This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
NYT: Americans With Assault Rifles Should "Give Them Up For The Good Of Their Fellow Citizens"
Submitted by Matt Vespa via Townhall.com,
Well, it seems the media’s horrific campaign of inaccuracy hasn’t stopped. According to Reuters, for the first time in nearly a century, The New York Times editorial board took their plea for gun bans to the front page on Saturday, calling our nation’s inaction on gun control a “moral outrage and a national disgrace.” No, we shouldn’t be surprised that they decided to follow the likes of the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times with their own inane call to arms for gun control. And we shouldn’t be shocked that they want policies that employ confiscatory measures, while also banning an entire class of firearms, specifically assault rifles and certain types of ammunition [emphasis mine]:
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. 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.
[…]
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
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.
First, let’s give it up for the New York Times, and their like-minded colleagues in the media–and in politics–for driving up gun sales. Undoubtedly, after all of this nonsensical discussion about gun control, gun and ammo sales will go up (that’s a good thing). The irony never ceases to amaze me how the very faction of this country what wants to deploy unconstitutional gun control measures, only end up becoming better gun salespersons.
Moreover, every mass shooting is an act of terror? They’re not. Mass shootings can be part of a terrorist’s arsenal of carnage to push whatever agenda they have in mind, but not every mass shooting is terrorism. The same logic is applied to defining genocide. Genocide is mass killing, but not all mass killings are genocides. What happened in Paris was a horrific terrorist attack perpetrated by ISIS. They had an agenda. They deployed suicide bombers and shooters to target scores of innocent Parisians, which they thought could influence the nation’s policy in the Middle East. The Islamic State attacked France for insulting the prophet Muhammad; they called Paris “the capital of abomination and perversion;” and–perhaps the most important part–the French were attacked due to their intervention in Syria. There are multiple definitions of terrorism; almost every singe one includes some form of political goal. There was no such goal when Adam Lanza senselessly murdered 20 schoolchildren in Newtown in 2012, hence why it was called a mass shooting, and not an act of terrorism. Concerning the San Bernardino shooting, it’s now a federal terrorism investigation. We’ll know in due time the motives and aims behind this attack.
The Times says that it’s easy to define “combat rifles,” though they apparently didn’t know the definition of terrorism–and the left has tried to do this back in the early 1990s with the Assault Weapons Ban. It was a laughable piece of comedy that was attached to the overall Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994, that was partially responsible for historic Democratic losses in the midterm elections. When it expired in 2004, the data showed that these weapons are a) rarely used in crimes, which remains so to this day and b) did next to nothing to reduce violent crime. Oddly enough, the New York Times ran a piece in September of 2014 highlighting that fact:
…[I]n the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference.
It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do[*].
In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows.
[…]
The policy proved costly. Mr. Clinton blamed the ban for Democratic losses in 1994. Crime fell, but when the ban expired, a detailed study found no proof that it had contributed to the decline.
The ban did reduce the number of assault weapons recovered by local police, to 1 percent from roughly 2 percent.
“Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” a Department of Justice-funded evaluation concluded.
Lastly, the “it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens” part. Why? The vast majority of gun owners–99.9 percent according to Sen. Bernie Sanders–are law-abiding. They have to turn them over because the liberal political class is egregiously ignorant on this issue? They have to turn them over because while they aren’t used often in gun crimes, liberals are afraid of them? The Times has shown that the left is getting closer to outright saying having assault rifles in one's home warrants the National Guard, FBI, ATF, and local law enforcement busting down your door, terrifying your family, and confiscating constitutionally protected items.
Any rational person should balk at this proposal. Any Second Amendment supporter would, as in other counties, should (and probably would) completely ignore the call to hand over their firearms. But if you’re a liberal–in keeping with their principle that government power should be controlled by the few in order to be dictated to the rest of us–you must believe this is a good policy. If ending gun violence enhances the public good, then by all means strip law-abiding Americans of their rights; the end result will pay off. It’s a perverse notion.
This is where this debate is heading–and it’s getting messier with each horrific mass shooting. The left is now mixing terrorism and mass shootings to push a narrative to eviscerate the Second Amendment. We once again have rehashed stories about the AR-15 rifle, which isn’t as powerful as a hunting rifle and rarely used in crimes. And we have the media endorsing gun control policies that would require gun bans and confiscation. They’re insinuating parts of it, but the brash call to ban guns entirely is coming.
Yes, not every right is absolute. There are restrictions, but government and active citizenry should work to maximize these rights to their fullest extent. The pre-existing laws on guns are fine. We need to have a debate on how to revamp our mental health system, and integrate it into our background check system. The problem is that it doesn’t accomplish the left’s goal of destroying gun rights, so they’ll do everything in their power to prevent that debate.
*Support for a handgun ban is insanely low.
»
- 54 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
The New York Times has given up investigative journalism, to the detriment of our fellow citizens. It has been a propaganda mouthpiece for the government for years now.
Progressives should give up their ideology for the good of their fellow citizens.
Maybe if we regulated the first amendment and shut their rag down, they would realize the importance of the second one.
The biggest mass murders occured under the direction of Mao and Stalin, and they had gun control laws beyond the wildest liberal wet dream.
I wonder-- could you find even half a dozen AR-15 owners that take the New York Times seriously? I mean literally, in the entire country?
Could you find a half dozen people in the United States that still takes the New York Times seriously?
The NY Times should cease and desist from their "journalism", and I use that word lightly, for the good of their fellow citizens.
Comes and get them fuckers!
I just bought two more cases of ammo today. Hi NSA!
Anyone who wants to take my guns isn't a fellow citizen, so I don't give a rat's ass about them.
NYT: "It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation."
Although the author is apparently uninformed, being ignorant of literally thousands of limitations and regulations on the second amendment, I think it's a point worth debating. Indeed, I disagree completely. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't mean it should be infringed for this reason or that. It's time to repeal all such limitations and regulations.
As a Brit let me say a couple of things (be sure to read them both!).
1). Gun control works here, it used to be that only farmers and criminals had guns. Now only farmers have guns. Usually 12 bore shot guns, which are incredible and extremely satisfying to load and fire. The police here carry nightsticks, pepper spray and cuffs and that's all they need to do their job. If someone seizes an embassy then we have guys in balaclava's who turn up on motorbikes with automatic weapons and flash grenades, these guys practice building sweeps literally 18 hours a day, 365 days a year. It's simply not possible to be better than they are. They can genuinely sense how many people are in a room from behind a closed door, they can hear you. If the state ever got tasty with the British public there would be a dawn coup. That is the deal.
2). USA is a very different country, don't let them take your guns. The fact that the US public is armed to the teeth is what protects the entire democratic process of the free world. It simply is not possible for even the US military to suppress 200million people if those people are armed.
In the US the military chain of command is much more autocratic. It is Country>God>Family>Friends in the UK it is Family>Country>Friends.
In the UK the government does not have a totalitarian monopoly on violence, the SAS and SBS do. In the UK everybody questions authority (that's why we can't build cars). If the SAS wanted to storm 10 Downing St and seize the state apparatus nobody but nobody can stop them. In fact they are so feared in British culture that nobody would even dare oppose them. They see more active duty than any other military unit in the G20.
In the US it's simply not possible for anyone to seize the Whitehouse. There is no institutional separation of power when it comes to violence. So the monopoly of violence is democratised. Ergo, the public is armed.
Culturally the two countries are very different, even though we share the same language and the same popular culture we have fundamentally different contracts between society and government. But hey, a little personality diversity amongst friends is a good thing.
In the UK we have the worlds strictest gun control, but understand that 99.9% of our police force is little more than nightclub bouncers with cars and that we have an institutional separation of power regarding violence because the elite arm of our military is autonomous.
Also, we still have a Monarch, who has the right to disband the government at any moment she chooses.
For these reasons our government has a very tenuous grip on power in times of social unrest. You have to remember our politicians travel around London on bicycles and stand on the tube. They do not enjoy the level of protection they would need should they start turning on the public.
USA is a very different country, don't let them take your guns. The fact that the US public is armed to the teeth is what protects the entire democratic process of the free world.
Absolutely right OM, which is why the globalists want so badly to nullify the 2nd Amendment.
Come and Take It !
We should take the guns away from all the "Alphabet Agencies" first, since they are responsible for most of this bloodshed (fake and otherwise).
Looks like all the paid drones are out in force on their comments page... lol
NY Times picks are all unanimous in support of repealing the 2nd amendment...
Makes me want to go out and buy 2 more.
shall not be infringed.
As soon as Obama's sons stop with the vast majority of the gun murders I'll think about reducing my legal gun supply. Take care of the real problem first.
What if every AR-15 tiny bullet shooter was replaced with well scoped .308’s or 30-06 hunting rifles?
How could they have a problem with that?
And an M-82 is not an “assault rifle”.
What if everybody just had .50’s?
SCotUS has already rules that firearm ownership is a civil right. Those advocating for confiscation are commiting hate crimes and should be charged.
"I" (meaning only me) call the The New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, a “moral outrage and a national disgrace.”
wrong spot. moved it.
James Madison
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, New York Packet, January 29, 1788; The Federalist (The Gideon Edition), (1818), Edited with an Introduction, Reader’s Guide, Constitutional Cross-reference, Index, and Glossary by George W. Carey and James McClellan (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001)
I think if I am interpreting this correctly, he is stating a Militia seperate from a standing Army is insurmountable by any type of Gov including our own.
I understand we can assemble our own Militias in each state and they should be seperate from a standing Army, which the founding fathers were against. Since we have a standing army that does not mean we can not also have militias. We can.
CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES TODAY AND TELL THEM TO STFU!!!! ABOUT GUN CONTROL!!!!!
TELL THEM YOU WANT TO KNOW WHY THE US IS SUPPORTING A NATO NATION THAT HAS KNOWINGLY SUPPORTED ISIS!!!!!!
THIS GUN CONTROL AND FALSE FLAG IS JUST A DISTRACTION FROM THEIR SUPPORT OF TERRORISM.
CIA = TERRORISM.
US CREATES THE TERROR TO CONTROL THE MASSES AND REMOVE THE CURRENT SYSTEM AND FREEDOMS. DONT FALL FOR THESE WHORE'S SHIT!!!!
*Sorry on all caps but each time I have tried to post similar msg. the page dropped out. Third attempt now.
So when Obama says that military-style weapons do not belong on the streets of America, he shows that he does not have the faintest fucking clue as to why the 2nd Amendment exists. We are SUPPOSED to have military grade weapons so as to impede and defeat assholes like him! That is precisely why the 2-A exists and for no other reason.
To clarify - he's wrong, we DON"T have military grade weapons. If we did, they would be capable of firing full-auto and in short bursts. We have semi-auto weapons that are neutered rifles that (in my case) were designed in the 1950's. Better than nothing, but not military grade.
if black criminality didnt exist i wouldnt need a gun. speak to that obama you mother fucking pos.
"if black criminality didnt exist i wouldnt need a gun. speak to that obama you mother fucking pos."
If Obama had a son!
(he would obviously not be you!) ;-)
You obviously haven't lived anywhere were there's a lot of meth. Or Mexican gangs for that matter.
I've lived in dindustan, and now live in methheadistan.
There's a huge difference and in no way should anyone here try to conflate the two.
Niggers live on senseless hate and violence. They don't need an addiction as an excuse to kick your teeth in. They do it for fun. When they rob y ou, they don't just take your money. The exact all sorts of unnecessary cruelty and torture.
Here in methland, the most serious crimes (other than the rare crime of passion -- where jilted husband shoots cheaters etc) are proerty crimes. It's extremely rare here violence to be combined with property crimes, unlike dindustan. Like Dindunapolis, the niggers not only stole the 28 year old pregnant mother of a 1 year old's wallet, car, and keys. They came back, gang raped her, and shot her in the head.
The methheads would've stolen their lawnmower when mom took the kid to the grocery store. I grew up in the meth capital ofthe US (Hat tip Tall Tom) -- where the epidemic of meth originated, long before it crept out here to flyover country.
Again, the white criminals with rare exceptions are not sociopathic animals. They just want some money and don't need to kill you once they get it.
Dindus are a different animal all together.
The meth heads don't fire indiscrimately into crowds, shoot 9 year olds in the head, shoot white babies inteh face, torture and rape car jacking victims, set them on fire, or any of the atrocities commonly committed by dindus on whites. Patricularly female and elderly whites.
DO NOT EQUIVILATE THEM. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME.
If you think so then I suggest you have no experience with either and don't know what the fuck you're talkign about. I have extensive experience with both types.
Your comment is as credible as the NYT article referenced above.
That is to say: NOT AT ALL.
Well said, Refuse.
Many people are outraged at what the muzzies do both here and abroad, but don't seem to realise that what the city-culture blacks do all across our own country is equally atrocious to anything you're told about ISIS. The difference being that the blacks are a protected species around here, so their crimes against humanity are ignored and met with media blackout.
Anyone who's wary of bringing in all these "refugees" should be equally wary of the new section 8 development going in next door. A fitting nickname for it may soon be Aleppotown.
Tell that to James Byrd.
It's OK withme if you don't feel the need for firearms to protect yourself from metheads - that's your issue. My personal experiences with metheads (which comes from my time living and working around Clear Lake CA) is that they were generally paranoid, delusional, jumpy, and armed. That's plenty to justify arming ones self IMHO. Here in WA State, enough gruesome murders have been committed by metheads that I'm not going to cavalier around them.
My experience with Mexican gang areas (NorCal and Fresno) was no better than your experience with Black gangs. BTW - I've lived in SF and spent much time in Richmond and Oakland - so it's not like I don't have experience with worst of Black America either. I was supposed to be enroled in Washington HS in SF but refused to go as a matter of fact. I'm not saying that bad black areas aren't bad - I'm saying that bad areas are bad - no matter who lives there.
Personally, I'll protect myself against anybody - I don't care what flavor they come in.
....and Tanks!
Czech - to each his own of course but the importance of proficiency, patience, cover and cool can not be overstated and have been shown time and again to be very disruptive to the most well armed militaries......... as for military grade weapons there will be plenty of those available when the shooting starts .....
You're right -colonial weapons of individuals were the equal or often exceeded the muskets used by the British; it has only been since FDR, Nixon, Clinton and other tyrants and traitor accomplices that we have been illegally put in an inferior position with regard to firearms. The problem is, progressives/collectivists hate the Constitution and want it destroyed, period!
OM said:--
very true but so, in a way, is the UK -- the UK is VERY different from what it was up to a handful of decades ago. The British were allowed to own guns, and not just shotguns. Britsh police went about their day unarmed because British criminals, in the main, knew that if they were caught with illegal guns in the execution of their crime then the prison sentence was likely to MUCH longer. And prisons back then weren't the country clubs they've become since. All this changed, as British society changed in the postwar decades. The British "social contract" was shredded as Britain became more of a tribal society, thanks to waves of African and Indian migrations. The school massacre at Dunblane, Scotland in the 1990s was the excuse the State needed to ban most gun ownership.
In the countless hours of debates I've heard/read about gun ownership in the UK, Australia and the US I can't recall a SINGLE time anyone has asked the question as to WHAT HAS CHANGED? Semi and fully automatic weapons, handguns etc weren't invented in the latter half of the 20th century, and yet this upsurge in violence has only occurred in recent times. Why were citizens trusted to own guns of all kinds back in the early 20th century, and now they're not. Why? Is it the propensity to prescribe anti-depression drugs? Is the increased de-sensitization of our youth? Australian film director, Peter Weir, once pointed the finger of blame at Hollywood, in so doing he probably bit the hand that feeds him but it is undoubtedly true. Gun-play action, along with car chases etc, has long been a staple of Hollywood mass-market films. The symbology of guns is sacred in Hollywood -- actors holding guns feature on the DVD covers of most action movies. And not just actioners: the cover of the DVD/Bluray for Melissa McCarthy's "Spy" depicts the 4 main stars -- and they're all holding guns...and IT'S A COMEDY!!
What are the odds of the NY Times having a similar frontpage highlighting Hollywood's shame? It'll never happen.
What utter rot this comment is.
Britain has gun laws, but they are hardly "tight" and definitely not particularly restrictive, this Troll knows nothing.
I have 3 rifles and 2 shotguns and AM NOT A FARMER. I also have a handgun, yes, you can have them in the UK, they just have to be long-barreled.
The SAS is great, but is NOT independent.
Most everything in this comment is tosh. The Queen CANNOT dissolve Parliament, it just happens to be one of her Duties, when needed.
AND since when did Americans speak English? \s
Shall not be infringed = IS UNLIMITED.
I would agree that the framer's intention was to draw a bright line around the individual's right to own and bear arms, and declare it off limits to government. For many years, this worked as intended. But as progressives began to dissassemble the concept of personal responsibility, the corruption that has crept into society has wrecked the idea that people can be trusted with their own freedom.
This may sound unserious, but I wonder from time to time if a correction in this direction is even possible, and if it is, whether it will require the deaths of a large number of committed statists to restore individualism. I don't see how the former can happen without the latter.
Article: Americans With Assault Rifles Should "Give Them Up For The Good Of Their Fellow Citizens"
An article that you won’t read at The New York Times, ever: Americans will need assault weapons more than they will need college diplomas somewhere around the middle of next decade—about teen years from now.
Why am I so sure?
Because of humanity disconnect from anything that resemble reality.
Agriculture will collapse, and our energy-starved civilization will implode as less oil becomes available. Specially New York.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution has four parts to it separated by commas:
1. A well regulated Militia
2. Being necessary to the security of a free State
3. The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS
4. Shall NOT be infringed
I don't know about everyone but I can read and I know what all of the words mean in the Second Amendment. As a whole the second Amendment of the Constitution states “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Our politicians have forgotten the basic rules of grammar, we havent.
or care if they get shot.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What is the purpose of this second amendment, and who are the militia that it speaks of? Is it just simply for hunting and self defense or did the founders and others of the time period themselves believe otherwise.
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." -Patrick Henry
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." -James Madison
"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them." -George Madison
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." -Noah Webster
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams
The second amendment means that the people, who are the militia, are necessary for the security of a free State, and so they have the right to keep and bear arms. Who would they protect this free State from? Tyrants...those who would destroy this nation from within. Peaceful citizens were to be the last line of defense to protect this nation from tyranny. Can the people defend this nation with hand guns? That's the real question. Because that is the purpose of the second amendment. Would they have the means to defeat an army controlled by a tyrant?
dammit
Replying to comments is like learning to drive on the other side of the road. Not that I've tried the latter.
I spewed my drink thru my nose as I read that asinine NYT piece. They are better placed in the funnies section.... Just before it finds its proper place next to the outhouse toilet.
That shit needs to be taken straight from the printing press to the recycle bin.
I hate the NYT. And they've always been liars.
Well, I once knew a gay guy in downtown Seattle who took the NYT seriously. He thought reading the NYT showed he was sophisticated.
well, now you know why news media like the NYT seem to target certain demographics and tailor their content to please these people. You would think that the widest possible audience ensures bigger sales -- not necessarily. You would think that the NEWS is the NEWS, and you journalists believe in "without fear or favour" -- but you would be wrong. One of the consequences of falling newspaper sales lately has been that many newspapers vigorously seek out the demographics (e.g. gay people without families but with sizeable disposable incomes to spend on discretionary stuff like newspapers) and once they identify what these demographics WANT TO HEAR they deliver it.
A major newspaper in Australia that I'm familiar with, the Sydney Morning Herald, was a conservative paper for over 100 years until the 1980s when the owners decided that yuppies were a more lucrative and loyal audience. And as the SMH then was being increasingly staffed by journalists fresh out of university, writing for left-wing student newspapers it was a marriage made in heaven
"Americans With Assault Rifles Should "Give Them Up For The Good Of Their Fellow Citizens"
Great idea! But, only if our politicians go without armed escorts and bomb-sniffing dogs wherever they go. Sound like a deal?
Sounds like a good deal that will never happen, although I am being a tad facetious. Until then though the New York Times can go FUCK THEMSELVES.
What the NYT really meant was:
"You Rubes in flyover country should give up your most effective self-defense weapons, so that the globalist agenda can be more swiftly and easily crammed down your throats for the good of the Oligarchy, who will of course continue to be protected by trained and very well armed security personnel."
What I find especially baffling is that the NYT and other progressives who are screaming for gun control/confiscation are the same people advocating for open borders. Surely it must have occurred to them that even if they confiscate every civilian gun in the country if the borders remain porous more guns will flood into the country to replace those confiscated.
Gun control + open borders = pointless.
The words, "..from my cold, dead hands!" comes to mind when I read this NYT headline.
I wonder what Jesus would have said. For all you fucking "pretend" christians out there, what is your answer. You would never have seen him with an AK-47, that is for sure. Your hypocrisy is limitless.
We don't have to wonder:
-Luke 22:36
BOOOOOOOYYYAAAAHHHHHH!!!!! Perfect response, brother.
Yeah, that was brutal. Strong work.
Bill I think these are two seperate issues. The constitution, man's governemnt, gives me the right to bear arms if I so choose. If the people want to change the constitution I would follow the law. Personally I choose to trust God for my protection and I have no guns in my house. I have seen way to many young people killed playing with loaded weapons. Gun ownership is a great responsibility and a safety concern to most. The bible is very clear that our enemy is spiritual not flesh and blood. God said not to fear those that have the power to kill our bodies but He said to fear Him who has authority to kill our soul. Everything is in His hands, if I die then I will be present with Christ, this is not my home.
The other side is our founding fathers knew that without arms there was no way they were going to defeat the oppressive government of England. I find it really ironic that a nation such as ours born out of violence would forget that governments can go bad. Also look at countries like Russia and China and see how many of their own citizens they killed. Think of an armed society as check and balance on the government from ever making plans to harm many. That is the jist of the 2nd amendment as well as of course they evnvisioned a "Red Dawn" moment as well and wanted to make sure we could form Militias and defend ourselves. One step further in that logic that does not need to be verbalized is protection of a man's own life, family and property is a given.
Also my heart goes out to those that are affected by this gun violence and I do not have an answer other than maybe requiring everyone that can to carry a side arm and to have a society of first responders. We should also have closed campuses as many as possible and actual armed guards at all schools. There are a lot of vets that are well qualified to do this type of work.
I agree Jesus Wouldn't have an AK-47 - Jesus seems more like an AR-15 / M4 type of guy
He was Jewish - think Galil or Tavor.
He was Jewish- he would probably buy a reputable brand thats on sale or closeout..
And make the State liable for injury/death when the Government doesn't get there to save someone from being raped, mobbed, stabbed, shot or murdered. After all the implied promise is that we can depend on them for our security.......
Every excuse our government makes for the usurpation of our liberties is premised on the monetary costs that our individual liberties impose on the collective, and they only reason those cost are imposed on the collective is that government claimed those responsibilities as our rights. They funded hospitals and then imposed seat belt and helmet laws upon us claiming that they were doing it for our own good...but also that the medical costs that fell back on the hospitals was an indirect cost to taxpayers. Imminent domain in effect in that everything that either deprives our government of revenue or imposes costs upon it (costs that only they can impose upon themselves) is eventually absorbed into their umbrella. These "rights" that we are so graciously afforded by government are continually proven to be unaffordable and as such require every greater control for cost effectiveness and efficiency...a small price to pay. Healthcare is the most obvious and in our face as we watch it in real time unwinding under the pressure of our "rights" to affordable healthcare being undermined by their "costs", meaning of course that our "rights" for affordable healthcare are going to become less and less valuable, effective, generous or even available. Eventually it will be reserved for those oppressed Muslim immigrants.
I'd like to know how me giving up my rifle will prevent crime and terrorism. Disarm the criminals and terrorists.
Hey Jew York Times: What about Israel and Israeli's with assault rifles?
And by the way, I've never fired or know anyone who's owned a real asault rifle -- IE full auto. In my 48 years, I've only ever seen or fired the semi automatic type, correctly referred to as sporting rifles.
Do muslim terrorists count as Americans and will they turn them in? Something tells me this article was not penned with them in mind.
These utopians are incredibly dangerous as history shows. Whenever they assume the reigns of power, peole start dying in large numbers - those who the utopians du jour think do not fit into their vision of utopia.
Informed people know that it is called Demo-cide. Murder by your own government.
Again, since Israel has so much influence over our government, why are we not adopting their firearm and immigration laws? Seems like half of our governmen t are dual citizens so why not make the US< their home away from home> more like their real home?
Molon Labe liberals.
Volunteer to lead the entry stacks on the confiscation teams.
They're gonig to need lots of point men once this thing kicks off. The survival rate of point men will resemble the survival rate of helicopter door gunners in VN.
I guess you can put me down. I have 3 AR-15s and take the NYTimes at least as seriously as every other mainstream media source out there, including, but not limited to CNN, FOX, CBS, MSNBC, WaPo, and the local paper.
NYT: "All the news that fits"
That quote says it all,
Somewhere out there the ghost of Joseph Goebbels is golf clapping with all his might.
How many tens of millions of trees were murdered and forests destroyed to print their full on zio propagandist shit for the past 100 + years?
How many Ukrainians died at the hands of Stalin as Walter Duranty covered for him and won a Pulitzer Prize for his collusion?
How many millions of Russian Christians were murdered under Bolshevism which came from NYC and the murderers came from the same "tribe" as the NY Time seditors and now readers?
Who financed Lenin and Trotsky?
http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/...
"All the news that fits (the preferred narrative)."
It would seem that they are self administrating macro doses of LSD to increase creativity .
Dear NYT,
I will never submit to tyranny, no matter what propaganda your Satanic Globalist puppet masters tell you to write.
Sincerely,
SMG
-
Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES. (); April 23, 1933, , Section , Page 22, Column , wordsPermissions
[ DISPLAYING ABSTRACT ]
MUNICH, April 22 -- As the only member of the press yet allowed to do so, a NEW YORK TIMES correspondent has visited the huge Nazi internment camp at Dachau, near Munich, where 5,000 political prisoners will eventually be detained.
Let me get this straight. The same rag that wrote this in 1933, that Dachau would house 'political prisoners' and that three were shot trying to escape. It was good of them to be right on top then, so I trust their reasoned voice now as well.
No! The biggest mass murderers in history were the English in 19th century India, guilty of staving from sixty to eighty million people. A nasty, dabilical lot. Stalin and Mao were merely wannabes.
Mike Davis Late Victorian Holocausts
I posted this link early this morning in another thread whenit had about 77,000 views. It now has 1.5mm views in less than 24 hours.
I think it's worth watching and I agree with the Sheriff's message.
I wonder what the NYT thinks of his message.
Brevard County Sheriff on recent terror attacks.
When the NYT's first published their leftist diatribe, James Wesley, Rawles posted this on his Survivalblog.com front page.
Molon Labe, bitchez!
DaddyO
Thanks for the link!!! He is da Man!!!!
Which part of "Shall NOT be infringed" do they not understand?
''Thus the particular phraseology of the U.S.Constitution confirms and strenthens the principal, supposedly to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is VOID; and the courts as well as other departments are BOUND by that instrument,"
Marbury v Madison 17 Wall 205 Cranch Book 2 (1803)
What is really scary is that this is supposedly a creme de creme newspaper.
Weberster's Dictionary ASSULT (weopen)-LAW--"an unlawful threat or an attempt to harm another physically." A slling shot with a ball bearing loaded into it's leather pouch meets that criteria
The Editor is an incompetent nincompoop!! Milestones
That is my sheriff. He came out for unlimited open carry and campus carry last year. I like how he tells Lynch and Zero to suck it.
All that said, and I am pretty far down the libertarian wormhole. I sure do know a lot of nitwits who should never get anywhere near a firearm. I see plenty at public ranges here who don't have the foggiest idea what they are doing. I usually try to help out or refer them to some decent trainers I know, but the average 21-35 year old male with a gun in his hand absolutely does not want to hear that he's an incompetent fool. Hence my issue with the 2nd. Go pass a serious 40+ hour firearms training course and tote anything you fucking want, no limits. Full auto, any caliber, whatever. A lot of these goddamn "Call of Duty Gost Elite 13" wankers should not even be near a fucking bb gun. Ever. Not around my family, anyway. Think about it for a minute before you downvote me. I don't know what the solution is. Mandtory immediate death penalty for negligent discharge resulting in injury or death? I'd be OK with that.
I suppose if everyone was armed all the time these knuckleheads would learn quickly not to wave their big bad fo-tay's around, muzzling everyone within 50 yards, or get weeded out of the gene pool.
I just really hate weeding.
Jump! You Fuckers!
Giving up your guns because of criminal loons is like castrating yourself because your neighbor has too many kids.
- not certain who gets the credit for this statement but have seen it many times
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=174_1441938494
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-surgery
Easy to find reference material.
Best argument against gun control
https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0
Nice try idiot - recognized the Aussie eunuch before the shitshow even started. I bet you put on makeup and walk around your basement with your junk tucked in like Buffalo Bill.
REAL AMERICAN'S: NYT should shut down thier propaganda operation for the good of their fellow citizens.
Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
The Communist party must command all the guns,
that way no guns can ever be used to command the party.
-Mao Zedong
NYT has always been a mouthpiece for the left as far back as the 20's
Sure, just stop by the house tonight.
Big government liberals
Jumbo shrimp
Military intelligence
There are morons, and there are oxy-morons. I believe the NYTimes is filled with both.
Everyone should be aware that the bastion of freedom & liberty (the leftwing Poynter Institute...lol) has an editors section where advice is being dished from "on high" (wherever the hell that is) for reporters, journalists and editors to stop calling them "assault weapons" and start calling them "assault-style weapons".
Now I have no idea what the latest fashion trends have to do with the martial arts (lol) but I do recognize subtle shifts in tactics when I see them. An assault weapon is select fire, a semi-auto is not.
All the editorial nuance in the world can't get around that simple fact, so, it's not an "assault weapon" at all...of any description.
Chanel styled? scented?
lmao!...for them, only lace.
"And now on the stage ladies & gentlemen I would like to bring your attention to Caitlyn who is modeling the latest assault-style weapon from Donatella Versace that will carried by all the chic elite bodyguards going to Davos next year. Its slender lines are accented by sequins running along the the top of fore grip back to the bright pink butt stock. It's fully detachable, diamond encrusted 30rd mag also has the Versace logo on both sides so all the transgendered goons at your front gate will know instantly who's really going to be on top! At the modest entry level price of $100,000 it's sure to be a direct center mass hit.
Thank you Caitlyn ;-)
Slave to fuckwit Bush for sure.
And you should be ashamed of a stupid comment like that. Even for Hasbara, or volunteer equivane, it was lame.
This is not a left-right issue, no matter how much our masters behind the MSM want us to believe so. It is omnipotent state versus Free men, and you don't win if we put it in the correct terms. Hide behind "common good", "for the children", when you mean "make 9/11 the False Flag operation go away, help them forget."
There is no such a thing in America as an independent press, unless it is out in country towns. You are all slaves. You know it, and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to express an honest opinion. If you expressed it, you would know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid $150 for keeping honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for doing similar things. If I should allow honest opinions to be printed in one issue of my paper, I would be like Othello before twenty-four hours: my occupation would be gone. The man who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the street hunting for another job. The business of a New York journalist is to distort the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to villify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread, or for what is about the same — his salary. You know this, and I know it; and what foolery to be toasting an "Independent Press"! We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping-jacks. They pull the string and we dance. Our time, our talents, our lives, our possibilities, are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
John Swinton
Specifically, the NYTimes has not noticed that 9/11 was a false flag operation run by Israeli-Neocons in the US government.
And they don't notice that gun-control is for Progressives what Muslims is for the ??some kind of idiots??, reason to hate and be stupid, but to set yourself up for control by the very same Israeli-Neocons.
They are going to hang if normal politics ever is allowed anywhere in the world. More and more countries will be closed to anyone from the US or Israeli gov, that has already started.
Anyway, this is a very dangerous time for our Israeli-Neocons in government and civil life, as their MSM is losing control of the agenda to places like ZH. People like ME control the agenda too, at little bit.
And you know, enough little bits from enough little people like me, and we reach a tipping point, and they hang.
Or we have a revolution. So you see how they need all of you hating enough to justify a revolution?
Please stop hating each other and lts start concentrating on gettouy our society un-FUBARed, OK? This need not be that hard, we are all humans, a very in-bred species by hominid standards. WE aren't different enough to matter, there is no reason to hate, and we hate largely because our govs need us to.
This is the same kind of unbelieveable idiocy that lead directly to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party, and different dynamics but the same blinkered view of self-interest that has lead to political disasters everywhere.
You people seem to have no concept of the consequences that this like of social regression will lead to. This is the way to golags and concentration camps and mass killings of whole sections of town. This is insanity.
This is the way to very great poverty and loss of international presence for many generations. It is consigning our childen and grandchildren to poverty and igorance, It is discarding what is a very wonderful civilization in damny near every way, except for the minor fact of 9/11 the False Flag operation run by the Israeli-Neocons, which is a cancer and infection and all of the things you guys point to that other great enemy as being.
You are very deluded people, but you can excuse yourselves, they are very expert. As Mark Twain said, "It is easier to fool a man than convince him he has been fooled."
Alaric --
Exactly. That is why the NYT should give up publication of any and all of their news coverage.
They are to the Free Press clause in the 1st Amendment what Fast and Furious is to the 2nd Amendment.
M sentiment. https://youtu.be/WTdO-w3xnpw
"It has been a propaganda mouthpiece for the government for years now."
All the news that's NOT FIT TO PRINT.
Dear NYT. Come and take them. Pack a lunch, and bring your own body bag.
I never owned an AR before the Kenyan was elected. Now I own 30+ in 5.56, .308, 6.8 & 7.62x39. I own Barrett's and AKs and more ammo than I could shoot in a lifetime.
Got four more on the way and another 10k rounds coming from the various sales this past week. Liberal tears are so sweet.
"Liberal tears are so sweet."
I'm stealing that!
Yup, never thought I would need to own an assult weapon but the commander in chief is such an excellent sales person I don't think I can resist much longer.
Assault weapons are fully automatic, and as such are NOT available to the general public without tax stamps and special class III weapons license, of which there are very few. In other words the Times doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground, and probably considers a kitchen table butter knife an assault weapon.
Never owned a firearm, lived in NYC for 17 years. Left in 2012, bot guns, bot a military truck, gonna buy an M2 and a turret for the truck, bot land, bot a TON of ag equipment. We've gearing up for the next big campaign.
Those restrictions are not lawful.
Progressive liberal democraps never let the truth or facts deter them from promulgating their billshit lies & agenda to be jammed down the throats of tax paying US citizens.
Dear NYT,
Go fuck yourself, you commie paper.
-Every second amendment supporting gun owner
Typical fucking moronic American response. That is why the US has one of the most fucked up societiesin the world, more murders, more criminals, more folks in jail ... and the only chance of getting a job is going into the military where they can go and shoot innocent people in foreign lands, and then get ignored when they go home.
hi bill, i like this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2a6-1UD1kI
Supporting the second amendment moronic huh? You may want to check you stats on a few of those things like more murders and most fucked up society. You must be related to Charlie.
Sadly I can disagree on that last point but I think most members on ZH can agree that you can go fuck yourself too.
The feeling is mutual!
Why don't you head over to the Democrat Underground with that nursery-rhyme understanding of the realities of the grown-up world.
Seriously, the children have been in charge for long enough, and you whining brats need to shut up and sit down and let those who understand human nature save Western Civilization again.
The votes speak volumes there cumguzzler.
Riiight, because those strict gun control laws sure helped out in Paris? I'm sure those guys had the proper gun licenses for the AK-47s they used to shoot up the place...
We have "More murders, more criminals, and more folks in jail" because we have a "Diverse" population and "Diverse" income distribution thanks to the sociopaths in charge.
The guns are the only thing keeping the place civil at all, you wanna see what America looks like without gun rights? look at mexico.
Or Canada?
Basically what you are saying is that americans do not know how to have a civil society without the ability to enforce compliance with guns. Sounds like a great fucking place.
No that's you putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that the problems in this country have nothing to do with the legal ownership of firearms, and everything to do with deeper structural social and economic issues.
You are confusing the symptoms of the disease with the disease itself.
Gun control is pointless in the best case scenerio (Wealthy and mostly homogeneous countries like Japan and Canada), and incredibly harmful in corrupt countries with "Diverse" populations USA, Mexico, South Africa, and soon to be most of europe.
Look aT THOSE NUMBERS, WILSON!!! (Grabs keys blocks access to donuts). Afraid we're going to have to let you go.
If you feel our society is so sick, why don't you head over to France I hear they have a few openings.
I like the idea, but let's try it in Israel first, and if that works out, we can follow their lead.
As if anyone who owns an 'assault rifle' gives a shit what the NY Times prints.
Over my dead body.
Signed,
The ass
These arguments are fucking bullshit. There are so many guns in this country at this point that it makes no sense to start giving them up. You may actually have a chance to protect yourself and your neighbour if you keep your gun? It will only mean your one of the only ones that is NOT protected. Dont listen to this BULLSHIT!
Evem of these totalitarians got their way and rid the country of all guns, how long before places like Russia, South America, China started producing cheap, fully-automatic machine pistols in all our favorite calibers?
How well have border laws protected us from illegal invasion?
How well did prohibition keep alcohol out of the country?
How well has the drug war succeeded in keeping drugs out of the country?
What these leftist idiots are asking for is this:
"Let's ban and get rid of all the firearms owned by good, law--abiding citizens, allowing the law-breaking to maintain their arms and making many law-abiding citizens overnight criminals (even though we are also claiming we don't have enough jail space for the criminals we already have), and at the same time create a black market that will flood the streets not only with illegal guns, but fully automatic machine pistols with high-capacity mags, none of which will have a single serial number and can never be traced."
And they think they have the superior intellect.
NYT can suck it.
Let's go with this logic that we should give up our AR/Ak for the safety of the people so we should follow a lead and once the Police and private security have given up theirs we will see that the world is a safer place and we will give up ours . So lets start at the top by example with say Obama, Biden , Hillery, et al. We are waiting.
Hey, NYT: Since I know that most of you fucks are unarmed, why don't you try to come and take mine away from me? No?
Fuck off.
Hahahahaahah - NYT - fuku and the progressiver liberal democrap horse you came in on.....
Hey NY times......Assault rifles are out
FPV Armed drones are in
Armed with what?
What would you like?
Using a Muslim Terrorist event to restrict our 2nd amendment rights? ASHAME
NYT never likes facts
Soooo, what exactly are these liberal anti-gunners willing to give up for America's sake, if gun owners voluntarily give up their guns?
They have to give up something they value, out of their own pockets (giving away other people's money doesn't count!!!), in order for them to have returned the goodwill gesture... What is it that a leftist values enough that is equal to the value that a gun owner places on his or her guns? If they'll give that up, then maybe, we can talk about this "for the good of our fellow Americans" crap.
WE are already at my personal red line...not one more inch...not one.
The left will never quit, never be happy until everyone worships at their throne. All power to the state...at least as long as they feel they control the state.
They have no idea how many are near the redline, I shiver to think what they will do first word someone and family have been killed. I hope they know it won't be beer gut hillbillys comring out of the woods. A few with a aircraft sectional map of any region shows where everything is. And that's just a few of what I can think of they will do. Whole lots smarter than me out there. Thats real fear I have.
Insane liberal rag.
Isn't that where Krugman resides?
In the mean time ISIS is pushing gays off roof tops head first for violating Islamic law.
ISIS would have a grand time cleaning out the liberals at the NYT. They would probably literally chop a lot of heads there.
Probably half the staff and 75% of the senior editors wouldn't make it for but a few seconds.
The amazing thing that the Progressives seem to forget is that their "buds" are the very same which would be intolerant and persecute them first for their opinions and beliefs.
There is no "Noble Savage" effect.
If you have a right to life, you have a right to defend your life. You have an absolute right to life. It cannot be argued otherwise. You must be exercising your right to life in order to argue against it. To say you have no right to defend yourself is to forfeit your life.
The reasonable test is to allow the only institution with the recognized monopoly use of force the right to be the final arbiter as to whether you live or die. And if the guns are the violence, then the government is constantly assaulting you with their actual military grade weaponry.
And that's the rub aint it? The one single group in history w/the most demonstrable record of consistent, high profile mass murder is politicians (and their hired hench men). How many 100s of millions died in the 20th century at the hands of politicians? (See Prof. Rummel's work in this connection if youre interested.) So yes, I agree, politicians should be banned from access to guns of any type (including for their own personal security)...for the good of society. They're just too mentally unbalanced to be trusted w/guns.
I bet even if the mussies started to do mass knife attacks the left would still can for ...gun bans.
It would make the world a better place, but it won't happen because of all the fucking nut jobs who belive every problem can be solved with a gun.
Except in your case, the problem could be solved by simply punching you in your taco. I bet you squat to piss. Cry some more, your tears are like nectar.
More proof of the moronics assholes that can not solve any problem without resorting to violence. Jesus would be proud of you.
"fucking nut jobs who belive every problem can be solved with a gun" what like the Police force.
Molon Labe, bring Bloomberg to lead your charge.
NRA needs to come out with the truth about how small the 223 bullet is and how the AR-15 is designed to wound more than kill. If the AR-15 is 'so powerful' then why do over 50% survive, like San Bernardino? What's the kill-to-wound ratio for cop shooting? Ever hear of a suspect 'wounded' by a cop?
Its so true. My AR-15 is nothing compared to the power of my Weatherby 30-06 with a 10x scope. That's the ideal weapon to pick off these gun grabbers from 300 yards. And if they get closer there's always my desert eagle 50 action express or thompson center contender chambered in 30-06. Needless to say armour protection will do no good against either of these rounds delivered at over 2000 fps. And yet I own them just for the fun of shooting them. I would only use them to protect my life and property-including from .gov. Molon Labe
That's cause cops unload everything they have. Thus then at trial there is no defendant to complain and they tell each other they can get away with it. 223 is a compromise between killing power, distance and weight. Lighter bullets and you can carry more and fire more rounds. It's the shits when you run out of ammo. The nuts could not have been trained or they would have done more damage. Reminds me of ww2. All sides trained their soldiers to shoot for the midsection because wounded warriors required several people to take care of them. You kill the guy it's only one and the one is replaced. Stories say the Germans started this and then all sides followed. Land mines were the same. They weren't meant to kill(they were meant to blow your genitalia off). War is a dirty business.
I have a better idea, let's give up the NYT for the good of our fellow citizens.
cops have more assault weapons than anybody. how does the nyt feel about that i wonder? never mind, don't care.
Perhaps the same government that has ordered various small arms and ammunition for various agencies such as the Department of Agriculture, should give them up, you know, for the good of the citizens.
Those things could hurt someone, and they are not made for hunting, either, and, and are black!!
Beware Fascists with agendas; they make the trains run on time...