[Dan from Michigan]

Not bad for the Times. I won't call them the Slimes this time.

[Dan from Michigan]

Boom.

[AnnaZ]

Not bad for the Times. I won't call them the Slimes this time.

 

Not bad? Why? Because they deigned to report it?

 

It drips with derision for the decision from nearly every paragraph.

 

But, hey, at least they brought it up.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Bump.

[Concentrate]

Perhaps because the "Chosen people" are finally figuring out that they must defend themselves? Or perhaps it is lip-service to the flag-wavers who will no longer purchase their left-wing extremist rag? Sales are down.

[glc1173@aol.com]

Even the antigun Washington ComPost calls this a victory for us.

Taken in the way most favorable to the antigun lobby's spin on it, all this decision means is how the First Amendment is construed - that you have an individual right under it to freedom of the press, but that the city can make certain requirments of "time, place, and manner" governing where your paper racks can be located.

Scandals of antigun politicians and activists

[Standing Wolf]

The New York Times is nothing but an extreme leftist propaganda rag.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

"This is like what free speech rights were in 1930, when the Supreme Court first started to strike down speech restrictions,"

Thanks for the ping dan. Does the above quote mean in about 50 years the law will have swung our way enough that I can get naked, smear myself with chocolate, roll around on a stage and then sight in my rifle and get the Nat. Endowment of Arts to sponsor the whole thing?

If you added chocolate my wife might go to the range more often.