This Popular Newspaper Is Now OPENLY Advocating Gun Confiscation On Their FRONT PAGE
The NY Times ran their first front page editorial since 1920 — and it was monumental for sure. The editorial was a flat out call for gun confiscation. See part of it below:
All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.
But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.
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.
…
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. (NY Times)
Check out the fire storm that it has cause on Twitter:
The @nytimes runs its first front page editorial since 1920. On gun violence. https://t.co/LIEgbFD5dt pic.twitter.com/iXkzaHqW9w
— carolynryan 🏳️🌈🏓 (@carolynryan) December 5, 2015
So, does this mean that no issue has mattered more to NYT editors since 1920? If so: FASCINATING. https://t.co/vetG4OP8yL
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) December 5, 2015
https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/672987184778072065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
I'm exhausted. I've been traveling. I've been drinking. And I'm pissed. My quick response to the NYT editorial. https://t.co/A4pS3mVzYO
— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) December 5, 2015
If you're going to put an editorial on Page One, shouldn't it be persuasive?
— Jack Shafer (@jackshafer) December 5, 2015
Assault weapons have been banned in Ca. – where these guns were legally purchased – since 1989. https://t.co/vBboaa6FCs
— Stuart Stevens (@stuartpstevens) December 5, 2015
https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/672992909193576448?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/672956208953839616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
I, and likely millions of people like me, would not do this voluntarily & would resist efforts to do so by force.
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 5, 2015
"and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 5, 2015
There's a bit in the NYT editorial which would almost certainly lead to civil war in the US but it's treated as a throwaway line
— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 5, 2015