PDA

View Full Version : The New York Times posts a front page editorial for the first time in 95 years



Paul Pless
12-05-2015, 09:53 AM
All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

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. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

S.V. Airlie
12-05-2015, 09:55 AM
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

:),:),:)

ccmanuals
12-05-2015, 10:27 AM
Well said Paul.

George Jung
12-05-2015, 10:27 AM
Thanks, PP; I just have to wonder, at what point do we reach the 'tipping point' - where sufficient folks say 'enough is enough', and insist - because that is what will be required - that our Congress address this problem.

Joe (SoCal)
12-05-2015, 10:28 AM
Read it
First time since the 20's that the Grey lady posted an Op-Ed on the front page

Paul Pless
12-05-2015, 10:29 AM
Thanks, PP; I just have to wonder, at what point do we reach the 'tipping point' - where sufficient folks say 'enough is enough', and insist - because that is what will be required - that our Congress address this problem.

there was a story on NPR yesterday tracking vote counts in congress on increased gun control legislation over the last six years; the margin for and against remains exactly the same, not one single vote has shifted in favor of increased gun control in either the house or senate in the last six years. . .

Gabby Giffords
Sandy Hook
Colorado Movie Theater Massacre
nor the 180,000+ Americans slain by guns in the last six years has moved the bar not one bit. . .

ccmanuals
12-05-2015, 10:30 AM
Not only do we not try we have politicians that seem to relish the gun culture to the point of absurdity. A good example is Cruz and cooking bacon with an assault rifle.

http://www.businessinsider.com/video-ted-cruz-machine-gun-bacon-2015-8

McMike
12-05-2015, 10:36 AM
Great article.

Keith Wilson
12-05-2015, 10:40 AM
Just to be make it clear, what Paul posted is the NYT editorial.

I agree 100%

S.V. Airlie
12-05-2015, 10:42 AM
The problem is, the wrong people read the NYT.

slug
12-05-2015, 10:50 AM
"Motives do not matter "

i see.

Keith Wilson
12-05-2015, 10:52 AM
You do not see, and you are deliberately distorting what they said. The whole phrase: ". . motives do not matter to the dead . . "

McMike
12-05-2015, 10:54 AM
"Motives do not matter "

i see.

Good cherry pick!!! Great out of context quote. YOU WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joe (SoCal)
12-05-2015, 10:57 AM
"Motives do not matter "

i see.

"These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/tough-talk-and-a-cowardly-vote-on-terrorism.html). 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."

slug
12-05-2015, 10:59 AM
You and the NYT are tring to link the latest terrorist act with domestic gun control policies.
Motives do matter. A terrorist will always find the needed weapons and bombs to kill...

Paul Pless
12-05-2015, 11:02 AM
You and the NYT are tring to link the latest terrorist act with domestic gun control policies.
Motives do matter. A terrorist will always find the needed weapons and bombs to kill...

put your anti liberal bias aside and re-read the entire op-ed over again with clarity


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.

Joe (SoCal)
12-05-2015, 11:02 AM
You and the NYT are tring to link the latest terrorist act with domestic gun control policies.
Motives do matter. A terrorist will always find the needed weapons and bombs to kill...

DID YOU EVEN BOTHER TO READ the OP ???



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. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

George Jung
12-05-2015, 11:04 AM
Slug is a troll - 'say anything for a dig'. Ignore.

S.V. Airlie
12-05-2015, 11:07 AM
There is no sense bothering with gun nuts much less wasting time by posting anything to see if anything sinks through. I mean, if the dead horse you're beating, doesn't even twitch, why continue beating it?

oznabrag
12-05-2015, 11:07 AM
You and the NYT are tring to link the latest terrorist act with domestic gun control policies.
Motives do matter. A terrorist will always find the needed weapons and bombs to kill...

So they should be handed those weapons on a silver platter.

Tighter regulations mean a clearer paper trail, for one thing, so the weapons can be tracked more effectively EVEN IF THEY ARE STOLEN OR OBTAINED ON THE BLACK MARKET.

Osborne Russell
12-05-2015, 11:10 AM
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.

As children, my friends and I used to play army, Indians, Robin Hood, Daniel Boone etc. running through the woods, climbing trees, sending hand signals, ambushing etc. We got the themes and images from movies, TV, and books, and in order to really get into it, we acted it out. I remember at one point we even agreed to pantomime the loading of a musket, which took time, and took your attention off things, just to make it more realistic. The thing was to trick a guy into firing and missing (honor system) and then get him while he was re-loading.

My theory is: for most people this is done at about age 10, but for some it never ends -- the desire to become some sort of warrior (although my friends and I were more into "scout" than "warrior").

To be a warrior is to be someone, which is attractive to people who feel like they're nobody. Social recognition, needed, wanted, valued, etc.

I once hiked up a fire road to a peak to see over the ridge looking for possible future hiking routes. Didn't see a soul until on the way back down. A guy had parked his Bronco just off the road and was off a little ways doing some weird little dance, I thought, from a distance. But as I descended I saw that he would like simulate total relaxation for a few moments, and then jerk into combat pistol shooting pose, holding it out with both hands, arms extended, pivoting all around. Wearing total camoflage, of course. Then relax, holster the pistol, then do it all over again.

Nothing to indicate he was a Muslim. On the contrary, every visible sign said "Red".

I figured I had to walk by him because if I tried to go around through the bushes he might shoot me. So I walked on by on the road. He saw me, I waved. He didn't wave back. I got another thirty feet or so down the road and . . . bang bang bang bang. I stopped dead and looked back up at him. Bang bang bang. He was firing into the bushes. Scared the P out of me. Walked all the way back feeling like I had a target hung on my back.

Saturday morning in America. Never did go back to hiking in that area, never went back there at all.

An adult who needs one will find an image to emulate, but unlike the child, for an adult, part of the image is the ideology. Doesn't have to make sense, it just has to offer empowerment. I think that may have been the deal with these San Bernardino people.

Not exactly "a well-regulated militia."

S.V. Airlie
12-05-2015, 11:12 AM
As children, my friends and I used to play army, Indians, Robin Hood, Daniel Boone etc. running through the woods, climbing trees, sending hand signals, ambushing etc. We got the themes and images from movies, TV, and books, and in order to really get into it, we acted it out. I remember at one point we even agreed to pantomime the loading of a musket, which took time, and took your attention off things, just to make it more realistic. The thing was to trick a guy into firing and missing (honor system) and then get him while he was re-loading.

So, you grew up in Neeew Yooork City!:)

Paul Pless
12-05-2015, 11:50 AM
As children, my friends and I used to play army, Indians, Robin Hood, Daniel Boone etc. running through the woods, climbing trees, sending hand signals, ambushing etc. We got the themes and images from movies, TV, and books, and in order to really get into it, we acted it out. I remember at one point we even agreed to pantomime the loading of a musket, which took time, and took your attention off things, just to make it more realistic. The thing was to trick a guy into firing and missing (honor system) and then get him while he was re-loading.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0

Gerarddm
12-05-2015, 11:56 AM
Any sane person would agree with that editorial. But there a lot of unsane people in the US.

Cry, the beloved country.

Joe (SoCal)
12-05-2015, 11:57 AM
Paul Y>Y>Y>

C. Ross
12-05-2015, 12:14 PM
It's hard to imagine a more perfect editorial.

Daniel Noyes
12-05-2015, 12:16 PM
But motives do not matter to the dead...

But at least those countries are trying... a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

I thought motives didnt matter to the dead?
did the guy who wrote this OP-ed at least read it through top to bottom? this guy can't put a rational thought together with a whole roll of ducttape!

S.V. Airlie
12-05-2015, 12:19 PM
It's hard to imagine a more perfect editorial. Well, it took 95 years to write!:)

oznabrag
12-05-2015, 12:32 PM
I thought motives didnt matter to the dead?
did the guy who wrote this OP-ed at least read it through top to bottom? this guy can't put a rational thought together with a whole roll of ducttape!

Sometimes it is easier to blame a lack of comprehension on the writer. Especially when one is unwilling to acknowledge one's own confirmation bias.

Canoeyawl
12-05-2015, 12:35 PM
Slug is a troll - 'say anything for a dig'. Ignore.

And his claim is that he does not live here in the US.

Which begs the question, does he carry a gun?

Daniel Noyes
12-05-2015, 12:50 PM
The New York Times posts a front page editorial for the first time in 95 years
The NY times long ceased being a "News" paper... sad to say it's been all editorials for the past 15 +- years.
a friend, life long Dem voter has to turn to conservative papers/ Fox News! OMG! to get the whole story.

The most stunning example of late is NYT coverage of this Cali. attack with virtually no coverage of the muslim extremist angle of the story... he tells me "the Times is afraid of the "M word""

Dan McCosh
12-05-2015, 12:56 PM
The New York Times posts a front page editorial for the first time in 95 years
The NY times long ceased being a "News" paper... sad to say it's been all editorials for the past 15 +- years.
a friend, life long Dem voter has to turn to conservative papers/ Fox News! OMG! to get the whole story.

The most stunning example of late is NYT coverage of this Cali. attack with virtually no coverage of the muslim extremist angle of the story... he tells me "the Times is afraid of the "M word""The story on the muslim extremist connection is the lead story on the front page of the NYT, opposite the editorial.

S.V. Airlie
12-05-2015, 12:58 PM
The NYT's doesn't have comics. A paper's not worth squat without comics.

Dan McCosh
12-05-2015, 01:02 PM
I can't think of a worse example for gun control than the massacre in San Bernardino. It's the scenario that is the least likely to be affected by any gun control laws. In contrast, a man was arrested a couple of days ago in Michigan after shooting at his wife. He had 145 guns in the house when he was arrested. Another mentally ill man shot a seven year old girl and her mother yesterday. This is the kind of carnage that could be reduced by tighter controls--not directed terrorism.

Daniel Noyes
12-05-2015, 01:07 PM
The story on the muslim extremist connection is the lead story on the front page of the NYT, opposite the editorial.

thats good to hear, My friend was complaining to me yesterday that his NYT subscription and a 1 hour special on NPRadio both had pointedly not used the word muslim in their coverage... that he had noticed anyway and were only covering the Gun Control aspect of the story. He said that he turned on Fox for the first time in almost a decade to see what they were saying...

he felt ill informed and out of the loop by the NYT coverage

slug
12-05-2015, 01:15 PM
thats good to hear, My friend was complaining to me yesterday that his NYT subscription and a 1 hour special on NPRadio both had pointedly not used the word muslim in their coverage... that he had noticed anyway and were anly covering the Gun Controll aspect of the story. He said that he turned on Fox for the first time in almost a decade to see what they were saying...

he felt ill informed and out of the loop by the NYT coverage


yah...islam has been airbrushed out. The terror event is an inconvenient truth for liberals .

The event complicates thier dream of relocating a quarter million middle east muslims to the US.

S.V. Airlie
12-05-2015, 01:18 PM
thats good to hear, My friend was complaining to me yesterday that his NYT subscription and a 1 hour special on NPRadio both had pointedly not used the word muslim in their coverage... that he had noticed anyway and were only covering the Gun Control aspect of the story. He said that he turned on Fox for the first time in almost a decade to see what they were saying...

he felt ill informed and out of the loop by the NYT coverage I can understand that. FOX NEWS is more into inflaming its audience. Probably mentioned Muslims 40xs in half an hour of news. I don't know whether the NYTs mentioned Muslims because finding the NYTs here would be like looking for a snipe in NYC. However, someone did point out, Muslims were discussed in the NYTs and gave the location as to where in it.

Paul Pless
12-05-2015, 01:30 PM
thats good to hear, My friend was complaining to me yesterday that his NYT subscription and a 1 hour special on NPRadio both had pointedly not used the word muslim in their coverage... that he had noticed anyway and were only covering the Gun Control aspect of the story. He said that he turned on Fox for the first time in almost a decade to see what they were saying...

he felt ill informed and out of the loop by the NYT coverage

As a daily listener to NPR's news programing and a weekend reader of the Times, I can say that your 'friend' has either a horrible case of cognitive impairment and listening and reading comprehension issues or he's a lying to you.

S.V. Airlie
12-05-2015, 01:53 PM
As a daily listener to NPR's news programing and a weekend reader of the Times, I can say that your 'friend' has either a horrible case of cognitive impairment and listening and reading comprehension issues or he's a lying to you.About right!

BrianY
12-05-2015, 02:17 PM
+1000 on the editorial. Exactly right.

The one good thing to come out of all these killings is that the nation is beginning to wake up to the reality that our obsession with gun and gun rights is insane. I am beginning - barely - to feel a tiny little bit of optimism that sanity regarding guns and gun regulation will eventually prevail. The sad thing is is that it has taken so many deaths to wake people up. It is also quite sad that it will undoubtedly take many more deaths before sufficient pressure builds to actually get anything accomplished.

The hardcore gun fetishists will continue to resist all appeals to reason and sanity but they are a dying breed. Eventually, America will grow up.

Daniel Noyes
12-05-2015, 03:53 PM
I can understand that. FOX NEWS is more into inflaming its audience. Probably mentioned Muslims 40xs in half an hour of news. I don't know whether the NYTs mentioned Muslims because finding the NYTs here would be like looking for a snipe in NYC. However, someone did point out, Muslims were discussed in the NYTs and gave the location as to where in it.

yeah that was what he said! Muslim mentioned about 20 times in the first five munites of FoX coverage... sad that we have to put the whole story together like a jigsaw puzzle because of political correctness and it's... opposite?

The Bigfella
12-05-2015, 04:04 PM
America's unfettered gun proponents... the Daesh of the West

skuthorp
12-05-2015, 04:11 PM
What? So now you need a score card? Arranged by religion?
And does one killing by a Muslim cancel out all the killing by nominal Christians?
What a load of BS.
From Norman.
"…..and just accept that the occasional slaughter is a perfectly normal thinning of the herd... "

Too Little Time
12-05-2015, 04:37 PM
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.

I believe that the Supreme Court disagrees with those comments.

PeterSibley
12-05-2015, 04:42 PM
That makes the SC complicit in the carnage.

S.V. Airlie
12-05-2015, 04:45 PM
Certainly should get the designation of terrorist attack anyway.

Paul Pless
12-05-2015, 04:50 PM
That makes the SC complicit in the carnage.i don't think you can blame lack of effective and reasonable gun control on our supreme court

peb
12-05-2015, 05:10 PM
Motives most certainly matter. If one is trying to reduce any criminal act, it seems best to start by examining motives. That is, if one actually desires to be successful.

The behavior of libs this week has pretty much convinced me that they are not interested so much in solving any problem, as they are in having a political issue continually available that they feel I advantageous.

Paul Pless
12-05-2015, 05:15 PM
peb, read the op-ed again. The motives do not matter to the dead.

btw, I'm a liberal and a gun enthusiast, who had a friend get shot and killed almost exactly one year ago. I think its disingenuous at best for you to make such a claim that liberals are only playing the gun control card for political reasons. . .

skuthorp
12-05-2015, 05:16 PM
Peb if there was any interest in 'solving' the problem of shooting deaths in the US your 'representatives' would have acted years ago. Part of a politicians remit is to lead. And even you can see where they are leading.

PeterSibley
12-05-2015, 05:17 PM
i don't think you can blame lack of effective and reasonable gun control on our supreme court

I said complicit, the SC is really the only body with the power to interpret the Constitution and over the centuries those interpretations certainly have varied substantially.

Lew Barrett
12-05-2015, 05:20 PM
The problem is, the wrong people read the NYT.

The right people read it. It' the wrong people who don't. ;)

Lew Barrett
12-05-2015, 05:30 PM
I think its disingenuous at best for you to make such a claim that liberals are only playing the gun control card for political reasons. . .

I can't claim enthusiasm anymore, but I am a liberal gun owner. But to your point, I only identify this as a political issue when I ponder that there are people who make it so. In fact, for me it is more of an ethical concern.....or a moral issue if one prefers.

One could reduce the number of combat style weapons in the hands of citizens to zero and the citizens of this country would still be armed more than well enough for the only kind of insurrection and resistance to a tyrannical government that can be effective against armor and the weighty tools the government has at its disposal to handle conventional attack.

There is no good argument for (semi) automatic military weapons even if an insurrection ever became necessary. To repeat, it's a matter of ethics, morality, and ultimately common sense.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
12-05-2015, 05:33 PM
There is no good argument for (semi) automatic military weapons even if an insurrection ever became necessary. To repeat, it's a matter of ethics, morality, and ultimately common sense.

Yer fooked.

Peerie Maa
12-05-2015, 06:38 PM
There is no good argument for (semi) automatic military weapons even if an insurrection ever became necessary.

There is that insurrection thing again. It is the government that you elected, fer crissakes. Your democratically elected government, it is like rising up and shooting yourself.

PeterSibley
12-05-2015, 06:42 PM
There is that insurrection thing again. It is the government that you elected, fer crissakes. Your democratically elected government, it is like rising up and shooting yourself.

Um,yes ?

Lew Barrett
12-05-2015, 07:29 PM
There is that insurrection thing again. It is the government that you elected, fer crissakes. Your democratically elected government, it is like rising up and shooting yourself.

You didn't get my meaning at all, not even remotely close. Many of the 2nd Amendment crowd's arguments are that these weapons are necessary to defend from the government. Even that doesn't tally.

George Jung
12-05-2015, 07:34 PM
Two peoples, separated by a common language (kinda) and all that.

It happens.

Lew Barrett
12-05-2015, 07:45 PM
Maybe. I'm guessing things haven't been the same since that beer shipment.

Sky Blue
12-05-2015, 08:18 PM
The Times mentions concern about murder but fails to state that the murder rate in the US is about half of what it was when Mr. Clinton was in office. Violent crime in the US, in general, is way down, as others have noted in other threads. You would not know these things, however, simply by reading the Times piece. Because these facts are omitted, a note of dishonest opportunism is introduced. In addition, as troubling as the gun issue may be in the US, it is hardly one of the chief challenges that the nation, as a whole, currently faces, a fact belied by the choice to do a front page editorial.

Despite the rhetoric of the Times, the American people support the 2nd Amendment and a personal right to possess firearms, even if they are open to changes in various laws. There will be no weapons surrender on the order of the Aussie model, at least in the near future. The people do not support it.

There is no better evidence for this than the futile push for change in the wake of Sandy Hook. If that would not spur change, then it is very difficult to imagine what change subsequent events might bring about. No nation is perfect, nor perfectly moral, and rights are expensive and have costs. The US appears willing to accept a certain level of carnage as the price of a firearms possession right. That is just the way it is and will remain for the foreseeable future, no matter how much handwringing, navel gazing and front-page editorializing that goes on about it.

George Jung
12-05-2015, 08:20 PM
Although [hogwash] is common in everyday life and has attracted attention from philosophers, its reception (critical or ingenuous) has not, to our knowledge, been subject to empirical investigation. Here we focus on pseudo-profound [hogwash], which consists of seemingly impressive assertions that are presented as true and meaningful but are actually vacuous. We presented participants with [hogwash] statements consisting of buzzwords randomly organized into statements with syntactic structure but no discernible meaning (e.g., “Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena”). Across multiple studies, the propensity to judge [hogwash] statements as profound was associated with a variety of conceptually relevant variables (e.g., intuitive cognitive style, supernatural belief). Parallel associations were less evident among profundity judgments for more conventionally profound (e.g., “A wet person does not fear the rain”) or mundane (e.g., “Newborn babies require constant attention”) statements. These results support the idea that some people are more receptive to this type of [hogwash] and that detecting it is not merely a matter of indiscriminate skepticism but rather a discernment of deceptive vagueness in otherwise impressive sounding claims. Our results also suggest that a bias toward accepting statements as true may be an important component of pseudo-profound [hogwash]receptivity. - ljb5


Damn. That works slick!

BrianW
12-05-2015, 11:59 PM
What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

Any decency lost, was not lost by the overwhelming vast majority of gun owners. It was lost by the worst of us, not the best.

PeterSibley
12-06-2015, 02:23 AM
Any decency lost, was not lost by the overwhelming vast majority of gun owners. It was lost by the worst of us, not the best.

and just how are the two types too be told apart ? The good guy with the semi auto rifle and the bad guy with the semi auto rifle ?

Tom Montgomery
12-06-2015, 05:39 AM
Despite the rhetoric of the Times, the American people support the 2nd Amendment and a personal right to possess firearms, even if they are open to changes in various laws.
And there lies the disconnect between the American people and the right wing ideologues who get elected and block legislation proposing changes to various laws.

Our system of government is broken. If not for gerrymandering on the state level, the Congress of the United States of America would reflect the opinion of the majority of the American people. It does not as things stand currently.

People like RonW take great delight in that. They see this state of affairs as "checks and balances" instead of disfunction.

Peerie Maa
12-06-2015, 05:43 AM
Many of the 2nd Amendment crowd's arguments are that these weapons are necessary to defend from the government. Even that doesn't tally.

I know that. Unfortunately you wrote "even if an insurrection ever became necessary" which implies that you think that it might become necessary. I's sorry for not realising that you meant those words to mean something different.

Wooden Boat Fittings
12-06-2015, 07:47 AM
Well! Three cheers for the NY Times.


The hardcore gun fetishists will continue to resist all appeals to reason and sanity...

Brian, "gun fetishists" seems to be exactly the right expression. If only you could wean them on to feet instead....

Mike

C. Ross
12-06-2015, 08:47 AM
The US appears willing to accept a certain level of carnage as the price of a firearms possession right. That is just the way it is and will remain for the foreseeable future, no matter how much handwringing, navel gazing and front-page editorializing that goes on about it.

I think these statements are entirely accurate.

This is a moral choice. It is appalling that we make this choice, deliberately, over and over.

What at is particularly appalling is we reject reasonable ways to reduce carnage without abridging anyone's "rights".

The NRA position is that any right constitutes an unlimited right - no limitation on type of weapon, type of ammunition, no additional background checks, no mandatory safety training or licensing, no limitations on who can purchase, no registration.

Michael D. Storey
12-06-2015, 09:09 AM
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

:),:),:)This is, I feel, the most important statement that I have read on this topic here to date.

Lew Barrett
12-06-2015, 12:00 PM
I know that. Unfortunately you wrote "even if an insurrection ever became necessary" which implies that you think that it might become necessary. I's sorry for not realising that you meant those words to mean something different.

My usage wasn't all that unfortunate, especially if taken in context. It is a standard use of the conditional (in this case, counterfactual-conditional (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_conditional)).

Please take the time to become familiar with my positions on other such matters and you'll realize which side of the spectrum I generally inhabit here. I believe you assumed something that wasn't there.

I accept your apology.......conditionally! :)

To reiterate: These weapons serve no practical military purpose in the hands of civilians and are lousy hunting or sporting arms. So what are they good for? You don't need to answer that as we all know already.

Canoeyawl
12-06-2015, 12:17 PM
" These weapons serve no practical military purpose in the hands of civilians and are lousy hunting or sporting arms. So what are they good for? You don't need to answer that as we all know already."

In this country they are especially good for both egos and profits.
(Which go hand in hand; one smart hand leading the other much dumber hand)

Lew Barrett
12-06-2015, 12:19 PM
Yer fooked.

Yes, I'm inclined to believe that is so. Maybe Lysistrata offers a solution.

Lew Barrett
12-06-2015, 12:24 PM
In this country they are especially good for both egos and profits.
(Which go hand in hand; one smart hand leading the other much dumber hand)

Cui bono again. Follow the money.

Canoeyawl
12-06-2015, 12:33 PM
Cui bono again. Follow the money.

"The pursuit of happiness"