Posted on 12/05/2015 12:29:41 AM PST by TroutStalker
The New York Times on Saturday will run an editorial on its front page urging lawmakers to tighten gun control regulations, the first time the newspaper has published an editorial on Page 1 since 1920.
The Times' editorial board describes as a “moral outrage†and “national disgrace†that under Constitutional protections Americans are legally permitted to purchase deadly weapons that “kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.â€
The paper’s decision follows the recent mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., which left 14 dead and 21 wounded. On Friday, the FBI indicated that authorities are investigating a potential link to global terrorism networks. a story the paper also carries on its front page, above the fold.
The editorial, currently available on the New York Times’ website, contends that in addition to anger pointed towards the aggressors, Americans should also direct outrage to elected officials tasked with the responsibility of protecting the safety of the country, but who often “place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.â€
“It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.â€
“It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment,†the editorial states. “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.â€
The editorial concludes looking onward to 2016.
“What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?â€
In a statement obtained by POLITICO, the publisher of The Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said, "It has been many decades since The Times ran an editorial on Page One. We do so today to deliver a strong and visible statement of frustration and anguish about our country’s inability to come to terms with the scourge of guns. Even in this digital age, the front page remains an incredibly strong and powerful way to surface issues that demand attention. And, what issue is more important than our nation’s failure to protect its citizens?"
The last time the paper published an editorial on its front page, in June 1920, the editorial board expressed disapproval of Warren G. Harding’s nomination as the next Republican presidential candidate.
gun control = tight grouping
They’re principled.
Democrats want to get rid of the First Amendment so they can decide what political speech can be heard.
They’re unremittingly hostile to American freedoms.
Let them run next year on a gun control/free speech regulation platform.
I’m looking forward to their wholesale repudiation.
The crime scene pillaging earlier today by the msm has given me insomnia as well.....
Yes, run on gun control especially after a recent terrorist attack!
Since the Obamacare vote didn’t get rid of enough liberals trying to disguise themselves as conservatives on Election Day and vote like a liberal the rest of the time. Hopefully this should finish them off.
Keep listening to liberal nutjobs at the NYT, please!
Wow, what took so long, I guess the NYT had to proof read Obamas screed for spelling errors.
That to make way for the mass killing fields of the Islamic Kampuchea.
They think we’re stupid.
Rogue Guns! Anti-Gun PSA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnetFL4Cc54
Here’s some news that you will NEVER read on the pages of the New York Times:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3368532/posts
I love tha psa. Crowder did it intentionally bad as he was mocking an anti gun nut.
The left has been incredibly, bizarrely and extremely irrational of late, beyond the pale even for them, ramping it up times 10 since O's re-election.
The idea that all of O's and the current left's efforts is a provocation to a civil war mentality in the US is no more extreme than an attempt to explain the left over the past 7 years as a mere political movement with certain values. There are no values, and there is no rationality to their action in service of the purported values.
At every turn, you see provocation, instigation. That's always the common thread with this administration and cohorts.
I suggest it's the only intent. There isn't a single normal Judeo Christian or American or really even any other actual value in the current White House or media. Sometimes they take the guise of traditional welfare state liberalism, sometimes pro-terrorist, sometimes pro immigrant, anti gun, climate lies. They defend demonstrably indefensible 'victims' in a way that defies logic.
All of it is stage craft, built to drive you nuts, gin you up.
But what they are building is a war amongst Americans. At every turn, the only 'value' is to stoke that war.
Wherever you look - here and around the world, wherever they've been - there is external or implicit war - civil or outright. And in every case, every action adds fuel.
The agenda of this administration is the size of the fire.
'Activism' itself is not a value. It's merely chaotic aggression.
What single thing characterizes this administration other than everyone is now against everyone, here and abroad, and everyone is ready to fight?
So this is an administration with a single aim - start fires everywhere.
I've said it before - Obama is one thing consistently: An arsonist.
What the New York Times won’t tell its readers that the gun control mecca of California didn’t prevent terrorists from securing an arsenal to commit mass murder.
What gun control laws did there was to render innocent people sitting ducks in a gallery for the bad guys to mow them down one at a time. That is evil as far as laws go.
And gun control in reality is the road to hell paved with good intentions. We have the right to defend our lives from those who want to snuff them out.
Most Americans agree which is why after every atrocity, gun sales shoot through the roof. Americans can’t wait to protect themselves and their families and they’re not going to wait for the New York Times to take that away from them.
NYT needs to STFU about the Second Amendment because its the right on which all the others depend. Without it, our freedoms are not long for this world.
I challenge the nyt to show what new laws would have made the actions of the terrorists more illegal than they already were.
California already has hyper restrictive gun laws, and gun free zones don’t do a darn thing.
Attacking the rights of the citizenry to “feel good” about having “done something” is just as bad as the slavering mad dog murderers shouting “Allah Akbar” as unarmed victims cower and die, indeed is it as if they were doing the murdering and holding the weapons themselves while saying “it’s for your own good.”
How about a ban on muzzie immigrants? That would definitely have prevented the shooting, or at least one shooter.
And it’ll impress Islamic terrorists when we make it easier for them to kill us.
F*ck the Left & their Islamic hangers-on. We’ll be waiting for them at the pass.
And we won’t give up as easily as they think.
Don’t hold your breath waiting for the New York Times to run a front page editorial lauding the virtues of Islam control.
Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Family Foundation gave $100,000 to a New York Times’ charitable fund in 2008, the same year that the paper endorsed Hillary Clinton in the hotly contested Democratic presidential primary, the Washington Free Beacon reported Monday.
The gift from the Clinton Family Foundation, the family’s charitable giving arm, went to The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund, a charity run by members of the Times Company’s board of directors and senior executives. The CFF distributes more than $1 million annually to dozens of causes, though the $100,000 was larger than the foundation’s average.
This donation and our editorial board’s endorsement of a candidate in the 2008 Democratic primary have absolutely no connection to one another
Jihadists hit Garland, Texas - Ended in seconds with a lawfully armed American
Jihadists hit San Bernardino - Multiple dead and injured, hours long siege, search and chase until found and captured.
Gun control equals dead Americans.
Gun control supporters WANT dead Americans.
We need Jihad control.
Gun control: Liberal journalists heads being lopped off enmasse by jihadis.
Because they overlooked guns protect their right to write what they want.
You can’t fix stupid at the New York Times.
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.