Second Amendment

New York Times Calls for Immense Expense and Political Civil War To Maybe Possibly Hopefully Reduce Gun Violence by a Tiny Amount


The New York Times for the first time since they were mad at Warren Harding will publish a front-page editorial on gun control in today's paper.

The editorial itself.

The Times is appalled by murders and terror, and especially appalled by instruments used in the latest act of terror in San Bernardino.

The Times could take some national pride in the fact that we as a nation have made amazing progress in curbing the scourge of gun violence, cutting it nearly in half in the past couple of decades.

But they do not take that tack. Rather, when they get to concrete (sort of) proposals after expressing their dismay with murders and tools that can be used to murder, they declare that "Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, 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."

If the Times got its way, their confiscation program would almost certainly require a buyback, as in much-lauded Australia. Enormous law enforcement effort and time would have to go into trying to enforce the prohibition as well, if it were to have any meaning.

While the Times is not specific about exactly what weapons it wants to ban and confiscate beyond the specific models used in San BernardinoSlate did some rough calculations back in 2013 that likely over 3.5 million such rifles or substantially similar ones are in circulation in the U.S.

Such rifles cannot reasonably be expected to be hidden on one's person and thus ought not give law enforcement any extra reason to search persons moving forward with this new, massively distributed, contraband contaminating America. Still, there would surely be some unpredictable but bad effect in using the power of law enforcement to search people and their property to uncover their now-banned weapons. Our society being what it is, such efforts would likely impact the less-well-off and less well-connected the most, and the most violently. 

What the Times is calling for is, beyond its countable costs in money and effort and the likely further erosion of civil liberties, also (as they surely know) calling for a massive political civil war the likes of which we haven't seen in a long time. The "assault weapon" ban of 1994-2004, though pointless, just barred the future making and selling of such weapons, and didn't try to confiscate existing ones.

A huge proportion of the American people will be very upset if the government attempts a mass national confiscation of a widely and almost entirely peacefully used weapon. (Despite what the Times said, in nearly every case, no "good of their fellow citizens" would be furthered by an American giving up a weapon, since in nearly every case that weapon would never harm anyone else.)

So, what is the size of this problem, worth such cost in treasure, liberty, and domestic tranquility to the Times?

According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report for 2014, rifles—the entire category of rifles, of which the ones the Times wants to ban at such great cost are but a subset—were used to commit 248 murders. That's in a country of around 319 million people. That's around 2 percent of the total number of homicides that year.

While the official figure, it is doubtless a bit too low. The numbers for Alabama and Illinois are known to be too low, because of reporting gaps. That said, the FBI figures there do not break down the category "rifle" to the specific ones that the Times targets, likely akin to the "assault weapons" that were banned moving forward in America for a decade, with no appreciable effect on public safety.

So the total number of those 248 (or slightly more) rifle murders actually caused using the ones the Times wants to expend all that effort into banning is much smaller than 248. Since the effort could not actually succeed in removing all such rifles from the hands of people with propensities to murder, and even if it did those murderous types would have other means to murder if they chose, the effort would not actually save all of that subset-of-248 lives.

The move the Times proposes with such ceremony and passion is so purely symbolic, so driven by a superstitious desire to placate fate by acting as if it is doing something to stop grotesque acts of terror like in San Bernardino, and so motivated by a desire to sock it to a huge proportion of their fellow citizens over a contentious and heated political and constitutional issue, and is being offered with such emphasis (first front page editorial in nearly a century) that one could imagine the Times is only proposing such a move as a stalking horse for seeing if the government can get away with successfully banning and confiscating a class of weapon, by starting with one with such a tenuous connection with public safety on a national level. 

It is likely that there is literally no other political crusade on which the Times could call for so much expense and turmoil for such a small benefit—again, except for the benefit of showing Americans who believe that they have an inherent right to own weapons of self-defense if used in a peaceful fashion, as the staggeringly overwhelmingly vast majority of them are, that the Times and those in government they speak for have the power and will to give it to them, good and hard.

NEXT: FBI Treating San Bernardino as Terrorism, Reporters Enter the Crime Scene, Paul Krugman Says We're Doomed (Maybe): P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Civil war? Must be the start of an election year or something.

    1. It’s a promo for the new Captain America movie.

    2. The NYT is the same newspaper that defended itself with Gatling Guns during the draft riots of the Civil War.

    3. I’m for anything that is an impetus to round up all the progs and deal with them once and for all. By the way, is this a good time to bring up my plan to euthanize all the progressives?

      1. Block the highways, and just starve out the progs concentrated in their densely populated concrete prisons.

        1. An excellent idea. They will go fast. Especially anywhere Al Gore or Michael Moore are present. Those fuckers must eat a ton of food.

    4. Woodchippers are too good for NYT employees.

  2. Libertarian Moment!

    1. Yes, when the powers of government come to confiscate your guns it will be the libertarian moment.

      1. Perhaps we are missing the big picture. The NYT is angling to be the first newspaper to be legally licensed in the US under the new News Source Freedom Act.

        1. All other news sources are subversive and non-sanctioned communication activities will be prosecuted acts of terrorism.

          /Loretta Lynch

          1. Indeed comrade! All for glory of wondrous State!

        2. our very own Pravda

        3. Its sad that I felt the need to google a bit to check if that was a real thing or not.

          1. The NYT’s has stolen the Onion’s headline.

      2. Yeah, don’t we wish.

        I’m afraid that for all our big talk, when the day does come that they knock on doors to confiscate weapons, nearly everyone will simply acquiesce and comply, not really willing to give up our otherwise comfortable lives for the sake of constitutional principles.

        And I suspect that the progs feel this way also, and that’s why they push so hard. They know that if they get just enough political momentum to initiate a confiscation plan, at the end of the day the average gun owner will simply fold up with little more than a few angry blog comments and some impotent rage directed at ‘the government’. Which is really win/win; they get to take our guns, and smug progressive ‘comedians’ like John Oliver will get months of new material ridiculing conservative troglodytes being forced to do acquiesce to progressive enlightenment at long last.

        There may be a few pockets of resistance, but those people will be even further marginalized as ‘domestic terrorists’ and so forth — barely even worth taking seriously to the media class. But the average gun owner? The law-abiding guy with a job and a mortgage and a couple of kids? You think he’s going to put it all on the line so he can keep his AR-15?

        1. I think there will be a great deal more of packing weapons in Cosmoline and burying in PVC pipes in the yard than people realize.

          1. There will be some of that, but I really doubt it will be a widespread practice.

            Think about it; in order for a ban to have any teeth, there will need to be drastic penalties associated with the law. Like, twenty-to-life-imprisonment drastic. Otherwise, yes, many people will simply hide their guns.

            So again, think about the average law abiding gun owner with a house and a mortgage and a couple of kids. He’s got a decent life overall, and whole lot to lose. He could take a chance and hide his gun… but then, if he’s found out then it’s game over for him. All it would take is a disgruntled neighbor or relative to narc on him and then he’s toast… everything in his life ruined over a rifle. That’s the calculus that’s going to be running through the minds of a great many people.

            And that’s exactly the point. The progressives aren’t really targeting criminals here and they know it. They want to disarm the average law-abiding American citizen for purely ideological reasons. They know that the only people who will comply with a ban are the ones who aren’t going to commit any crimes anyway. But it’s not about crime, it’s about control. It’s always about control.

            1. No officer, I sold those guns a long time ago.

              1. “Then you should be able to produce a bill of sale. If not, I’m sorry but that gives me probable cause to search your premises. I’ll have to cuff you while we wait for the K9 and metal detectors to arrive.”

                1. “Officer, those were guns were coincidentally stolen yesterday along with my comemerative Obama plates. You can go back to the station and check the police report I filed the day of the ban. Would you like to see the broken window glass before you get the fuck off my property?”

        2. “The law-abiding guy with a job and a mortgage and a couple of kids?”

          That pretty much describes me. And while I don’t have any “Assualt” look a like weapons, I’m sure the NYT’s will be quick to broaden the banned gun lists, in the years following the first. And I will cave. Because it’s not worth the risk of having the kids grow up poor and fatherless to stand on the principle of the issue.

          1. “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

        3. The interesting thing about crime?after hundreds of years of research its been discovered that most, in fact almost all, potential criminals do not expect to get caught. Even after a few people get busted with hidden rifles, everyone will just say “well, I hid mine better”. Who knows if they will have metal detectors and dogs. But certainly both of these methods of detection are largely circumventable. Otherwise why would they need backscatter X-rays to catch all those terrorists trying to fly home for Thanksgiving?

      3. The real libertarian moment will be when we line up the statists and push them into woodchippers.

  3. All the fits that are news to print.

    1. Well do not, sir.

      I also have fits. Can I make them national news?

        1. Alas, when I lose my temper and stomp around the house, the family goes all timid-villager and hides. People have no fortitude these days.

          1. No wire hangers?

          2. I bet you keep the family up all night with your wheel as well.

      1. I also have fits.

        I recommend a fit bit…to track the calories you are burning in any fits of rage 😉

        1. A fitting recommendation.

          1. There are times when you guys aren’t fit company for anyone.

        2. doesnt count stairs or holes punched in the wall, unfortunately.

      2. I also have fits. Can I make them national news?

        I don’t think that’s enough intersectionality. Maybe if you consider yourself a butch, pre-op, transsexual lesbian with emotional disorders, it would work.

      3. I also have fits. Can I make them national news?

        Goddammit, when I first read this, I thought you wrote “tits” and was going to heartily approve.

      4. Well the Honda Fit is a noteworthy economy car. And it would be odd to own several. So maybe there is a story there.

      5. I am convinced the New York Times is run by cats.

        “If it fits, I prints it.”

  4. Looks like the progs really didn’t want the shooter to be a Muslim government employee…

    1. No, I dare say they’re quite upset. Their collective breath was being held while waiting for the shooters to be ID’d, with fingers crossed that it would be some white, Christian, anti-government types. Since the shooters didn’t fit the desired profile, they moved on to Plan B, which was to use the attack to push for gun control.

      1. It was weird that their response to Dylan Roof was to ban the Confederate Battle Flag despite him being a racist Southern white man killing black churchgoers which should have been what they really wanted for a gun control push.

        1. I think they took what they could get. They have the memories of a gnat so my guess is they forgot these efforts are going nowhere and are trying again. Expect to see alternating efforts to ban guns and efforts to ban other things they don’t like at least until they recover from their collective head injury.

        2. The Dylan Roof case was too confusing for them. It conflated their hatred of guns with their hatred of racists, and racism won, so they went after the last historic symbol of racism they could find.

          For gun control arguments, what they would really love is a Timothy McVeigh with rifles: some right-wing militia nut declaring war on the United States and killing a bunch of people with rifles (surely, they felt so close on this one, with perpetrators wearing military gear, attacking a government agency).

          Then, they could frame gun control as disarming the enemies of the United States, and gun rights advocates could be slandered as traitors, in league with the enemy.

          That would be their ideal case for gun control.

          The terrorist angle bothers them, only to the degree that it confuses the issue for them. They’re running exactly what they would have run in practically all cases, unless the gunman had been a right-wing nutjob, in which case, “disarm the enemy!” would be a loud theme. Since its just more muslim terrorists, however, they don’t want to seem xenophobic.

      2. Karl Hungus . . . that name always makes me laugh.

        1. Is that a porn name?

          1. ahem

            please refer to 0:22

    2. In NYT algebra, what perp do you think is worst for them? Muslim of any variety, black christian, or black atheist?

      1. Black, transgendered Muslim who works for the government and cuts checks to Planned Parenthood.

        1. You are joking, but I actually saw a comment by a woman who’s profile was Muslim Afrolatino and some additional gobbedlygook.

          Yes, she was lamenting the coming anti-Muslim backlash.

      2. Gay, black atheist who is against abortion because he/she/xer is “culturally Muslim”.

        1. +1 local artisan handcrafted cruelty-free vegan head covering

    3. That and they are still on a jihad to make sure only government employees have guns, no matter how many they kill.

  5. Wait until one of these mass shooters uses a semi auto shotgun. The AR is gonna look like chicken shit.

    1. Saiga

      1. Love mine so much I clutch it every time I see it.

  6. So I guess the strategy is too keep saying that We Need Gun Control until enough people believe it. I’m sure we can trust the Republicans to not fall for it or that the Dems are not itching for one more SC appointment to gut the 2nd Amendment.

    1. There certainly does seem to be a lot of appetite for ignoring the constitution and its protections of civil liberties, particularly those civil liberties that are not in favor. I was shocked that free speech was so high on the list of things to discard.

      But the right to keep and bear arms is pretty much a zero on the left’s “protect-our-rights-ometer”. Of course, it has never been enforced as written. The whole “slightly modified combat rifles used in California, must be outlawed for civilian ownership” notion descends from the idea that it was OK to ban military weapons in the first place. No honest reading of the constitution could support that.

      The second amendment, in its entirety:
      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      1. Do you see any exceptions? Even about stuff that nobody is arguing about, like background checks, felons, mentally ill? No. The language is simple and plain.

        If we were at all honest about our system of laws, we would be pushing through amendments that would allow the congress to institute bans on things like cluster munitions and land mines. The language of the constitution is unambiguous on the matter, and when we allow our representatives to ignore the black letter law for expedience, this is where we end up: Arguing about whether banning all rifles wearing combat costuming is OK. And arguing about whether it is proper to prosecute people for speech that offends muslims.

        These things (and many others) are so far from being allowed under the constitution it is laughable. Yet here we are. Because we were lazy on issues that everyone “just knew” were right. Like Obscenity. Clearly and unambiguously protected speech under the black letter of the law. Yet the Supreme Court carved out an exception to the first amendment in direct violation of the constitution.

        The same goes for every federal weapons law. I don’t see how you can square a ban on private ownership of 50 cal. machine guns with the 2nd amendment, let alone bans on semi-auto rifles with cool plastic dressing.

        1. Amen.

        2. With respect to your two examples, Felons & mentally ill, there are exceptions.
          The 14th amendment allows for civil rights to be removed for convicted felons. And in general, those deemed mentally unfit have their rights revoked, but their duties to society are also diminished as a trade off.
          The big difference between these two and blanket bans is that the rights were revoked after due process of law that allowed for the person to challenge his loss of civil rights

      2. Of course, it has never been enforced as written. The whole “slightly modified combat rifles used in California, must be outlawed for civilian ownership” notion descends from the idea that it was OK to ban military weapons in the first place.

        Progressives would argue that these weapons didn’t even exist when the Second Amendment was written, so it never conferred the right to own them upon you.

        The real problem with all the arguments about what rights the Second Amendment gives you and doesn’t give you is that it misrepresents the meaning of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment, like the entire Bill of Rights, didn’t grant or define any new rights. Americans have a right to keep and bear arms because the US Constitution doesn’t give Congress the power to restrict that right; the Second Amendment simply restated this fact just to be sure (in retrospect, a good decision).

        That’s why all this hand wringing about the meaning of “a well regulated militia” or “the historical context” in which the Second Amendment was written doesn’t matter. You have the right to keep and bear arms not because of the Second Amendment, but because of the original constitution. The Second Amendment simply is an additional protection against legislative or judicial overreach in this area.

        1. Progressives would argue that these weapons didn’t even exist when the Second Amendment was written, so it never conferred the right to own them upon you.

          So by that logic, since typewriters and the Internet didn’t exist then, your freedom of speech and of the press is not extended to those technologies. Pointing this out to them is an excellent way to end friendships.

          1. Ok!

            /far too many fellow Americans

        2. You have the right to keep and bear arms not because of the Second Amendment, but because of the original constitution.

          No, you have the right to keep and bear arms because you are a human being entitled to self-defense, not because a rescindable govt document generously temporarily conferred that right to you.

          1. No, you have the right to keep and bear arms because you are a human being entitled to self-defense, not because a rescindable govt document generously temporarily conferred that right to you.

            You have the right to bear arms because the original Constitution is one of enumerated powers. That is, the Constitution agrees with your intuition. Geez, with morons like you putting bogus words into the mouths of other libertarians, libertarianism is in trouble.

        3. There were assault muskets in the 18th century. And cannons and shit.

          1. Yes, but they were able to completely ban those 10-round semi-automatic muskets!

        4. “Progressives would argue that these weapons didn’t even exist when the Second Amendment was written, so it never conferred the right to own them upon you.”

          I always like to point out that when the 2A was written, citizens owned the same exact guns that the military carried. In other words, we should be allowed to carry M-16 rifles, not the semi-auto look-alike.

      3. The Second Amendment will become important to the Left again while Hillary is in the general election.

    2. This is why we may have to pull the lever for Trump over Clinton even if you hate him and his policies.

      Too many SCOTUS seats will open up.

      1. This why I don’t vote.

        Too many idiots who nullify my vote.

  7. Wait, wait, wait….I could have sworn that a common mantra of gun controllers is, “No one is going to take your guns away.” Are you telling me that they would lie about something like this?

    1. It’s the Goldilocks approach. Allow people to keep the ones that are “just right”, then continually narrow what “just right” means.

    2. Of course, that pledge doesn’t include sociopaths; obviously, you need to take guns away from sociopaths, if need be by force! And if you want to own guns despite the harm that causes to society (according to Democrats), then you must be a sociopath! Do you understand now?

    3. They would NEVER take your guns away. And you can keep your doctor too. And no taxes will EVER be raised either.

  8. I noticed that CBS news gave a live feed to the press conference on the day of the Shooting, since shooting deaths in California are like worth live news coverage in Buffalo, complete with the newscasters lamenting “another” mass shooting. No agenda there!

    1. And no mention that California already has the laws they are proposing, and that it was yet another mass shooting in yet another “gun-free” zone.

      1. Obviously California’s laws do not go far enough. We need more stringent gun control laws like France has.

        1. Yes. You get just enough laws and nothing like this will ever happen again.

        2. Or Mexico. They have very stringent gun control, which is why the drug cartels fight it out with fists and clubs instead of guns.

          1. BUt, but The Aussies!

            1. They have the boomerang effect and kangaroo courts. They’re different.

              1. And Captain Kangaroo.

              2. Kultural appropriation!1!1!1!1!!!

  9. Hmm in 2008 didn’t Gillespie and Welch assure us that the Dems had given up on gun control since this was the Libertarian Moment?

    1. In 2008 Democrats were trying to elect Obama as the first black president.

      In 2016 running on gun control will at least keep everybody’s mind off all the stink Clinton doesn’t want to run against.

      Lesser of two evils.

      1. Yeah, they want to refocus attention away from her activities, which MAY have included some ‘light treason’.


    This should bury her but it won’t

    1. “Everyone should be believed at first.” Right, which opens the door to investigating the allegation, rather than lopsided administrative tribunals, which is all due process advocates wanted in the first place. I guess we can count “even Hillary” on the side of due process.

    2. You can’t bury what isn’t dead.

      1. Well, it’s physically possible… It’s not very nice though.

  11. Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

    But at least those countries are trying.

    It is time for you to sacrifice a personal liberty so I can feel better.

    1. But at least those countries are trying.

      And they deserve a “participant” medal.

      Paris was a practice run. Wait until ISIS really gets rolling, and see if enforced helplessness stays popular.

      1. This. ISIS will ultimately be responsible for the end of all gun control platforms. All they have to do is shoot up soft, “gun free” targets targets that hit NYT pearl-clutchers close to home and even Pinch Sulzberger will be promoting a well regulated militia.

        1. Doubt it. The enlightened sheep will just offer up more and more money to the state for more and more militarized police, surveillance and immigration control.

        2. Nope. Their proposal for solution will forever be a moar totalitarian police state.

        3. Nah, they won’t promote control gun but their soft supporters will flake off and buy guns themselves.
          Instead they will promote intrusive tech implementation which will only be where they live anyways, east and west coast major cities. robot gunpowder sniffing checkpoints. They will do whatever they can to keep these machines from profiling by outfit, race, religion but wil profile by who one voted for last election.

        4. ISIS will probably also be the end of cultural tolerance towards Islam.

      2. Some of them will get participant metal.

    2. Who cares if you feel better when your anxiety is irrational, over-sensitive and statistically unfounded. Further, your desire to “do something” without recognizing that those things you wish to do won’t accomplish that which you desire and might well cause harm, more likely makes you a danger to society than the danger you wish to thwart. Unfortunately in life, doing something fruitless just to make oneself feel better because they “tried” is simply a method of self-deception very akin to the defense mechanism of denial.

  12. Everyone in the house and senate should take a stand. Gun rights are killing this country. On December 11th they should all pull out their dicks and puss’s and start masturbating. On that day we can finally tell the world, we’ve done something.

      1. How dare you! While great, it doesn’t match Agile’s poetic awesomeness.

  13. It is likely that there is literally no other political crusade on which the Times could call for so much expense and turmoil for such a small benefit

    Are you sure that the anti-1st Amendment crusade, in which the Times is a major participant, is bound to be less costly? The anti-1st Amendment crusade that was triggered by a Supreme Court decision that it was actually okay to broadcast an anti-Hillary Clinton documentary.

    1. There’s a bit of difference between undertaking a great crusade against people who can shout at you, and people who can shoot at you.

      1. well they do refer to it as triggering speech, so I’m not sure they see the dif quite as clearly as you and I do.

    2. That actually does have a benefit. For them.

  14. What’s with that NYDailyNews cover attacking the “thoughts and prayers” people? How come they didn’t get attacked for saying the same things during the Colorado shooting and the Paris killings?

    I guess they really want this to be it and the revelation that it is a Muslim government employee who may have been pro-ISIS thus screwing their narrative is making them go even bolder.

    1. Did they say the same thing during the Colorado shooting and the Paris killings?

      1. I realize that what I wrote was kinda confusing so: did the rightists who offered “thoughts and prayers” as a result over the Colorado shooting and the Paris killings get attacked for saying that?

        1. Whoops, misread this then. Apologies

        2. Gotcha. No they didn’t. To be honest with you I have no idea why the leftists are denouncing people giving their thoughts and prays. It makes them look like shitbags.

          1. “look like shitbags”?

          2. They have been shit bags since Woodrow Wilson

            1. It’s fine, college kids are trying to whitewash that bit.

          3. It makes them look like shitbags.

            Masks, slippages…

    2. There is a fairly solid overlap on the Venn Diagram including “government employee” and “terrorist”

      1. ^This lol

    3. I am beginning to incline to the Journolist hypothesis – perhaps minutes after the shooting started, they were chatting about how to use this to promote gun control, and one of them suggested, “hey, let’s denounce all those right-wingers offering thoughts and prayers, saying that we need action, not prayer?” And there was much high-fiving.

      1. This was closely followed by Part II: Redefine ‘Terrorist’ as more details became known.

      2. I would agree with you on this solely based on the fact Hillary was quick with “thoughts and prayers” for Paris and Colorado on Twitter, but didn’t say a word like that for San Bernardino. It’s almost like she knew!

  15. ….Well played sir. Not too many Reason writers have the balls to write an article while obviously drunk.

  16. Has anyone pointed out that the numer of guns is nearly meaningless. One gun can be used to kill many. The issue should be the number of people that have pulled a trigger to kill and with multiple victim murders, that number is far lower than the number of deaths or guns.

    1. They don’t care Dan. Their goal is disarmament. Its one of the most transparent acts of civil rights violation that is happening in modern times. None of the stat numbers are in their favor so they just keep pedaling their bullshit and hoping it sticks.

      1. And we all know what comes after disarmament

        1. Revolution?

          If so, I say let’s get this gun control ball rolling. There will be two sides, one concentrated in cities and disarmed and the other spread out over 95% of the land mass and heavily armed (and pissed off)

            1. And that was what got Marie Antoinette beheaded. Not the suggestion that the peasants eat cake, mind you. but the fact that THERE WAS NO CAKE. Which was a total dick move on her part. That was the last fucking straw for the frogs.

              And with Hillary, you know damn well there will be no cake. None whatsoever. And as Wilford Brimley is quoted as pointing out, THEY ALL WANT CAKE.

        2. Punch and pie? I was told there would be punch and pie.

      2. None of the stat numbers are in their favor so they just keep pedaling their bullshit and hoping it sticks.

        It absolutely is sticking. It is working in the same way that child abduction stories are working. My wife is hysterical about the idea that our kids might be abducted, due to the stories on the news. No amount of talking about the actual probabilities will move the needle. I let our 3 year old wander about in the Disney store the other day for a few minutes while I waited at the entrance. I could see her and the stockroom door clearly from my position while I waited for my wife to join us holding a chocolate milk (daughter’s) and a coffee (wife’s). But she was in a panic that I was out of arm’s reach for the 3 minutes that I was waiting for her.

        Similarly, the “mass shooting” panic has her in a tizzy. We went to the movies the other night and she said she kept worrying that someone was going to come in and start shooting. When I started to say something she cut me off and said, “I know you are going to say we were more likely to be killed by lightning, but that’s how I feel.”

        This sort of marketing absolutely works. It is clearly the administration’s strategy. They said they were going to do something on gun control. Then we see a coordinated effort across all media to keep the gun control narrative front and center. Even to the point where national TV “journalists” are afraid to use the word terrorism.

        1. Ban watching the new in your house.

        2. The media have literally terrorized your wife by instilling a sense of terror in her.

        3. “This sort of marketing absolutely works”

          Yeah. To paraphrase someone named Joe Goebbels, the bigger the lie, the more people will swallow it.

        4. There was a political science study that showed that the media definitely can set the agenda.

          Random trial of people coming in for a survey are made to wait in a waiting room with a fake newscast running.

          Control group gets regular news. Other group get news with heavy emphasis on national defense.

          The survey then was taken.

          Guess who wanted to emphasize defense spending in the survey?

          This defeats the idea that the media is just a mirror of society. Nope.

          1. There was a political science study that showed that the media definitely can set the agenda.

            There are a series of studies on this type of thing, and the consistent results are that the media has a quite attenuated ability to affect opinions on a certain topic, but the media is amazing at setting people’s priorities.

          2. There was a political science study that showed that the media definitely can set the agenda.

            There are a series of studies on this type of thing, and the consistent results are that the media has a quite attenuated ability to affect opinions on a certain topic, but the media is amazing at setting people’s priorities for them.

          3. There was a political science study that showed that the media definitely can set the agenda.

            There are a series of studies on this type of thing, and the consistent results are that the media has a quite attenuated ability to affect opinions on a certain topic, but the media is amazing at setting people’s priorities for them.

            1. Of course, they never did a study on repetition, which I will proceed to do now, right here on this thread.

        5. Woman’s be thinkin’ too much! Tell her to quit her bitchin’ and get back to the kitchen! To bake the menfolk a pie!

          1. I was also going to say something inappropriate and sexist but you beat me to it! Well played, sir!

            1. Thanks. Now I need to go demand a blowjob from some chick. After she gets done doing th dishes.

    2. There’s something like 300 million firearms in the US. The San Bernardino shooters had four firearms, which is just
      0.0000013% of firearms in the hands of the public.

      Does anybody really think that Feds can successfully confiscate the remaining 99.999997% of firearms to prevent the next shooting? That’s what they’d have to do. Those not submitting to the totalitarian confiscation scheme necessary to “end the gun epidemic” (NYT’s characterization) are far more likely to be the sort that would use firearms for criminal purposes. Others might even put up active resistance to their oppression by the totalitarian police state necessary to accomplish that end.

      The NYT editorial is particularly cowardly in saying, “It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment.” Its cowardice was compounded by the failure to specify exactly which firearms it proposes the federal government to confiscate. If the NYT editorial staff had a scintilla of integrity, it would promote a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment.

      This isn’t my issue because I don’t own semi-automatic firearms and am not a hunter. But I know a bunch of people who do and who enjoy sport shooting as a hobby and hunting as a pastime. I know them to be responsible adults: I know that they would not use their firearms for criminal purposes but, rather, think their possession of firearms makes crime in my neighborhood less likely.

      1. Deporting 12 million illegal aliens is not possible nor cost effective.

        Deporting 300 million inanimate objects taken from American citizens by force is both possible and cost effective

        No disconnect here at all.

      2. “This isn’t my issue because I don’t own semi-automatic firearms and am not a hunte”

        First they came for the Second Amendment, and I said nothing since I’m not a gun owner.

        Next they came for…

        You know how that ends.

        1. Yes, I do. That’s why I want these craven bastards to come out of the closet and reveal what their true intentions are. If they were to tell the truth, it would put the progressive movement in utter chaos.

  17. Any one else feeling… radicalized?

    1. Pfft, AS IF.

      *kickflips skateboard, rides away*

      1. heh, reason really does need a like function. Well, put that as another thing on the massive pile of things reason commenting should have.

        Maybe they should as part of their fundraising create a fund for upgrading the forums: they can let the money sit in an emergency trust fund until they collect enough to upgrade the thing.

  18. Read this, and remember that the *Times* is part of the political faction which believes in evidence-based policymaking, the faction which is comfortable with nuance and complexity:

    “…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….

    “…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.”

    This is the time to *act,* not to think!

    1. I really doubt law enforcement is particularly stuck on motivation, as if unearthing a manifesto is the one thing holding up all their efforts. In fact I’m pretty sure the only people obsessing on motive and how to dismiss it or explain it away, or better yet convince people that motivation doesn’t matter anyway, is the NYT editorial staff.

  19. A gun is not a terribly complicated instrument. Five years from now, when the same number of people have 3D printers in their living room as had CD players in 1985, “gun control” efforts will be moot. It would be like trying to outlaw mix tapes.

    1. Hell, fuck 3D printers….simple CNC mills produce a better product, already exist, and are about as expensive as a good 3D printer.

      1. Would you believe the core software – Gcode follower – is identical?

        1. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit.

      2. The real key to safety will be personal force fields. Imagine this scenario:

        Bad Guy: “I’m here to rape and rob you!”

        Citizen: “My force field is on.”

        Bad Guy: “Shit. I better try with someone else…..”

        Problem solved. Note to self, invent personal force fields.

    2. In all fairness, my mix tapes tended to suck.

  20. “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.”

    This is a question-begging use of the term “civilians,” since a major chunk of these supposed “civilians” are members of the militia, as even our developmentally-disabled Congress acknowledges in 10 USC 311:

    “(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    “(b) The classes of the militia are?
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”


    “For the Founders, the militia arose from the posse comitatus, constituting the people as a whole and embodying the Anglo-American idea that the citizenry is the best enforcer of the law.”

    When the militia was called up in a sudden emergency, they were *expected* to bring their guns with them.

    In other words, “civilians” were *expected* to have military-style weapons.

  21. Very well-said, Brian.

    1. I second that.

  22. In Hong Kong right now and I gotta say, too many British and Australians. When asked if I support stricter gun control and said no, I was informed that ALL Americans are mass murderers and run around killing people every day, and that this was a fact. Asked for confirmation that this was a FACT and assured it was. And that we all watch fox news. The Kool aid drinking is heavy over here. Not so much with the Chinese though, reasonable and kind people.

    1. They’re really brave, mocking a mass murderer to his face. /sarc

      1. I know right, I’d already told them that I was from Texas.

    2. Yep, that sounds about right. I’ve even heard that from foreigners *here*, who you would think would be able to look out the window and see that the streets aren’t red with blood.

    3. A lot of people need to feel *morally* superior to feel good about themselves. It’s a concept called prudery. Brits and Aussies and Kiwis invariably will bring up guns if you state you are American. They can’t help it.

      1. I had a German claim all Americans are racist. Let that sink in.

        Then she asked if I had ever met a black person. She had not.

        1. Did you ask if she had ever met a Jew?

          1. Germans were so cowed after WWII they’re probably the least racist in western Europe (I dunno about the east). They’ve got nothing on the French, English, or Italians.

        2. I had a French person tell me that blacks could only get jobs at McDonalds and no whites worked there.

          Thus, when I was in Paris on vacation I made a point of eating McDonalds on the Champs Elysee.

          Employees there were all Africans.

        3. No German could ever be a bad person! Aren’t they all smiles und sunshine?

    4. I was at a conference on 9/11 and when someone suggested that it was too bad that there weren’t a couple of armed passengers on one of the planes, to which a Canadian shook her head and said “oh, you Americans and your guns”.

      You either get it or you don’t. It’s sort of like the line “you can’t fix stupid”. It’s hard (although not impossible, given my own personal history) to take someone from the gun prohibition camp and get them to understand why gun ownership is not only a individual right, but even a civic duty.

      1. “Oh, you Americans and your guns”

        I guess she preferred people being slaughtered.

        This is what we call being ignorant and an ideological slave.

        1. I say that directly to snide hoplophobes when they start emoting at me.

          It’s like a slap in the face that stops them cold by challenging them emotionally.

      2. These are also the people who would complain about xenophobia. But America-hating is somehow not bigoted or xenophobic at all.

        1. That’s why we’re culturally superior. We’re immune to national bigotry.

          1. America is superior. Period. Although Sweden produces a lot of hot, big-titted blondes.

        2. It’s always alright to hate people who are better than you. They know deep down even with our f’ed up cronyism and f’d up public education and healthcare that americans carry the big stick which keeps them safe. What they are just coming to realize is that a big stick can’t save them from large scale legal immigration from the 3rd world.

    5. Liberals are idiots.

  23. Well, it’s official – the Gray Lady has turned into your hippie aunt, ranting and raving about corporations, the Gun Industry, and Republicans, and how We Must Do Something.

    1. Your hippie aunt whose getting a fantastic pension via her deceased crony Capitalist husband.

      1. Don’t even ask about the trust-fund cousins.

  24. I wrote something earlier today about how the Republicans already have 30 of the 34 state legislatures necessary to amend the Constitution–those are the states where the Republicans control both houses. There are other states with split legislatures in the Midwest that would surely support making the Second Amendment even more explicitly pro-gun rights.

    It’s important to remember that although what the New York Times calls for may seem important to some people, progressives and Democrats are becoming increasingly irrelevant outside of their strongholds in New York City and elsewhere. They don’t even have the gay marriage issue to galvanize them anymore!

    If the Democrats want to commit political suicide by going after the gun rights of swing voters, I think the Republicans should dare them. Bring it to the floor in the Senate and the House, and let the Democrats go on the record, one by one, against the Second Amendment.

    Do they not realize that if Hillary Clinton loses the upcoming election, the Democrats will have virtually no political power? Do they not realize that this will be out of the news cycle in a few weeks–like Sandyhook–and they’ll be left holding all that political baggage?

    1. I think Dems generally count on Republicans to do the Republican thing and throw the election. If the GOP genuinely stood a chance of organizing well enough to offer up an amendment or to goad Democrats into another electoral slaughter, they wouldn’t be the stupid party.

      1. In California, anyway, it’s often about Republicans back east or down south saying idiotic things about “legitimate rape” or start immigrant bashing or something like that.

        But we’re in an unusual spot for where gay marriage as a wedge issue is basically off the table, and restricting immigration from countries where the locals are terrorist and anti-American is pretty popular right now.

        This is an election where the Republicans should be giving back some Senate seats. If the Democrats are so delusional that they want to make a campaign issue of the Constitution–and run against it–then there are going to be consequences for that.

        1. Hey, it’s certainly possible the GOP might find itself in a superordinate position in 2016, but it’s going to be at the behest of rabid progressives. And I fully trust they’ll lose it all by the 2018 midterms.

          1. Keeping Mitch McConnell will guarantee the senate is lost to the democrats. Paul Ryan is a more intelligent and sober version of Bohner, but not sure if there is much more to him than that.

    2. It is a moral outrage and an institutional disgrace that, given its deep concern about the legitimacy of private ownership of firearms, the NYT did not call for repeal of the Second Amendment.

      The NYT explicitly makes the accusation that politicians and voters “abet would-be killers”. However, the Second Amendment explicitly says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. By failing to advocate for the repeal of the Second Amendment, the NYT is little different from those whom it accuses. The progressive movement and its media mouthpieces display a craven lack of integrity when they advocate coercive confiscation of “some large categories of weapons and ammunition” without repealing the Second Amendment.

      1. “It is a moral outrage and an institutional disgrace that, given its deep concern about the legitimacy of private ownership of firearms, the NYT did not call for repeal of the Second Amendment.”

        How dare they not call for the repeal of the Second Amendment!

        And the free speech part of the First Amendment is objectively racist, and the free exercise of religion part of the First Amendment is objectively homophobic, too.

        In fact, they’re a bunch of goddamn racists and homophobes for not calling for the repeal of the First Amendment!

        How dare they not call for the repeal of the First Amendment!

        They wouldn’t come right out and say that shit, but if RC Dean got ’em on the witness stand, he could goad them into saying it. I know he could. They want to say it. They really do.

  25. In my whole life, I have never seen any party as completely delusional at any time as the Democrats are today. If the Democrats go big against the Second Amendment, then come January 2017, the Republicans may end up with the White House, Both houses of Congress, and the 34 state legislatures they’d need to amend the Constitution. And the Democrats (and their progressives fans) are walkin’ around like they can dictate whatever terms they want to the rest of us?

    Delusional? More like bat shit crazy.

    1. It comes from knowing without doubt that you are absolutely right and they are so completely wrong. Deep in your heart you’ve always known that private gun ownership was unacceptable in modern society and now you have the proof. The case is closed. No more scrutiny necessary. It’s so obvious that only the fringe radical right would disagree, and they can be marginalized if only you throw the most epic of tantrums. Mindless hysteria will win this day.

      1. It also comes from living in the echo chamber. Both due to location – living in the northeast and on the west coast – and by the choice allowed in modern media with the internet and cable. They don’t ever hear dissenting voices.

        Also a consequence of their strategy of demonization of their enemy. People who disagree with the progressive agenda are not merely patriots who have differing views on national policy, they are twisted and evil, malevolently stupid and morally repugnant, to be avoided at all costs. Arguing gun control or tax policy with a proggie – particularly a New York or San Francisco proggie is impossible, just as arguing the nuances of evidence for the age of the earth with a young-earth creationist is impossible.

        The best you can hope for is an out-of-hand dismissal. But more likely you’ll get incoherent rage and angry dismissal. No argument can penetrate righteous indignation.

        So nobody ever bothers to disagree with them. Do you think that those TV executives who make programming decision ever have nice dinner conversation with a conservative christian? Or a tea-party conservative? Hardly. They’d no sooner entertain polite conversation with a KKK member about race relations.

        Therefore for most of these people there is no way to understand at a visceral level that a coherent and principled opposition exists. The lifestyle of the half of America that lives between the coasts is as foreign to them as the Yanomami of Brazil.

        1. Except they know that the Yanomami are noble savages and middle America is savage but certainly not noble.

          1. The Yanomami are certainly noble, just don’t get any funny ideas about them being noble enough to be allowed autonomy over their lives. That would be silly. Educated white people of the right sort should be handling all decisions. For equality and tolerance.

        2. I gave up trying to reason with them years ago. Life is too short.

          1. And if they ever actually had the power to try to implement their plans, there lives would indeed be short.

          2. I you would stop eating frankenfoods your life would be longer and then you’d have time.

        3. According to the NYT editorial, people who disagree with the progressive agenda “abet would-be killers”.

          So, quite literally, NYT progressives believe any who would disagree with them are twisted and evil as Cyto put it.

    2. “…Republicans may end up with the White House…”

      A situation that I dread. They aren’t known as the party of stupid for nothing. The Republican establishmentarians are plotting their own demise as we speak.

      1. They believe that because huge numbers are against abortion that the people want Congress to make laws.

        And then there is the cannabis problem where they are stupid in the opposite direction. But here the people OBVIOUSLY don’t want any Federal laws.

        1. I think people do support pro life restrictions. They don’t support a complete ban.

        2. It’s a shame they can’t stop their anti-weed campaign. I doubt this is a galvinizing issue to be anti-weed. It’s more of getting that police, and prison lobbies to donate.
          If they’d give up on the weed issue and legalize it the dems would be out of bullets.

      2. They aren’t known as the party of stupid for nothing.

        I was thinking that if they were slightly less stupid, they could have countered DiFi and Pete King’s latest mental diarrhea (The gun purchase ban for people on the terrorist watchlists) with the No Terrorists in Women’s Health Centers Act. Just make it a felony for anyone on the terrorist watchlist to go into an abortion clinic. There are obviously no tricks or problems with making it a felony for anyone on a secret, Executive Branch-administered list to go into a Planned Parenthood clinic. I’m sure the Dems would have had no problem with the idea of some Dubya-appointed Christian mandarin having the effective authority to ban anyone from entering a Planned Parenthood.

        1. If the Republicans win the presidential election, we’ll see how squishy RINO terrorists like Peter King are.

      3. Republicans:Abortion::Democrats:Gun Control

      4. “A situation that I dread.”

        I’m not saying that’s the way it should be. I’m saying that’s the way it is. If the Democrats are absolutely determined to step on that political third rail we call the Second Amendment, these are the likely consequences.

        If the Democrats became so delusional that they couldn’t conform to political reality outside of San Francisco and Manhattan, they might go the way of the Whigs. And the Republicans wouldn’t stay unified for long, they might split into one more establishment wing and one more libertarian wing.

        And while it’s possible the Republicans might try to do something on abortion, that would probably be an overreach. I’m not sure an updated Second Amendment would be a terrible idea, and I’m not sure a balanced budget amendment would be worse than we have now. The latter might create pressure for more taxes, but then all that overspending is eventually going to be paid for with more taxes anyway.

        Anyway, the consequences of the Democrats overreaching in their gun grabbing aren’t something to be for or against. It’s just something that’s going to happen whether we libertarians or the Democrats like it or not.

        1. Republicans would split into the war & religion party and then this sort of middle of the road mushy kinda libertarian center party. Libertarians cannot galvinize large numbers using emotion, talking about free market and the NAP doesn’t arouse anyone. The dems would devolve into the minority party which would call themselves something like the workers party. This workers party would just play the race card and the single mother card.

          The thing is 3 parties in the US system do not last very long. This split would have happened long ago in the typical european system.

    3. 37 states are required to amend. But your point remains valid (or more so even)

      1. “According to Article V, Congress shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, “on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,” meaning 34 state legislatures would have to submit applications. Once an Article V Convention has proposed an amendment or amendments, then the amendment or amendments would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 states) in order to become part of the Constitution.” Convention_to_propose_amendments_ to_the_United_States_Constitution

    4. I think that depends entirely on who their opponent is going to be and what the issues are going to be. The Evil Witch of the Democrats may still turn out to be the lesser of two evils, depending on what nutcase the Republicans nominate.

    5. Too many of those Republicans desire to be on the Washington A lists for the cocktail circut.

      Too many are beholden to their donors more than the voters back home.

      It never fails to amuse me to listen to some high profile Republican try to placate Progs thinking that if they act like some lite version of the Progs they will get the Prog stamp of approval. I have emailed a couple asking them why and explaining that those people who’s ass you just kissed will never vote for you or donate money to you so why do you kiss their ass.

      Do they just fear being called racist, sexist, or perhaps trannyist so much ? Why fear to anger someone who will ever support you in any way and will always try to demonise you regardless of how hard you try to please them.

      That’s one thing I like about Ted Cruz. He campaigned in Texas and then went to Washington and did exactly what he said he would do when he was running for office.

    6. If feasible, an amendment making progressivism treason by definition is advisable. Which makes sense, as progressivism is just another form of marxism. And marxism is inherently treasonous.

  26. Molon labe.

        1. Moulin Rouge!

      1. Yes. Given enough foreplay.

  27. I’m actually happy they’ve finally come out of the closet. This has been their viewpoint for some time and it can now be fought on its own terms. Forget beating around the bush with ambiguous calls for “common sense gun laws,” let’s let the people decide this without any ambiguity.

    1. In a day or two they’re going to go back to talking about “moderate” measures like they didn’t just nakedly call for mass confiscation. Once they realize the vast majority of the rest of the country didn’t just go ape over guns but instead focused on the terrorism aspect, we’ll be talking about background checks and registration databases like they’re not the first step to disarming the public.

      1. They will also go back to ridiculing anyone who dares suggest anything like a slippery slope argument. If pulling out your own words doesn’t work, surely pulling out the words of the New York times won’t work.

        1. Pulling out doesn’t work? Well thank The Maker the LTR got her tubes tied after 4 kids.

    2. Just have a big rumble to settle it. The pro 2A people can bring guns, and the progtards can bring their snarky comments. Would love to engage AmSoc, Tony, JackoffDouche, etc. in that scenario.

  28. I would not be bothered by this article at all and possible should not be because it is not like they have a huge circulation. I do however have a problem with people that think like this, one can presume they are human on some are even adults so with that said they likely drive cars and that means there are a good number of people on the road that have really poor judgement and are likely to kill someone.

    Though it does explain so many incidents of birth control not being effective. Sadley Trojan has a tech support line… How would you like that job?

    1. Can you imagine if Trojan farmed out their tech support to India?

  29. Consider this an early Christmas gift to the GOP.

    For a long time, liberals have claimed that they aren’t out to “take people’s guns away”, but they just want “common sense measures” like universal background checks. Now the veil is lifted, and the Times is admitting what gun rights supporters already knew — they really do want to take people’s guns away. Of course, they wouldn’t stop with “assault weapons”. If they got their way, then they would “come to the realization” that most gun murders are committed with handguns, and they would be coming for those next.

    The Times seems to have forgotten the lesson of the 2000 election, where Al Gore lost the election because he couldn’t carry his home state of Tennessee. Perhaps, 2016 would be the time for a reminder.

    1. I dunno. How many states are in play? The liberal cities have been mass migrating to states like Florida. Once Florida tips into the blue category, do they need anyone else?

      Wisconsin might tilt back to the R category on gun issues – there are a lot of hunters up there. But with NY and the rest of the northeast, Cal, PA, IL, and add on Florida – is there enough left in play to go with Texas for team R to make a move?

      Also, is there enough migration into Arizona and Nevada to move them into the Team Blue camp?

      When Obama got reelected into the teeth of a huge recession with unemployment so massive that nearly 100 million people left the workforce altogether, I knew something had changed. No president could get reelected under those conditions at any time prior to 2000. A bad economy has been the one unassailable indicator of presidential elections since… forever. And no president had ever presided over an entire term with no economic growth and a decline in the workforce. That’s electoral armageddon. Yet here we are.

      I don’t know that the politics of the past count for much. Team has always been a major factor, as the term “blue dog democrat” will attest. Yet it seems quantitatively different now. With everyone having their own version of reality due to the massive availability of media outlets, teams seem to be much more locked in than ever before.

      1. The midwest save illinois could tip back red in due time.

      2. Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado — all purple states with large numbers of gun owners.

    2. The Times seems to have forgotten the lesson of the 2000 election, where Al Gore lost the election because he couldn’t carry his home state of Tennessee.


      1. After a shopping expedition at Glick’s in Del Rey Beach, I walked away convinced that most of those people were indeed to incompetent to punch a ballot.

    3. “assault weapons”………

      Every time I hear a progtard talking about assault weapons, I ask them to define what makes a gun an assault weapon. They never can. None of them know anything about guns.

      1. Prog: “A gun that looks scary and military-ish.”

  30. Can you guys try to limit sentence length to maybe 120 words?

    1. Who do you think they are, Spartans at Thermopylae?

      1. Common sense sentence control.

        1. Nobody needs multiple clauses in their sentences.

  31. The NYT would do well to remember the rules of engagement Bill Clinton put in place in Serbia in 1999. He decided that politicians, bureaucrats, media figures and intellectuals were all legitimate targets of war. The NYT would do well to adhere to and try not to break themselves against the law of unintended consequences.

    1. I sense a woodchipper coming on!

  32. NYTs: “Also you should give up your money for the good of your fellow citizens.” Eventually we will get around to lawyers too.

  33. I wonder if the sale of semi-auto rifles and their ammo and mags will go up or down?

    I better get some extra mags before they sell out.

  34. C’mon NYT, why not go all in and start calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment? Prohibition has a great track record. It solves way more problems than it creates. Do it for the children. They’re counting on you.

  35. Way to go, New York Times.

    Because if thirteen years of Prohibition and fifty years of the War on Drugs have taught us anything, it is that outlawing things people want to acquire is an effective, cost-free way of keeping those things out of people’s hands.

    But hell, at least we’re trying!

  36. If California had put in place common sense gun laws then none of this would have happened.

    1. If California had prohibited the introduction of date palms, Middle Easterners never would have moved there in the first place.

      1. If I couldn’t date palms I wouldn’t have anyone to date at all.

        1. There’s an online course in dendrochronology at Phoenix U. Pretty good little course.

          1. I prefer young palms. When I can get them.

        2. If I couldn’t date palms, I wouldn’t have any fronds at all.

    2. It does.

      that was why it was as hard to get assault rifles in San Bernardino as it was to get meth in San Bernardino.

  37. The progs would have US citizens defenseless and at the mercy of criminals, terrorists, and the crazed.

    1. It is crucially important that we take the guns away from the people that did not commit the crime.

      1. “After a shooting spree, they always want to take guns from the people who didn’t do it.” -William S. Burroughs.

        1. Are you saying I’m late or a plagiarist?

          1. I’m saying I’m a Burroughs fan. Especially the “Naked Lunch” chapter called “Islam Inc.”

  38. We have a problem with lunatic Muslims showing up and murdering people at random. Clearly the solution is to ensure their victims are as defenseless as possible.

    1. We have a problem with lunatics showing up and murdering people at random. Clearly the solution is to ensure their victims are as defenseless as possible.


      1. Yes. Islam is peace. Just ignore all of the workplace violence.

        1. There is a fair amount of non-Muslim workplace violence. We should be armed against those events as well.

        2. Islam is backwards and stupid when taken seriously but the majority of gun violence in this country isn’t from Muslims.

          Stop poisoning a discussion that’s very winnable on libertarian grounds with the Muslim-bashing. If this country had a serious problem with radical Islam this would not have been the first time a jiahdi went on a major shooting rampage.

          1. If this country had a serious problem with radical Islam this would not have been the first time a jiahdi went on a major shooting rampage.

            This was the first time?

            1. Fort Hood is the only other one that comes to mind. And that guy who killed three people in Chattanooga earlier this year.

              1. Err…then there were the two jihadis who tried to crash the Draw Mohammad event but got capped before they killed anyone…

              2. Then it isn’t the first time. And there was also that event we like to call 911. And the shooting at the Arkansas recruiting station. And a lot of others as well

                Here is a list, though a few of them are debatable most are not


                1. Not a shooting, but some student in UC Merced stabbed some people. He had an ISIS flag in his pocket…news didn’t really push that angle.

            2. This was the first time?

              Well. Yeah. If you don’t count all the others.

          2. This is not Muslim-bashing! John simply has the political courage to be starting a national dialogue on common-sense Islam control.

            A nationwide ban on assault sermons is a good place to start.

            1. If there were not any Muslims in this country, there wouldn’t be any Muslim terrorism would there? Are people like Lee’s friend down there just doing their duty to die so that Muslims may live in this country?

              1. Depriving 2A protections is a civilizational dead-end and spells the doom of Western liberalism as a viable endeavor, but proscribing faiths clearly protected by the First is dandy. Have I got it right?

                1. Little known fact: It’s all right when it’s us doing it.

              2. Calm the fuck down. There are 3 million muslims in the country. What percentage are involved in terrorism? Yes, it’s abnormally high, yes the religion (or certain strains of it) are responsible for the ideology of hate and revenge, yes people need to openly push back against the parts that encourage theocracy and bigotry and misogyny and violence. And yes, it’s probably a good idea to be very careful with immigration from places that are infested with Mujazis. But that’s about as far as it goes. Should we deport all racists because of Dylann Roof?

                1. Not letting more Muslims in is a good start.

      2. Right. Who gives a shit which flavor of delusion inspired the murderous asshole of the moment?

        1. John does. That’s seemingly all he cares about.

          1. Those 14 dead people there and the 129 in France and teh 2800 on 911 were just pant shitters. I don’t know why their families are so upset about this. Seriously, Islamic terrorism doesn’t happen. Reason says so.

            1. Scarecrow destroyed!

              1. HEY. That is an ugly and hurtful word for people of straw. It has a history of oppression and violence. The only people who should be allowed to use it are strawmen themselves, and even then only advisedly.

                1. If you shared the collective heritage of seeing your ancestors left to hang in fields at the mercy of crows and the weather, sometimes for years, all for the benefit of privileged farmers, you’d understand. Or having your kind play the villain in movies or used as a prop to frighten children. Or, worst of all, seeing a human dressed up in strawface and celebrated for mincing about on screen. But you don’t, so you can’t possibly understand the pain behind that word.

                  1. Ban The Wizzard of OZ.

                    1. The Grand Wizard of Oz? Sounds like the head of a hate group.

        2. Actually, that is kind of important because Muslims are punching above their statistical weight for crazy killings.

          There might be something we could do about that beyond arming ourselves.

    2. The bigger problem is convenience stores owned and run by Muslims. Do you realize what magnets for crime these establishments are?

      1. There is one near where I live. Five ME guys in their late 20’s run the place. No women, no children. They run the store and smoke dope all day.

        *Assassin is a word that originates from the Arabic word for hashish. The Assassin cult were the original suicide bombers. That word was used because prior to their very public killings they would debauch themselves and layed around smoking dope all the time.

        1. If suicide bombers did the same
          They’d be laid out by modern stains
          Catatonic from quality bud
          Explosive plans end up a dud.

      2. I know one that sells bongs and hookahs in the guise of serving their tobacco customers. How much more criminal can you get?

        1. No, I’m talking all of those shitty small time armed robberies where some bystander gets shot. They’re called convenience stores cause they’re convenient to rob. If we shut them all down, think of the lives that we’d save!

    3. Why go half way? Follow that up by shipping in 100,000 Syrians that will certainly include ISIS infiltrators. If we are going to fix things we should do it right.

      1. Hey, those people are going to be vetted and they are women and children. Don’t be all racist and mention that one of the killers in California was a woman who passed a full State and DHS background check before being admitted to the country.

        1. Hey, that only proves that we need to give the federal government more power to spy on American citizens!

          1. They people were citizens so the whole thing just proves how dangerous American citizens actually are.

          2. Well at least you have the Queen. But we have the Queens. In NY.

        2. Look at the bright side. The chick fucked up. She and hubby pulled off a minuscule terrorist act compared to being good Islamofascists and producing anchor terrorists that in the future could replace us all through fertility terrorism (having too many Natural Born Muslims).
          I seriously suspect she was barren, hence we simply need to ban all non fertile Muslim mail order brides to prevent future San Berdus. Of course, either way they’re going to win. That’s why they’re an Existential Threat!

          1. You really can’t make this shit up. It must be a shitty job to be an ISIS handler. They had these clowns set up for something really big. Instead, these idiots get into an argument about whether Islam is peaceful at a Christmas Party and blow their cover coming back and shooting anyone who said Islam wasn’t peaceful.

            1. I’m not sure this is true.

              They had rented the vehicle already and it was to be returned on Wednesday.

              Also, I heard ISIS advises them to attack their co-workers as it breeds more fear.

              Keep in mind ISIS really, really, really wants a full-blown religious war.

              A better theory was the husband planted the pipe bombs, and they failed to detonate, so they went to plan B which was to use rifles.

              1. “Keep in mind ISIS really, really, really wants a full blown religious war”

                Important point. The more the perception that Islam is being attacked, the more the 1 billion other Muslims will be sympathetic to ISIS. Blowback is real.

          2. “I seriously suspect she was barren”

            So, where did the baby come from?

            1. Satan fucked a jackal?

  39. Political civil war?? Aww, that’s cute.
    Last I checked, this is why Oathkeepers exist. …at least when they aren’t suffering from mission creep (open carry demonstrations)

    1. It is just a tantrum. They are not getting anywhere on gun control and I think they know it. They are just trying to change the conversation away from the problem of Islamic terrorism with the added bonus of feeling smug.

    2. It’s good someone pointed that out…

      If there is an attempted disarmament, it will be the loudest “political” civil war in all of history.

  40. We need to ban guns and bomb a foreign country. That’s a Christmas every American can enjoy!

    1. Think of military campaigns against foreign governments as “single payer for gun ownership”: everybody, rich or poor, can sign up for the military, get their assault weapons paid for by the government, and go kill people in a safe, government-approved way.

  41. The headline could just as accurately have read

    New York Times Calls for Immense Expense and Political Civil War To Disarm the Law Abiding.

    1. And, let me be clear, this is not about any hope to reduce gun violence. The goal here is to disarm all those icky people who refuse to think just like the NYT’s editors think.

  42. Where is the call for common sense bomb control?

  43. I just received some bad news this morning.

    It turns out that one of my fraternity brothers (1 year older) was one of the 14 killed in San Bernadino. He left behind his wife and 2 daughters, 11 and 15 years old.

    The irony is that he was an expert on statistical risk analysis of terrorism.

    I’m short on words.

    1. My condolences

    2. I’ll say a prayer for his family. Seriously.

    3. Randomness catches up with everyone eventually.

    4. That is terrible Lee. I am sorry we let those animals into the country to murder your friend.

    5. My condolences.

    6. Sorry to hear that, Lee.

    7. Ironic indeed. Sorry, dude.

    8. Wow. Sorry to hear that.

    9. My sincere condolences.

    10. I’m sorry to hear this. Will also offer prayers for the wife and kids.

  44. “Our society being what it is, such efforts would likely impact the less-well-off and less well-connected the most, and the most violently. ”

    Guns banned. Women, Children hardest Hit.

    But seriously, why do you guys/gals always have to go there? The signaling to your cocktail friends that you’re not like those right wing gun nuts/ rape apologists/ xenophobes/ homophobes/ racists/ misogynists has become very tiresome.

    1. I don’t think it’s signaling that they’re not one of those types, just talking to their cocktail friends in their own language. It is a response to a New York Times editorial, after all.

    2. I’ve noticed Reason writers doing this too. My theory is that it’s an attempt to rebuff the usual tactic of accusing the writer of not caring about the problem.

      We’ve all seen how the shrieking harpies over at Jezebel and Feministing will point to an article and scream about how the author clearly wants women to get raped. This is just one example. By filling the article with statements that they do in fact care about solving the problem being discussed, they’re (hopefully) making it so that nobody can make those accusations without also making themselves look really ignorant.

      Yes, I know, the progs will make those accusations anyway… But it’s just an effort, I guess.

  45. Sooooooo where were all these tough guys when team blue held everything back in 2010?

    1. Sooooooo where were all these tough guys when team blue held everything back in 2010?

      What do you mean? Back then everything was perfect. Not one murder or rape as I recall.

      1. Not even on a college campus?

  46. No amount of facts and rational discourse will veer them off their ideological track. The bottom line is they’ve armed themselves – I do not excuse the pun – with morality and civility as justification to want to confiscate guns. Period.

    It doesn’t matter about the results of what happened in Australia. What’s key is they DID confiscate it and this is what makes them all wet and moist.

    The left are immature. They’re incapable of keeping perspective or context. Hence, they blow everything out of proportion from climate change to guns to those uninsured in health etc. They focus on tiny minorities and rare events to overwhelm and erase individual liberty – for the collective, greater good.

    And the children.

    1. Sorry, I missed your reply last night. Yeah, Real kicked out of the cup. Apparently not unheard of in Spain but rare for a high profile club.

      1. I just can’t get worked up over the Spanish (and Italian) Cup. I think England has that gig best with the FA Cup.

        1. Agree.

          1. I love the rinky-dink matches. Bunch of them on TV this weekend.

    2. The bottom line is they’ve armed themselves – I do not excuse the pun – with morality and civility as justification to want to confiscate guns.


      The left are immature.

      Why do you point to “the left” specifically? This is a problem that afflicts “the right” as much as “the left”.

      1. Sure to some extent but it’s my contention and experience the left are far worse when it comes to playing with the facts of history and they’ve been far more effective translating their (mis) interpretations into policies in the 20th and into the early 21st centuries.

        1. I think the National Socialists were quite effective at putting their misinterpretations into policies, and they were right wing, not left wing: they favored private property over public ownership of the means of productions, they pushed traditional family values and Christianity, and they were supported by right-wing parties, while arresting socialists and communists.

          1. And this is where the left-right paradigm breaks down. To those of us on the more reactionary side of politics (and to anyone on the European right prior to about 1947), the NSDAP, like all demotic populism is very, very left-wing but not as left-wing as those espousing the nonsense of liberal democracy and nowhere near as left-wing as the red scum who were battling them in the streets.

            1. To those of us on the more reactionary side of politics (and to anyone on the European right prior to about 1947), the NSDAP, like all demotic populism is very, very left-wing

              That’s revisionist nonsense. The European Right in 1930’s Germany, foremost the Catholic Center Party, supported Hitler, while socialists and communists strongly opposed him (and went to the camps for it). The NSDAP was right wing and allied itself with right wing and conservative parties in Germany, as well as Christian churches.

              Of course, there is a lot of overlap between the right and the left: both are statists, both believe in elites, both favor some degree of totalitarianism, and both despise individual liberty. That’s why the left produced Stalin and the right produced Hitler, and both went on to murder millions.

              American “conservatism”, of course, has a strand of libertarian tradition. But if you claim the pre-1947 European conservatism as your heritage (as you do), you can’t claim the libertarian branch of American conservatism as your heritage. In particular, any form of Christian conservatism, like socialism and communism, is incompatible with the libertarian tradition in America.

  47. If you want to increase donations you should have Doherty write more posts like this one.

    The New York Times nail salon story is evidence that the New York State governor takes his marching orders from the newspaper, so I wonder how long it will take for him to decide to update the SAFE Act to conform to the Times’ desires.

    1. The New York Times nail salon story is evidence that the New York State governor takes his marching orders from the newspaper

      Actually, I think it was the other way around. I.e. the governor already had the legislation written and got the Times to prop it up with a bogus “investigation”.

  48. “The move the Times proposes with such ceremony and passion is so purely symbolic,..”

    Wrong. It’s incrementalism at it’s finest. These are not stupid people. First you ban the scary looking guns, then when that has no effect, you ban them all.
    See every law/tax ever.

    1. “…one could imagine the Times is only proposing such a move as a stalking horse for seeing if the government can get away with successfully banning and confiscating a class of weapon, by starting with one with such a tenuous connection with public safety on a national level. ”

      Ok, I should have read the rest of the paragraph before I vomited up my comment. But why say earlier in the paragraph that it’s purely symbolic when you know better?

      1. Ok, I should have read the rest of the paragraph before I vomited up my comment. But why say earlier in the paragraph that it’s purely symbolic when you know better?

        “Trust me, this won’t hurt much. And eventually, you’re going to like it.”

  49. The NY Times is merely doing their duty as democrat party shills.

    Someone in the leadership of that party has decided that gun control will be their winning issue in ’16. just as the war on womyn was in ’12. And all party organs – including the times- are pushing the narrative forward, to ensure a democrat resurgence.

    Boy, are they in for a shock.

    1. The Top Men must really think they can take hill GC

    2. They’ll be back to Income Inequality, with a healthy side of War on Women, once Hillary is crowned the nominee. This will be countered with War on Terror and Drugs talk. It’s Wars all around.

      1. The problem with the war on women is that a good number of women don’t like Hillary. And people realize they were had by that bullshit in 2012. Income inequality has never worked. Gun control is of course a complete loser.

        They are going to have to think of something else.

        1. I can’t count how many times I’ve heard some version of “Well, men are always fucking shit up so let’s give a woman a chance”.
          Most people are busy living their lives and don’t pay much attention, so they don’t see beyond team/gender/name recognition.

    3. I actually don’t think this was planned. They just can’t help themselves.

      From an electoral perspective Democrats know its not a winner.

      They may be using this as Stray Voltage: lets bring up Gun Control to rile everyone up to avoid having to talk about how bad President Kickass has been doing.

      He’s being saying some amazing things lately.

      1. And the criminal investigation of their presumptive nominee.

  50. How bad was that Times editorial? The Huffington Post is calling it stupid, lazy, and self-indulgent

    The Times doesn’t use the term, but the policy it’s advocating is what’s generally called an assault weapons ban. Assault weapons bans are hard to write and implement, and easy to undermine and circumvent. Even a perfect assault weapons ban wouldn’t do anything about most gun violence, because most gun violence involves handguns that aren’t forbidden under such laws.

    The Times’ editorial board claims, without evidence or argument, that “it is possible to define” “in a clear and effective way” “certain kinds of weapons … and certain kinds of ammunition, [that] must be outlawed for civilian ownership.” But previous laws targeting “certain kinds of weapons” in the U.S. have generally failed to achieve their goals. The federal assault weapons ban passed in the 1990s was riddled with loopholes, and a Justice Department-funded study found little evidence it saved lives. And, as my colleague Daniel Marans reported Friday, the shooters who killed 14 people in San Bernardino on Wednesday used legally purchased rifles that escaped California’s assault weapons ban.

    But hey, we must “do-something” so New Yorkers who live in safe spaces feel good about themselves.

    1. Wow, when HuffPo calls you out – even if you’re on the same side – that’s pretty damning.

      1. Shorter HuffPo: “Ban harder.”

    2. This thing about loopholes is absurd. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE LOOPHOLES.

      1. Interesting that they define loophole as an act that is legal, but some people don’t like it.

        I’m going to smoke a cigarette in a minute, thereby exploiting a loophole in our drug laws.

        1. I think we should do something about the murder loophole ie. abortion

    3. A comment I left there:

      I’d like to see a call for common sense bomb control.

      And common sense fire control. To prevent arson.

    4. They’re like the lefties who opposed Obamacare because they want single payer. Huff Po wants a complete ban.

  51. What burns me up is the fact that news outlets parrot the following talking point: it doesn’t do places like Capifornia and Chicago and New York any good when people can easily drive across the border and buy guns then bring them back and go on their crime spree.

    I know it fact that no single gun dealer in another state will sell someone a gun with a California drivers license and not require that the gun be shipped to a California firearms dealer and have it picked up there (after their state required wait period is up). I’m sure the same goes for Illinois and New York.

    It just pissed me off to no end this is not challenged more often.

    1. I like it when they make that argument in the headline but completely contradict it in the actual article

      There are limits to what California can do, however, when states like Nevada and Arizona, which have loose gun laws, are within driving distance.

      “What we know is that each year more and more crime guns are coming in to California from states like Nevada and Arizona that don’t have laws, like expanded Brady background checks, to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, suspected terrorists, and other people intent on doing harm,” Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, wrote in a statement. “The number of crime guns coming from NV and AZ, into CA has more than doubled since 2006.”

      Still, the vast majority of guns used to commit crimes in California originate in the state. In 2014, 15,169 of the 21,267 guns recovered by law enforcement in California, for which the state of origin was identified, came from inside the state, according to ATF. The remainder of the guns came from 14 other states. Arizona was the source of 1,184 recovered guns, the most of any outside state.


      1. The number of crime guns coming from NV and AZ, into CA has more than doubled since 2006.”

        How do they know this? I thought there was no federal db tracking purchases?

        1. Because all people bringing guns into California register them with the state. And if they don’t show up on the state registration database, they must be from out of state. Because there’s no such thing as a gun being sold out of a trunk in El Segundo. Nope…they had to come from Nevada or Arizona.

      2. Nice catch.

    2. But that really doesn’t matter when you can pretty much jump on Facebook and hook up with a private sale – who isn’t required and isn’t going to bother to ask to see your identification.

  52. I am at the Tampa Gun show right now, and it seems a bit more active at this hour. It will probably be packed in about an hour.

    And for those who want to see a giant reptile, feel free to stop by.

    1. Is Florida Man heating up your warming rock? Haven’t seen him around lately.

  53. This is great. A lot of people were lulled by Obama’s 2008 election promise/lie that he wasn’t coming for our guns. This time Hillary isn’t even bothering to pretend.

    People are not giving up their guns. The only way to get them is to take them by force, and if they start that shit, it’s on. Ruby Ridge times a million. If they don’t understand that, they have fatally misjudged the situation.

  54. “Dan: Oh, God! Oh, God! Do you realize what you’ve done? You just picked a fight with the jumpiest hundred million people I can possibly think of.
    Mike: Do we have to talk guns? I wish we were still on abortion.That was easy.
    Ben: Fuck.”

  55. I’m glad that Reason is treating this as a cost/benefit issue rather than a Constitutional one. That’s the only reasonable approach.

    1. I’m glad that Reason is treating this as a cost/benefit issue rather than a Constitutional one. That’s the only reasonable approach.

      Libertarians are treating this as a “cost/benefit issue” only in the sense that we are debunking cost/benefit arguments by progressives. Libertarians generally would oppose gun laws even if they were effective.

    2. Just be glad they didn’t appeal to “natural rights”. The yokeltarian infection remains quarantined to the comments.

      1. Thank Ghu we have serious thinkers like you to set us straight that rights are government granted?

  56. Hey left should just get some balls and admit it want to repeal the 2nd amendment. Just say it you pussies.

    1. Repealing the Second Amendment is not enough, since the US government still wouldn’t have a delegated power to ban guns. They would actually have to pass an amendment delegating that power to the government.

      1. Interstate commerce should be flexible enough.

        1. Exactly. It isn’t like anyone let’s a thorny thing like the Constitution get in their way.

        2. Penumbras and shit.

    2. Not just the 2nd – you’d have to hack pretty hard at what’s left of the 4th and 5th too.

    3. They should just admit they want to overthrow the constitution and implement a Soviet/Maoist State that is all powerful. Then we can finally have the civil wart we need to get rid of them.

  57. But but but I thought nobody wanted to come for our guns. They lied to us?

    1. What is it about women and politicians?

  58. The move the Times proposes with such ceremony and passion is so purely symbolic

    Not at all; it’s supposed to instill a willingness to submit to government authority in you.

    so driven by a superstitious desire to placate fate by acting

    Not at all. Since it is ineffective, it will simply be followed by other restrictive laws.

  59. “It is likely that there is literally no other political crusade on which the Times could call for so much expense and turmoil for such a small benefit…”

    Umm, global warming?

  60. The thing that worries me most (as an observer of society and history) is the left’s ability to bend history to fit a contemporary narrative. Whenever I see people like Toobin on CNN talk down to people about the history of the 2A it not only insults me but causes concern. Here’s why. If we’re to accept the 2A as it was authored ‘shall not be infringed’ (as I believe it should) then any argument against this tends to take a rather potent ‘things change’ form which can easily resonate with people. For example, ‘the right to bear arms’ becomes a line about how it was Revolutionary times and just doesn’t fit today’s notions of self-defense. It’s absurd but people do accept this because we naturally think we live in more enlightened and more peaceful times. The problem is, the Founding Fathers, I think and argue, were a little more abstract than this when they argued the threat of tyranny is omnipotent at all times and for all ages.

    1. Another way to approach it is this: virtually all the amendments in the BoR have been expanded beyond the original concept. That is, there are constitutionally protected actions based on the BoR that would not have been considered protected in 1790. For example, pornography is protected under the First Amendment today but would not have been in the 1790s. Under that rubric, the right to own guns should be expanded not constricted.

      Second thought: the entire context of the BoR was giving citizens rights against their own government. Again, using the First Amendment – the entire point was to guarantee protection of speech criticizing the government. So, with the 2A, the context was protection against your own government.

      1. And I’m pretty sure to your last point about the 2A, and feel free to correct me, this is what the authors likely understood and intended.

        1. Exactly. The genesis of the BoR was criticism from the anti-Federalists that the new constitution gave government enumerated rights but made no statement about the rights of the citizens. The first 8 amendments which were actually ratified were all written to address real and/or perceived abuses of the British government in the lead up to the revolution. Since they’re included in the US BoR, that is a clear statement that the amendments recognized that abuses of power could be made by any government, not just a monarchy.

    2. If the left can convince itself and most of the public that Lee Harvey Oswald, a committed communist who defected to the Soviet Union, murdered JFK because of right wing hatred, it sure has hell given some time can convince themselves and a lot of other people that right wing gun owners and not radical Islam is what has caused this.

      1. I’m sorry. You opened this can of worms.

        Your bullshit is bullshit. Kennedy was shot from the front. This is a scientific fact. Referring to the lateral skull x-ray:

        “The best evidence for an anomaly comes from optical density (OD) measurements at the
        National Archives (NARA). According to these data, JFK’s skull is nearly solid bone?
        from left to right?at this site, as if JFK were a bonehead. ”

        1. Yeah, Oswald had nothing to do with it. He just ran and shot the cop because he felt like it. And the damage should be in the front. That is where the kinetic energy from a bullet goes. Wounds are always larger in the back than in the entry.

          1. Right John, that’s why the xrays were altered, to cover up the exit wound in the right rear. You can bleat on about Oswald did this, Oswald did that, it doesn’t change the falsifiable fact that the rear exit wound was obscured. You can see it if you care to look.

            1. No link, no credibility.

            2. Read your reference above. Rubbish, that does not agree with the Zapruder film evidence showing unambiguously the fatal shot from the rear.

              1. The Z film is the ultimate measure of what happened? Rubbish yourself.

                The autopsy evidence is much more important. The provable fact that it has been altered is, on its face, evidence of an obstruction of justice. The Z film has nothing to say about that.

                1. You have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

    3. The left can do pretty much what it wants because it has no fundamental honesty or commitment to principle. Sort of like sociopaths.

      1. Which is why the left is so attractive to inherently evil people. Look at their candidates. The republicans have some turds, but most of them aren’t downright evil.

        1. You say that as if you think evil is a thing…

  61. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

    We hold these opinions, that all creatures are reasonably equal, that the government grants them a reasonable number of reasonably regulatable rights, …

  62. Chapter 1 – In which our humble l0b0t runs afoul of a Whig/Progressive.
    (This was my DerpBook yesterday)
    J.p. DeBunne – Im glad the NRA is keeping it legal for crazy people to buy guns. Who could be against that?

    Lo Bot – I’m glad you are giving that straw-man such a thorough thrashing.

    J.p. DeBunne – go ahead and prove me wrong.

    Lo Bot – Easy peasy. The NRA does not promulgate legislation nor were they involved in the drafting of the US Constitution.

    Lo Bot – You are some sort of psychic, you have the ability to determine if someone with mental health issues will commit crimes in the future?

    J.p. DeBunne – A history of past mental iillness would suffice. NRA has opposed any gun control legislation for decades. Wow, yr 0 for 2.

    Lo Bot – No, they have not. You really have no idea what you are talking about. The NRA has, since 1934, supported every single infringement upon our 2nd Amendment protections that has been passed at the federal level. This is why many of us support Gun Owners of America and the 2nd Amendment Foundation. The NRA is nothing but a lobbying organization for the gun manufacturers, not the gun owning individual.

    J.p. DeBunne – I guess u forgot about their massive opposition to the Brady Bill?And waiting periods?

  63. Lo Bot – National Firearms Act of 1934 endorsed by the NRA, Federal Firearms Act of 1938 endorsed by the NRA, Gun Control Act of 1968 endorsed by the NRA, Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 endorsed by the NRA, Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 endor…See More

    J.p. DeBunne – Im not gonna argue facts. If u think the NRA is some kind of pro gun control group, I dont know whst to say. I guess this is why we cant have reasonable gun laws.

    Lo Bot – The NRA is a pro-manufacturer and a a pro-government group. Also, there is no such thing as a ‘reasonable’ gun law. My human rights are not subject to a vote.

    Dwight Smith – Actually the constitution keeps it legal for crazy people to buy guns…well as long as they don’t do anything truly crazy until after their gun purchase because we don’t have the legal right to psychically predict what someone will do with the items they purchase.

    1. J.p. DeBunne – Constitution also protected slavery and no voting rights for women. You do know it can be amended? And anyone wanting to own weapons ought to be screened for mental illness. Why isnt that obvious to you?

      Lo Bot – Then go out and amend it! The bat-shit crazy Protestants did when they decided that no one needed to consume beverage alcohol. Why have you gun-grabbers and drug-warriors not done it the legal way?

      Lo Bot – It isn’t obvious because why in the Hell does wanting to put food on the table, wanting to improve hand-eye coordination by target shooting, and wanting to protect my kith and kin from violent predation indicate in ANY way mental illness? It really takes some chutzpah to tell me I can not protect my family because you are an animist who imbues agency to inanimate objects.

      J.p. DeBunne – Unless yr mentally ill, U can do all that. Again, why are u agsinst keeping guns away from the mentally ill?

      Lo Bot – Because it is pre-crime bullshit! The category ‘mentally ill’ is so nebulous and expansive as to be meaningless.

      1. Lo Bot – Seriously, in the last 30 years we have gone from pathologizing homosexuality (DSM I and II) to pathologizing dislike of homosexuality (DSM V). Do you really want people to be stripped of the rights because they are attracted to members of the same sex? Is it any more justifiable to restrict someone’s rights because they find sodomy icky? This smacks of the mental health regimes in the Soviet Union.

        J.p. DeBunne – U go find some parent of one of these dead kids and tell them yr rights are more important than keeping guns away from crazy people. Tell them u love yr guns so much more than living people, its worth more to you that anyone can buy a gun than the life…See More

        Lo Bot – Well yes, yes our rights ARE more important than any individual’s life. That is how this nation was founded don’tcha know.

        Lo Bot – Also, how is restricting my rights going to either bring back this dead kid or prevent any more deaths? Why are you so convinced that people who are ALREADY disregarding laws against murder/violent predation are going to stopped in their tracks by another prohibition against firearms?

        J.p. DeBunne – Id give u a lesson on rights, but im tired of arguing with you. U really havent impressed me with yr mishmash of hysteria, but now I know what the phrase gun nut really means. Lock up yr guns, the life u save may be yr own.

        1. Lo Bot – Standard operating procedure. Whig/Progressive hoplophobe is wrong on the facts so she moves the goalposts, gets corrected again, so she declares victory and takes her ball and goes home. Love it!

          J.p. DeBunne – No u didnt prove any of my points were wrong, and u didn’t even recognize how badly u lost. U cant fight stupid.

          Lo Bot – LOL

          Lo Bot – Please point out where I ‘lost’?

          J.p. DeBunne – Yr wrong about thr nra and yr wrong about mental health screening. We scrren people for all types of jobs from bus driver to soldier. We ought to do the same for guns. yr answer of doing nothing is literally killing people.

          Lo Bot – I was in the Army for many years, there is no mental health screening for prospective soldiers. Also, how was I wrong about the NRA? I’ve been a life member since 1976, I know what they are about likely far better than you, and I have seen them support every single firearm restriction at the Federal level except for the AWB of 1994. This why there is GOA and 2AF, they are the ones who brought us the Heller and McDonald decisions, the NRA was not involved in the 2 most important gun rights cases since 1939 (US v. Miller). Interestingly, in Miller, the FedGov argued that the 2nd Amendment ONLY applies to civilian ownership of military weapons.

          Lo Bot – Also, driving a bus and/or being an agent of the State are NOT Constitutionally protected activities; the ownership and carrying of firearms most certainly is.

          1. J.p. DeBunne – Good, go sell an ar15 to a nutcase, makes perfect sense.

            Lo Bot – Still waiting for you explain why you are convinced that someone who is gleefully disregarding laws against violent predation will be stymied by a law restricting their use of a firearm?

            Lo Bot – Still waiting for you to show me where I was wrong about the NRA endorsing every federal firearms restriction (except for the ’94 AWB) of the last 100 years.

            Lo Bot – Still waiting for you to explain why an industry that has gone, in just 30 years, from declaring homosexuality is a mental illness to declaring that dislike of homosexuality is a mental illness should be trusted as the arbiter of human rights.

            J.p. DeBunne – The answer to all yr questions is dead people. Lots and lots of dead people. Thats why people want restrictions on gun sales. Not a debate point, iust plain reality. You can talk all about yr rights, Most people just want to live life in peace. This is my last post, u can gleefully claim how u shouted down the guy who wanted to steal yr guns. Good for u, Im sure yr defense of gun rights for the mentally ill will take u far.

            1. Lo Bot – Why are you so terrified of such a rare event that you would strip your fellow citizens of their rights? Seriously, more people are killed by automobile accidents than are EVER killed with firearms; are you such a zealot about motor vehicle safety or is it only because you are frightened of firearms that you can’t think rationally about this subject?

              Lo Bot – Also interesting, you have been wrong on the facts and are, once again, abandoning the discussion rather than having your misapprehensions challenged. Enjoy your servile life.

              1. No, l0b0t, you can’t fight stupid.

                1. I’m accused of a “mishmash of hysteria“; it really is projection with these people.

                  1. But but but… DEAD PEOPLE, Lobot!! DEAD PEOPLE!!!

                    Seriously dude, loved that back and forth. Good job. But these people are immune to logic.

                    Say it with me, everyone: “You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into!!”

                2. I’m stopped at “I’m not gonna argue facts.”

              2. Can I make a suggestion?

                Don’t bother with arguments about rights, because these people don’t care about rights the way we do.

                Don’t bother with arguments about the Constitution because they don’t feel bound by the Constitution, or understand its premises.

                Don’t bother with arguments about the founding values of the country, because they don’t respect those values.

                These people are concerned with issues of oppression and victimhood. So ask questions like this:

                Should someone diagnosed with a mental illness with symptoms that include severe emotional reactions and uncontrollable flashbacks be disqualified from owning a gun? If yes, I’m sure the rape survivor suffering from PTSD that wants a gun to protect herself from another attack will understand.

                1. Who gets to carry out these screenings? Court appointed psychologists? I’m sure the black citizen living in a high-crime area who is denied a gun by the racist police and court system in Ferguson will understand.

                  When that same black citizen gets a gun illegally instead to protect himself and his family, and is stopped by a racist cop for an unjustified stop-and-frisk, and is then gunned down by that cop when he catches a glimpse of that gun, are you going to explain to that dead man’s widow and children that it was worth it so that you, a white middle class person living in suburbia, could feel safe?

                  If you want this handled at the national level, how do you feel about the NSA having the mental health records of millions of Americans?

                  Even if you think President Obama or Clinton or Sanders can get this passed, what will you do when someone like a President Trump and a Tea-party controlled House and Senate get to apply their own rules?

                  It won’t change this person’s mind, but it might at least make the squirm. Right now they can just brush you off as being a crazy gun owner.

                  It won’t change this person’s mind, but it might at least make the squirm. Right now they can just brush you off as being a crazy gun owner.

                  1. That is beautiful, sage advice, thanks.

                  2. Nice, Lynch. If I have no choice but engagement, I may try some of these.

                    1. And none of these arguments are disingenuous or invalid. Libertarians should be just as concerned about them, even if they aren’t as fundamental from a rights perspective.

                      And it’s also worth noting that some (not all, but some) of the gun grabbers really are motivated by sincere concerns. But their fear is completely disproportional to the actual risks and the solutions they advocate would be both ineffective and would come with tons of opportunities for abuse and misuse, particularly against those with the fewest resources or powers to protect themselves. That’s what we need to convince people of.

                2. +1 safe space

    2. Im not gonna argue facts.


      1. Later she says l0b0t failed to disprove any of her points. I giggled.

        The disconnect I personally find unfathomable, on the other hand, is why anyone would call an abysmally ignorant, self-satisfied cunt who treats them like shit, a “friend”.

        1. On the DerpBook, I have a very dear friend who is also (for some reasons he can’t quite articulate but I imagine having something to do with continuing to be employed) friends with many, many Whig/Progressive types (they are all New Orleans musicians and artists). He is fully on board the Sanders express and I take great delight in pointing out the cognitive dissonance involved.

          1. It is as if they revel in invincible ignorance.

          2. You are arguing with musicians? That is nuts.

            You should recognize that if everyone were clear headed there would be no art. We depend on having a certain number of feelbots to create expressive art and music. Leave them alone. Might as well argue with the cows we breed for meat.

            1. You are arguing with musicians? That is nuts.

              Mostly, yes. But… one of our favorite singer/songwriters was snowed in with us a few weeks ago. He’s a foaming-at-the-mouth Sanders enthusiast. We stayed up all night drinking, getting high, and arguing. And it was pleasant- no accusations that we were horrible and uncaring bigots, and we gave him things to think about. He’ll forget them, of course, but at least he got stopped in his tracks several times with ideas that he hadn’t previously considered.

              That said, the next guy who’s doing a house concert here is so absolutely humorless and self-righteous about it that my wife has given me Stern Warnings to keep my mouth shut, just nodd in solemn agreement when he spews his idiocy. Fucker can play, so it’s worth it.

              1. Neil Young is coming to your house?

                1. No, the guy who’s coming can actually PLAY.

                  1. Allan Holdsworth? He sucks, but he can play.

  64. no “good of their fellow citizens” would be furthered by an American giving up a weapon, since in nearly every case that weapon would never harm anyone else

    Of course, but in the eyes of the Times and its readers, there is no way to tell the good from the bad, so everyone has to give it up. It’s just a sacrifice for the greater good!

    Now, ask the Times editorial board to sacrifice something they cherish for the greater good and see what happens….

    1. It would be impossible to place a ban on smelling your own farts.

    2. Can’t tell the good refuges from the bad…

  65. How bizarre. The Times must know there’s no chance their preferred policies have any near term chance of being enacted. They must know that popular sentiment is not just currently against them but seems to be trending more pro-2A as gun sales are skyrocketing.

    They seem completely out of touch with reality and desperate.

    1. People on the east and west coasts truly live in an alternative reality.

            1. I resent your comment. I’m not just a coastal elite; I’m a full on planetary elite. I’m the elitiest eliter of eliteness.

              I’M SO FUCKING SPECIAL!

              1. Tell me the state and I’ll tell you how special you are.

          1. I didn’t specify how many!

          2. Me too. And you’ll remember that gun-grabbing doesn’t even work in states like NY or CT either.

      1. You’re insulting Georgia and the Carolinas. Florida IS a bit wacky, but in a good way.

  66. I watch the two knuckleheads from FOX examining a can of gun cleaner like it was a cobra.

    1. Presidential gravitas!

    2. Speaking of the Donald. I stopped in at one of the more trendy and upscale local liquor stores yesterday on my way home from work to get some beer. They have both a wine tasting and beer tasting station going most of the time. I walked by the beer sampling station on my way to pay for my beer and there was a little congestion around there, so I had to stop for a few moments to get an open space to walk past.

      While I was standing there, the hipster douchebag behind the counter said to a customer ‘you’re going to vote for Donald Trump aren’t you’. This produced some nervous type subdued laughter from the crowd. Then the customer says in the to be expected ‘hey I’m one of you guys!’ way, ‘No, I am not voting for Donald Trump’. And right then I wished the fuck that this asshole would have asked me that question, because I would have embarrassed the fuck out of him right there in front of all the customers. I would have started by saying ‘That’s an insult right? Well, let me insult you back. You’re going to vote for Hillary aren’t you and I bet you cannot even tell me why outside of something like ‘She’s not a Republican’, right?’

      I truly hate these hipster douchebag yokels and their borg likeness.

      1. lol, I get that all the time. And 4 yrs ago it was Romney. What seems to really confuse them is when I say that I’m not voting for any of these thugs.

      2. No one likes hipsters. Not even non-hipster liberals.

    3. Bill Clinton did that with a different kind of “ink”…

  67. I have a problem with assault rifles when they are in the hands of you white, redneck militiamen.

    However, I have no problem when assault rifles are in the hands of well-trained police officers and federal agents, who have been issued magical unicorn dust to sprinkle on the assault rifles, which magically transforms the assault rifles into patrol rifles. Patrol rifles keep me safe.

    1. That is the kind of common sense we desperately need in this country

    2. Patrol rifles keep me safe.

      Fucking Aye. There’s gangs of roving Mexicans and Syrians around here, and we depend on our brave members of the Fraternal Order of Police to protect us..

  68. The problem with the left, I know some of these people, and their misguided gun control fantasies, is that they for some reason cannot conceptualize how other people do not think exactly the same way that they do. They truly believe that anyone who disagrees with them only does so because they haven’t been informed enough about the issue. And by this, they mean informed about their views on the topic. They think if they just pull some bullshit statistic out of nowhere and say something like ‘98% of Americans want stronger gun control’ with no links to any polls or statistics and if they keep repeating this enough, that the poor uneducated barbarians will finally see the light. They really have no tolerance for debate and no need for real facts.They ‘feel’ something so everyone else should feel it too. It never occurs to them that if 98% of Americans wanted stronger gun control that we would already have it and the fact that this is pure made up bullshit is the reason we don’t have that.

    1. They’ll tell you the reason we don’t have stronger gun control is because the NRA and evil gun manufacturers mis-inform the public with bogus stats and also that Americans are irrational gun nuts. Their argument is based on vilifying a segment of the American public. That segment seems to be growing, though, so their strategy seems – poorly conceived? I’ve never owned or even thought of owning a gun, but I’m reconsidering now. Because FY gun grabbers TW.

      1. Yep, and the gun control freaks routinely get caught doctoring bogus stats themselves–as the saying goes, “the liar can never believe anyone else…”

        If you do decide to buy a gun, if you can buy them where you live, please buy an AR-type rifle. It could be just the $50 stripped lower receiver, and you could choose to never actually build it out into a complete rifle. That part is the serialized part that the gov’t tracks as being the “firearm” (even though it is just a milled frame made of aluminum)–the other parts like the barrel and upper receiver are not tracked. If you can afford it, please do build it out into a complete rifle–the non-serialized parts are very cheap right now due to an overproduction glut from the last panic buying.

        Better to have an AR on hand if a ban does come along. The gun grabbers are not likely to go after pistols, even though pistols are used in far more crimes than ARs.

        1. FUCK THAT!! Buy an 80% lower and mill it out yourself. Or get a buddy with tools ( all you need is a fucking router and a drill!!). That’s what I started doing because I was so sick of their bullshit, and now I have ….some stuff.

          Note :

          Firearms may be lawfully made by persons who do not hold a manufacturer’s license under the GCA
          provided they are not for sale or distribution and the maker is not prohibited from r
          eceiving or possessing firearms. However, a person is prohibited from assembling a non-sporting semiautomatic rifle or shotgun from 10 or more imported parts, as set forth in regulations in 27 C.F.R. 478.39. In addition, the making of an NFA firearm requires a tax payment and advance approval by ATF. An
          application to make a machinegun will not be approved unless documentation is submitted showing
          that the firearm is being made for the official use of a Federal, State, or local government agency (18
          ? 922(o),(r); 26 U.S.C. ? 5822; 27 C.F.R. ?? 478.39, 479.62, and 479.105).

          That is per the ATF. AS long as you don’t sell them, making ARs for yourself is easy, legal and UNTRACEABLE!

      2. I don’t have a gun because it’s too much trouble to get one legally where I live, and I’m more afraid of the cops/ criminal justice system than I am of muggers and what not. But if some type of Executive Action comes about, then all bets are off I guess.

    2. ‘98% of Americans want ———‘

      As if that’s even a valid reason to remove a natural right. Idiots.

    3. Why come the stupid party doesn’t go after black votes by saying that Democrats want to take your guns and only allow racist cops to have them? Also, there are millions of very religious black people, so why not use the Dems’ vilification of praying and the banning of anything Christian related being displayed in public….oh never mind. Stupid is as stupid does.

      1. The same reason they don’t ask blacks why they vote Democratic even though they are the ones most harmed by the Democrats love of open borders, because someone important might not like the Republicans if they did that.

        Seriously, they have no fucking balls and would rather lose and get to steal and feel a part of the group than win and actually do something.

      2. Because the blacks still put blackness and tribalism ahead of facts.

        If not they wouldn’t still be on the plantation.

        I have read several headlines where black pastors are getting behind Trump because of this and Mexican job stealers though.

        1. Democrat slavery may have evolved from antagonistic black slavery to a more paternalistic form. But at the end of the day it’s still black slavery.

  69. Same paper that called the Battle of Athens, TN “vigilantism”. The issue was armed townspeople protecting the right of Blacks to vote, against the wishes of armed government officials.

  70. What they said:

    It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

    What they want:

    It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

    An untidy possibility (that happened previously around 1775 or so) that they seem to overlook as a likely consequence if govt agents try to mass confiscate weapons from well-armed people:

    It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

    1. 5 times as many people were killed with knives than rifles last year.

      1. Well, yeah, but it is more fun to mock people by taking their words and just removing the ones that they don’t actually mean.

      2. You do know, however, that the NYT would also ban pistols and revolvers as well if they were capable of firing more than a few rounds without reloading. And, if that ban were successfully put in place, they’d be out to ban pistols and revolvers altogether.

      3. Don’t give them ideas. If they can successfully ban guns, they will have to go after the next weapon of choice for murderers, and that will be knives–assault knives (big, scary looking ones). It’s all a matter of scope. If swords and knives are the best weapons left to murderers, then the left will see them as the new scourge.

  71. If people really wanted to lower gun violence they would be calling for an end to the War on Drugs. The best part, it would literally cost nothing to do.

    1. It cost them to relinquesh the imaginary control they believe they have over drug abuse

      1. Of course the irony is that legalization would actually give them more control. But they loath to ever admit to being wrong all along.

    2. Better yet, it would SAVE us huge amounts of money in the form of bloated law enforcement budgets and pensions and even the occasional wrongful death lawsuit payout!

      The good news is that with marijuana becoming widely accepted, we seem to be headed in the right direction towards legalization of drugs.

  72. “THIS JUST IN: UPS facility in San Bernardino receives suspicious package addressed to shooters; evacuations underway”

    1. Courtesy of ABC7 on Twitter. Best response so far: “It’s probably not a Christmas ham.”

    2. Was the return address “Federal Bureau of Investigation”?

  73. Just saw today’s Daily News headline. They located a scary white guy with guns from Long Island to put on the cover. Pretty nice trolling week for them.

    1. Peter King with his IRA friends?

  74. A big problem is that reporters and the media know nothing about guns.

    I work for local TV in a large market and had to school my coworkers a few days ago that semi-automatic does not mean you pull down the trigger once and multiple (even unlimited) bullets come out. That would be a machine gun, which is outlawed.

    They’re convinced these scary looking black guns with pistol grips shoot unlimited bullets with one trigger pull. They have no idea that the vast majority of them are far less deadly than your typical “hunting rifle”.

    1. People who write about guns for gun magazines know the difference as well as how ignorant it is to try and single these guns out. That is why major publications never publish their articles and why none of them get invited to the talking head circuses. You can’t have experts on a subject disagreeing with your narrative. There are also plenty of cops on the side of gun rights who are wholly unrepresented by the media. It’s always the big city police chiefs who are more politician than cop that gets on.

    2. A big problem is that reporters and the media know nothing about guns – and have no interest in learning.

    3. Machine guns are not outlawed. The manufacture of NEW machine guns is illegal. You can own an old one with the proper tax stamp and your state allows it.

      1. And have tens of thousands of dollars to buy it.

        1. Which is why dispite everything shown in movies and tv they are almost never used used in a crime in the real world and those that are have been illegally converted from semi only.

          1. “those that are have been illegally converted from semi only.”

            As per the WaPo and NYT claims of the ‘ease’ of this… do you know of a single example of a crime where this was actually done in the last 10-20 years?

            1. Whoops you addressed this below.

              the North Hollywood shootout? that one was odd for a lot of reasons.

              1. Yeah, it was.

      2. Correct. That’s what I should have said. In any case, conversations about outlawing scary looking “automatic assault rifles” by the left is a complete misnomer, considering such guns are not used in any of these shootings (and also those pesky right innumerated to us by nature$.

    4. Agreed. Some female dick on Fox News stated this evening that the AR-15’s used by the terrorists were ‘assault rifles’, which of course they aren’t. Neither was fully auto, even though some fumble-fingered attempt was made to try to convert one.

      1. The term ‘assault rifle’ is emotional, not technical. And largely meaningless. Except to leftists.

  75. What, pray tell, would the leftist/progressives be willing to give up of theirs for the good of their fellow Americans?

    How about a public sector union giving up a pension for the good of the American taxpayer?

    Or a welfare program voluntarily cutting back its budget?

    Or maybe scuttle a few green energy corporate-welfare programs (that invariably go to Democrat donors)?

    When do the leftists EVER make any sacrifices of their own property (and it cannot be other peoples’ property that they want to give away)?

    Forget it. The goodwill required to give up something for my fellow Americans was burnt up long ago. Whenever I hear the “Ask not what your country can do for you…” speech, a little wad of barf starts working its way up my esophagus. In the decades between then and now, the mass taking of our property has grown beyond any bounds of goodwill.

    1. What other common sense restrictions on our bill of rights could save lives?

      Limits on how the press reports mass shootings.

      Many of the psychos are out to get press for their grievances or just fame seeking.

      The media loves the ratings so they make a deal with the crazy guy who can’t get girls “We will broadcast your manifesto, we will ask your parents and friends, and girls who jilted you the hard questions and make them feel bad, but in return we need some kind of news event. It needs to be spectacular, too. We recommend double digit body counts.”

      Note that this would also help prevent copycats and attacks that use knives, cars, etc.

      Do you think the media would accept this tiny limit if it saves lives?

  76. WaPo runs a story trying to explain how exactly the Trrurrisst got hold of the Elusive and Megadeadly Assault Weapon Device in the People’s Utopia of Caliperfection.

    Some details which i didn’t mention earlier which i think provide a case study in the degree of hubris in the gun-ban-desirous media =

    the mention that one of the rifles had been attempted to be converted from “semi” to “full-auto”. This modification is described as “easy”, then swiftly moved past.

    ….Of course…. has there been a single instance of a crime in CA using a rifle modified to full auto in the last 20 years? crickets.

    NBC tries similar move = “A second rifle believed to have been possessed by Malik was purchased compliant with strict California gun laws, the source said. It was subsequently changed to have a large-capacity detachable magazine which would be illegal under California law, the source said. “

    “Changed”… as in, “a larger magazine” was simply used, rather than the 10-shot limited one. They “modified” the rifle…by simply changing magazines? Magic!

    The fact that the law is ‘defeated’ by mere will of the user is politely obviated.

    1. “has there been a single instance of a crime in CA using a rifle modified to full auto in the last 20 years?”

      Actually there was one. The bank robbery shoot out years ago. Basically the exception that makes the rule.

      1. North Hollywood. Almost 19 years ago. Not exactly a trend.

        1. I think its also a little amusing that the only time anyone can remember anyone actually doing a semi-to-full-auto conversion, it was in California, natch – not in the places with the ‘wild west’ approach to gun-laws.

          1. And yet try and convince people that full auto assault weapons are not the preffered choice of inner city street gangs. I’ve had these arguments with people. They know I’m wrong because they’ve seen the movies and documentaries about drug violence and they could cleary hear full auto fire in the dramatic recreations. I just don’t know what I’m talking about. Their opinion is mainstream and I’m one of those whacky birds. I rarely even bother anymore.

  77. Can anyone please point me in a good direction for the history of WHY machine guns are banned? It seems like it’s a point in the anti gun peoples favor…that is, when arguing for a ban on semis they could say, “well, you dont sem to have a problem with full autos not being made and sold.” Why do I not see that being argued more often by them, and whats the counter argument?

    1. The Wiki says the St. Valentine’s Day massacre and the attempted assassination of FDR, along with Prohibition violence, were the excuses promulgated by FedGov.

    2. The last prohibition, the war on alcohol when the government created problem of mob bootlegging led to gangland slayings which in turn gave them their excuse to ban full auto and create more government enforcer agencies. Basically shit like the saint valentine’s day Massacre.

      1. I’m sure gun prohibition would work much better than alchohol and drug prohibition. No gang related violence ir anything. Nichlas Cage showed us how nice arms dealers are.

        1. I just watched that movie again (Lord of War). He actually does! i find him a sympathetic character.

          1. It was a pretty goodod movie as I recall

          2. I love how the idealist in that movie is the antagonist. It just warms my cold, stony teabagger heart

  78. What about the berserkers?

  79. The ultimate liberal goal of gun prohibition/confiscation can only be achieved through the enforcement of the sort of police state they used to claim to oppose (and even now they occasionally object to the results). But the longer the Fascist Messiah rules, the more open they are in their desire to convert the Democrat Party to IngSoc.

  80. Dude I think we should ALL be carrying assault rifles.

    1. I gotta say, the spambot has been making more and more sense lately.

  81. It is likely that there is literally no other political crusade on which the Times could call for so much expense and turmoil for such a small benefit

    Perhaps the only inaccurate statement in this admirable post. But if the Times’s — and the Obama administration’s, if that isn’t redundant — prescriptions on “climate change” were followed, the expense would be many times larger, and eventually, as people started dying by the millions in the Third World, so would the turmoil. At least, I have to believe the latter, even though precedents like the DDT ban remind me how well such deaths can be ignored by the Times and their ilk.

  82. Between this latest shrill response, Paris, and the campus crybabies, how long before the left exhausts the political clout it acquired since they took Congress in 2006? The echo chamber these people live in is truly cavernous.

  83. Dear NYT,

    Please remind me what the Redcoats were doing in Concord, Mass., 1775, and how the locals reacted?

  84. What I don’t get is how liberals square this with BLM activists assertions that police are evil murderers. By wanting to ban guns, you are de facto taking the position that you trust the police to protect you.
    How can you simultaneously trust police to protect you during a “situation,” but then believe they will gun you down on the street in cold blood?
    Why would someone who allegedly hates me put his life on the line to protect me?

    1. Cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing and people can make some strange leaps of logic with its help. Intellectual consistency be damned when one worships at the altar of the state.

  85. An assault M16 has three way of firing. Single, 3 shot burst, and full auto. An AR15 can only fire one shot at a time like any caliber semi auto. If reporters would get their facts straight instead of believing Hollywood movies they would know that a well trained person with a Ruger 10/22 would have done more damage than those two nut jobs. There are several reasons for mass killings none of which is the guns fault. If two large men had walked into that room armed only with machetes the end result would have probably been the same. I grew up in the South surrounded by guns and never once thought about grabbing a gun to settle a problem. I would be willing to bet Progressivism and the victimhood it preachs and US foreign policy are more responsible for mass shootings than AR15’s and AK47’s. And NO I don’t own an assault style weapon and never will but it is OK by me if others do.

  86. Re: “So, what is the size of this problem, worth such cost in treasure, liberty, and domestic tranquility to the Times?” Quite high, actually, when you look at the larger gun problem. I share your view that a cost/benefit analysis needs to be done when considering any gun-control measure, but the NRA (and an obstructionist congress in the NRA’s pocket) has made that very difficult. Interesting analysis here:…

  87. my co-worker’s sister-in-law makes $71 every hour on the computer . She has been fired for five months but last month her income was $16368 just working on the computer for a few hours. see page……….

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.