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.
Like one post said: conservatives own 200 millions guns and 12 trillion rounds of ammunition. If they were violent, you’d know it.
A few democrats and the media.
If they really cared about what happened in San Bernadino, their editorial would be about stopping Muslim terrorism. Paris has strict gun control laws, so according to their logic, radical Muslims never shot anyone there...Right?
A few democrats and the media.
I was looking at the comment section for some dissenting opinions and couldn't find one. It looks like they are selectively choosing comments as an extension of the editorial to show its dwindling readership that "normal Americans" agree with them wholeheartedly.
Trump should buy this paper, disband it, and put it out of its misery.
And ours. The NY Times is a waste of good trees. You’d think the libs would be against such a waste.
They immediately lost control of Congress that November.
While at the same time turning the AR-15, a weapon previously owned by very few hunters and sportsmen into the most popular sporting rifle in America.
They just force everyone to recycle, at gunpoint.
National security is the #1 issue in the upcoming election. It will be interesting to see if the electorate can make the connection between the 2nd and national security.
I think the dems are following Obama into the ditch here. If the election is indeed a referendum on national security, then whoever the GOP candidate is will win in a landslide.
Control Muslims, the true danger.
Nah, I do not think normal thinking Americans can even stand to read their paper any more. It is nothing but democrat propaganda, not news. If I wanted that I would go listen to democrat politicians. I do not know a single person who gets this paper.
To which the liberals and elites say “how racist! Not all Muslims are terrorists!!” The math will tell you that only 150,000,000 Muslims are terrorists or in their camp...your only concern is the tea party types.
No! No! No! A thousand times - NO!
While I think any US born citizen and any naturalized citizens who has been (hopefully) thoroughly vetted well before coming here and applying for and granted naturalized citizenship, and those who do not have prior violent criminal records or those not truly and proven to be mentally ill and dangerously unstable, i.e. delusional, i.e. violent schizophrenics for instance (who really need to be compassionately institutionalized and cared for life, for their own good and also for the good and safety of others), have the right to carry and carry at all times and in all places and without restrictions, I do not agree with forcing all to do so. You are basically advocating for is a form of conscription.
And FWIW Syed Rizwan Farook was born in America and over 21 years old so under your "law" he'd have not only the right to carry but would be forced to as well.
Do you really want her to be forced to carry a loaded weapon at all times?
Or her?
Or him?
And would you allow exceptions for conscientious objectors? Based on religious beliefs such as for Quakers and others?
IMO we do not need any new "gun control" laws; we do not need any new laws period; even new laws forcing people to carry loaded fire arms. What we need to do is roll back all restrictions that unconstitutionally limits 2nd A guaranteed rights of those citizens who want to carry. We need to get back to the Constitution and not make even more laws that subvert it; even laws that on the surface seem to be well intended. I don't see anything in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that allows the government to force people to carry arms against their will.
FWIW, there was an armed citizen, Glenn Willwerth but he was in a building across the street and while he protected his employees and his wife in case the terrorists came to his business next and he went into the parking lot and saw the terrorists leaving and stood in the parking lot and aimed his weapon toward them as they were driving toward him, they changed course when they saw him and he wasn't able to get off a shot. Would you prosecute him under your law for not being aggressive enough?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGKCi7Vf_A0
One more Homeland Defense Law that might help:...All Terrorists killed in a terrorist attack, will be buried in a swine blood-filled coffin, NO EXCEPTIONS ! All Terrorists captured and found guilty of a terrorist attack, will be buried in a swine blood-filled coffin, NO EXCEPTIONS !
Symbolism over substance. To the Islamists, this will mean nothing as they have already martyred themselves for the cause and for Allah and "Mo" and it will do anything to deter them from future attacks.
Better that we actually vetted people like Farook's "wife" or "fiancée" from coming into this country in the first place (which should never had happened) and monitor Mosques here in the US and their members including US citizens for Jihadist sympathies and take them out with extreme prejudice before they strike and quickly give them a "trial", after intense interrogation, then hang them in the public square for acts of treason. No need for symbolism (that's what the Islamists are into) - just dispatch with them quickly.
I also said right after 9/11 and I continue to say this to this day: ANY country that abides or allows terrorists to operate within their borders and any country that doesn't control and eliminate them first and or allows known terrorists to leave their country and attack here in the US or target US citizens abroad, will be taken out militarily and without any "boots on the ground" or any negotiation or any "nation building" efforts or any type of US aid and without trying to reform them as a "democracy" and of course no aid of any type including "humanitarian aid" - instead we will carpet bomb, use tactical nukes or neutron bombs and completely annihilate that entire country into complete oblivion; every building, every man, woman and child, every animal, every camel and goat - no mercy - just wipe them off the face of the map for eternity.
If we had done that in Afghanistan right after 9/11 instead of the cluster F we got into over there with how many US soldiers dead and how many wounded and maimed for life; the limbs lost, the brain damaged, over how many years, trying to bring these savages a democratic form government that they cannot and never will appreciate or maintain?, and in Pakistan also after we found out that's wear Bin Ladin was hiding with help from the Pakistani Government; that would have put a stop to a lot of this IMO.
And don't even get me started with Iraq.
Saddam was not "nice" and was no friend to the US per say, but he was the enemy of our enemy (Iran) and he was also as a "strong man" who actually kept the radical Islamists in check and allowed more freedom and Westernization than what Iraq has now after we went there and overthrew him. The same can be said to some extent about Libya and Syria. We helped even more destabilize the entire region with our idiotic policies; policies that go back to at least Carter and through the Bushes and even worse under Obama.
And of course we also have to go back to the Carter years and how we (the US) helped the radical Islamists overthrow the Shah of Iran (again - perhaps not entirely a "nice guy" and a "strong man", perhaps corrupt) but who was actually a friend to the US and of the West and who ran a rather secular government that allowed rights of women and of minority groups including those of minority Christians and Jews to live and thrive in Iran.
IMO - we are reaping what we sowed.
IMO we have allowed the Jihad to come to the US because of political correctness but also because we failed to support those in charge of those countries who actually kept the radical Islamists at bay and in some cases even helped the Islamists to overthrow more Westernized and secular strong man governments.
We actually helped create a lot of this mess and we don't have the "b@lls" to do what is necessary to correct our mistakes and prevent those mistakes from happening in the future.
/ End Of Rant.
Take Chicago out of the numbers, and what does it look like.
Take drug gang violence and the figures drop even more.
I hate that kids and young people are using guns to shoot at each other in ways we never saw before. But it is a cultural thing, based in the urban society—most of which are gun free zones.
It is critical to put all of this in context.
This is news??
The whole rag is nothing but editorials.
Reasonable regulation generally refers to practical restrictions on the time place an manner in which we exercise our rights so that we do not trample on the rights of others.
You can’t start railing against the government over a loudspeaker at 4:00 am. Nor can you speak slander nor print libel.
The Times defines reasonable regulation as you can do anything we like, you can’t do anything we don’t like. Particularly if it involves guns, which they feel should only be in the hands of the government and those they deem worthy. Because of course governments can do no wrong in their eyes.
deadly weapons that “kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. ....................................... Yup and I own 3 automatics, they are 2 cars and an SUV.
If we're going to rip apart Amendment 2, let's do it to the media's Amendment 1, also...starting with Ted Cruz getting to decide if the NY Slimes can print something. He is part of Congress, after all...
Notice how they keep talking about guns, not about MUSLIMS! This is a GIANT SMOKESCREEN to prevent people from focusing on the REAL problem.
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.