NY Times Moral Outrage

BigDaddy · Dec 5, 2015

WeaponsCollector · Dec 5, 2015

The harder the gun control freaks push and the more desperate they get, the better!
Maybe one day they will open their eyes and realize that they can't beat gun owners so they should join us.

Michael S · Dec 5, 2015

I agree the one thing I noticed is if you read the comments not one person disagreed with the authors view. In almost every other article I have read there at least some decanting views.

Are they editing there comments against the first amendment to make there point?

danb · Dec 5, 2015

The left has turned the "full retard" up to 11 on this.

Michael S said:
I agree the one thing I noticed is if you read the comments not one person disagreed with the authors view. In almost every other article I have read there at least some decanting views.

Are they editing there comments against the first amendment to make there point?

They are they, but hard to find. There are 900 of them after all.

Uncle Duke · Dec 5, 2015

"THE BOARD".

Just when I thought that the NYT couldn't possibly be any less relevant...

Simply incredible in both content and timing. Would be downright humorous if it weren't so pathetic.

Michael S · Dec 5, 2015

I am sure there are a few. But not the first 20 I read just making a point.

ericahls · Dec 5, 2015

"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."

All right, finally someone with the balls to call for the confiscation of firearms instead of beating around the bush.

So I hope that we can count on the editorial board of the Times to be at the head of the line when they go door to door to confiscate these weapons from the 10's of millions of highly patriotic Americans. The raids will make for some riveting YouTube videos.

danb · Dec 5, 2015

Hoisted from the archives:

The last time the NYT ran a full page editorial was in 1920, to lament the Harding being nominated as Republican Presidential nominee. http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1920/06/13/96355493.html?pageNumber=1

I see this as a good sign: Front page editorial screeching about gun control to stop terrorists says "jumped the shark" to me. Not even my lefty friends are buying this one. What happened to the boy who cried wolf...

Applehd · Dec 5, 2015

Has anyone here ever been to the hq of the NY Times? ... I would bet money that they have armed security... (yes... that would be guards with guns) at the entrance, as well as scattered about their facility... and if they do... they should be dismissed immediately. No need for guns, right? :rolleyes:

HokieKev · Dec 5, 2015

It always amazes me how two people can look at a something and see it in totally opposite ways. For example, the article talks about the "peculiar" wording of the 2nd amendment. I don't find it peculiar at all. It seems to me that the founders contemplated the wording of amendments almost endlessly to make them clear, concise, easy to understand and hard to misinterpret. I marvel at how the ideals they developed like "illegal search and seizure" have stood for over 200 years and remain so relevant and crucially important today. The core ideas are applied in new domains (like the Internet) that could not possibly have been envisioned at the time.

Although they tried mightily to prevent future generations from tyranny, perhaps you really can't save people from themselves. Who said "I give you a republic if you can keep it"... I probably don't have that quote quite right...

llkoolkeg · Dec 5, 2015

There is no such thing as a factually-based newspaper any more. All they do is hard-sale push the bull$hi+ agendas of their elitist, over-privileged ownership ala Shroomberg under the statistically twisted headlines they hand-pick for their coordinated marketing campaigns masquerading as news. Fvck the New York Times, fvck the New York Post, fvck the Wall Street Journal and frankly while we're at it, motherfvck just about every other slimy, liberal export from that God-forsaken den of vipers and pestilence known as Gotham...or is that Gomorrah?

Brooklyn · Dec 5, 2015

All five readers of the NYT are very impressed.

Next.

BeoBill · Dec 5, 2015

Never interrupt your adversary while they're making a mistake...

DC-W · Dec 5, 2015

http://us8.campaign-archive2.com/?u=b68ad0a9ed4e483c34ee37b6c&id=583216a044
https://twitter.com/EWErickson/status/673203319528116224

I shot holes in the NY Times editorial
This is what I think of the New York Times editorial today. The United States suffered its worst terrorist attacks since September 11 and the New York Times' response is that all law-abiding citizens need their guns taken away. Screw them. The New York Times wants you to be sitting ducks for a bunch of arms jihadists who the New York Times thinks no doubt got that way because of the United States.

It should be striking to every American citizen that the New York Times believes the nation should have unfettered abortion rights, a right not made explicit in the Constitution, but can have the Second Amendment right curtailed at will though it is explicitly in the Constitution.

Again, we have suffered the worst terrorist attack in more than a decade and the New York Times believes now we must have our rights taken away as a response to terrorism.

I hope everyone will join me in posting pictures of bulletholes in the New York Times editorial. Send them your response. Put them on Instagram and use the hashtag for my radio show and I may give you a shoutout. #EERS

You can follow me on Instagram and Facebook at @ewerickson

All the best,
Erick

SCARCQB · Dec 5, 2015

Those that do not have morality should not be preaching what morality is. Its insulting.

BeltBuckle · Dec 5, 2015

Applehd said:
Has anyone here ever been to the hq of the NY Times? ... I would bet money that they have armed security... (yes... that would be guards with guns) at the entrance, as well as scattered about their facility... and if they do... they should be dismissed immediately. No need for guns, right?

I've been there several times, and I do not recall seeing armed security. I am sure it was there, but it was not conspicuous. Next time I'll take and post pics :cool:

Reason had a pretty good, if understated take down of the grey ladies' bunched undies here https://reason.com/blog/2015/12/05/new-york-times-calls-for-immense-expense

yahoo covered it here http://news.yahoo.com/york-times-rare-front-page-editorial-calls-outlawing-071431605.html (thanks to http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=185414&highlight=yahoo) and the overwhelmingly caustic comments will warm your heart. :party29:

wjackcooper · Dec 5, 2015

Only liberals are sufficiently delusional to purpose that law abiding citizens have their weapons under more government control in the face of adverse gunfire.

Boondock Saint · Dec 5, 2015

"...many of whom would rather start a civil war than acquiesce."

Z_Man · Dec 5, 2015

the fact that this editorial is a full page of ridiculousness is obvious about the intentions of those in power and the mouthpieces of those in power.

it is an obvious attack on freedom, and a HARD push to remove as much liberty as possible. The administration and their friends see this as the last great chance to push.

if successful it would ENABLE future attacks, to FURTHER remove liberty..

this is their goal, NEVER forget it.

fidelity · Dec 5, 2015

The NY Times main editorial page column almost always sucks - both the writing and reasoning are what you might expect from an average 9th or 10th grader. It's much weaker than their OpEds, and might often contain musings from the publisher.

I mentioned in the SB terror attack thread last night that this editorial was out there, and going to be on today's front page, but the column was unimpressive so I didn't bother posting. The newsworthiness is that they pushed it to the front page, and possibly because the publisher got a call from fellow travelers (Democratic politicians, Bloomberg, etc) for some sort of coordinated message.

The mistake is that this is a terror attack, so people are rightly focused on the terrorists being the problem. I look forward to the Republican response to Obama's address Sunday night. I bet he's going to pivot and try to co-opt their message of tighter immigration, fighting ISIS, etc but lecture us once again about (not) saying Islamic terrorists.

NY Times Moral Outrage

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

EXTREME GUN OWNER

Active Member

dont be a dumbass

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Active Member

dont be a dumbass

Attachments

Throbbing Member

Ultimate Member

Hairy Flaccid Member

I stand with John Locke.

Crank in the Third Row

Ultimate Member

Get Opp my rawn, Plick!

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

piled higher and deeper

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics