Posted on Dec 5, 2015
San Bernardino Shooting: NYT calls for tighter gun laws in editorial on their front page. Wait, what???
4.11K
32
16
1
1
0
""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
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
Posted in these groups: 
2nd AmendmentThe New York Times
2nd AmendmentThe New York Times
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 8
I suppose we should start banning anything that can be used to kill! That will work for sure "sarcasm"!
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
To me some reasonable gun measures make sense, but I completely understand why people do not want the government having even more control.
(3)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
The police will always be late to the massacre, but they will bring plenty of yellow tape and crime techs with them...
(3)
(0)
SrA Matthew Knight
"Yea but the terrorists hijacked the planes with..."
They hijacked the planes with small box cutting knives and fear that there may be bombs on board, bombs that probably didn't even exist and if they did they were most definitely made with household items that anyone can purchase.
The left loves every time a shooting like this happens and they never waste any time jumping on the tragedies to try and use them to push their political BS. In fact, a certain leader was talking about needing gun laws the day of the San Bernardino shooting and two bills were attempted to get passed the day after, both were of course shot down.
In an ideal world we would never have to worry about gun violence or any other violence for that matter. Unfortunately this isn't a perfect world, this is a world where regardless of the amount of restrictions you try to implement the bad guy is still going to get there hands on what they want. Fully automatic firearms have had heavy restrictions placed on them for years to the point where it costs so much to be licensed to own them that they aren't even worth it yet gangs and other criminals still get their hands on them.
Unfortunately I don't think that anti-gun activists will ever get it through their heads that criminals don't follow laws. Gun restrictions will only restrict the law abiding. Shootings and bombings and other attacks will happen as long as someone hates the American or Western way of life and someone will always hate our way of life, thus attacks will never end.
But hey, what do I know? Just keep telling yourselves that taking firearms from law abiding citizens and taking much needed equipment like armored vehicles and such from law enforcement is going to help keep this country safer. Keep telling yourselves that...
(I of course in no way direct this at you Cap, hence why I upvoted you. I just hope to God that people consider the implications of attempting to take firearms from the American people and just how much worse things would get.)
They hijacked the planes with small box cutting knives and fear that there may be bombs on board, bombs that probably didn't even exist and if they did they were most definitely made with household items that anyone can purchase.
The left loves every time a shooting like this happens and they never waste any time jumping on the tragedies to try and use them to push their political BS. In fact, a certain leader was talking about needing gun laws the day of the San Bernardino shooting and two bills were attempted to get passed the day after, both were of course shot down.
In an ideal world we would never have to worry about gun violence or any other violence for that matter. Unfortunately this isn't a perfect world, this is a world where regardless of the amount of restrictions you try to implement the bad guy is still going to get there hands on what they want. Fully automatic firearms have had heavy restrictions placed on them for years to the point where it costs so much to be licensed to own them that they aren't even worth it yet gangs and other criminals still get their hands on them.
Unfortunately I don't think that anti-gun activists will ever get it through their heads that criminals don't follow laws. Gun restrictions will only restrict the law abiding. Shootings and bombings and other attacks will happen as long as someone hates the American or Western way of life and someone will always hate our way of life, thus attacks will never end.
But hey, what do I know? Just keep telling yourselves that taking firearms from law abiding citizens and taking much needed equipment like armored vehicles and such from law enforcement is going to help keep this country safer. Keep telling yourselves that...
(I of course in no way direct this at you Cap, hence why I upvoted you. I just hope to God that people consider the implications of attempting to take firearms from the American people and just how much worse things would get.)
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
MSgt Curtis Ellis
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google