Quote of the day—NYT Editorial Board

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.

NYT Editorial Board
December 4, 2015
End the Gun Epidemic in America
[Peter O suggests:

The NYT just published a front-page editorial (The first since 1920!) Advocating for the banning and confiscating of firearms.

You might just be able to drop the topic finally. 😉

The topic being “Don’t let anyone tell you they want to take your guns.” But that assumes there are enough people reading the New York Times for the word to get around.

My take on this editorial is this will further reduce their readership. More and more people realize that with the war with our current enemy for people to advocate gun control is an incredibly stupid idea. Even Chris Christie, who governs a state with incredible strict gun laws, called this editorial, “typical liberal claptrap from the New York Times”.

Yesterday Barb and I were at the range with a relatively new shooter and her husband. The check-in counter and gun store was packed with people. I supposedly had the training bay reserved for them but it was packed with a class. The range gave us a smaller bay and we got her shooting much better and far more comfortable with a gun. She is going to get a CPL.

My point is that rational people realize the answer to violent criminals is to respond with immediate protective violence and the best tool for that is a gun. People advocating removing the tools for delivering that immediate protective violence are being ignored and even anti-gun groups and President Obama recognize this:

President Barack Obama made a promise in October to use his bully pulpit to politicize gun control. But he hasn’t followed through — he hasn’t scheduled a single speech on the topic, instead simply reacting to shooting after mass shooting. And he’s stopped pushing for any real legislation with members of Congress.

Obama frequently repeats his promise to do something. But aides say he’s essentially given up on any significant gun control passing during his presidency.

…leaders of the groups grumble. They still get invited to intermittent brainstorming sessions at the White House where they hear talk about securing a legacy with some more moves, and then they wait as nothing real happens.

In a stopped clock is right twice a day type moment Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence President Dan Gross is right when he says:

We have seen over this past week how quickly an important social conversation can really change how we look at an issue.

The conversations I had at work, with friends wanting guns and training, and the packed gun ranges and stores over this past week we do see that, speaking literally, Gross is right. But not in the way he would like to believe. The anti-gun people are on a downward slope to oblivion and the NYT editorial is the shrieking as they approach the abyss.—Joe]

15 thoughts on “Quote of the day—NYT Editorial Board

  1. ” it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.”

    No problem here… I don’t consider those who feel this way as “fellow citizens”.

    I don’t recognize Soetero as my President and am increasingly displeased with the Federal Governments size, scope, resource consumption, intrusiveness and self perpetuating bureaucracy and the theatre performed by our “representatives” in Congress.

    As disconcerting as that is for someone who served under arms for this country for ten years, it’s more telling that I’m far from alone in my views.

    Jeff B.

  2. Funny. On my side, a good friend, Republican for years and grew up around guns, posted something pro-gun control on facebook. It sparked a lot of discussion and that was overwhelmingly pro-gun control. These are all people who normally don’t talk about guns at all.

    You probably talk about guns a lot in your professional and personal life and your “gun love” is well known. You’re a magnet for the person who wants to talk about guns.

    My point is: Take what you see with a grain of salt because it’s only a slice of what is going on in the USA today.

    • Of course I have a biased sample in the people I talk to.

      But the increase in people seeking training and buying their first guns cannot be a sampling bias.

    • “War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend.”

      – J.R.R. Tolkien (from The Two Towers, spoken by Faramir)

      ubu52,
      Joe puts a lot of emphasis on “guns” but I think it is an error to take that as “gun love”. Search around and you’ll find where Joe writes of his first strong interest in guns and _why_ he became interested. You’ll find it more in line with the quote above than with the “gun” in and of itself. The gun is just a machine/tool used to accomplish a task and the task is the more important item.

    • I’m not much of a gun guy, but I have had several business colleagues talk about firearms, reveal their interest, and even seek my training just in the recent past. Too much to be a coincidence.

      It’s not scientific, but it is a nice confirmation that average Americans are getting a lot more interested in firearms, if this is my experience.

      Meanwhile anti-rights gun control freaks claim that all these firearms are being bought up by previous owners, like it is plausible that two brothers in Missouri are sitting on 10,000 AR-15s. Wishful denial.

  3. Pingback: And End to the Debate: Of Course They Want Your Guns | Shall Not Be Questioned

  4. The anti-gun crowd is in a downward spiral, but like a drowning swimmer grabbing at a lifeguard and killing both themselves and their rescuer, if we aren’t careful they will take some rights with them.

    I note that the NY SAFE law is still available for selective prosecution of lotsa gun owners there. And CT and CO still have their post-Newtown laws in place. And IL, the recipient of multiple state and federal Supreme Court decisions to stop jerking gun owners around, still has not one gun shop in Chicago.

    I haven’t seen a Korean Garand for sale through CMP. And every state faces the prospect of home-grown legislators tossing “environmental” anti-lead laws, restrictions on hunting, reductions on places to shoot on public lands, magazine capacity limits, “assault weapons” bans, and so on.

    Each time some craptastic law gets passed it takes years and millions to get back to the status quo ante. The ratchet that used to go only one way, towards more and more restrictions on firearm ownership and self defense, has been overcome since about 1980 with Concealed Carry and Castle Doctrine laws, but nationwide we are moving closer and closer to the New Jersey model, wherein one pwns and uses a gun at one’s peril, with the state ready to drop on you like a ton of bricks if you make a mistake.

    So I say get our own ratchet out, and when a mass murder happens, use it to eliminate gun free zones, strengthen self defense laws, and instead of whining about the left’s use of the crisis for anti-gun legislation, do some good on our side.

  5. Pingback: Good plans and crazy psychology | The View From North Central Idaho

  6. Pingback: Here’s their plan | The View From North Central Idaho

  7. Pingback: Quote of the day—Phoebe Maltz Bovy | The View From North Central Idaho

  8. Pingback: Not in his lifetime | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.