Posted on 09/13/2014 9:27:30 AM PDT by rktman
Well, that came from the examiner and we all know the “w”hole assault weapons thing was BS from the get go. But for the NYT to actually publish an editorial like that makes me wonder if something isn’t freezing over too. In case you haven’t seen the anti’s messaging guide pamphlet:
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf
No gun, weapon or other inanimate object ever assaulted anyone.
First they tried to ban handguns, but that didn’t work out too well for them, so they tried to go after the so-called scary-looking guns.
Bloomberg has dismantled his anti gun group so the wheels are falling off the propaganda machine
The same thing can be said of SECOND HAND SMOKE.
“After 30 Years Of Lies, NY Times Admits “Assault Weapons Are A Myth””
This article is not the NYT or any MSM employee admitting they were lying and that they were wrong about gun control.
The ban on assault weapons tactic worked politically. They lied and won. Assault weapons bans were passed.
Now they want to ban other weapons. So they say banning assault weapons was misguided, did not work and did not address the real problem.
Their new message is that the government needs to ban and confiscate all guns.
Bump
I agree.
I’ve heard it said that power is always taken. It is never shared.
If or when gun rights are taken from the people, it will be up to us or a future generation to take them back. Not a very easy or likely thing to do.
It should also be noted that the idea that “assault weapons” are widespread and in common criminal use is a, if not the, main justification for the recent militarization of the cops.
In actual fact, such weapons are seldom used in crimes, and even less often used in shootouts with cops, yet cops are armored and armed on the assumption that they are.
BTW, Bob, what prevented you from posting the whole article you wrote?
Like the author said, the truth will quickly be forgotten for the lie of gun control.
Roger that. I read a report a long time ago that studied husband/wife smokers/non-smokers and the long term effects of “2nd hand smoke” over a period of something like 30 years. The results showed negligible effect on the non-smoker. I’m 67 and I can remember parties at my folks house and friends houses where you could hardly see across the living room because of all the smoke. We were present at a lot of those parties. Wouldn’t it stand to reason, if the anti’s logic were correct, that baby boomers would be croaking at a much higher rate than those born after the push to eliminate tobacco everywhere? And what’s gonna be the results 50 years from now with the push for weed to be legal? What sort of long term effects is that gonna have? Will the tokers even care?
IMHO the reason why the New Times has begun reporting news again, in place of their “real” news has nothing to do with the world’s political situation.
It is about readers and the monies that their readers generate and the rates they charge for advertising.
As readership falls news papers are face with a wide range of choices. They can start charging for access to their electronic versions. Or they can raise the prices of their hard print version. Or they can reduce the size of their print runs. Or reduce their staff and the salaries they are paid. Or, the most distasteful choice, change their editorial theme.
Over the last 25 years, my local paper has tried every option but the last and as a direct result they are down to about 30 pages of print, daily, printed in another city, and now have a 75 cent news stand price.
If, and this is a LPE (low probability event, the New York Times reverts to being a news paper, as defined 60 years ago, they might actually survive. Otherwise, there will be a new building and attached masthead for sale in New York City.
We can believe the NYTimes is sorry for what they did when the NYTimes publisher eats a bullet in contrition.
This is true, but it isn’t the official position of the New York Slimes.
Just like a the myth of “Temporary Tax “
I agree we do need “citizen control” of guns. Allowing the State to monopolize such control is tantamount to allowing the state to govern without even the threat of requiring consent.
The bracing, clarifying effect of lopping off the heads of a couple of journalists?
I have a feeling she'll be packing up her desk very soon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.