...of which the race-baiting, freedom-hating Marxist, Bob Herbert, is a card-carrying member.
Doom on him and all like him.
Herbert explains well the importance of gun rights, although he opposes them.
Yeah that’s kind of what that little incident at Lexington and Concord a couple of centuries ago was about.
Guess what NYT when and/or if it does come, we will be ready and you will be the first thing to go.
And only a liberal can decry George W. Bush as a fascist while wearing a Che t-shirt.
Did anyone ever see one of those illegal machine guns from Waco?
I wouldn’t wipe my backside with that article.
Lets buy Bob Herbert a one way ticket to Iran or China . Send the Hildabest with him .
Choose sides, folks. The anti-gun, “government knows best”, “people are too stupid to take care of themselves” crowd like Herbert are coming for you. I know which side I have chosen. Do you?
JoMa
P.S Notice the author conveniently left out the Muslim who killed a US soldier in Arkansas back in June? This is a perfect example of biased writing.
Good. Let's make sure that no such ban ever comes our way, and that gun control advocates remain forever disappointed.
Every act of oppression and tyranny when imposed by government is “lawful”.
Another classic liberal self-inflicted wound on the subject of CCW. How many DC gun laws did von Brunn violate in taking his weapon to and into the Holocaust Museum? The DC laws did not stop the madman, nor do they stop an astronomically high murder rate in the nation's capital. Liberals are just unwilling to deal with the basic notion that criminals do not obey gun laws.
Always bringing up the murders at the Branch Davidian compound no one knows the truth there..If you ask me the Clinton's, Janet Reno was trying to show their power..They killed little kids and blamed it on the people living in the compound..I am not far from Elk Texas where this happened..If they had of wanted to serve a warrent on David Corresh they could have done that any time in Dallas where he humg out and they knew he went there often..All the had to do was walk in a store and handcuff him..
As for the people there, they worked out in town along other citizens of Waco and surrounding areas and were the nicest hard working people a person would want to meet..
So go to hell NYT I am waiting for the day that paper of yours is shut down..then we will get the last laugh..
I guess that he’s never read Jeffersons comments on owning guns.
...of which the race-baiting, freedom-hating Marxist, Bob Herbert, is a card-carrying member.
Doom on him and all like him.
5.56mm
“Four federal agents were killed and 16 others wounded in 1993 during an attempt to serve a search warrant at the Branch Davidian compound near Waco, Tex., where a stockpile of illegal machine guns had been amassed. The subsequent siege ended disastrously with a raging fire in which scores of people were killed.”
That’s a lot of passive voice, even from the NYT. That last part is especially strained. The siege was subsequent (as night follows day, sorta natural); it ended disastrously (as if by natural disaster, fate, or a really badassed El Nino blew in); with a raging fire (let’s not even suggest it wasn’t spontaneous combustion) in which scores of people were killed (by whom? Old Man Fire?)
Let that be a lesson to us! Horrible, incomprehensible things happen like lightning bolts from the capricious gods, when people don’t submit to our wise and benevolent overlords.
Yes, Mr. Herbert, I do own guns to hunt. I also own them to protect myself from people like you: those who desire unearned shares of others' wealth and property and who use elected officials to seize them.
The Second Amendment is a vital part of a Constitution that liberals freely abrogate except for the parts they like, which increasingly, are very few.
Μολὼν λάβε.
A search warrant which they did not even have with them. Nor did they ever try to "serve" it. It's a very strange warrant service that involves driving up in unmarked Pickup trucks pulling covered cattle trailers, which then disgorge a horde of black suited masked men. One which requires shooting the dogs of those to be served, before contact with the named person(s) is even attempted.
They try to serve a warrent like that in my neighborhood, they'll be met with the same, but more effective, response. (My neighbors are trained by Uncle, and wear digital camo to work)
In reading the comments, so far I haven't seen a single one in opposition to the column, though one poster DID agree that the 2nd Amendment was important to protect us against the "North Korean Hoards" so anyone wanting to own a gun should have to be in a "militia," and if they refused, would become a criminal. Sounds remarkably like the comment attributed to H. Himmler regarding gun ownership in the Third Reich... "If you want to own a gun, join the 'SA'"
I was going to post a comment of my own, starting with:
the use of firearms to resist policies and lawful government actions that some gun owners don’t like.
I'd like to remind Mr. Herbert that in the 1930s and 1940s, German law specified the confiscation of the property of Jews, and the liquidation (i.e. the death, for those who weren't used in slave labor) of Jews in German occupied territories. This was perfectly legal. It was the law. Throughout the middle of the last century, somewhere between 50 and 100 million people were killed through the legal, government policies instituted by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union (a fact denied and hidden, to this day, by Walter Durante and the very newspaper for which Mr. Herbert works.) The policies that caused death by starvation by the tens of millions were perfectly legal. They were the law set down by "the government."
The killing fields of Cambodia where upwards of 2 million were killed? Legal. The enslavement and murder of homosexuals in Cuba? Legal. The internment of Japanese and Americans of Japanese decent during WWII? Legal. The suspension of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War? Legal. The use of poison gas by Saddam Hussien against his own people? Perfectly legal! The liquidation of the Warsaw Ghetto by the NAZI army during WWII? Perfectly legal, though it took a while, since there was armed resistance. There are some who say that that resistance actually aided the Allied war effort, due to the resources of the Wermacht and SS it tied up. They fought against one of the most successful war machines ever created. But they were doomed to eventual failure.
When the government turns against its own people, any acts they commit are perfectly legal.
As bad as the column is, the comments are even worse. Though it explains why the NYT runs the stories and editorials they do... They know their audience. A rather frightening collection of authoritarian left wing moonbats, some of whom feel they would be doing us and the world a favor if we were just shut up and put away somewhere.
Mark
So I guess Mr. Herbert figures the founders were also right-wing lunatics, for they were devout believers in the right to keep and bear arms as the means to overthrow a tyrannical state. Funny he forgot to mention that in his article.