New York Times Calls for Confiscation in Page 1 Editorial

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
While it is hardly rare for the New York Times to share progressive opinion on page one, it is rare for them to not pretend it is reporting news when doing it. Apparently, they are either so worked up or so desperate for pageviews that they are printing the first page one editorial since 1920 to call for even more gun control - including confiscation.

I didn't share the link since it is my fervent wish to see the NYT broke and destitute in my lifetime; but the key paragraph is:

"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."
Click to expand...
 
This isn't a change in their position, of course. Any firearms restriction ever passed has been identified as a "good first step" by the left. Hillary Clinton, among others in this campaign season, is back to saying the 2nd Amendment means you can join the National Guard. As long as a single gun remains in private hands, someone will be out there trying to take it. "You're not paranoid if..."
 
NYT Editors said:
It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way...
Click to expand...

Sure, they can come out and say they want to ban AR-15s and the majority of other non-hunting recreational rifles, along with 5.56 and 7.62 (both x51 and x39, probably) ammo, but they would be laughed off the internet. So instead they remain coy so that the emotional high of "we need to do something... let's ban the evil guns!" isn't shattered by reality.
 
These are the same people that do NOT want to require IDs to vote or drug testing for welfare.

Fortunately as we have seen over the last few years there will not be a ban on the federal level.
 
NY Times, why not ban Big Macs and automobiles? They both kill more Americans than modern rifles.

As for the European countries that are "trying to do something", how is the results of that gun banning effort? Stupid Idiots!
 
It's a simple formula:

INPUT:
- Criminals posses/use guns.
ACTION:
- Ban possession/use by the innocent.
OUTPUT:
- Criminals posses/use guns.

Added benfit: we can ignore the real problem,
that social policy has caused the problem.

Methodology:
The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.

In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
 
Saw that (poor attempt at) comedy.


On the other hand, if it's a misdemeanor to lie to a cop, and a felony to lie to a grand jury, shouldn't it be a capitol offense for an elected or appointed official to lie to the voters?
That may have a truth effect on political organizations disguised as paper processors.
 
you know what the nyt is missing? the fact that the caliber or type of gun is not what would have made the difference here; it was the type of people driven by a specific religious view.
 
Everyone in the anti-gun camp seems to be trying very hard not to get into the real issues of propaganda (by marginalized religions, cults, or political groups) and mental illness, which are the more fundamental causes of these tragedies.

If they did so, the real problem would be swiftly uncovered: virtually nobody understands the nature of mental illnesses that cause violent behavior, and virtually nobody understands political or religious propaganda either. In my opinion, the two issues are closely intertwined... actually, perhaps not just intertwined, but manifestations of the same underlying psychological limitations of humans.

If the NYT editorial staff would like to talk about the 2nd amendment being open to "reasonable regulation", they should also have to open the 1st amendment to "reasonable regulation" on all sorts of grounds that they would hate, not to mention reasonable violations of privacy (mental health records) and autonomy (lower the bar for preemptive psychiatric holds and commitment... which gets back to the central problem with mental illness being that it's poorly defined).

But no. It's only the 2nd amendment that is open to any "reasonable regulation", because it's "common sense" that guns are the problem. It's "common sense" that free speech and freedom of association and freedom of religion and privacy are no problems at all.

The liberal press has an astounding capacity for self-deception, on one hand railing against the 2nd amendment and gun ownership, while turning a blind eye to all the dangers to public safety caused by the 1st and 4th amendments, which they hold sacred. They love to argue for narrowing the government's interpretation of "reasonable" in the 4th amendment (and I happen to agree with them on that), but when it comes to the 2nd amendment they want to expand what's "reasonable" beyond the ATF's dreams, despite "reasonable" being nowhere in the text of the amendment.

The costs of the 1st and 4th amendments are assumed to be acceptable, but the costs of the 2nd amendment are assumed to be unacceptable (and are exaggerated at every opportunity).
 
They ought to read the history books !!

American Civil War - The Draft- NYT supported the Draft Laws . The draft law riots put NYT on the wrong side of the rioters. They were afraid their offices would be attacked so the NEW YORK TIMES bought GATLING guns to protect those offices !!!
My how times [TIMES ] change ! :eek: :rolleyes: :p
 
I find it funny that they call the .223 powerful because it's used in the AR15. We all know that it's the most economical option that works for the military.
 
It amazes me that the response to an attack by agents of a foreign power on Americans on American soil is to disarm Americans. This is precisely when the civilian militia should be at its most vigilant, and instead many are calling for them to be disarmed of the most effective means of defense!

It's the complete opposite of what should be happening.
 
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California
Click to expand...

Like I have said repeatedly, the antis have taken the MSR argument and are destroying it. It is not a defense that works for the 2nd Amend.

The Times had an article explicitly denouncing the MSR argument. The research that found the AWB didn't do squat pointed out the existence of the guns with small cosmetic changes.

A Remington AR in camo is nice as it is for sport and Bambi, a black one is bad. Horsepoop.

A new ban will stop manufacture and confiscate all AR and AK pattern guns. Will Mini-14s survive again with 5 round mags - get on your Ouija board and ask Bill R.
 
I'm encouraged by the fact that the overwhelming majority of responses to that editorial (on their webpage) were negative.

It appears that the majority of Americans are not buying the Government's narrative
 
The NYT is read in the White House and by every Congressman, folks. It foments demand for policy and Congress turns that demand into law. Don't underestimate the new push for gun laws, it's pervasive throughout the entire media nationwide, and a political party is openly campaigning on it.
 
It took me a while to figure out 'MSR' meant 'Modern Sporting Rifle'.

You're right, that's a distinction without a difference.

We need to be honest and call them what they are : Semi-Automatic Rifles, Self-Loading Rifles, those are honest and correct.

Unfortunately, we lost that argument years ago. Get ready for heavy weather on the gundeck.
 
In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because....
Click to expand...

is this paragraph a direct quote from Herr Goebbels? Or merely an eloquent restatement of the principles he used so well???

Certain people not being allowed to own certain weapons worked very well for the administration Herr Goebbels was part of. Didn't work out so well for those people, though...

Wonder what the NYT editorial would be when they come for them???

unwritten I would think...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top