The N. Y. Times reveals the liberal mindset in an editorial that attacks gun owners

Coach is Right ^ | 12/9/15 | Doug Book

[Oldpuppymax]

Last week, the New York Times published its first front page editorial in 95 years. Did the Grey Lady choose to warn Americans about the continuing dangers of Islam, the most massive national debt in history or the fact that “…the Affordable Care Act [could] cost about $132 billion more than what was expected?”

No.

The Times editorial staff donned hair shirts and beat their breasts over the “…moral outrage and… national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.” Back to this in a moment.

The article is filled with predictably anti-2nd Amendment tripe, silly claims and mindless laments. One complaint features the statement that “…politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs.” Times’ “experts” couldn’t have intended the analogy, but when it comes to “creating gun markets,” Barack Obama has been responsible for more firearm sales than anyone in history. If they are suggesting he shouldn’t have kept his job, I agree completely, although not because of the spike in gun sales.

The Times then takes note of the “peculiar wording of the Second Amendment.” (my emphasis) I don’t see the oddity in “shall not be infringed,” but to each his own.

In my personal favorite, Editorialists demand that “…certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership.” Transforming a standard AR 15 into an M 16 involves a “slight” modification? Times writers intend to alarm the ignorant with the claim that gun owners are assembling sub-machine guns, 1-2-3, in their family room. Of course, actual machine guns—a term the left will never use—may only be owned by...

[MeganC]

That editorial marked the beginning of the death throes for the Old Gray Lady. The NYT is no longer the paper of record and they’re no longer an authoritative singular news source for pretty much anyone.

Give it ten years and not only will the NYT no longer be in print it’ll be a low-traffic website hosted out of India.

[Vaduz]

The New York Times isn’t a news paper it’s a democrat party member.

[JPG]

Hello, New York Times, Peggy speaking. You wish to cancel your subscription?

[Blood of Tyrants]

It’s a propaganda spouting rag.