Shameless: NY Times Trots Out A “Won’t Someone Think Of The Children” Meme On Guns

Just because some nutjob went nutjob doesn’t mean you get to take away my Constitutional Rights. That’s the whole purpose of the Bill of Rights: it’s about restricting what the Federal government cannot do, not saying what We The Citizens can do. And because the government dropped the ball doesn’t mean you can take away my rights.

People thought MSNBC’s Katy Tur was bad with this one

Well, this is the NY Times Editorial Board, and, regardless of their utter bias, the NY Times is one of the top newspapers in the world

Will America Choose Its Children Over Guns?

As surely as there are camels’ backs and straws to break them, moments arrive when citizens say they’ve had enough, when they rise up against political leaders who do not speak for them and whose moral fecklessness imperils lives. We may be witness to such a moment now with the protests by American teenagers sickened — and terrified — by the latest mass murder at the hands of someone with easy access to a weapon fit for a battlefield, not a school.

Yeah, you’d be in big trouble with a single shot rifle on a battlefield. But, then, the handguns the armed security at the NY Times building are also weapons one finds on a battlefield. And military members carry knives into battle. Do we ban them?

These kids have had enough. They’ve had enough of empty expressions of sympathy in the wake of the sort of atrocities they’ve grown up with, like last week’s mass shooting that took 17 lives at a high school in Parkland, Fla. Enough of the ritualistic mouthing of thoughts and prayers for the victims. Enough of living in fear that they could be next in the cross hairs of a well-armed deranged killer, even with all the active shooter drills and lockdowns they’ve gone through. Enough of craven politicians who kneel before the National Rifle Association and its cynically fundamentalist approach to the Second Amendment.

They’d have a lot more classmates if the craven politicians, and editorial boards, who kneel before Planned Parenthood, did something to reduce murdering the unborn. I’m not going to slam the kids: they’re being whipped up into a frenzy by adult groups. Most have zero idea how the world works. But, they should remember, when you enter the big game of politics, when you’re trying to take away people’s rights, you make yourself fair game. There are some who go to far (such as Gateway Pundit), and have been slammed by fellow people on the Right, but, just because they’re kids doesn’t exempt them from criticism when deserved.

Anyhow, let’s see what the NY Times is proposing

To be effective, any movement needs a realistic program, not mere emotion. Otherwise, it risks coming and going in a flash with little to show for itself. A tighter federal system of background checks is a start, to better monitor would-be gun buyers with mental illness, for example, or histories of gun violence. Such a program should also include reinstating a nationwide ban on assault weapons — a state measure died in the Florida Legislature Tuesday — and ending an absurd prohibition against using federal public health funds to study gun violence.

Um

How about we start with enforcing our existing laws? How about they start properly reporting people to the FBI database as they’re supposed to? A ban on scary looking guns won’t make a difference. It didn’t last time, and won’t this time. However, this is not what the Times really wants

What the young protesters are saying now is: Put down the guns. We’re your children.

How can anyone not heed their pained voices?

What the Times wants is banning guns. And end to the 2nd Amendment. Just because voices are in pain doesn’t mean you get to take away my Rights.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

31 Responses to “Shameless: NY Times Trots Out A “Won’t Someone Think Of The Children” Meme On Guns”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Just because some nutjob went nutjob doesn’t mean you get to take away my Constitutional Rights.

    And what Constitutional Rights are being taken away?

    Your Constitutional Right to convert a assault weapon to fully automatic?

    Your Constitutional Right to have a 30 or 100 count magazine for your assault weapon?

    Your Constitutional Right to have a rifle capable of killing dozens of humans in a short amount of time?

    Your Constitutional Right to buy and sell firearms in secret, to anyone, at any time?

    Our Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that we can bear arms to protect ourselves. They have also ruled that governments can impose reasonable restrictions on the type of weapons and reasonable restrictions on who can possess weapons.

    Is your concern that you may lose your “right” to a rifle designed to kill dozens of humans rapidly?

    • alanstorm says:

      Congratulations! You have conclusively demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge re: firearms, their functions, the laws concerning them, and why there is a 2nd amendment.

      How can anyone not heed their pained voices?

      Because writing laws based on emotion is a hideously bad idea.

    • Dana says:

      What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

      I’m trying to figure this out: if I come up with some what I think are perfectly reasonable restrictions on your First Amendment rights, would you be OK with that? After all, it’s clear that this country would be much better off with only Christianity and Judaism being allowed faiths; why shouldn’t the law restrict religious organizations to Christian and Jewish denominations?

      It’s clear that Trump Derangement Syndrome is creating a huge, ugly divide in this country; why shouldn’t we have a Sedition Act making it criminal to criticize the President of the United States?

      It’s clear that the anti-Trump rallies have been not only divisive, but left tons of trash and vandalized property behind; why shouldn’t your right to assemble (peaceably?) be curtailed?

      • Jeffery says:

        Dana,

        As you know, we have reasonable restrictions on both speech, religion and the press.

        It seems as if the far-right finds restrictions to “keep and bear” machine guns and bazookas to have “infringed” their Constitutional rights.

        I might not “need” a shoulder rocket launcher (but I might – I live on a cul de sac and if the Federales try to take over I might need to shoot a tank), but it’s my “right” under the 2nd Amendment to “keep and bear” one, if I choose.

        Is ANY limit on personal firearms, either on the hardware or laws limiting access, an infringement of your Constitutional rights?

        • Dana says:

          No, we do not have “reasonable restrictions on both (sic) speech, religion and the press.” You may be criminally liable if you misuse such things, but we have no prior restraint on them.

          If you print something libelous, you may be civilly or criminally liable, but your right to own a printing press or have internet access is not denied you in advance. If you yell “Fire! in a crowded theater, and cause a stampede which injures someone, you may be civilly or criminally liable, but the government does not ban you from entering a theater. If you have female genital mutilation due to your religion, you may be — probably not, though, since we’re too afraid of offending Muslims — criminally liable, but we don’t prohibit you from being Muslim.

    • formwiz says:

      Be kind to Jeffery, he wants people to believe the Federal bench, as it has existed for over 80 years, isn’t pursuing a Leftist agenda. He also never heard of the 10th Amendment.

      And, doubtless, many of our forebears would have availed themselves of weapons with high capacity magazines on full auto when the Iroquois came to call.

      BTW, has anyone seen that some of those “anti-gun” Parkland “students” are being outed as having gone to school in places like CA, not FL?

  2. Jeffery says:

    TEACH: What the Times wants is banning guns.

    Certainly not a ban on ALL guns. The Supreme Court has ruled that possession of sawed-off shotguns was not protected. We effectively ban fully automatic weapons (machine guns), hand grenades, rocket launchers etc. We’re certain the EB is aware of the Constitution and the Supreme Court rulings.

    TEACH: And (sic) end to the 2nd Amendment.

    That’s not what was written. We have a process for repealing Constitutional Amendments.

    TEACH: Just because voices are in pain doesn’t mean you get to take away my Rights.

    In your opinion, are any infringements of your “gun rights” Constitutional? Background checks? Special taxes and regs on machine guns? Do you feel the 2nd Amendment protects your right to “keep and bear” any “Arms” you desire?

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    • alanstorm says:

      How about a regulation that requires that the government entities that fail in their duties – as was multiply manifest in this case – be fired? At least?

      I could support a regulation barring liberals and other children from owning guns. Virtually all mass shooters fall into one or the other category.

  3. formwiz says:

    Amendment IX
    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Amendment X
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

  4. Jeffery says:

    DANA typed: What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand?

    Do you think the current restrictions on machine guns are unConstitutional? The arbiter of such things, our Supreme Court, disagrees with you.

    Should Americans have unfettered access to any “Arms” they desire?

    Easy questions. Yet, you answer with a bumper sticker.

    What part of “well regulated militia” don’t you understand?

  5. Jeffery says:

    Anyone? Do you feel that Americans should have unfettered access to any and all hand-held firearms they desire?

    Is it unConstitutional to stop certain individuals from having unfettered access to these weapons?

    Is limiting magazine capacity in any way an infringement of your 2nd Amendment rights?

    Simple questions. Any direct answers or just more bumper stickers?

    • Dana says:

      Yes.

      No. It is not unconstitutional to stop ‘certain individuals’ from having unfettered access, because the 14th Amendment allows the suspension of some, or all, civil rights following due process of law. That’s how we can — and should — prohibit convicted felons from possessing firearms, or voting. Without due process of law, yes, it is unconstitutional to bar people from access to firearms.

      Yes. It is the assumption that people who have not broken the law will break the law with their use of firearms. We have a legal presumption of innocence; the gun control nuts are taking a legal presumption of guilt.

      • Jeffery says:

        Dana,

        The FL murderer was not a convicted felon, nor had had due process to seize his weapons, right? Yet, many on the left and right said he should have been institutionalized.

        • Dachs_dude says:

          Yep. Had he been institutionalized, he wouldn’t be out and about shooting up his former high school correct?

    • david7134 says:

      Jeff,
      You do realize that in the screening process, that you desire, you would not be allowed to have a gun. The big difference in our society that is making school shootings more prevalent now versus back 60 years ago is that these various nut jobs would not be in school with normal children, but would have been weeded out and sent to special school or mental institutions. Liberals got rid of all that so this violence is on that back. Has nothing to do with guns.

      • Jeffery says:

        dave,

        On what grounds would you have imprisoned the Las Vegas murderer BEFORE he murdered 58 Americans?

        On what grounds would you have imprisoned the FL murderer BEFORE he murdered 17?

        A guy who threatened t-Rump just got 2 years, while t-Rump’s administration let a guy who threatened to kill schoolkids, kill schoolkids. Maybe the govt should take those other threats seriously, too.

        • david7134 says:

          Lets see, Jeff offers a rebuttal on selected cases rather than the situation as a whole. There were warning signals in the cases you cite, especially the guy in Florida. But you would not understand. Once again Jeff, you analysis, projection, lack of knowledge, and adherence to bizarre liberal talking points makes you seem to be ignorant and a low life, but I think you do those things just to troll.

          • Dachs_dude says:

            He is ignorant and regurgitates DNC talking points with a “cut and paste” precision. In other words, the perfect Democratic voter.

          • Jefferyj, says:

            dave,

            We assume from your non-answer that you found no grounds to stop the Las Vegas mass shooter before he murdered 58 innocents and injured 851. Now put him in the hotel, not with fourteen AR-15 type semis with bump stocks (90 rounds fired in 10 seconds) and multiple magazines, but with standard hunting rifles and handguns. The AR-15 war weapons seem to kill a lot more innocents than they defend “good guys” or prevent a government takeover.

          • david7134 says:

            Jeff,
            As I said, you would not get a gun as you are a nut job. And I don’t bother to exchange comments with nut jobs

  6. McGehee says:

    The most overlooked words in the Second Amendment are “the right of the people”.

    That exact phrase appears elsewhere in the Bill of Rights, and in every case it refers to a near-absolute right.

    Or at least it did, before political correctness and the surveillance state.

    • Jefferyj, says:

      1st:

      the right of the people peaceably to assemble

      Does herding protestors into designated protest corrals violate this?

      2nd:

      the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

      This seems to be the only one of the three “right of the people” Amendments where Cons want the absolutist interpretation. Why does this one seem most important?

      4th:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

      Most Cons find the police to be too restricted in their ability to search people, e.g., stop and frisk.

  7. captainfish says:

    And, the bill of rights were not to be debatable. They were to be the buttress against the movement of the gov’t against the people. But now, we’ve allowed the gov’t to dictate whether the bill of rights even apply to us or not.

    I’ll start to give up my rights to purchase and own guns without abridgment if you liberals, authors, movie producers will give up certain words to use, give up the right to make certain movies or porn.

  8. Jeffery says:

    It seems the consensus here is that Americans should have greater access to weapons than at present. Fully automatic, etc are all OK.

    • Dachs_dude says:

      Whatever it takes to make sure we can repel armies both foreign and in the worst case, our own government, should it become tyrannical. You do, of course, realize that the first thing a tyrannical government needs to do BEFORE it seizes power is to disarm its own citizens, right?

      • Jefferyj, says:

        drama_dude,

        So you’re going to use your little rifle to repel foreign invaders and your own government? You’re living a fantasy of toxic manliness!

        It gives you the illusion of security but is more likely to kill you or your loved ones or be stolen, than to be used in fighting off tRump and the Russian Army.

        Wolverines!

  9. Some Hillbilly in St Louis says:

    What we need now is 25 or so red states to declare that they are 2A sanctuary states for state citizens. Sauce for the goose.

  10. Jefferyj, says:

    Isn’t it unConstitutional to limit access to firearms based on age? Or do you think it just common sense to keep semi-automatic weapons out of the hands of 12 year old boys?

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The Constitution seems agnostic regarding age. The NRA/GOP/Russia would like to see schoolchildren armed. Why not? “See something, shoot something!”

    t-Rump and the NuCons are destroying America.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10480 access attempts in the last 7 days.