Wednesday, July 27, 2005


Evidently, in this post, I accused the Oyster of something that is not introduced into evidence. I accused him of supporting a ban on assault rifles. What I said was this:
I read over at YRHT that a liberal mayoral candidate wants to ban assault rifles. The Oyster supports the idea and when I asked him in comments why anyone would want to ban assault rifles, he replied "Other than being used to kill people on a near-daily basis, I think they've been rather trouble-free."

He takes me to task in comments, and upon a further review of the posting, I believe that I may be in error. For that I apologize. I don't know that the Oyster has ever come down on one side or the other of the assault rifle question. My assumption that he supports a ban may be incorrect. For that I apologize.

For the record, I do not want to unjustly label any reader or fellow blogger. My editing skills were suffering from a lack of in-depth fact-checking. For that I apologize.

We don't know where the Oyster stands on the assault weapons question and any supposition on my part is clearly an error. For that supposition, I am wrong.


oyster said...

Many thanks for the prompt correction!

oyster said...

And if those damn liberals do start banning "dangerous" dog breeds, I am happy to inform their owners that options are available.