A ship bound for the U.S. was discovered by Italian authorities to contain thousands of "illegal assault weapons." The New York Post doesn't really elaborate as to just how the firearms were illegal, but does rant and rave about bayonets and 30 round magazines (which they mistakenly call "cartridges").** But then there was this tidbit of biased reporting:

The assault weapons are a favorite with terrorists: Osama bin Laden sported one in the now-infamous footage of him taken after 9/11.

AK-47s also have been the weapon of choice for some infamous military-minded wackos, such as the teens who shot up Columbine HS in Littleton, Colo., in 1999.

While I cannot be absolutely sure, I'm fairly confident that Osama bin Laden prefers an automatic assault rifle to a semi-automatic "assault weapon", such as those that were seized. The media deliberately trying to blur the line between the two is nothing new. But I have to ask what our domestic firearms laws have to do with Osama bin Laden? Osama lived in Afghanistan and the Clinton Gun Ban isn't applicable over there. And it's not likely that someone who would crash airplanes into buildings would obey our firearms laws to being with.

But what really screams of bias is the reference to Columbine. What does it mean to be a "military minded wackos"? Are they saying that members of our military are crazed killers who, if it weren't for the war in Iraq, would be shooting up high schools instead of Baghdad? Also, their claim that they used an AK-47 is an outright lie. The Violence Policy Center, who is no friend to gun owners, reports that murderers Harris and Klebold did not have an AK-47 (which was banned in 1994, 5 years prior to the shootings). The duo didn't even have legal AK-47 clones, which gun grabbers claim were created to circumvent the Clinton Gun Ban. The Columbine killers instead opted for smaller, less lethal, 9mm pistols and shotguns. All of the guns were legal under the Clinton Gun Ban, but were purchased illegally through a straw purchaser.

Of course this is more than a question of fact checking, because the authors are actually inserting editorial comment lies into a purported "news" article. The only thing I can deduce from these smears is that the Post writers are anti-gun, and are using references to Osama and Columbine to elicit an emotional response which favors their anti-gun agenda.

**On a technical note, the mags are detachable and probably covered separately under the 1994 Clinton Gun Ban. If the mags were manufactured after 1994, they would be illegal even without the guns. Probably the only reason the rifles are illegal, is the existance of bayonet lugs. Since the AK has a pistol grip and can accept detachable magazines, the existance of bayonet lugs alone would make them a so-called "assault weapon". Imported rifles must also have a certain amount of U.S. made parts. AK-47 clones like the SAR must contain a few (5, I think) U.S. made parts to be considered legal. If all the parts are foreign made, they would also be illegal under the ban.

For contrast, you can read the story without editorial bias at the NY Daily News.

UPDATE: Here is what a 30 round cartridge would look like.