End the Gun Epidemic in America
�‹It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.
By THE EDITORIAL BOARDDEC. 4, 2015
Hmmm.
And I would reply, so what.
They are preaching to the choir (their subscribers) and they apparently have an inflated sense of self-worth, if the layout of the newspaper is worthy of an article.
Hi, Lazamataz.
I know you are a defender of the 2nd Amendment; please ping others if you feel this is worthy (it`s the middle of the night here, I woke up and couldn`t sleep, went down to read the news, but given the time, I don`t know if others will see it).
If there is a gun rights ping list, perhaps someone could reach out to that person. :)
No editorial on terrorists though! It is a gun problem, not a radical Muslim, who want to destroy us, problem! Talk about out of touch.
Do any of these damn clowns have a clue that we are sick of them looking down on flyover country and lecturing us as if we are the problem!
They walk around with a stick up their butt, with security, in gated communities while we live free with our own self protection.
I think the country has had about all it can take of these ivory tower liberals who think they have a clue about how real every day people live. They don't!
The last time that Democrats pushed major gun control, they passed the Assault Weapons Ban in 1994.
They immediately lost control of Congress that November.
What issue do Democrats lose more political control on than gun control?!
Democrats are bad at a lot of things...who would have thought that after a couple of centuries that they would start getting bad at politics of all things?!
Yeah, y’all run on “gun control!”
Can I hand ya some more rope for your noose?!
Sulzberger is a cattle car conductor for his tribe
Gun control is civil war.
That’s good. That guarantees more parakeets will get to express their opinions about it than when it’s on the inside.
more anti-American sedition from a paper which has a long history of it
(the one good thing is its crossword pozzles, otherwise its not even good toilet paper)
It might be worth noticing that Harding won.
Would the New York Times run a first page editorial offering to give up its First Amendment rights in the same of the greater good?
But it demands the American people be forcibly disarmed to satisfy its moral outrage. Our RKBA is not dependent upon its approval.
The NYT and the hoplophobe crowd are welcome to pry our guns from our cold, dead hands. We will defend to the death, our cherished American birthright.
MOLON LABE!
useless weak kneed jihadist apologists
[ It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment, the editorial states. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation. ]
Translation: We the libs will regulate the freedom of religion and speech under “reasonable regulation” until those do not functionally exist either.
If they are gonna use this event to regulate guns away... why not regulate offending muslims as well curtailing the 1st amend while they have the “momentum”....
gun control = tight grouping
Rogue Guns! Anti-Gun PSA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnetFL4Cc54
Here’s some news that you will NEVER read on the pages of the New York Times:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3368532/posts
I challenge the nyt to show what new laws would have made the actions of the terrorists more illegal than they already were.
California already has hyper restrictive gun laws, and gun free zones don’t do a darn thing.
Attacking the rights of the citizenry to “feel good” about having “done something” is just as bad as the slavering mad dog murderers shouting “Allah Akbar” as unarmed victims cower and die, indeed is it as if they were doing the murdering and holding the weapons themselves while saying “it’s for your own good.”
How about a ban on muzzie immigrants? That would definitely have prevented the shooting, or at least one shooter.
Bill and Hillary Clinton’s Family Foundation gave $100,000 to a New York Times’ charitable fund in 2008, the same year that the paper endorsed Hillary Clinton in the hotly contested Democratic presidential primary, the Washington Free Beacon reported Monday.
The gift from the Clinton Family Foundation, the family’s charitable giving arm, went to The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund, a charity run by members of the Times Company’s board of directors and senior executives. The CFF distributes more than $1 million annually to dozens of causes, though the $100,000 was larger than the foundation’s average.
This donation and our editorial board’s endorsement of a candidate in the 2008 Democratic primary have absolutely no connection to one another