We don’t have a Jihadi problem, we’ve got a gun problem. I know, because the New York Times tells me so ("The Gun Epidemic" )
For the first time since 1920 the NYT has seen fit to publish its own opinion of what life in America should be like on their front page. Apparently they’ve relinquished their role as a member of the (previously) venerable Fourth Estate to serve as a community organizer for the new Ministry of Truth.
So here is the latest position of the
But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. 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.
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
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.
Two things come immediately to mind:
1) Does the NYT actually understand the purpose of the Second Amendment?
2) Do they believe that they, too, are not immune to government imposed “reasonable regulations” on their First Amendment right to free speech?
With respect to #1, the answer is no. They do not think that the Second Amendment is intended to protect we the people from a tyrannical government (theoretically in the future) but rather only refers to your right to go hunting – something else they don’t approve of. So as you see, there is no reason to maintain the Second Amendment at all.
If the NYT editorial board actually understood the intent behind the Second Amendment, it should be clear that citizens should have a right to own and maintain any type of arms that the police and military have access to - as they are the ones who will serve as agents of tyranny.
And with respect to #2, don’t you realize that the Media’s right to free speech is an absolute and inalienable right!?!
What’s wrong with you!?!
Besides, who needs government censorship when we censor ourselves so well?
Cross-Posted on Patriot Action Network