When It Comes To Executive Power For Banning Firearms, NY Times Is Down With That

Here was the NY Times on the opinion pages and in the “news analysis” (still opinion) pages

Just a few examples, and many, many more, which are often about the border wall, like

A Trump-Made Emergency

With his declaration of a national emergency at the southern border, President Trump takes executive overreach to dizzying new heights. The damage to American democracy threatens to linger long after his administration is no more than a dank memory.

Dizzying new heights! Especially when it comes to protecting the board, which is actually in the Constitution. Also the Editorial Board

America Deserves a Leader as Good as Jacinda Ardern

The murder of 50 Muslim worshipers in New Zealand, allegedly by a 28-year-old Australian white supremacist, will be long scrutinized for the way violent hatreds are spawned and staged on social media and the internet. But now the world should learn from the way Jacinda Ardern, New Zealand’s prime minister, has responded to the horror.

Almost immediately after last Friday’s killings, Ms. Ardern listened to her constituents’ outrage and declared that within days her government would introduce new controls on the military-style weapons that the Christchurch shooter and many of the mass killers in the United States have used on their rampages. And she delivered.

On Thursday, Ms. Ardern announced a ban on all military-style semiautomatic and automatic weapons, parts that can be used to turn other rifles into such weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. “It’s about all of us,” she said, “it’s in the national interest and it’s about safety.”

See, when it comes to banning firearms by executive fiat, the NY Times is good with that. Of course, as has been noted by so many, New Zealand doesn’t have a 2nd Amendment or any other guarantees for citizens to have firearms. And both the Times (which has armed security at its New York City office) and Ms. Arden (who surely has armed security) will be denying citizens the same security, are good with the massive over-reach in making law abiding gun owners into criminals. One of the tweets I ran across from a New Zealand resident wondered if this would lead to massive crime in New Zealand because law abiding citizens are disarmed and criminals aren’t much like in places like Chicago.

Earlier in the week, she told Parliament that social media sites must address the ease with which the internet can be used to spew hate and images of violence. “We cannot simply sit back and accept that these platforms just exist and that what is said on them is not the responsibility of the place where they are published,” she said. “It cannot be a case of all profit, no responsibility.”

Ms. Ardern didn’t propose immediate measures to limit the reach of Facebook, Twitter and other internet publishers, and it’s not obvious what could be done without trampling freedom of speech. But she made clear that she believed that those social media platforms, like gun manufacturers and dealers, bore some responsibility for the carnage visited on Christchurch and so many communities in recent years.

The same NY Times is incensed by Donald Trump saying mean things like “fake news” about the NY Times and other news outlets. Trump has really never proposed doing anything about it, including even in a manner just meant to troll the leftist news media, but, if we go by the NYTEB’s newfound love of executive power, they’d be good with a crackdown by Trump on news outlets, right?

Hey, I know: Trump can declare all firearms in areas that vote Democrat banned. Including for law enforcement. California, the NY City area, NJ, Chicago, and others. Nothing bad could happen, right?

Oh, and

They are very tough laws.

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

10 Responses to “When It Comes To Executive Power For Banning Firearms, NY Times Is Down With That”

  1. Professor Hale says:

    You know what else NZ doesn’t have? Criminals, a violent African-based subculture, MS-13, Millions of immigrants form third world countries, a 2,000 mile unprotected border with a third world country with a huge violent crime rate or a national history of breaking away from “mother England” by force of arms. In their country, even regular police are rare. They just don’t need them because they have very few criminals.

  2. Dana says:

    The lovely Miss Ardern, who gave birth to her “domestic partner’s” bastard while in office, isn’t doing this by whatever New Zealand’s form of executive order is. She’s the leader of the ruling Labour Party, and not only will Labour go along, but the leading opposition party will as well.

    To receive a permit to own a firearm in New Zealand, even prior to this repugnant disarming of citizens, you had to have an acceptable reason, and self-defense is not considered a good reason.

    As for freedom of speech? The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act of 1990 specifically states that it has no particular precedence over any other act of Parliament, which means that any law passed subsequently which contradicts the Bill of Rights is perfectly constitutional, whatever constitutional means in new Zealand.

    It’s too bad that Her Majesty the Queen lacks the power to veto the proposed ban, but even if she still had it, she probably wouldn’t anyway.

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    So you think an old lady in England should decide what’s best for an island nation (and very successful nation, at that) some 12,000 miles away?

    Do you just want more guns there for killing Muslims? Or for citizens to protect themselves from White Supremacist bastards?

    Sounds like something a real bastard would propose.

    Anyway, New Zealanders live longer and are happier than Americans. And have a higher proportion of Muslims than we do in the US! Although, if they keep allowing White Supremacist terrorist bastards to immigrate, Muslims there may find themselves in an existential crisis.

    Have you ever been there?

    • formwiz says:

      She’s probably got better sense than you.

      She’s also a vet and knows her way around a weapon.

      Do you just want more guns there for killing Muslims? Or for citizens to protect themselves from White Supremacist bastards?

      More like more firearms for citizens to protect themselves from Moslems killing them.

      And Harvey’s getting mouthy again. Sounds like he’s seen the news Trump is headed for a landslide.

    • Dana says:

      Jeffery in one of his pseudonyms asked:

      So you think an old lady in England should decide what’s best for an island nation (and very successful nation, at that) some 12,000 miles away?

      The third verse of God Save the Queen includes:

      May she defend our laws, and ever give us cause
      To sing with heart and voice, God save the Queen.

      Alas! It was the failure of His Majesty, King George III, to enforce the provisions of the English Bill of Rights of 1688, which included “Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”. When the Royal Governor of Massachusetts began confiscating arms, without an Act of Parliament, he violated the Bill of Rights. ‘Tis thanks to His Majesty the King, and his idiocy, that we now have our own country, and our written Constitution and its Bill of Rights.

      It is the duty of the monarch to protect the rights of his subjects from encroachment by Parliament, and, in this case, it would be better if Her Majesty protected the rights of her loyal subjects in New Zealand.

  4. Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

    “Since Donald Trump was elected in 2016, various Democrats have proposed to abolish the Senate, abolish the Electoral College, assign electors according to the popular vote, expand the Supreme Court, set term limits on the Supreme Court, lower the voting age to 16. So their strategy is, we’re losing, so we need to change all of the rules. But it’ll be great when Trump wins the popular vote in 2020; their backpedaling will be enough to make Niagara Falls run backwards.”
    — Ace

    • Professor Hale says:

      It’s all part of the same old playbook. “Fundamentally transform America”. Or, as Chairman Stalin would put it, “breaking a few eggs”. Play by the rules to get power, then use power to change the rules to keep power. If they would just use that power to steal a little off the top, no one would care, but they want to use it to enslave everyone else. The communists have always hated America and have been working for about 100 years to weaken it. Their agents here are still working to accomplish that, even thought they haven’t noticed that the USSR has fallen and can’t get up again. Now the same people who worship communism complain “Russians” are bad.

  5. Mangoldielocks says:

    45 Donald Trump 98
    44 Barack Obama 276
    43 George W. Bush 291
    42 Bill Clinton 364

    Imperial presidency is certainly a cause for concern. Why is it that people are so afraid of that. In 1980 the Democrats were shook to their core that an Actor aka Ronald Reagan could rise to the office of presidency. They went after him with a vengeance. They went after GHW Bush as well. Then Clinton Arrived and what goes around comes around. The Right went after Clinton for 8 years. Then Bush was the new Nazi and then Obama was the new 666 and now Trump is orange man bad.

    In all of this NOTHING is getting done. Nothing. They are renaming the same post offices over and over. Paul Ryan bragged he passed 1000 bills. Yeah like 900 of them were renaming a statue or a post office.

    So IF your concerened about a presidency that is too powerful as am I. Then how about working together and getting things done. Its simple really.

  6. […] It used to be the left who were the most vociferous defenders of the freedom of speech, in its most absolute form. But today? It seems that as the left move ever-further toward the silliness of socialism, they are adopting the attitudes of the socialists, the attitudes that the public must be controlled. ___________________________ Cross-posted on RedState. ___________________________ ¹ – The editorial board represents the opinions of the board, its editor and the publisher. It is separate from the newsroom and the Op-Ed section. __________________________ Related Article: William Teach on The Pirate’s Cove: When It Comes To Executive Power For Banning Firearms, NY Times Is Down With That […]

    • Professor Hale says:

      No. That wasn’t the “left”. Those were liberals. Derived from the belief that personal liberty was what was best. The Left has always been progressive and they never cared about personal liberty. They have always advocated for the common good, not the personal good.

Pirate's Cove