Today, the NY Times Editorial Board decided to burn the American flag based on the premise that, well, guns are bad.
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.
The weapon of choice were semi-automatic AR-15 rifles and a couple of pistols. The Times also had an article that provided information about the rifles in general terms with the obvious leftist slant towards the danger they pose. The Times also seems to think that this weapon is somehow meant to ONLY kill people, and do so in a horrific way, despite the AR-15 being extensively used for sport hunting.
This experiment has already been tried once. When President Clinton signed the assault weapons ban in 1994, the Democrat controlled Congress wrote language to include those weapons made by manufactures built with specific characteristics.
In general, the AWB defined any firearm with a detachable magazine and at least two of certain other characteristics as an assault weapon.
For rifles, those characteristics included:
- Telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- Bayonet mount
- Grenade launcher
- Flash suppressor
- Telescoping stock
- Pistol grip
- A capacity to hold more than five rounds
- Threaded barrels made to attach a barrel extender, handgrip or flash suppressor
- A barrel shroud that can be used as a handhold
- Weight of at least 50 oz. when unloaded
Nineteen models of firearms were specifically named in the legislation as assault weapons, while other models were included under the umbrella of the law’s definition of assault weapons.
When the AWB was not renewed in 2004, US manufacturers have resumed production of weapons previously banned. Regardless, the states of California, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York , and New Jersey have made it illegal to own assault weapons, although the shooters in San Bernadino had versions that were legal in California. Huh.
Interestingly, the AWB did not stand up to constitutional muster. The Second Amendment advocates were able to gut the Brady Bill in the courts, along with portions of the AWB where manufacturers could still produce the same rifles, but loopholes allowed gun owners to restore features with custom kits. Weapons enthusiasts were able to continue to sell and trade the modified weapons.
In 2004, the Bush administration didn’t seek reauthorization and the law expired. Manufacturers, knowing the law’s demise was imminent, resumed production full scale allowing the gun owners, both old and new, to purchase these same weapons.
And despite all that, the number of incidents and deaths went down. Until Obama came into office.
While the NY TImes did mention the challenges facing such a proposed ban, they advocate, again, similar legislation that would remove the AR-15 and similar weapons, along with the ammunition it uses, from the market as well as its owners. They have taken on the role of moral arbiter, telling the law abiding and patriotic citizen that they must give these weapons up.
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.
This unashamed display of irony is obvious when one reads an earlier line admonishing gun control opponents about the use of these weapons in other countries:
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.
The problem with this statement is that those countries have far more gun control than we do in this country, and still mass shootings occur! What the NY Times suggests is that doing something is better than nothing, although the data tells us it wouldn’t matter anyway.
Mass shootings have been on the decline for 20 years, but liberals are constantly changing the scope of what constitutes a mass shooting so as to keep pressure for doing what they really want: To repeal the Second Amendment and get guns away from you, the law abiding citizen.
In reality, the problem isn’t the gun, it’s with the people that choose to take them up to advance whatever their agenda is at the time. Columbine, Sandy Hook, Charleston, Tucson, Colorado Springs and San Bernadino have all been lumped together as “terrorism” by the NY Post in an effort to up the rhetoric to remove guns from the citizens.
Nevermind that Chicago, New Orleans, Detroit, Baltimore, and Washington DC, all have in place the most stringent gun control laws and all have mayors that are Democrats implementing liberal policies. And yet, gun related crimes are far higher than the national average. Will the NY Times Editorial Board decide later that we need to get rid of all guns to combat a problem liberals couldn’t address? Using similar logic, should we just get rid of liberal mayors? New Yorkers seem to be having second thoughts about DiBlasio.
Fortunately, most people are reasonable and understand the differences between a man who shoots up a theatre, an elementary school, a shopping center, a Church or your average gang-banger assaults, and that of a couple who built an arsenal that included explosives and thousands of rounds of ammunition, and acted on an ideology.
While the South Carolina shooter could be placed within the same category as the San Bernardino shooters, he wasn’t looking for a prolonged fight and his actions suggest his motives were more spontaneous. Yet, it’s closer to terrorism than just some deranged individual.
This takes us back to motive. It isn’t the gun that’s providing the motive. It’s just a tool used to advance it. Disarming citizens, though, under the foolhardy presumption that it would prevent or reduce future tragedies speaks volumes about the NY Times motives: They are nothing more than a puppet of the progressive left.
The problem no one wants to talk about is the fact that most gun violence is not because guns are so readily available; it’s that they are used by people who don’t value life. The Editorial Board has no intellectual insight into this. Why bother when it would mean thinking instead of promoting an agenda.
Sadly, the Times believes that gun violence goes away if you just take away the guns from everyone, even though 99.9% of the people who legally own firearms abide by the law and would never harm another soul. And in most cases, these same harmless citizens would use their arms to defend their neighbors against those who would do violence against them.
While we have to be vigilant against the evil that exists within our society, we also have to resist the temptation of believing the false pretenses of the NY Times and the leftist policies that perpetuate the myth they know how to solve the problem. Their solutions do not work. History tells us embarking down that road leads to even greater disaster. I’d rather keep my guns and the NY Times can shove their fake and baseless outrage up you know where.