San Bernardino Shooting: NYT calls for tighter gun laws in editorial on their front page. Wait, what???

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 12:23:41 -0500

""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," the editorial board wrote."

RUFKM??? O_O

The New York Times is using space on its front page to call for greater gun regulation in the wake of recent deadly mass shootings.

Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. says the newspaper is running its first Page 1 editorial since 1920 on Saturday to "deliver a strong and visible statement of frustration and anguish about our country's inability to come to terms with the scourge of guns."

"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," the editorial board wrote.

The Times' editorial suggests drastically reducing the number of firearms and even "eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition."

"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 said. "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."

GIVE THEM UP FOR THE GOOD OF THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS??? ARE THEY FREAKIN CRAZY???

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/san-bernardino-shooting/san-bernardino-shooting-new-york-times-front-page-calls-tighter-n474816?cid=sm_fb

New York Times Puts Gun Control Editorial on Page 1

The Times is using space on its front page to call for greater gun regulation in the wake of recent deadly mass shootings.

Response by SFC Stephen King made Dec 5 at 2015 12:27 PM

SFC Stephen King — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 12:27:12 -0500

Guns don't kill people kill people. These individuals that carried out the worst case of terrorism planned and used the weapons to do so.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2015 12:53 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 12:53:30 -0500

Their intention was to kill and harm as many people as possible, they chose firearms to do that, they could have chose a pressure cooker, fertilizer, play dough, drain cleaner, rust remover...... any number of other resources. At some point kinetic energy is required to have these items become lethal, human beings provide that. It is the same with weapons human beings provide the energy used to make the weapon lethal. Not all human beings have the intent to do harm, weapons can be used as preventative/stabilizing measures too.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Dec 5 at 2015 2:54 PM

CPT Mark Gonzalez — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 14:54:01 -0500

A determined enemy can kill a lot of people regardless of gun laws. Examples are 9/11 and the Oklahoma City bombing.

To me some reasonable gun measures make sense, but I completely understand why people do not want the government having even more control.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 5 at 2015 3:09 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 15:09:30 -0500

I suppose we should start banning anything that can be used to kill! That will work for sure "sarcasm"!

Response by 1SG Nick Baker made Dec 5 at 2015 3:19 PM

1SG Nick Baker — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 15:19:38 -0500

Why let a tragedy go to waste,when it can help your agenda. Was not that the MO of Chicago's mayor?

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Dec 5 at 2015 5:04 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 17:04:49 -0500

You know, in regards to firearms, if the founding fathers wanted the militia (the people) to be well regulated, they would have said so in the 2nd amendment... But they didn't, so let's... *whispers from off stage*

Ok, nevermind. Turns out that's the very first sentence in the second amendment. Who knew?!

Response by MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P made Dec 5 at 2015 5:25 PM

MSgt Steven Holt, NRP, CCEMT-P — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 17:25:38 -0500

Does it not seem odd to anyone else the vast majority of mass shootings have occurred in "Gun Free" zones? Is that just me?
Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Amish schoolhouse. These areas all have a common denominator. The only person (or persons) who were armed was the assailant(s).

We will never be able to completely stop those who are hell-bent on causing death and destruction. All we can hope to do is minimize the risk as much as reasonably possible. Taking away a law abiding citizen's right of self defense only makes that citizen helpless when the wolf comes.

As for me, the aggressor may very well succeed in taking me out. He'll dang well have to work for it though because I intend to be a target that shoots back!

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Dec 6 at 2015 7:06 AM

Maj Mike Sciales — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 07:06:14 -0500

I think it's pretty clear that Congress won't do anything. Mitch McConnell got paid $992,000 last year to be their chief chogey boy and he won't give that up. Neither will Orrin Hatch. It's too lucrative. Losing a couple of hundred Americans each year is nothing compared to all that money. They don't care whit one about the dead.