The New York Times Editorial Board & moral outrage
The New York Times‘ editorial board thinks that it’s a “moral outrage” that law abiding citizens of the United States of America are allowed by the Constitution to purchase weapons and use them in a safe and legal manner;
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.
Of course, they’re discussing the senseless murderers in San Bernadino last week. I guess it’s not apparent to the New York Times’ editorial board that those murders were an act of war, encouraged by our enemies in the Middle East. So, I guess their plan is to disarm those of us who are the front line of defense in this war against our way of life.
Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.
But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.
Darn tootin’, we’re not. Those two people last week were counting on their victims being unarmed because of where they lived. Just like the terrorists in France and Belgium counted on law abiding citizens to be unarmed.
[P]oliticians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.
In the meantime, the New York Times’ editorial board is abetting the terrorists by encouraging them and chosing to make the guns the enemy instead of the people who misuse guns.
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
So, I guess they’d be OK if we started regulating the freedom of the press to aid and abet the enemies of our country with their anti-freedom talk.
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.
So, I guess it’s time for the New York Times editorial board to lay aside their talk about dismantling the Constitution “for the good of their fellow citizens” and give up some of their freedom of the press. When they released intimate details of the war against terror and put the lives of American soldiers in jeopardy, that should be regulated from now on because, in their words, “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation”.
Since this administration hasn’t decided to fight the war against terror in such a way that keeps it from our shores, there is really no alternative left to citizens other than arming themselves with the weapons that our enemies intended to be used against us. The war that the New York Times editorial board didn’t want to fight over there has come home, so their solution is to disarm Americans here in response.
Millions of Americans who own scary black guns didn’t kill anyone this week, so let’s take their guns from them. Morons.
Category: Dumbass Bullshit
Wow.
And to think that I served so that idiots such as those who wrote that crap could be free to write that crap. Lotsa crap…
Dear New York Times Editorial Board –
I’ll begin to take you seriously after you surrender your pistols and concealed carry licenses. Which mere citizens can’t get in NYC.
Well, they’re different you see. They’re more
They’re more equal. Hitting tab while typing at an angle apparently posts if you don’t catch it quick enough. woo.
Just saying ‘they’re more’ was sufficient.
No need to edit your copy. we all know what ‘more’ means, in so many, many ways.
We do.
More intelligent, more enlightened, more cultured, more deserving…
Those are all ways that liberal elites see themselves as superior to the rest of us out here in the country they fly over frequently but actually know nothing about.
But make no mistake, they fear our guns and the thought that those guns might someday be used in a second revolution when they and their kind on both coasts would become the 21st Century Tories, loyal to the liberal monarchy in Washington.
But vastly outgunned…
Bill,
Any idea how may armed guards and locked doors it would take to get into the NYT just to talk to an editor?
Glass houses, something, something, something…
These communist NWO pukes want all the good people disarmed so the sons and daughters of satan can come over here and wipe out Good Americans! Hey muslims, go after the NYT assholes…they should be easy marks, gunfree zone and they don’t believe in guns…!!
I love how the phrase, “reasonable regulation” gets tossed about by the same people who think the SAFE Act in NY has done fuck-all to reduce crime since it was implemented.
These are the same people who think total confiscation of my weapons is “reasonable.”
Molon labe, fuckers.
I tell my liberal friends when they talk to me about guns and outlawing them and want simple gun safety legislation. I’m like I want sensible pipe bomb safety legislation since the federal laws we have now are not enough. Also The US leads the world in Pressure cooker bomb deaths so se need to have sensible pressure cooker bomb safety legislation as well.
IMHO, the subject of terrorism (or more importantly according to POTUS), climate change and Americans that lawfully possess firearms will continue as the top subjects for political discussion. The liberals pathological support for gun confiscation and/or extreme gun control (Clinton, et al) will lose support from middle America.
This latest terror event is already hurting the POTUS and Clinton along with the other ratbags that are running against her on the democrat side.
Hell, that Sheriff in Ulster County, NY (north of NYC) is urging citizens to arm themselves, especially off-duty cops and those that are retired. NY has what might be the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and the local elected Dems can’t seem to find time to comment about the Sheriff’s suggestion.
They’re all cowards.
Huh. Gun Homicide is down year after year, but hysterical reporting is up, way way up!
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/
↑↑↑↑Like↑↑↑↑
I opine: the Old Pork Slimes is full of——–oh, never mind.
Just two words for the The New York Times Editorial Board…FUCK YOU!
I second that!
To me, “go piss up a fucking rope” works a bit better.
But yours has the distinction of being easily understood and the benefit of two single syllable words.
If it wasn’t for “weapons of war”, there would be no New York Times. In 1863, the draft riots threatened to overwhelm the offices of the grey lady. They were repelled by a pair of gatling guns, one of the first documented uses of automatic weapons in combat.
Sorry to pick a nit, but Gatling guns aren’t automatic weapons. The latter use recoil to eject the shell casing and load the new round.
True, though the Gatling was one of the earliest machine guns, even if it was manually operated. This is why the Maxim gun and the old Colt-Browning “Potato Digger” were initially labeled “automatic machine guns,” as they were recoil-operated and the gunner didn’t need to do anything other than pull/press the trigger.
I have said this before, and I will repeat it until someone does something about it.
Build a big, broad wall around those cities where the hoplophobes work and don’t let any of them out until they learn their lesson.
They’re hoplophobes until they call 911 for a cop or the 25th ID for something more spectacular.
BTW – I had to google “hoplophobes” – ain’t none in my house!
EX-PH2……..furthermore, if you mentioned “hoplophobes” previously I either missed it or forgot it.
If I forgot it….I’ll admit that my memory is a long as my….well, nevermind – – I’m Irish – I think you get the point. 🙂
Because “reasonable” gun control worked so well to prevent a mass-murder in Paris just recently, right? French gun laws are far more restrictive than ours, and those murderers went to Belgium, which is even more restrictive than France and only a tiny step removed from “no guns, period,” to obtain a truckload of automatic rifles that are ILLEGAL in the far-more-permissive CALIFORNIA!*
Do the hypocrites at NYT even proofread their bullshit? Do they pay attention to anything at all? Are they just that insulated behind their well-armed private security?
* As a lifelong resident of the state of California, the irony of this state’s gun laws being far more permissive than *anything* is not lost on me.
Well, here it is, peeps, straight from the goat’s mouth. Those friendly folks at ISIS aka Daesh do claim responsibility, however tenuously, for the California affair, because – in their words – those two sociopaths were followers of ISIS.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-california-shooting-idUSKBN0TO0BD20151205
So the New York Times can go pound sand up its butt sideways. It’s a pity no one who writes for that paper was born before 9/11/01, isn’t it?
I am so TIRED of these cowards who prate about ‘safety’ and ‘control’ when they can barely control their own bowels at the sight of a toy gun, hide under a desk and tremble if someone says something bad to them, ‘never’ (hah!) raise their voices in anger because it wouldn’t be ‘nice’, but squawk and flop around when they are really threatened.
I swear they would kiss the stinking feet of their executioners if they were told to do so.
Sorry, my frustration level rises when I run into the kind of denial of reality we see in these people.
Not to worry EX, your frustration level is bound to tick up a notch when they double down and call for outright confiscation via Executive Order. Face it, if we were spewing such bilge water we would want those we were attacking to be disarmed too.
Not sure if it’s just me or not, but what I have been seeing and reading in he lame stream media has been showing Muslims as victims since the San Bernardino attack. Muslims were not the victims in this. While I don’t hate all Muslims, I’m smart enough to know that our problems are coming from “some” Muslims. I still haven’t heard any “moderate” Muslims say a word in condemnation over this attack. I also have not seen any Facebook pictures with American flag overlay like we did with the Franchise flag after their attack. Something to think about.
“But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.”
That’s the money quote. This is about “trying”, not outcome.
Yes, we need the government to “try” to solve gun violence… the same idiots that we have relied upon to solve poverty, health care, immigration, peace in the middle east, etc. What a fucking joke.
These “solutions” are coming from the same bunch of dickwad klowne krew wannabes that can’t build a website with a two billion dollar budget….
I mean….
You really want to do that asshole???
I have not read the NY Times in years.
But when I travel, I always pick up a copy for my cat’s litter box.
He seems to enjoy it.
My cat only accepts it if the paper is shredded. Otherwise, he just sits on it and takes a nap.
Oh, goody. A Constitutionally protected entity attacking a Constitutional protection just because they can. Wonderful.
A few questions for the NYT:
When was the last time you attacked any Constitutionally protected right other than the Second Amendment?
When was the last time you had an editorial of any kind on your front page?
Can you spell irony? How’s about hypocrisy?
“When was the last time you had an editorial of any kind on your front page?”
From what I’m reading, last time was 1920.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/05/the-new-york-times-has-rare-front-page-editorial-calling-u-s-gun-laws-a-national-disgrace/
Dear New York Times,
I am a law abiding gun owner. I legally carry when ever possible. I do this for much the same reason as I carry a first aid kit and fire extinguisher in my verticals and keep them in my home. I pray I will never have to use them but they are there and ready should the need arise.
I choose not to be a victim, I choose to have the option of a firearm. Because I carry does not mean I play vigilante it simply means that I will not be put in a situation where a criminal can take the life of my loves ones, my self or anyone else without having a fight
Take the recent shootings in CA or Paris, had even a small minority of the targets been allowed to be armed the terrorist would have had no chance to take the lives they did.
Instead of supporting this simple position you instead choose to enable the terrorist and criminals. You use the black gun scare tactic. You choose to ignore the simple fact that the weapons used were already against the law in both CA and Paris. You position would be laughable if were not so incredibly dangerous.
Gun is the hands of bad guys kill, guns in the hands of good guys save lives.
You are trying to disarm all of the good guys to get to a few bad ones. This type of policy has never worked in any situation. IF enacted you will make criminals out of everyone who believes in our constitution and refuses to be a victim.
Simply put to take away or limit the second amendment you will have to take the 4th and 9th away as well.
You are all missing the whole point of the NYT’s dipshit editorial.
It isn’t guns they’re afraid of.
It’s you, the independent thinkers. The mindful voting public. The people who face the real world without looking for a shield of some time.
You aren’t afraid of it.
They are.
You know what’s scaring the living shit out of them? Those record gun sales that are going up every month all across this country have created the hysteria and extremism demonstrated in that editorial. Even those pea-brained liberals have to realize that those gun purchasers won’t be voting Democrat in 2016 and perhaps never again.
And I will wager that this hysterical NYT editorial will inspire a new gun sale record in December. Any takers?
I’m sure they regard free thinkers like us as filthy unwashed heathens in need of “reeducation” because we disagree with them and their dogma.
Why, yes. Harry Reid said so in 2007 or 2008 when that fancy senate building was being completed.
Let me revisit an earlier point here. How many lives are claimed by fire each year? How many families left homeless? How many children maimed and scarred for life? How much property and infrastructure destroyed? Fire is as destructive in the wilderness as in the city. Whether it’s deliberately or negligently set, it is a force of destruction. Modern man no longer has the traditional need for fire, outside of very controlled industrial setting. Any use the ordinary citizen has for fire can easily be satisfied using electricity or other safe substitutes. There is simply no need for the risks inherent in the use of open flames, especially when compared to the toll exacted by uncontrolled fires every day. We allow over-the-counter sale of so many incendiary devices all over this country with barely any restriction. These devices are small, cheap, easily concealed, available at any gas station, and easy for children to use. Simple matches are dangerous enough, even if they are single-use and burn out within seconds. Bic lighters and barbecue lighters even more so, as they are even easier to use, can maintain an open flame, and carry fuel for multiple ignitions. Zippos are certainly the worst, with their ability to maintain a flame after the ignition trigger is released, their large fuel capacity, and their “cool” status in popular culture. These devices serve no necessary purpose for the modern man. Their sole use is destruction. They ignite fires. We do not need them. Electric cooking appliances are readily available, as is electric heating for our homes. Even smokers no longer need them, with the advent of e-cigs. Why do we allow these destructive devices? A single careless child can cripple, even kill, themselves and their playmates in mere seconds with one of these devices. A carelessly dropped match can easily ignite whatever it lands on, and if you’ve never seen how quickly fire can spread inside a house, you’ll be in for a rude awakening, possibly the last one of your life. And in the western states on a warm summer day, that $.99 Bic lighter… Read more »
My favorite stank ass hippy wildfire story is about the tree hugging idiot in California who wanted to live in the trees. When the time came, she had a philosophical argument with herself; should she bury her own excrement or burn it? Which one would cause less ecological stress on the environment?
Well, she ultimately decided to burn her own excrement. From what I recall, several thousand acres of forest burned up.
Over 50,000 actually.
If the power goes out in my area, I can’t light my stove because the igniter won’t work. I have to use kitchen matches to start it.
That is the single reason I have never wanted or used an electric stove.
That’s why I have a gas grill, and 2 full tanks, in addition to the one on the grill.
I’m sorry, but that constitutes a “high capacity grill”. You don’t need that many full tanks. You have surpassed “reasonable” grill limits and need to surrender the extra tanks to the government, for your own safety and the safety of others.
And the furnace won’t run without electricity. The water heat won’t start without it. My lights won’t work, I can’t charge my phone, and, oddly, my car won’t start without it, either.
However, if the power goes out, I can still boil water and cook on the gas stove, add some lamp oil to the two antique oil lamps my grandmother left behind, start a fire in the cast iron woodstove, and, well, replace the car with a horse or dog sled. 🙂
My satire was obvious, right?
Sorry, could not resist.
It shouldn’t be sarc/ Whitey. That post is truly a vision of the future of the modern world.
Now if we could only get them to ban the use of one of the major killers of mankind since he first appeared on planet Earth.
DiHydrogen Monoxide.
This substance kills millions every year around the planet and has no real use other than a little bit of cooking and cleaning.
Those uses can be performed by other chemicals that are much saffe than it is.
You betcha! We can always use Brawndo to water the crops instead!
If you want some entertainment, go tease the libs on the NYT FB page. https://www.facebook.com/nytopinion
Gee, I do wish you had posted a gigglesnort warning!!
Jeezus Holy Christ on His cross!
I had to stop reading when my count reached 25 different idiots who make Lars look like Stephen fucking Hawking (minus wheelchair).
Once again the domestic tyrants show their true hatred for due process and Constitutional civil rights.
Thank founding fathers for the US Constitution. Smart men predicted tyranny and specifically included this civil right to defend against it.
Mike over at Cold Fury said it better than I ever could:
Go read the whole thing. It’s well worth it.
I did. Steel on target.
Good stuff, thanks for pointing me at that blog.
All I have to say to the editorial writer is, “Ain’t that nice”. That is only because when I became a Warrant Officer I was sent to charm school. If I were still a MSgt, I would have said “F U”.
Regarding the NYT editorial board, two acronyms come to mind. The first is “ESAD”. The second is “FOAD”.
They can take their pick.
Shootings in total in the Chicago area in general have risen since the GUNNZZZ ban was installed. Rising in the suburbs, in neighborhoods where there has never been any such thing happening. And in Chicago, where the police do their best to hide their misdeeds because Rahmbo and his pocket pet McCarthy (FIRED!!!!) have their noses up each other’s behinds.
Turning your head away from some bad thing or pretending to yourself that it’s the instrument at fault, instead of the user, is childish ignorance.
It’s the worst form of insanity possible: denial of reality.
If these overgrown children ever realize that, the pain of discovery will be devastating.
It’s like I said: it’s not really the guns they fear. They’re placing their real fear of you on guns. They can’t face the cowards they see in the mirror every morning.
They’ll be wanting their mommy to make it all better, too.
Their solution to terrorist attacks on American soil is disarming law-abiding citizens this making them unarmed victims for the terrorists.
LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.
The New York Times, a loyal member of the DNC Pravda network!
I don’t own a Black Rifle. I own a peasant volley rifle and it speaks chinese.
I own some Bolshevik rifles. They argue, slur every sound they make, and always reek of stale vodka and shitty cigarettes.
I own a British rifle. It makes a sound like “fookin’ wanka!” every time I put a round on target.
I also own some US rifles. They smell like victory and triumphantly shout, “‘Merica, fuck yeah!” every time I pull the trigger.
I just bought 3 Insurrection Specials on Black Friday.
What a bunch of dipshits. When did the Grey Lady become tabloid? Does anybody even buy it anymore or pay attention after the Blair fiasco?
The New York Times?
You mean the manufacturer of litter box liners that proudly displays a Pulitzer Prize for a Soviet apologist who denied the deliberate mass starvation of millions of Ukrainians by Stalin?
Oh, yeah, that bunch. I am not sure they understand what “moral” means.
A person or group of people that willfully give up their right to self protection because they’re too much of a pussy to provide themselves that protection are contemptuous little selfish snots.
So if viral immunization are good because…freedom immunizations via firearms bad.
Way to fuck it up for the rest of the herd, NYT dickheads.
The problem is the folks that make up both the editorial board of the NYT and the readers feel that the vice of gun ownership is akin to being a nut. They view gun violence as anyone dying from a gun has to be less than infinity and anything greater than 0 as being an epidemic.
I spent most of the weekend arguing with a friend of mine who is a die hard left leaning nutter (who loves Bobby Bates editorials on gun owners need to be punished akin to how the Soviets treated their opponents) and I couldn’t get him to agree that we needed to look at or examine the failure of the government to do even the enforcement. Instead it was about the evil guns and that evil gun owners and that all guns need to be destroyed and all gun owners need to be thrown in jail until the government feels they should be let go.
I finally got his goat by noting that daily we kill 28 people in cars and booze. Based on the stat that every 51 minutes a person dies from a DUI that an alcoholic commits. Yet, we let this national tragedy goes on as a cost of living in this nation.
Here’s something that the sparkle ponies at he NY Times don’t understand.
Even if we accepted their bullshit definifition of “reasonable” gun laws, there are a shit load of unreasonable people who will break them.
Considering the media stormed the apartment of those two terrorists-in-suburbanite clothing after browbeating the landlord into breaking the seal on the door when local law enforcement hadn’t released it yet…
Considering they broadcast pictures of the mother’s driver’s license and SSN# on live television as ‘relevant news’…
Considering they also broadcast photos of the terrorist wife’s UNDERPANTS as ‘relevant news’…
Considering that media figures then tried to delete tweets linking them to their ILLEGAL entry and hooliganism when they realized that public response was not overwhelmingly positive to their bs…
The NY Times and like ilk can take their opinion and file it with their so-called news: under I for Irrelevant.
“No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation”
I wonder if that includes the right for women and blacks to vote.
“No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation”
….. And who defines “reasonable”? … The RIGHT to bear arms in non-negotiable. If you use that right to hurt others you answer for it. That’s reasonable.
Old Dog, if no right is unlimited and immune, that includes free speech, free press, free thought, etc… doesn’t it?
Don’t forget we need to restrict load bearing vests to law enforcement and military use only.
Maybe if the media were not allowed to say anything at all… especially not editorials… or were just put out of business….
If GUNNZZZZ are so dreadful, such awful things, then why do these twatwaffles flock to violent movies that use GUNNZZZ and explosives and Nasty Other Weapons like drunks to a boozing ken?
Why do they stop and crane their necks to see blood and bodies at traffic accidents?
Why don’t they see that THEY are a minority and the rest of us have better sense?
Oh, wait – scratch that last one. Answer’s obvious.
They really need their own planet. Or time with a shrink.
“Millions of Americans who own scary black guns didn’t kill anyone this week, so let’s take their guns from them”. Similarly, NY Times, as millions of Moo-slims didn’t murder anyone this week, let’s lock them all up regardless, eh?
Who said anything about locking up Muslims?
Reading comprehension apparently isn’t his long suit, Jonn.
I took his point to be that locking up Muslims who didn’t kill anyone makes as much sense as taking guns away from law-abiding gun owners.
Perhaps. But if so, it could have been worded a bit less ambiguously.
Agreed. I did have to read it twice, which is usually a good indicator that the writer could have been clearer.