New York Times to run gun control editorial on Page 1

Politico ^ | 12/04/15 | Hanna Trudo

[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.”

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.”

“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.”

“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.”

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?”

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.

[DaxtonBrown]

at this point the old grey lady has as much moral authority as Charmin toilet paper.

[Pontiac]

So the "Paper of Record" has finally cast aside its last vestiges of impartiality and come out as the Leftist propaganda sheet that it has in reality been for decades if not a century.

Traditional editorial policy has reserved the front page for the major news items of the day. Just the facts mam. The editorial opinion pieces were isolated to the Editorial Page were the reader knew with no possibility of mistake that what he read there was the opinion of the papers editors or staff.

To run an opinion piece on the front page demonstrates for any impartial observer that the NYT has cast aside the separation between news and ideology. The reader must assume that the entire paper is now in reality run through with biased reporting, tainted by ideology.

This has of course been true for quite some time. But the NYT has finally come out of the closet and laid it out there for all to see "We are the voice of the Left".

[Gene Eric]

The Nazi bitches advancing gun control..

ESAD, NYT

[sargon]

New York Times to run gun control editorial on Page 1

Excellent. Let the New York Times declare their treason openly.

Let them be exposed for the Tyrannical, Unamerican principles they espouse.

Let them awaken the sleeping giant and realize that they cannot dominate it.

And then let them burn in Hell.

[ronnie raygun]

Here is one for the patriotic American citizen, NYC mayor the very next day after the massacre has a televised news conference to say that he and his people will have a reach out meet and greet with the muslim community to calm thier fears. This is the excrement we have in high places, more of the enemy within. If this dont make your blood boil

[Darksheare]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3143572/posts?page=100#100

We’ve had the gov trolls fishing for suckers here during their fiasco at the Bundy Ranch.
Keep eyes peeled.

[ziravan]

There were 100 plus people in that room in San Bernardino. In Texas, that would have meant at least 10 CCW carriers if the building didn’t have a gun ban, but since it’s a gov’t building, it probably would have had a ban, so, probably only 2-3 people exercising their Cobstitutional, God given right to carry despite a ban.

Still.

My guess is the outcome would have been vastly different.

If the NYTs wants to ban Bill of Rights to prevent these kinds of attacks, far more effective would be to ban the first amendment right to be Muslim in America. After all, no right should exist without reasonable regulation I believe was the logic.

I’d bet at this moment that it wouldn’t be wise to take a national poll on whether banning Muslims is a reasonable regulation on the first amendment. My guess is the NYTs would be shocked, shocked I’d say to find how just how un-PC the Amerivan public truly is.

[Rome2000]

Commie control
Muslim control
not gun-control

[Red in Blue PA]

What we need is muslim control.

[Yosemitest]

“A traitor is everyone who does not agree with me.”
King George III


The United States Citizens KNOW that they're going to have to fight TYRANTS in their own government.
You can not protect life, without the ability to take life.

While you are WAITING for the police to respond, someone could be losing their life.
All people of a responsible age should be armed.

As EternalVigilance reminded us:

The Second Amendment IS Pro-Life.

"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these:
First, a right to life;
Secondly, to liberty;
Thirdly, to property;
together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.
These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation,
commonly called the first law of nature...
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society,
to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights;
when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution,
is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights;
the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property.
If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right,
the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation.
The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty,
it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift
and voluntarily become a slave."




-- Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists

Click here to read the 12 page pamphlet.

Let us NEVER FORGET THAT !

Let's subjugate them to OUR end game, DUST!
"COMPROMISE" is a DIRTY word!
People who study the Bible know that COMPROMISE almost always leads to destruction.


It's time to mock the "Gun Control" Zombies!
"Gun Control" is a firm grip, steady breathing, accurate aim (developed by lots of practice), and a slow trigger pull.


The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
We need to learn from the Swiss and implement their "gun control measures" here in the United States right now, today!
These laws are the ones we should shove into the "2nd Amendment Haters" faces.

" Today, military service for Swiss males is universal. At about age 20, every Swiss male goes through 118 consecutive days of recruit training in the Rekrutenschule. ...

Even before required training begins, young men and women may take optional courses with the Swiss army's M57 assault rifle.
They keep that gun at home for three months and receive six half-day training sessions.

From age 21 to 32, a Swiss man serves as a "frontline" troop in the Auszug, and devotes three weeks a year (in eight of the 12 years) to continued training.
From age 33 to 42, he serves in the Landwehr (like America's National Guard); every few years, he reports for two-week training periods.
Finally, from ages 43, to 50, he serves in the Landsturm; in this period, he only spends 13 days total in "home guard courses."

Over a soldier's career he also spends scattered days on mandatory equipment inspections and required target practice.
Thus, in a 30-year mandatory military career, a Swiss man only spends about one year in direct military service.
Following discharge from the regular army, men serve on reserve status until age 50 (55 for officers).

By the Federal Constitution of 1874, military servicemen are given their first equipment, clothing and arms.
After the first training period, conscripts must keep gun, ammunition and equipment an ihrem Wohnort ("in their homes") until the end of their term of service.

Today, enlisted men are issued M57 AUTOMATIC assault rifles and officers are given pistol.
Each reservist is issued 24 rounds of ammunition in sealed packs for emergency use.
(Contrary to Handgun Control's claim that "all ammunition must be accounted for," the emergency ammunition is the only ammo that requires accounting.)

After discharge from service, the man is given a bolt rifle free from registration or obligation.
Starting in the 1994, the government will GIVE ex-reservists assault rifles. Officers carry pistols rather than rifles and are given their pistols the end of their service.

When the government adopts a new infantry rifle, it sells the old ones to the public.

Reservists are encouraged to buy MILITARY ammunition
(7.5 and 5.6mm-5.56 mm in other countries-for rifles and 9 and 7.65 mm Luger for pistols)
which is sold AT COST by the government, for target practice .
Non-military ammunition for long-gun hunting and .22 Long Rifle (LR) ammo are not subsidized, but are subject to NO sales controls.
Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as .38 Spl.) is registered at the time of sale.

Swiss military ammo must be registered IF bought at a private store, BUT NEED NOT BE REGISTERED IF bought at a range.
The nation's 3,000 shooting ranges sell the overwhelming majority of ammunition.
Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed.

The army SELLS a variety of machine guns, submachine guns, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft guns, howitzers and cannons.
Purchasers of these weapons require an EASILY OBTAINED cantonal license, and the weapons are registered.
In a nation of six million people, there are at least two million guns, including 600,000 FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles, half a million pistols, and numerous machine guns.
Virtually every home has a gun.

Besides SUBSIDIZED military surplus, the Swiss can buy other firearms easily too.
While long guns require NO special purchase procedures, handguns are sold only to those with a Waffenerwerbsschien (purchase certificate) issued by a cantonal authority.
A certificate is issued to every applicant over 18 who is not a criminal or mentally infirm.

There are NO restrictions on the carrying of long guns.
About half the cantons have strict permit procedures for carrying handguns, and the other half have NO rules at all.
There is NO discernible difference in the crime rate between the cantons as a result of the different policies.

Thanks to a lawsuit brought by the Swiss gun lobby, semi-automatic rifles require NO PURCHASE PERMIT and are NOT registered by the government.
Thus, the ONLY long guns registered by the government are FULL AUTOMATICS."

The Swiss have got it CORRECT !
Let's adopt THEIR LAWS !

Remember:

The beauty of the Second Amendment is
that it will not be needed
until they TRY to take it.

Read Second Amendment: It’s Not About Hunting, IT'S ABOUT TYRANNY .

You might want to watch this.

When They Come For Your Guns ( 9:48 )
TheHossUSMC, Published on May 16, 2013

[Democratic-Republican]

Highlights from ...

"All the News that's Fit to Wrap Fish in"

Early_history

The main office of The New York Times was attacked during the New York Draft Riots sparked by the beginning of military conscription for the Northern Union Army now instituted in the midst of the Civil War on July 13, 1863. At "Newspaper Row", across from City Hall, Henry Raymond, owner and editor of The New York Times, averted the rioters with "Gatling" (early machine, rapid-firing) guns, one of which he manned himself. The mob now diverted, instead attacked the headquarters of abolitionist publisher Horace Greeley's New York Tribune until forced to flee by the Brooklyn City Police, who had crossed the East River to help the Manhattan authorities.[14]

World War II

On November 14, 2001, in The New York Times 150th anniversary issue, former executive editor Max Frankel wrote that before and during World War II, the Times had maintained a consistent policy to minimize reports on the Holocaust in their news pages.[130] Laurel Leff, associate professor of journalism at Northeastern University, concluded that the newspaper had downplayed the Third Reich targeting of Jews for genocide. Her 2005 book Buried by the Times documents the paper's tendency before, during and after World War II to place deep inside its daily editions the news stories about the ongoing persecution and extermination of Jews, while obscuring in those stories the special impact of the Nazis' crimes on Jews in particular. Leff attributes this dearth in part to the complex personal and political views of the newspaper's Jewish publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, concerning Jewishness, antisemitism, and Zionism.[131] During the war, New York Times journalist William L. Laurence was "on the payroll of the War Department".[132][133]

Failure to report famine in Ukraine

The Times has been criticized for the work of reporter Walter Duranty, who served as its Moscow bureau chief from 1922 through 1936. Duranty wrote a series of stories in 1931 on the Soviet Union and won a Pulitzer Prize for his work at that time; however, he has been criticized for his denial of widespread famine, most particularly the Ukrainian famine in the 1930s.[134][135][136][137] In 2003, after the Pulitzer Board began a renewed inquiry, the Times hired Mark von Hagen, professor of Russian history at Columbia University, to review Duranty's work. Von Hagen found Duranty's reports to be unbalanced and uncritical, and that they far too often gave voice to Stalinist propaganda. In comments to the press he stated, "For the sake of The New York Times' honor, they should take the prize away."[138]

[Lazamataz]

The VERY first target in ANY civil war IS THE NEW YORK TIMES.

[Boardwalk]

Just yesterday I had a young know it all tell me that the Constitution is oudated,not all Muslims are terrorists, there should be more gun laws, and basically that the tea party are extremists and not good for the country, oh and she was not afraid and was living her life.

[AdaGray]

Clueless. They are only writing for each other.

[Raycpa]

The entire paper except the ads is an editorial.

[theBuckwheat]

“...civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.”

The NYT accurately rephrasing the Second Amendment. May there never be a time when the People must rise up and kill the ruling elites with brutal speed and efficiency. But it may come to that, as sorry as I am am to say it.

[Vision]

And can they hold their breath while they do it?

[SKI NOW]

"The New York Times on Saturday will run an editorial on its front page ... the first time the newspaper has published an editorial on Page 1 since 1920."

That's so funny right there.

[jmaroneps37]

“New York Times to run gun control editorial on Page 1” What happens when a tree falls on 42nd Street and no one readers about it?

[armydawg505]

When will they run a criminal control editorial?