Posted on 12/06/2015 4:51:51 AM PST by HomerBohn
In its first front-page editorial since the end of the First World War, The New York Times editorial board advocated outright gun confiscation as the solution to end violence.
Friday’s above-the-fold piece headlined “The Gun Epidemic†called civilian gun ownership “a moral outrage and a national disgrace.â€
After 95 years of front-page silence, the Grey Lady’s editors chose this particular recurrent theme touted so often in President Obama’s rhetoric: A strange coincidence.
There is so much wrong with this strident, fear-mongering approach that conservative author Jonah Goldberg had no problem destroying it, despite being exhausted from travel and a few stiff drinks.
Apparently, the kind of ban the Times editors called for is already law in California. That didn’t stop the terrorists. But they want to go further than a simple ban.
The editorial flatly states, “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership.â€
That means confiscation.
Apart from tossing the Second Amendment into the trash, the editors at the Times didn’t seem to think through the implications of their position.
(See copy of front page and comments at link)
Bird cage liner of choice for the pansies, degenerate, perverts and political parasites.
No wonder Obama and his assortment of pansies, degenerates, perverts and political parasites begin their day by reading it.
Conservatives need to take away the printing press from Liberals.
Kiss my glutes, NY Slimes!
It’s hard to imagine how this would work. Cops would refuse the order in fear of their lives.
a theme in old western movies is the burning of news paper offices
it’s time to rid America of the pesky old gray whore
And..., gun sales soar to new levels!!
And..., gun sales soar to new levels!!
Are they running interference for his speech tonight?
This editorial is done with the complete complicity of the white hut will will definitely push that agenda this evening when boy wonder speaks from his teleprompter.
“No wonder Obama and his assortment of pansies, degenerates, perverts and political parasites begin their day by reading it.”
Obama is going to try it, bets on.
Since The New York Times refuses to respect the inherent Human Right of self defense embodied in the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public, perhaps The New York Times deserves to forfeit the inherent Human Right of free speech embodied in the 1st Amendment right to free speech in public.
It’s just bed-wetting liberal editors establishing their communist street cred in order to make sure they get invited to all of the Manhattan martini Christmas parties.
Should be called The Paper of Perpetual Flatulence.
The average schmuck's AR-15 shouldn't even be part of the discussion.
People who are interested in jihad, who cook up their own IEDs, don't even need a gun to commit their brand of mayhem.
One thing I haven’t heard is what was the 1920 editorial about?
It must be a strange feeling for the editorial board of the NYT to straddle be utterly wrong on an issue and be unchangeable in believing they are right.
One more reason the old media is a profound and vicious enemy of free men everywhere. Make no mistake this arm of the left, this arm of the criminal organization holding power in DC, this arm of the enemy of free American Patriots, would love to see millions of defenseless and disarmed US citizens in the ground.
Times is run by incompetent, un-American idiots.
If we can ban guns, a right that is protected by the Second Amendment, does it not follow that we can also ban Muslims, a right protected by the First Amendment?
Other than flowery speechifying and meaningless gestures from an impotent Congress, who's gonna stop him?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.