NY Times Anti RKBA Editorial--the first to run on page 1 in almost a century.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Foolish at best. Even the title is worded wrong. An epidemic of inanimate objects is not viable. This comes from a media which reports "assault clothing" though so one can not expect much at all.

However, do not let facts, the Constitution, nor science slow the libs any.

To be balanced will they run an editorial about the threat of islamic extremist to women, gays, and the ENTIRE world next? I don't think so............
 
Not impressed with their liberal garbage. The author could alway move to any country that has firearm regs to their liking. Say china or perhaps austraila. In my mind good riddence.
 
I encourage them to go as far over the top as possible.

"Just disarm and let them kill you in safety." is becoming a harder sell every day.
 
This article is actually quite damaging to their cause and I don't think they realize it. Never again can Hoplophobes claim that they are "not coming for you guns" or "no one wants to repeal the Second Amendment."

This is not how you counter a Jihadi attack on American Soil, and everyone outside of urban cesspools can understand that, or will understand that after the initial shock wears off.
 
Wow, they went so far as to advocate confiscation? Good luck with that!

They admitted that gun control hasn't worked in Europe, but we should do it anyway, just to feel good and say we did something....that's a joke.

Yesterday, Obama's press secretary admitted that the current proposals would not have stopped the California shooting, but we should do it anyway, it makes the liberals "feel" good.
 
The best way to deal with that article would be to flood the comments section with counter arguments. As it stands now, the comments section is offering the anti-gun folks a place to spew their anti-gun rhetoric completely unchallenged.

Read the comments section, protect your rights by countering their bias with fact. Don't allow them a sanctuary...get in there...mix it up!
 
Last edited:
SuperNaut

This article is actually quite damaging to their cause and I don't think they realize it.

...and everyone outside of urban cesspools can understand that...


I believe you're right. And I live in the suburbs of one of the cesspools you mention, so I endure the local network affiliate news presentations with my darling wife around dinnertime every day. In spite of this, thanks to my connection with the 'real world' you've spoken of, I can sense the disgust, apart from my own, from here.
 
"it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."

Explain to me how those fellow citizens safety supersede my families?
 
Of all sources, the Washington Post calls the NYT to task for their front page editorial.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...front-page-but-does-that-even-help-the-cause/

Put plainly, the New York Times is the New York Times. Swing voters in Middle America aren't its subscribers, and the swing voters in Congress don't have to appeal to voters who care much about what the New York Times thinks. In fact, you could make a pretty convincing case that this would have the opposite of the intended effect by overreaching on something most Americans simply don't think will do much to prevent mass shootings.

... accused the "mainstream media" (of which the Times is a flagship member) of advancing a liberal agenda. What they often fail to recognize -- or deliberately ignore -- is the separation of news and opinion. ... Most of the time, their complaints are unfounded or greatly exaggerated.

In this case, however, the Times has (at least temporarily) knocked down a wall by placing an editorial in a spot normally reserved for news. That does not mean the paper's political reporters will suddenly abandon all sense of fairness as they cover candidates who staunchly back gun rights. But it does give those candidates new cause for suspicion -- a cause they will almost certainly exploit on the campaign trail.

Thank you NYT for being tone deaf and behind the curve now that the FBI has declared the San Bernardino attack to be an act of terrorism linked to jihadis! Thank you for being so over the top that no one can take you seriously. Thank you for giving us such great fodder for unrealistic and impractical Anti notions that the Antis themselves have said they'd never engage in confiscation! Thanks!
 
Last edited:
The NYT places editorial comment in a spot reserved for news every damn day. The only thing rare about this is they are openly acknowledging the practice for the first time since 1920.
 
The New York Times has for decades, crusaded for gun confiscation.

The New York Times is not referred to as "Pravda East," for nothing.

L.W.
 
Leftists expend a lot of hot air in their efforts to never mention the idea of leftist domains simply enacting their preferences in their own back yards. Backed up by vigorous stop & frisk efforts (something leftists of course abhor, because effectiveness), this would effectively give them exactly what they claim to want.

Odd how that works.
 
I added a copy of that editorial to my NOBODY file: as in, my answer when someone says, "Silly gun nut, nobody wants to take your guns, we just want reasonable regulation."

Reasonable regulation to prohibitionists is prohibition. The antigun mindset is even one with the mindset of the temperance people: that you control bad acts by bad people by banning X to everybody. My home area had local option alcohol prohibition for 15 years: it created more problems that it solved--if it solved any at all. Yes, people who did not want it in the first place couldn't buy it legally, but the black market was worse.

New Yorkers are raised to true belief in the Sullivan Act; they have been brainwashed since 1911. New York Times is the definition of anti-gun media bias: no good in guns, no bad in gun control.

PDF of the NYT front page at: https://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/292216737?extension=pdf&from=embed&source=embed.

BTW the 1920 front page editorial was one denouncing Warren G. Harding.
 
Last edited:
Note that the Washington Post, if anything, is even more antigun than the New York Times. The difference is that the Post, being in Washington, is a little more plugged into the political realities than the Times is. That's why the Post doesn't come right out and publicly advocate outright gun confiscation. Nevertheless, the damage has been done to the antigun cause by the NY Times piece. The advocates of gun control can never again say, with a straight face, that "nobody wants to take your guns." The confiscation cat is now out of the bag.
 
A lot of the lefties seem to be calling for outright bans and confiscation including Hillary. I hope they keep the rhetoric up for the next 11 months or so.
 
I wonder what this author's tune will be if karma ruled the next rabid jihadist attack to occur at HIS office in the NYT building, which I am sure is a good liberal-minded "No Gun Zone"......
Will he still cling to his 'righteous moral indignation', or scream for some American with a GUN to come save his sorry patookus? Time will tell, and that time grows shorter every day.
 
"The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe ..."

Of course it is someone else's job to keep us safe. God forbid we should take responsibility for our own lives and family.

If our "elected leaders" are responsible for keeping us safe, can the families of those who were murdered sue them for negligence? Fat chance.

I'm not angry with our "elected leaders" for failing to keep people safe. I'm angry with them for not allowing individuals to protect themselves.
 
"A lot of the lefties seem to be calling for outright bans and confiscation"

It's because we've essentially called their bluff every time since Aurora; they no longer get widespread results when they cry wolf ("ban the guns or the children will die!") and now the shrill wails are conflagrating into unabashed vitriol.

It represents a fork in the road; before they at least operated under a self-assumed veil of good faith from which they could claim moral superiority, now they are all about punishing the gun owners for defying them and their zealotry. We all knew this would happen, eventually. I would say that the fork means one of two paths to follow; either they will make good on their threats and formally start an insurrection to disarm American citizens (either locally or nationally) or fade into absolute irrelevance once the current (aged) remnants of Vietnam-era activist fossils like Feinstein/Pelosi/Schumer are nothing but a memory.

I would say that, but the first path is basically impossible since they lack the guns and willing manpower (apart from a very few specific circumstances; the inner city impoverished ghettoes will, as always, be unjustly oppressed by officials who operate without opposition). In reality, gun control will ebb away like Temperance, and only small regions known as antiquated backwaters or ghetto hell-holes will carry the flag. I can't think of a better fate for such an evil ideology.

TCB
 
The NYT endorses gun confiscation. I wonder how long it will be before some people running for office next year start repeating the same thing?

The anti's have been trying to play nice the last few years with all their nice language like common sense gun reforms and gun safety, but now that the NYT, for once in their existence, has come out with the true intentions of the gun control movement, the gloves are gonna come off.

Obama is moving into his final year in office, he's got nothing to lose and he has a "legacy" he desperately wants to maintain for narcissistic reasons. He's going to speak tonight from the Oval Office and the topic will be about the attack in California and guns. He's going to do everything he can in the next 12-13 months to make the life of gun owners a living Hell.

Don't be surprised if he brings up the C word again tonight. Once people start talking about it, it becomes mainstream and I don't doubt that it will be a major Democratic party platform next year. This time it's not about taking a slice, but about taking the whole cake.
 
The last time the New York Times took an (open) editorial stance on the front page was 1920 when they editorialized against Warren G. Harding as the Republican nominee for President. The NYT editorial effectively ended the political career of Harding in 1920 and assured the election of his opponent, Democrat nominee James M. Cox. (Ignore the Wikipedia article that says Harding was elected by a landslide in 1920 and was 29th President of the U.S. 1921-1923, you can't believe WP.)

No, boys and girls, we may as well pack up our gear and surrender it to the Hobbesian Absolute State that justifies rule through a Weberian State Monopoly on Force. Once the NYT front page editorializes for a cause (James M. Cox, Gun Control) and against an evil (Warren G. Harding, Second Amendment) the debate is settled and the case is closed.



(Under a Cox Presidency, we would have had a ban on teaching German in public schools school and an arms race for naval supremacy between USA and Britain and Japan. Harding negotiated the Washington Treaty, a 1922-1932 moratorium on battleship construction between the three high seas powers, and German was offered in public schools along side Spanish and French.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top