Posted on 12/06/2015 6:48:55 PM PST by Kaslin
Well, it seems the media's horrific campaign of inaccuracy hasn't stopped. According to Reuters, for the first time in nearly a century, The New York Times editorial board took their plea for gun bans to the front page on Saturday, calling our nation's inaction on gun control a "moral outrage and a national disgrace." No, we shouldn't be surprised that they decided to follow the likes of the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times with their own inane call to arms for gun control. And we shouldn't be shocked that they want policies that employ confiscatory measures, while also banning an entire class of firearms, specifically assault rifles and certain types of ammunition [emphasis mine]:
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. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
First, let's give it up for the New York Times, and their like-minded colleagues in the media and in politics for driving up gun sales. Undoubtedly, after all of this nonsensical discussion about gun control, gun and ammo sales will go up (that's a good thing). The irony never ceases to amaze me how the very faction of this country what wants to deploy unconstitutional gun control measures, only end up becoming better gun salespersons.
Moreover, every mass shooting is an act of terror? They're not. Mass shootings can be part of a terrorist's arsenal of carnage to push whatever agenda they have in mind, but not every mass shooting is terrorism. The same logic is applied to defining genocide. Genocide is mass killing, but not all mass killings are genocides. What happened in Paris was a horrific terrorist attack perpetrated by ISIS. They had an agenda. They deployed suicide bombers and shooters to target scores of innocent Parisians, which they thought could influence the nation's policy in the Middle East. The Islamic State attacked France for insulting the prophet Muhammad; they called Paris "the capital of abomination and perversion;" and perhaps the most important part–the French were attacked due to their intervention in Syria. There are multiple definitions of terrorism; almost every singe one includes some form of political goal. There was no such goal when Adam Lanza senselessly murdered 20 schoolchildren in Newtown in 2012, hence why it was called a mass shooting, and not an act of terrorism. Concerning the San Bernardino shooting, it's now a federal terrorism investigation. We'll know in due time the motives and aims behind this attack.
The Times says that it's easy to define "combat rifles," though they apparently didn't know the definition of terrorism and the left has tried to do this back in the early 1990s with the Assault Weapons Ban. It was a laughable piece of comedy that was attached to the overall Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994, that was partially responsible for historic Democratic losses in the midterm elections. When it expired in 2004, the data showed that these weapons are a) rarely used in crimes, which remains so to this day and b) did next to nothing to reduce violent crime. Oddly enough, the New York Times ran a piece in September of 2014 highlighting that fact:
…[I]n the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.
It turns out that big, scary military rifles don't kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do[*].
In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.
The policy proved costly. Mr. Clinton blamed the ban for Democratic losses in 1994. Crime fell, but when the ban expired, a detailed study found no proof that it had contributed to the decline.
The ban did reduce the number of assault weapons recovered by local police, to 1 percent from roughly 2 percent.
"Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement," a Department of Justice-funded evaluation concluded.
Lastly, the "it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens" part. Why? The vast majority of gun owners–99.9 percent according to Sen. Bernie Sanders are law-abiding. They have to turn them over because the liberal political class is egregiously ignorant on this issue? They have to turn them over because while they aren't used often in gun crimes, liberals are afraid of them? The Times has shown that the left is getting closer to outright saying having assault rifles in one's home warrants the National Guard, FBI, ATF, and local law enforcement busting down your door, terrifying your family, and confiscating constitutionally protected items.
Any rational person should balks at this proposal. Any Second Amendment supporter would, as in other counties, should (and probably would) completely ignore the call to hand over their firearms. But if you're a liberal in keeping with their principle that government power should be controlled by the few in order to be dictated to the rest of us you must believe this is a good policy. If ending gun violence enhances the public good, then by all means strip law-abiding Americans of their rights; the end result will pay off. It's a perverse notion.
This is where this debate is heading and it's getting messier with each horrific mass shooting. The left is now mixing terrorism and mass shootings to push a narrative to eviscerate the Second Amendment. We once again have rehashed stories about the AR-15 rifle, which isn't as powerful as a hunting rifle and rarely used in crimes. And we have the media endorsing gun control policies that would require gun bans and confiscation. They're insinuating parts of it, but the brash call to ban guns entirely is coming.
Yes, not every right is absolute. There are restrictions, but government and active citizenry should work to maximize these rights to their fullest extent. The pre-existing laws on guns are fine. We need to have a debate on how to revamp our mental health system, and integrate it into our background check system. The problem is that it doesn't accomplish the left's goal of destroying gun rights, so they'll do everything in their power to prevent that debate.
*Support for a handgun ban is insanely low.
Just came from Petco. You know, they have all the assorted dried offal of cows, pigs, and other quadrupeds up front in those little boxes--"bully sticks", "moo tubes", etc. Now THOSE in-the-mail items would make a great new chew toy!
Be wise and ignore the Nazi apologists.
Well, they sure don't want to be Americans, do they? Ever since Sinclair Lewis was writing about the leafy, pleasant boulevards of Paris, they've all wanted to suck wine in a Euro-style bistro and wag their tongues all day, about how boring and socially regressive all the rest of us are.
You'll have seen my modest propostion, that downstate New York and New England be kicked out of the Union as perpetual quidnuncs and troublemakers: They invented plutocracy in the New World, timeclocks, monopolies and trusts, megabanks and the Fed, the Civil War and the Gilded Age. And that was just the 19th century. In the 20th, they imported socialism, Communism, and Stalinism, and pretty much succeeded in taking over the fedgov and turning it into a clone of East Germany.
So, get rid of the festering ulcer that is Yankeeland, and all the rest of us can go back to being America.
Which leaves the problem of persuading all the Left Coast communists and socialists to move to Canada, and all the Mexican nationalists and illegals to self-deport.
Then we'll be able to deal with the rest, after we've shed about 50,000,000 DemonRats.
Laconic, too. As in, Molon labe.
You remind me of a half-forgotten LOOK magazine article from ~1966, about Harvard Business School and their crushingly tough workload.
It turned out that overworking the students was a deliberate pedagogical device used to stamp out individuality and the values they brought with them from home, and make them fallow ground for the "values" inculcated by brute force by the university.
One commenter quoted in the article noticed that Harvard B-School students came to Harvard as varied in their outlooks and personalities as any other group of American students, but when they left "they are as alike as a roll of pennies" ..... which was a selling point for the Harvard "products" for potential employers.
It’s not going to happen, nor should it.
I’m sure AR type weapons will see another sales spike though. The manufacturers thank you, NYT!
I am a trained infantryman. Some of my neigbors that I know and trust will call me or come over to respond to an incident at their house before they call the police.
No thank you. For the good of my neighbors, I will keep my “arsenal”.
"All the News that's Fit to Wrap Fish in"
"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" guns (early machine, rapid-firing), 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]"
Okay, is there any possible thing you could think of that is more ironic?!?
The New York Slimes used the most advanced and deadly firearm of the day, to shoot at IMMIGRANTS who were rioting against becoming canon fodder for the elitist northern (R)epublicrats in their War of Northern Aggression. #IrishLivesMatter anyone?
You can't make this sh!t up!
And newspapers should be limited to hand-operated, vertical, sheet fed letterpresses, a la Ben Franklin.
I will not give them my gun, but I do have a little extra lead I can spare if they want it.
Assualt rifles are already illegal in NY. Mind your own business NYT.
Women sure can be beautiful when they wish to be so...
I think we should ridicule our POS President by laughing at him, because his psyche is so fragile (”don’t make fun of my ears) he couldn’t handle it, and the same goes for the gun grabbing libtards who follow him and read the NYT.
We laugh at him by celebrating his moronic logic; Gun manufacturers, even if you cannot meet the huge demand I see coming, advertise a second amendment Christmas (two birds with one stone). Make special deals like the ‘Obama Gun Grabber Special’, a new model like “the Obama Nightmare”. A classic example is the absolutely brilliant marketing someone thought up with the gun oil called “Liberal Tears”, and I hear it is pretty good stuff as well.
Liberals have no sense of humor. Let’s have fun with that weakness!
They can’t force it so now they are trying to coax us into it. LOL!
Dear NY Times
Taking guns away from law abdiding citizens does nothing to stop mass murdering crazies. Guns in the hands of law abiding citizens stop mass murdering crazie wanna bees.
That is the only “reasonable discussion” on gun conrol we can have.
Give up your 1970s era bubble world high school student council intelletual dogmas on Guns and finally grow up.
Hitler completely agrees.
I wonder if they supported, for example, the gun control measures the French imposed on the locals when they ran Cambodia back in the 1940s and 1950s, thinking that was for the good of fellow Cambodians. Bet a young man who had just completed his studies in Paris (Pol Pot) was quite appreciative of such measures.
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.