New York Times Calls for Confiscation in Page 1 Editorial
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Yes, lots of people, including me, read the NY Times. Whether you like it or not it's still considered by most to be the "paper of record". It's where I always go first for breaking news, and they do a pretty good job of separating news and opinion. In fact they always make a point of distinguishing between the two.
Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/o...p-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region&_r=0
It states very clearly at the top that it is an Opinion Pages editorial, and there is a footnote at the bottom that states:
I don't agree with the premise or most any of what they say in the editorial, but it doesn't make me all huffy and mad that someone wrote an opinion that I don't agree with.
Here's the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/o...p-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region&_r=0
It states very clearly at the top that it is an Opinion Pages editorial, and there is a footnote at the bottom that states:
I don't agree with the premise or most any of what they say in the editorial, but it doesn't make me all huffy and mad that someone wrote an opinion that I don't agree with.
Colorado Redneck
New member
If you don't want Hillary we better pick someone that can win. That means electable, which requires enough votes to garner the majority of the electoral college. Some in the GOP camp will not accomplish that. We need to be thoughtful, not impulsive.
It will happen eventually. Countries and governments don't last forever. Many citizens are asking for the canstitution to go away.
All it will take is the right combination of politicians. Votes are going to the biggest spender.
Politicians want gun control.
Citizens want gun control.
Corporations want gun control.
They've gotten gun control before, they can do it again.
All it will take is the right combination of politicians. Votes are going to the biggest spender.
Politicians want gun control.
Citizens want gun control.
Corporations want gun control.
They've gotten gun control before, they can do it again.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I've finally gotten around to reading the article. It seems pretty "par for the course" for a NYT gun control article. I found this interesting:
(I can almost see an NYT Editor waving off, as unimportant, 2A issues.)
This sounds like the NYT is prepared for us to just ignore the NYT.NYT Editorial Board said:
(I can almost see an NYT Editor waving off, as unimportant, 2A issues.)
In principle, I do agree with this. The operative point, however, is what we agree is "reasonable". I simply CANNOT agree with the NYT idea of "reasonable".
And, I think, in their secret heart of hearts, they don't believe it is reasonable, either. They believe it is necessary.
Reasonable people discuss, and debate issues.
The New York Times is not discussing anything. They are issuing ORDERS!
They don't ask that we give up these guns (currently the military style ones)
They aren't trying to convince us we should give up these guns.
They say we MUST give up these guns. That isn't a request, that is an order.
I wonder what other reasonable orders they will issue for the protection of the Reich??
I propose banning speech that advocates dismissing the 2nd amendment, or advocating "reasonable" limits on arms, when:
a) we already have more-than-reasonable limits, and
b) the word "[un]reasonable" does not occur in the 2nd amendment, although it is present in the 4th amendment; perhaps the NYT editors' copy of the Bill of Rights is jumbled up?
c) the speech is not directed specifically and narrowly at a proposal to amend the Constitution; while I find the idea of amending—negating—part of the Bill of Rights rather frightening, I acknowledge the political right to do so, given that there's a constitutional procedure for it.
It is not necessary to debate the wording of the First Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation. Advocating reinterpreting an enumerated constitutional right to gut that right is politically toxic and arguably amounts to insurrection.
a) we already have more-than-reasonable limits, and
b) the word "[un]reasonable" does not occur in the 2nd amendment, although it is present in the 4th amendment; perhaps the NYT editors' copy of the Bill of Rights is jumbled up?
c) the speech is not directed specifically and narrowly at a proposal to amend the Constitution; while I find the idea of amending—negating—part of the Bill of Rights rather frightening, I acknowledge the political right to do so, given that there's a constitutional procedure for it.
It is not necessary to debate the wording of the First Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation. Advocating reinterpreting an enumerated constitutional right to gut that right is politically toxic and arguably amounts to insurrection.
kilimanjaro
New member
If you don't want Hillary, or Bernie, you had better vote for whomever gets the opposing nomination, whether you like them or not. Staying out or at home is not a viable alternative to the loss of the 2nd Amendment.
We know what's at stake in 2016, we can't let our personal issues get in the way.
We like to rail against the skeet and trap shooters who don't care about AR15s or concealed carry laws, let's not do the same thing when it comes to the candidates in 2016. I may not like high capacity magazines, but I'm voting for the right to keep them. Same with the White House.
We know what's at stake in 2016, we can't let our personal issues get in the way.
We like to rail against the skeet and trap shooters who don't care about AR15s or concealed carry laws, let's not do the same thing when it comes to the candidates in 2016. I may not like high capacity magazines, but I'm voting for the right to keep them. Same with the White House.
They have the 1ST Amendment and this has allowed the PRESS/MEDIA to become the new dictator, monarch, tyrant/nobility, etc. that Robespierre, Adams, Jefferson, etc. defeated in defense Liberty.
There are no limits or controls or laws that they can't somehow get around or overcome because of the 1st Amendment.
They have the 1st (and so do we) and must face the fact that the 2nd actually protects the 1st as well as all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights
There are no limits or controls or laws that they can't somehow get around or overcome because of the 1st Amendment.
They have the 1st (and so do we) and must face the fact that the 2nd actually protects the 1st as well as all the other amendments in the Bill of Rights
Hear, Hear on bringing up the 1st Amendment!!!
I NEVER ceases to amaze and perplex me how ALL the news folk (like the New York Times) kneel, worship and pay homage to the 1st Amendment but can't seem to even acknowledge the existence of the 2nd Amendment which is right there beside it!
And you all know the old, tired, false arguments they use. If those arguments were correct (as has been pointed out many times) the 1st Amendment would:
Only cover printing presses.
Only apply to licensed newspapers.
And it would seem to be 'reasonable' (and just plain old ordinary 'common sense') to allow the government to check on what the newspapers print before they print it to insure they didn't print anything that was incorrect or that would offend anyone.
I NEVER ceases to amaze and perplex me how ALL the news folk (like the New York Times) kneel, worship and pay homage to the 1st Amendment but can't seem to even acknowledge the existence of the 2nd Amendment which is right there beside it!
And you all know the old, tired, false arguments they use. If those arguments were correct (as has been pointed out many times) the 1st Amendment would:
Only cover printing presses.
Only apply to licensed newspapers.
And it would seem to be 'reasonable' (and just plain old ordinary 'common sense') to allow the government to check on what the newspapers print before they print it to insure they didn't print anything that was incorrect or that would offend anyone.
In a movie, the editors of the NYT would be exhorting the villagers to storm the castle with their torches and pitchforks to "kill the monster".
They aren't going to do that in real life, because, frankly, we have guns, and they are afraid of being shot.
What these COWARDS will do is use their influence and money to have politicians send paid public servants (police, etc.,) with guns, to take ours away, and kill us if we resist, while they sit safely in their offices and publish more venom.
Every shooting incident, be it terrorists, or deranged individuals with only personal motives, is a potential Reichstag Fire for them.
Eventually, odds are good one of them will "take" and be the last straw that pushes us completely into the hands of tyranny, in the name of public safety.
It has worked before, if we let it, it will work again, and work here.
They aren't going to do that in real life, because, frankly, we have guns, and they are afraid of being shot.
What these COWARDS will do is use their influence and money to have politicians send paid public servants (police, etc.,) with guns, to take ours away, and kill us if we resist, while they sit safely in their offices and publish more venom.
Every shooting incident, be it terrorists, or deranged individuals with only personal motives, is a potential Reichstag Fire for them.
Eventually, odds are good one of them will "take" and be the last straw that pushes us completely into the hands of tyranny, in the name of public safety.
It has worked before, if we let it, it will work again, and work here.
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
Time and time again it is shown that people abstain when put in the situation polls predict for next Fall.
Silo all the grain you can. Nine more hard winters on their way.