, $180,000? Odd.
I’m with Mac. If it said “..by law-abiding persons”, they’d be giving away their true agenda, but it scans ok to me.
Interesting…JOYCE FOUNDATION…..Seem to remember that a board member a few years back was someone we now call the President of the UNITED STATES, although he is no longer a board member, kind of wonder if any of his old friends are?