NYT: We Must Must Outlaw Civilian Ownership of Powerful Arms in US


Solution to Everything; Gun Control

Endless editorials from the likes of the LA Times and the Washington Post spewed forth calling for GUN CONTROL NOW, and suggesting that anyone who objected to immediate and universal limits was complicit in the murders of innocents and completely lacking in moral decency.

The editorials repeat the same nonsense, such as the clearly and often disproved claim that there is some kind of gun show loophole that allows for 40% of weapons sold at shows to circumvent a background check. Most gun sales require background checks, with a few exceptions such as inheritance or sales to family members, which may be a total of 2%. Another is the demonizing of “assault weapons,” a specious description of guns that “look mean.”

One of my favorites is the continual confusion that liberals have with machine guns with semiautomatic weapons, or as Loretta Sanchez called them “multi-automatic weapons” (not sure where I would get one, but I would like to see what it looks like). And as always, the grand boogeyman, the NRA, was again called out as the most evil organization ever, more threatening and evil than ISIS, no doubt.

It is curious that none of the folks I hear about who are involved in shootings and gun violence are members of the NRA. On the other hand, most of the people I read about that are involved in terrorist violence like that which took place in San Bernardino are involved in Islam, but the Lefties did not talk much about that. I wonder why, when we are talking about bringing in tens of thousands of folks from the Middle East that will have a background as clean as the Islamic killers from San Bernardino.

Be that as it may, the New York Times is representative of the type of nonsense the Left and the Democrat politicians are spewing this week, and it will go on for awhile until they get tired and get back to telling us the world is on fire and we need to stop using ALL PETROLEUM PRODUCTS OR FACE CERTAIN DESTRUCTION!

Which reminds me, all these LEFTY politicians who want to take your guns away because it will be a safer world always forget to mention that they will keep their own well-armed security people around them, but that is because they are really important and you aren't. Okay, here is a piece from the Times editorial. Be sure to pay attention to the suggestion that confiscating some guns would also be a good idea. They are usually not this blatant about their intentions, and lying about their true objectives just comes naturally to them.

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.

Worse, politicians 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.

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.

There you have it. The answer is to take your guns and leave you defenseless, the Bill of Rights be damned. Somehow not mentioned in the editorial is the huge weapon and ammunition purchases recently made for the Homeland Security, the EPA, and even the Forestry Service.

It is hard to understand why these Federal domestic agencies would need the kind of weaponry and the quantities of ammo they have secured when their job is strictly on the mainland to help and serve the U.S. population. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I think the best way to keep the feds in check is to keep my own protection handy and to not let them know what I have inside my house should they come knocking.

In the meantime, the NY Times and all the other lefty finger waggers can just put it where the sun doesn't shine, and when the bad guys come, whether from the Middle East or the hood, I may just remind them that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Source: wwwnytimes.com

 



Share

168 Comments

Leave a Reply

Pin It on Pinterest