Anyone surprised?
For the first time since 1920, @nytimes runs an editorial on Page One: https://t.co/nx7NByHJqW pic.twitter.com/iilQmyPps2
— Tom Jolly (@TomJolly) December 5, 2015
From the article
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.
All guns can be considered weapons of war. Do they propose banning all guns? Oh, and a goodly chunk of the scary looking ones are already banned in California.
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.
In other words, forced confiscation in violation of the Constitution. This is the modern Left, folks. Our Rights are not up for negotiation.
