Shockingly, The NY Times Is Chock Full Of Calls For Gun Control
I’m wondering if any New Yorker could pop on down to the NY Times building and see if the guards in the reception area are still armed. Anyhow, since the Fish Wrap of Record is so utterly against guns, they will refuse to call those people called “police officers” who carry evil guns. Because they are really against guns. Starting off with Roger Ebert, whose headline reads “We’ve seen this movie before”. First, he calls James Holmes nuts. Then
I’m not sure there is an easy link between movies and gun violence. I think the link is between the violence and the publicity. Those like James Holmes, who feel the need to arm themselves, may also feel a deep, inchoate insecurity and a need for validation.
Obviously, Ebert is a movies guy, so, no, all that massive violence as portrayed by Hollywood liberals using all sorts of guns couldn’t have an effect on someone who is a few beers short of a six pack. He then runs on about evil guns and such, coming to the conclusion
This would be an excellent time for our political parties to join together in calling for restrictions on the sale and possession of deadly weapons. That is unlikely, because the issue has become so closely linked to paranoid fantasies about a federal takeover of personal liberties that many politicians feel they cannot afford to advocate gun control.
Perhaps Ebert should have a talk with Obama and Eric Holder, who sent legally purchased guns across the border resulting in the deaths of at least 2 federal agents and over 300 Mexican nationals.
And then we have
- Charles Blow: One step in the right direction would be to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Even coming from a gun culture, I cannot rationalize the sale of assault weapons to everyday citizens. (Hey, Chuck, Obama had a Dem House and Senate for 2 years, and didn’t)
- Editorial Board: This latest in a series of murderous acts is a moment to reflect and to search for sensible answers about guns.
- Letters to the editor: The shooting in Aurora, Colo., brings calls for increased regulation of handguns.
- Gale Collins seems to take a pro-gun position till ending with: Everybody, including the gun control advocates, knows that nothing will change unless the people decide to do the leading. Eventually, the American voters come around. Just ask the suffragists.
The Times isn’t alone. At The Washington Post, The Editorial Board chimes in about our “senseless gun laws.” And E.J. Dionne, Jr. calls for more gun control. OK. then lets disarm the police. Why do they have guns? And how about security guards on college campuses? At high schools? All they’re doing is perpetuating a notion that guns are cool and can be used for protection. Obviously, if no one was armed, no one would have guns, right? Certainly, gang bangers like MS-13, Crips, Bloods, South Side Locos, the Mexican Mafia, the Latin Kings, Folk Nation, etc would give up their guns to comply with stricter laws, right?
ABC’s Devin Dwyer notes that Obama has been silent on gun control
President Obama has been notably silent on the issue of gun control during his presidency, in spite of at least four major mass shootings during his term – Binghamton, N.Y. (2009); Fort Hood, Texas (2009); Tucson, Ariz. (2011) and now Aurora, Colo.
In his few public statements on guns, Obama has balanced support for Second Amendment rights while emphasizing enforcement of existing laws and a national background check system rather than new controls.
Obama surely wants gun control, but, he’s not dumb enough to call for it, as that would be a pathway for defeat. The purpose of gun control is to disarm the citizenry, leaving government with the only guns. My question is, why would the government need guns if the citizens are disarmed?