Good comment. Let me translate the NYT story through their standard narrative machine for those who haven't really been paying attention: Now that certain favored (by the NYT) identity groups are buying guns in large numbers, buying guns isn't necessarily a knee jerk crazy fascist thing anymore.
There has been very little reason to take what the NYT says at face value for the last dozen years or so. They are much more accurately defined as a political advocacy organization than a journalistic organization, at least with regard to stories about politics or society. I personally don't care who buys a gun or why as long as it's legal and they have no history of felonious or violent behavior.
For the person who said that politicians should divorce themselves from 2nd amendment antipathy, regardless of political perspective...well, that would be nice, but it wouldn't be realistic, and maybe not even desirable. The reason I say this is because many politicians have adopted the radical idea that the US Constitution is outmoded and corrupt and we all should divorce ourselves from it (the Constitution.) Their moral foundation for warming up to the 2nd could be very dubious. So be very wary of those who temporarily acquiesce to or accommodate Constitutional principals for mostly self serving purposes, like the so called "Free Speech Movement," on west coast campuses in the 1960's. Where is their love of free speech today?
There are those on the left who truly value the 2nd Amendment, and I genuinely see them as allies, but they should put their money where their mouth is and publicly admonish the anti-gun political leaders who share their other beliefs.