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.
