NY Times Calls for Gun Bans, Eliminating Categories of Weapons, Ammunition

The anti-gun New York Times editorial board had a come to Jesus moment following the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, in that it finally admitted what we already suspected: the leadership of the publication supports civil disarmament.

The editorial board stated the following:

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… Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership.

Hilarious! Hilarious because it’s so asinine. I’ll give you three reasons: 1) Prohibition never works, 2) “The Assault Weapon Myth,” 3) Civil disarmament is a farce.

Prohibition Never Works

Okay, reason numero uno. Prohibition works, right? Wrong. Prohibition doesn’t work. It never works. I’m not only talking about the Prohibition Era, when booze was widely banned in the U.S., but also the War on Drugs. Think about it. How well did either one of those work out for us? Prohibition led to the rise of organized crime, the modern gangster movment: Capone, Lucky Luciano, Gotti. And the War on Drugs helped to create, what the United States Intelligence Community currently refers to as, “the most powerful drug trafficking organization in the world,” the Sinaloa Cartel.

Now, if drug bans and booze bans don’t work, what are the chances that gun bans will? I’m going to go out on a limb and say zero. Why? Because, sadly, the criminal demand for firearms will never go away. Never! Bad people want to do bad things. And typically, to achieve those nefarious deeds, they need to impose their will by force. Hence the need or demand for weapons.

Just as there was a black market for alcohol, and just as there is a black market for Oxy or Meth or Smack, there would be a black market for firearms. Well, let’s face it, there already is. But with a widespread ban in place, the black market would balloon in size and those existing traffickers running guns would be greatly empowered.

The point to be made about prohibition is that it never works. Drug bans, gun bans, and booze bans don’t work. Why? Because they focus on supply instead of addressing the key part of the equation: demand.

“The Assault Weapon Myth” by Lois Beckett

The Assault Weapon Myth” by Lois Beckett, which was (ironically) published in the NY Times in 2014, is one of the best and most concise articles on why banning black rifles is a red herring in the argument over gun violence.

In short, black rifle bans are a distraction from the real sources of gun violence: poverty and drugs. I suggest you read the entire article because there are so many cogent points, but to some it up Beckett reminds the reader that the Clinton-Era ban on so-called “assault weapons” had virtually no effect on crime rates. Moreover, that assault weapons are rarely used to kill innocents.

“But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference,” wrote Beckett.

“It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do,” noted Beckett.

Beckett uses numbers (facts!) to make his case, such as that in 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, according to FBI data, and cites a DOJ evaluation that found, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”

The other important point Beckett makes, which indubitably gets lost in the debate, is that gun violence is endemic in the African-American community. That’s right, the vast majority of gun-related violence disproportionately affects young, black men.

“Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns,” writes Beckett. “Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population. Yet of the 30 Americans on average shot to death each day, half are black males.”

Consequently, the true solutions to reducing gun violence don’t depend on prohibiting possession of a symbolic rifle, but in community outreach in impoverished neighborhoods. Beckett says:

More than 20 years of research funded by the Justice Department has found that programs to target high-risk people or places, rather than targeting certain kinds of guns, can reduce gun violence.

David M. Kennedy, the director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, argues that the issue of gun violence can seem enormous and intractable without first addressing poverty or drugs. A closer look at the social networks of neighborhoods most afflicted, he says, often shows that only a small number of men drive most of the violence. Identify them and change their behavior, and it’s possible to have an immediate impact.

The editorial board should put that in their gun-banning peace pipe and smoke it!

Civil Disarmament is a Farce

Maybe it’s just me but I find the whole notion of large-scale, Australian-style civil disarmament to be wholly illogical.

Let’s think about what those jackals are advocating. They’re telling us that optimal public safety is achieved when citizens are maximally disarmed and defenseless. On what planet does that make any sense — any sense at all?

With a straight face, the Obama administration, the NY Times and the entire anti-gun movement are telling us that when you give up the means to protect yourself, your family and your property you will be safer. When your natural right of self-defense is greatly impaired, you will be safer. When you let go of this right to keep and bear arms you will be safer.

Folks, it doesn’t get much more Orwellian than that. Talk about newspeak! I think I’m going to start referring the anti-gun machine as The Ministry of Public Safety, i.e., a coalition dedicated to disarming citizens and rendering them helpless in the face of any and all threats.

For the record, they’ve tried this in Europe. And lo and behold it doesn’t work! The attacks in Paris proved that in spades. Doesn’t matter how tight the gun laws are, evildoers will find a way to carry out their evil deeds. What’s interesting is that the NY Times Editorial board acknowledged as much:

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.

Those countries aren’t trying, they’re failing! What I mean is that they’re failing to keep individuals safe. What’s more, is that their failure comes at a huge cost: the natural right of the citizen to defend himself or herself. All they’ve done is removed a fundamental civil liberty and replaced it with the false promise of a safer public.


At the end of the day, anti-gunners do not want to reckon with the fact that each individual is responsible for his or her own safety. That’s really what this all boils down to. The public safety business is not exclusively the government’s job. Police show up after the fact to investigate the crime and arrest the bad guys. Laws may dissuade bad behavior, but their main purpose is to give us a precedent on how to punish the guilty.

More often than not, the only one in a position to actually stop a crime or thwart a shooting is you or me or the neighbor down the street. In that sense, we’re all potential victims. The question then is: do we want to act like victims, and give in to what may come, or do we want to be ready and prepared with the tools that we need to fight back?

Anti-gunners are telling us that we should prepare to be victims. When something bad happens, we ought to wait for the government to save us. That’s complete folly. In any other context, that line or reasoning would be laughed at. It’s like saying, don’t bother to learn CPR or the Heimlich maneuver, instead just hope that the EMTs arrive there in time. That’s crazy.

So, now, I can’t help but to chuckle when I hear these arguments for banning firearms or reducing the number of them. They don’t make sense historically, as Prohibition has taught us, empirically, as the numbers show, or logically, as one’s relative safety is a matter of personal preparedness, not dependency on government.

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 71 comments… add one }
  • John Klumpp March 31, 2017, 11:28 am

    To those who rabidly support disarming the public and force them to rely on the government for their safty ( the police), remember this, when seconds matter, the police are just minuets away.

  • Tom December 18, 2015, 8:14 pm

    > In short, black rifle bans are a distraction from the real sources of gun violence: poverty and drugs.

    It would be more accurate to say that the real sources of gun violence are poverty and the prohibition of drugs. It’s the prohibition that causes violence, not the drugs themselves.

  • Mr. Sparkles December 14, 2015, 9:14 am

    It is now official that the NYT is the UNconstitutional newspaper of choice.

    • John March 31, 2017, 4:30 am

      Please take all these upper class Manhattanites and the San Bernardino tree huggers put them in the Bronx or Compton. Take their body guards and private security and go home by breakfast time the law of survival of fittest will have trimmed the sheeple herd significantly.

  • USNVET December 12, 2015, 7:47 pm

    The NY Times was and still is a rag publications and would never allow the truth to get in the way of an article

    The times even supported Adolf Hitlers policy of disarming minorities and those who the powers that be felt are unfit

    The morons at the times may one day want to ban box cutters thinking more people were murdered in one day by box cutters then the attack on Pearl harbor

    I suppose pressure cookers may also be on the times ban agenda or pipe bombs or even banning propane tanks and nails at home centers.

    Did the Times ever do an interview of the survivors or Ruby Ridge where the Clinton regime had an unarmed child shot in the back in the hopes of drawing his unarmed mother into the line of fire? Or the time HELLery Clinton called NYC police murders after they fired 41 shots (19 hits) at Mr. Diallo The times like the Clinton s have selective amnesia wyhen it comes to remembering the truth in journalism

    Also the times is not noted as news publication that ever did any type of research on how unarmed people in Nazi Germany were still able to get firearms to have a resistance going.

    The Times is all for drunk drivers who like Ted Kennedy get away with murder but God forbid a woman should use a firearm to protect herself or her family as this kind of news would never be politically correct in printing.

    For over 60 year the NY Times I found made great bird gave liners and shredded was good for kittens to be litter box trained

    The times has the best biased writers money can buy IMHO

  • mach37 December 12, 2015, 4:05 pm

    Anyone who would go along with controlling ammunition for firearms would also go along with limiting hammerheads to uselessly light weights, or maybe no hammerheads at all allowed to be sold, for fear someone would mount them on handles.

  • Ol'Sarge December 12, 2015, 3:32 pm

    The NY Times is so liberal it goes beyond socialistic….it is Communistic. Where did it’s editors and staff writers go to school (if they went to school)? Do they not understand the Bill of Rights and the right for American citizens to keep and bear arms? The Second Amendment has been challenged many times and it is still the law of the land (except in NYC and other cities with a socialistic leadership). as some one said and I don’t remember who
    …”You will take this weapon from my cold dead hand”

  • Roger December 12, 2015, 10:28 am

    Screw the New York Times and what they demand! They are a newspaper. They have no business demanding anything. They just need to write and publish factual stories about news, nothing more.

  • Phil December 11, 2015, 5:54 pm

    It should be considered that the refugees fleeing are unable to protect themselves by the very same types of laws the Administration is attempting to thrust down our throats.

  • silvestris December 11, 2015, 5:34 pm

    The New York Slimes.

  • Larry December 11, 2015, 2:57 pm

    When they come to disarm us, I hope the government sends little Punch & his gay little band of twinkies from the Times editorial board to do it at my house!
    Seriously, everyone, want to put a stop to all this anti American anti-gun nonsense? STOP voting for anyone with a “D” behind their name. Once we eliminate the Socialists, we can weed out the weenie Rinos too.

  • Marcus December 11, 2015, 2:28 pm

    Recognizing things for what they are, and seeing through the cloak that hides, would be a great thing to possess. Watching the current administration is like a classic cowboy western TV series. Everybody knows what is going to happen next without having seen the show before. If you were an enemy of the US, wouldn’t the easiest way to cause it’s downfall be an inside job? They praise the confiscation of guns in other countries after every mass shooting. Look who are doing the shootings. It is the immigration policies, and not the gun laws that need enforcement. They get low income loans law passed, lobby for demilitarization as community organizers, and then flood the country with illegals who are the countries enemies. Obama’s portfolio right there bud.

  • Blankovich December 11, 2015, 1:15 pm

    The forces of evil are on the march. The forces of evil are the socialists, Democrats, progressives, main stream Republicans, Marxists, Leninists and general leftists. I simply call them the forces of evil. They hate freedom. They want to impose absolute, crushing, ugly, un-caring bureaucratic rule. Witness the “whole lives system” that is the basis of Obama care. This evil system calculates your “worth” to the State as a function of your age and current health. If you are younger than 16 or older than 60 or are not healthy you are not able to produce or service the State. This is Obama care in its final form. Why did I bring up Obama care in a comment about the NYT openly talking about banning private ownership of whole swaths of firearms and ammunition? Because there is no way the forces of evil will reach their nirvana and impose not only Obama care on America, but all of their other evil ideas without being able to threaten the American citizen with guns without any fear of retaliation in kind.

    If the forces of evil ever do get either a total ban or a highly restrictive limitation of civilian arms ownership, they will become overtly tyrannical overnight. The idea of America will be over. I don’t believe it is out of the realm of reality for a number of historical, totalitarian, evil measures to very quickly be implemented. What am I talking about? Well, if you are older than 60 and you need a knee replacement you will not be granted that boon unless you walking without a cane or walker is deemed necessary to the State. If not, no knee replacement for you. Oh, you want pain pills? No, the State doesn’t think it wants to bear that expense. Oh, you have the funds to have a knee replacement on your own? No, sorry, the State is the only source for health care. The State is all important; no individual other than those that run the State is important unless you are doing what the State wants for the State’s benefit.

    In addition to other heavy handed measures that will ensue after the gun ban, the State will become extremely sensitive to criticism. Why? Because it will be obvious to any honest person that the State is incompetent. It’s incompetent now, why wouldn’t it be even more incompetent if it continues to grow? So the first amendment will be gone when it comes to talking about how the State has hurt you or can’t keep toilet paper on the shelves at a reasonable price. Forget about the fact that putting toilet paper on the shelf isn’t the State’s job, it’s the job of the free market; the State WILL regulate or consume all private businesses of any size.

    Once we reach this point the re-education camps will be built. They won’t be called re-education camps, but rather something very innocuous like “Remedial Training Facilities,” or “State School for Progress.” For the sake of this commentary let’s use my favorite, State School for Progress and use the acronym SSP. Once it has intertwined itself in all of the most critical areas of our life (we are close now as there are Federal regulations involving washers and dryers and toilets!) they will need to ensure that they have as much mind control as possible to maintain their rabid grip on power so that those pesky citizens don’t start to vote against their policies. Remember, they will have to have elections or we’ll simply be living in a mirror of the old USSR or China today where “the party” is the supreme power over everything.

    So, when the State becomes aware of someone who is loudly talking about the failures of the State, it will use emergency powers to take that person and send them to the SSP. The SSP will definitely have open, sex specific, barracks. Bathrooms will be large community affairs with no privacy unless you need to defecate. You will shower together, use the sink in a long row of sinks, use a common pool of products such as shaving cream, etc. Think of Auschwitz in Poland or Buchenwald in Germany. Once ensconced in the SSP you will have a full regimen of classes on right thinking with both written and oral examinations. Of course, to keep the cost down for the State, you will be required to work for the SSP to maintain its cleanliness and work in the kitchen when it’s your turn, etc. You will be required to be “happy” to help with the SSP’s operations. After a suitable period of attitude adjustment, I mean, education, you will be allowed to return to your State selected duties and your life. Unfortunately, there will be some stubborn individuals who will not be adjudged to be sufficiently re-educated. These people will never be seen outside of the camp again. Indeed, these aberrant individuals will eventually disappear completely. When a person reaches the final stage of re-education, the processes for release back to their home and the “other” track will be the same. Each graduate will be taken out of the camp by themselves to be delivered either to their home or to another location that will not be discussed. The current students at the school will simply be told that anyone who leaves has graduated. No one in the school will know exactly where the graduate went for sure. There is no return from the other location. Figure it out for yourself.

    Think I am over the top? Remember the Patriot Act? Remember that we literally have no privacy of any kind any more. Stopping the creeping power of the State is now seen as anti-American by 95% of politicians in power today. The perpetuation and continual growth of the Federal government is the most important hallmark of the forces of evil.

    All hail the State!

  • George “03-A3;1911A December 11, 2015, 12:22 pm

    Thank you all for your thoughtful comments, No, I am not anti-gun; have been a careful gun owner since age 13.And I do know something about the Constitution (JD, Harvard Law 1964).

    • Tom Horn December 11, 2015, 5:18 pm

      A Lawyer? That explains it. Hold on a minute. I think I stepped in something. Wait a minute while I scrape you off my shoe.

      Sorry, George. I just love a good lawyer joke. Seriously, I hope you have taken away a new understanding of the issue, and I hope you are not practicing Constitutional Law in these United States.

      Here’s a tip for you. You can stop chasing ambulances. I hear Michael Bloomberg, Barrack Obama, and Hillary Clinton may need a good attorney soon to represent them on trial for treason.

  • Capt D December 11, 2015, 11:06 am

    Part 2 of my response Let’s take the weapons of war, barely modified, statement. They look like a weapon of war and that “bare” modification is to make them semi automatic so they are not weapons of war. That is a significant modification but it does not change the “scary” appearance so seems “bare” to someone who has no knowledge of guns. The ‘bullet” fired by and AR is .223 caliber…meaning a .22… just like the gun used for squirrel hunting. That is far smaller, less powerful and less efficient than a 30 06 .308 or many many other hunting calibers that people worldwide have been using for more than a 100 years. The charge that some buy them for their ego…undoubtedly true. The charge that people are buying them … other than a extremely small number of extremists…as tools of vigilantism and insurrection is as reckless and irresponsible as would be a charge that the people that support gun control do so because they are in favor of Obama declaring himself emperor and taking over the country. I can find posts to support that position as well, but I take them for what they are and I try not to judge 100s of millions of people by the thoughts and actions of a few. Again, I have many friends who support the 2nd amendment…along with the rest of the constitution… and I do not know of a single one that owns or wants to buy rocket launchers or fully automatic weapons.
    Obama has been quoted multiple times that we cannot judge all muslims by the acts of a few. Let’s accord that same respect to American citizens and not judge everyone by the acts of a few. No, I do not agree with your opinion but I will fight for your right to that opinion. I imagine you are correct that we will never agree on this… but I do like to try to understand the dissenting opinions of someone whose intellect I respect and on your side of this issue you are about it. Maybe you will convince me. That respect does not extend to NYTs pseudo journalists who know absolutely zip about these guns and likely pee in their pants at the very thought of a gun of any kind. I know this is long and I promise to stop. but “Riddle me this one Batman”… A couple of muslims start shooting up the NYT’s break room because someone made a comment about their beards. A few people manage to get into an office and put a table in front of the door. The mistreated muslims are about to get in when the visiting pizza delivery man…certainly not an employee…pulls a handgun from under his jacket. Who do you think will be the most popular person in the room?

  • Capt D December 11, 2015, 11:03 am

    This is my response to a very liberal friend who was spreading the NYT’s article. Two parts:
    You cannot buy automatic assault weapons in the United State of America without a very expensive Federal Permit that requires months if not years to obtain. That is just a fact whether it is convenient or not. With all of my “gun nut” friends I do not even know anyone that owns a fully automatic gun and if I wanted one tomorrow I would not have a clue where to go….legally or illegally. M 16s are fully automatic military assault rifles. AR 15s are not fully automatic…they are semi automatic just like the other sporting rifles that millions and millions of Americans have been buying for many years. They are black and they look like M16s which are automatic assault weapons and people who do not have any knowledge of guns seem unable to understand the distinction. The AR does not stand for assault rifle. It stands for Armalite which is the company that first designed them. They are used for many purposes including hunting and target shooting. Many people do not like guns of any nature and it is their right to do so and to choose to not own a gun. it is not their right to decide that since they have no knowledge of guns and do not like guns no one else should own one. I did read the article and it was long on ignorance and hysteria but short on facts. Just the statement that gun control did not work in France and other European countries but “at least they are trying” is absurd. There is not much utility in continuing to try something that does not work…in fact I believe Einstein called that the definition of insanity. It once again highlights the issue of failing to address the real causes and going for “feel good” solutions.

  • nick December 11, 2015, 10:30 am

    Maybe it’s just waiting for your “Approval”. Let’s Wait and See.

  • nick December 11, 2015, 10:28 am

    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha, Don’t even TELL me that you’re doing “Their” work too by Selective Censorship. That’s SO funny.

  • nick December 11, 2015, 10:22 am

    AWFUL lot of “Common Sense” arguments in this post AND in the comments section. But let me ask you this, do ANY of you realize how pointless you’re arguments are? That goes for the writer AND the commenters. You are ALL “Preaching to the Choir”. The “Creatures” we are dealing with do NOT give a RAT’S ASS for Common Sense NOR do they care if they are Right OR Wrong. They are ONLY interested in their “Agenda” which is the TOTAL DISARMAMENT and SUBJUGATION of Americans AND America. THAT is because “They” have plans that include EVERYONE on the Planet and WE are the ONLY ONES STANDING between “Them” and those plans. We are the ONLY HOPE for Humanity and if you doubt THAT you have NOT been paying attention. They HATE US for what we are and what we stand for BEYOND ANYTHING you can imagine. We are holding them up from moving in the “Heavy Equipment” and THAT pisses them off. They are WINNING. Know why? Because we WASTE our time on “PONTIFICATING” in the spaces that only WE SEE. AND we do NOT call a SPADE a SPADE. First, there is NO “News Media” in this country. There is ONLY a VERY sophisticated and organized PROPAGANDA MINISTRY which encompasses ALL Print, Entertainment, and So-Called News that is shown or “Reported”. INCLUDING FOX Channel. If you get your Information from ANY of those outlets then you are CLUELESS about what’s going on and because of your Daily BRAINWASHING, right NOW you are rolling your eyes and saying “Uh-Oh, here goes ANOTHER Conspiracy NUT”. The Conspirators have PUT that in your heads. Just like they PUT the term GUN NUT in the heads of the opposition. They use this to SUCESSFULLY, so far, DIVIDE and CONQUER. BASIC principle of the Art of War. Sun Tsu. That’s “Their” Playbook. ALL of you have to realize we are AT WAR. WAR has been “Declared” on US and we are slated to be taken OUT with EXTREME PREDJUDICE. THAT’S so Never Again will the Common, Unwashed Masses of Slaves EVER get the idea in their heads that they are better off running their OWN affairs. Nor will they EVER own the Private Property that these “Creatures” consider THEIRS. Get PISSED. REALIZE you AND your Children and Grandchildren and EVERYONE that comes after you are to be EXTERMINATED. ARM yourselves! Physically AND Mentally! Get ready for the Fight of your lives. “They” will NOT stop OR let up until “They” achieve their ends. By ANY MEANS that they consider necessary. To our Brother and Sister Patriots in Law Enforcement AND the Military get yourselves Mentally Prepared for the day the ” ILLEGAL” orders will come down to Fire On Your Fellow Americans. It WILL happen sooner than you think. The day you get those orders you SHOOT the one that gives them. Then you go look for the one that gave them to THAT person and you SHOOT them too. Make NO mistake, this is a FIGHT to the DEATH. “They” hope to make it YOUR Death.

    • Tom Horn December 11, 2015, 4:52 pm


      It’s not about, ‘preaching to the choir.’ It’s about providing sound, rational, common sense ideals and arguments in defense of our 2nd Amendment rights, now under grave attack. It’s about rallying the 90% of gun owners who are sitting by submissively while our God given rights are under attack It’s about hoping some of the new firearms owners who purchased on Black Friday will stop by and be given an education. It’s about showing some D-bag, liberal gun grabber who happens by, that we have a spine and a brain, and will use both to defend our 2nd Amendment rights.

      Some of my friends who are firearms owners pay no attention to the attacks now underway on our freedoms. They can’t even bother to join the NRA, or other organizations protecting our 2nd Amendment. They will only wake up when ATF is kicking in their doors to confiscate their banned firearms. Besides, I have learned a lot from the choir.

  • Mark December 11, 2015, 10:16 am

    I think you missed the most important point about the guns used in the French attacks. Despite heavy regulation & licensing schemes going back at least 40 years, gun owners in France never complied – the info is out there, europe’s gun bans & registrations & amnesties, etc never got more than about 20% of the guns they wanted to get.

    And the AK’s that were actually used in the attacks had a “street value” that wasn’t even as much as it would be here, in “gun loving, regulation poor” Arizona. At least the marijuana “ban” pushed prices up a little here. During the last panic here in Az, many law-abiding citizens paid more for their AK’s than the terrorists did in a long-term “disarmed” country without a 2nd amendment.

  • Hockeyboy December 11, 2015, 9:51 am

    The NYT’s needs to stop printing it’s rubbish. I say, law abiding gun owners should all unite together and push our representatives to call for legislation to suspend the NYT’s 1st Amendment liberty to publish their rag of a newspaper,
    since they think they can print something and have our ban our 2nd Amendment liberty ban.

    If you’re a law abiding gun owner, you need to stop reading their newspaper and paying visits to their website.
    We need to unite together and hit them where it counts. Their pocketbook!

    • Rouge1 December 11, 2015, 12:33 pm

      The right light is they are anti bill of rights. They are against the civil rights of citizens. They are the same class of people as the slave owners of the past and most from the same political party.

  • lonnie re' December 11, 2015, 9:26 am

    Maybe it would be a good idea if Bloomberg would find his safe haven free of violence and guns and take up residence. Welcome to the real world as it exists today. I wonder how many weapons he owns.

    • Al December 11, 2015, 1:02 pm

      He’s already done that. His safe haven is opulent mansion on the isle of Bermuda. He has the wherewithal to surround himself with armed private police in NYC and a tiny island retreat to hide in when civilization melts down completely and we start getting slaughtered.

  • Hockeyboy December 11, 2015, 9:25 am

    While they’re at calling for disposing of liberties, let’s ban the NYT ‘s 1st Amendment liberty to publish their rubbish!

    If your a gun owner, do not read their trash or visit their website.

  • RJL December 11, 2015, 9:20 am

    Stop it! Any and All should be allowed under the second amendment! Period. Stop trying to chisel away on the framers definition.
    Without the Second Amendment, there is “NO FREEDOM”! This you cannot dispute……………..

  • Pontificant December 11, 2015, 9:00 am

    To those who would limit the 2nd Amendment and/or attempt to make gun ownership illegal; please do not consider our negative reaction to your behavior as a willingness to debate this issue or come to a compromise. Please understand that we are asking you, in our many ways, to stop the path you are on, for when or if you manage to put words on paper (or digital version thereof) stating we can no longer possess firearms, those of us who do, will have no choice, but to bring this debate to it’s ultimate conclusion.

    Make no mistake, those who wish to ban firearms will ultimately succumb to those who wish to exercise their right to defend themselves. Gun control advocates are nothing more than the emotionally inferior, arrogantly attempting to dominate the mentally and emotionally superior people of the United States of America. We are being very patient with their naivete, but there is a limit and they are fast approaching it.

    I pity them, should they be successful.

  • Stephen Davie December 11, 2015, 8:47 am

    Referring to the New York Times editorial board decision on pursing a ban on assault rifles and handguns as a “Come to Jesus” moment is something this publication will regret. If you are concerned or vexed about the position and activity of your natnions’s largest left-leaning
    newspaper becoming your fixed enemy in the great gun ownership debate in America, insulting Christians is not a great way to re-set your misguided feet in this long-running fight. Indeed, where I live, many law abiding owners of sporting firearms…traditional shotguns and hunting rifles, are as well Christians, as I am sure is the situation all across the USA outside the confusing large cities. To use our faith…to attack our faith….by implying that the move of the NY Times Editorial Board, was somehow attributed to our Christian Faith and the Christ tjowards whom all of New York is focused this Christmas, shows that indeed your publication has run it’s course and those approving of your headlines, are not worthy of the attention of Christians who happen to own a firearm. Indeed, too much of your thrust is in support of and in the proliferation of weapons designed to kill people, whereas the original weapons of choice in America were sporting arms. I am shocked and amazed that you took this direct aim at your Christian membership, to try without success to explain what exactly it is about the NY Times Board that should be discussed and addressed. Your dissterous reference to our faith, is a deathnote for your sinking publication. Of course, we would not now expect a retraction or an apology. Thus, you are doomed and this article will not be forgotten. Judge yourselves accordingly.

  • Roe December 11, 2015, 8:39 am

    Will someone who is in in a position of power and elected to represent me the hick with a high school diploma who is not very educated show that they have moreof than a spoonful of plain common sense. Someone Please help me keep from becoming a criminal as I must defend one of the most basic rights or move in to a mud hut. A third LET of all the people on this planet still live in mud huts. PLEASE PLEASE LET me live.

  • Chief December 11, 2015, 8:30 am

    George wow,just wow .Please don’t try to represent the stance of our freedom loving community who truly cares and supports our 2A rights and are not in any way shape or form willing to give up any guns or any ammo to left wing nut jobs.

  • Moe December 11, 2015, 8:15 am

    Does anyone read this piece of crap newspaper?

  • Jerry Kipikas December 11, 2015, 8:01 am

    Among the many calls for yet another “assault rifle” and firearms ban in the wake of the San Bernadino terrorist attack (amazing how the left forgets to mention that), I find comfort in the fact that in my home state-New York of SAFE ACT fame–there appears to be a glimmer of common sense from law enforcement in certain communities. Earlier this week the sheriff of Ulster county sent notice to (and also posted one the department’s website as well as facebook) valid licensed concealed carry pistol permit holders suggesting that they carry their handguns when leaving home. This was followed a few days later with the sheriff”s of 3 or 4 other counties also suggesting the same thing (as well as being carried by off-duty police). In my county–Broome–the new district attorney elect was asked in a radio interview if he thought the idea of armed citizens was a good idea or not (I think the host was looking to be told that it was a bad idea). His response was that it was a good idea and mentioned that since the people had the required permits and had received training and instruction as to when deadly force was justified (a necessity for a carry permit in Broome county, as well as others in the state), he didn’t believe there would be a problem and in fact may prevent the type of shooting which .happened in San Bernadino. Nice to know there’s some areas of common sense in the “PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF NEW YORK”. FYI: The district attorney elect of Broome county was elected for (among other reasons) his strong pro-gun stance. Amazing, a politician that actually did what he said he’d do.

    • Altoids December 11, 2015, 3:30 pm

      Wow, in NY! That guy has guts.
      Good luck to you and maybe you can someday move to a more reasonable state.

  • Wil Ferch December 11, 2015, 7:33 am

    Why not send this entire piece to the Times as a rebuttal argument for *all* to see…..a “counterpoint” response to their article? Posting it here is preaching to the converted. Maybe add that a core basis of our 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights….is the power of the people to not be controlled by a tyrannical government.

  • Geezer G December 11, 2015, 7:19 am

    In a crisis, which would you rather have by your side: a gun or a NY Times editor?

  • Dave December 11, 2015, 6:03 am

    Maybe we need to put the gun grabbers in a new light …
    What they are really doing is aiding the terrorists and any “group” that would benefit from a dis-armed civil population.

    • Rouge1 December 11, 2015, 12:26 pm

      The right light is they are anti bill of rights. They are against the civil rights of citizens. They are the same class of people as the slave owners of the past and most from the same political party.

  • Stu Shaw December 11, 2015, 5:52 am

    So your comment recommends the shotgun is the proper firearm for the masses to hunt and defend themselves with BUT…. you propose it be included in a revised FFA of 1934? You offer the shotgun then recommend it be regulated so it becomes unavailable to the public unless they can come up with the bucks and get government approval to own one. This is so typical of the anti-gun crowd. They want to strip EVERY firearm from the public but are COWARDS to come right out and admit it so they TRY to sound sympathic to gun owners wanting just a few simple requirements in effort to fool the masses into believing they are resonable when that is their biggest lie. You also INFER the 30-30 is a fine and reasonable firearm for the public to have them, then you seem fine with it being banned in Illinois. Are you REALLY a firearms user or owner Mr. George “03-A3;1911A” or just another anti-gunner in disguise?

  • 50 bmg API December 11, 2015, 3:55 am


    I call for the ELIMINATION of this asinine ZioNazi lame-stream media garbage, pronto! Leave our guns alone you peice of Talmudic ZioNazi excrement!

    • Batman December 11, 2015, 10:01 pm

      Bravo! I agree. Fuck the NY Times, NY Dailey news and the NY Post, all left wing liberal fucktards. I pray for a mass killing at all their headquarters. They sell nothing but anti gun agendas. Calling NRA president “Jihadi Wayne”.

  • Bob December 10, 2015, 11:46 pm

    Wow!…Where to begin: First off, you have the wrong “why”: One of the functions of a national government is to provide for the common defense. Is France really doing that by letting thousands of Muslim jihadists into the country who not only refuse to assimilate, but have utter contempt for the west and vow to destroy it? Should they even let them in at all? Does the citizenry of any nation have the right decide for security who to allow into their own country? This is about protection against foreign invasion – so your argument referencing France is all wet: They just had a terrorist attack and the terrorists had no problem getting weapons in a country that has had them banned. The French government has abnegated: Plain and simple!…All bets are off when your own government not only refuses to protect you, but helps a terrorist kill you. It has a name: It’s called TREASON! We have a 2nd Amendment for a reason: The security of a free state. Hunting is nice and could become necessary, and it’s a way of life for some. But I don’t plan on shooting any animals – only the two legged kind if they try to kill me or my family. Finally, ‘assault weapon’ is an ever expansive propaganda term to ban any rifle, any action or caliber that can hold more than 5 rounds – already a done deal in New York City. The real consensus is the mad rush for the gun stores after every mass shooting in the U.S. Enough guns were sold on Black Friday to equip an army division. Quite frankly, in light opinions like your’s I find that reassuring; and I won’t lose any sleep if they were all AR’s and AK’s even if I can’t own one myself. I seriously doubt you’re a hunter or even own a gun. Your hunting argument is the same progressive pinched loaf I’ve been hearing for 40 years from the MSM – and to me you’re part of the problem.

  • Tom Horn December 10, 2015, 8:01 pm

    Yeah, I even saw where some agency last week is coming out with a public service poster telling people how to hide when faced with a terrorist attack. Really? How to hide? I think we learned that about kindergarten, playing hide and seek. But there won’t be any running to a safety base, calling, “Olly, olly, oxen free,” during a terrorist attack. I don’t need any help figuring out how to be a victim. Their B.S. just keeps getting more ridiculous.

  • George03-A3; 1911A December 10, 2015, 1:30 pm

    Martin O’Malley nailed it.
    The “assault- type” weapons used in the recent mass murders are actually combat weapons, designed and intended to kill as many “enemy” as possible in the shortest possible time. As such, they have no place in civilian ownership.They are next to useless for most sports hunting; who would want to eat venison torn to shreds by a fusillade of bullets? In France, such guns are banned from private ownership as fusils de guerre (war weapons),yet the French still enjoy a long tradition of sport hunting of upland game, wild boar, red deer,etc.I myself have hunted boar in the Haute Vienne south of Paris with a.30-30 Winchester lever action rifle that is banned for deer hunting here in Illinois ( we can only use shotguns) And as for home protection, a shotgun is better anyway: the larger bore is more intimidating, and when loaded with 00 buckshot, more effective as well. So here’s an idea for all the callow congressmen who dive under their desks at the mere mention of the NRA: Just amend the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 to include combat-style assault weapons along with machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, heavy weapons, explosive ordnance, and silencers,all of which must be registered with ATF and require the purchase of a $200 tax stamp.

    • taxx73 December 10, 2015, 9:25 pm

      Unfortunately you seem to be a sheep in wolf’s clothing. Let’s say that this ban of yours actually happened, 4 of my friends would be dead. They are law abiding citizens with ar-15s and their house was attacked by a bunch of gang bangers. Over 15 of them. Luckily they had the tools and training to defend themselves. We will not be victims anymore.

      • keepingmine December 14, 2015, 1:52 am

        When and where did this occur? I am sure there would be a news story because of the magnitude of what you said happened. Please share the link.

    • Tom Horn December 10, 2015, 10:15 pm


      1. The framers of the U.S. Constitution did not intend for us to protect our Nation with shotguns. They intended us to carry the latest military weaponry of the times to defend our Country. That’s what the 2nd Amendment is about. Not about your right to hunt.

      2. I, like the French enjoy a long tradition of hunting, but that tradition includes high capacity semi-auto weapons, as tradition and law has long allowed in my State for hog and coyote hunting.

      I intend to continue to pursue my God given rights, as noted in the Bill of Rights, of our Constitution, and will not bow down to the Nanny State.

      • Tom Horn December 11, 2015, 8:50 am

        P.S. George,
        As long as were banning military weapons, you can kiss your 1911 goodbye. John Browning developed it for military use, it was adopted by the U.S. Military, and fires a military round (.45 ACP). Ask any Mexican. They are not allowed to own military weapons, or those that shoot a military cartridge (.45 ACP, 9mm Luger, etc.). That is why .38 Super is so popular in Mexico, it is not considered a military round.

        What if they said all semi-auto firearms were banned. Are you ready to give up your 1911? Since you are a big proponent of shotguns, perhaps you can buy a Judge, or Governor, and protect yourself with a .410 when they confiscate your 1911. I took a tactical rifle course last year with a SWAT officer. I asked him if he taught a tactical shotgun class. He said No, as they don’t really use a shotgun that much anymore. It’s about placing the projectiles with precision, not spraying buckshot across a room, and going through a wall. That being said, I do think a shotgun has it’s place in tactical defense, but all the LEO’s I trained with agreed that a semi-auto rifle was a better choice for home defense.

    • Vincent Valentino December 11, 2015, 4:10 am

      What exactly is a “combat style assault weapon”? Should we ban bolt action rifles? Those were responsible for a great many deaths in wwI and wwII. They were used to assault the enemy, but also for defense and hunting. Scary black guns are actually finding renewed popularity in hunting, because of (and you seem like a tree hugger so this might appeal to you) lead free advanced projectile construction that allows use of smaller caliber rifles to be used to effectively harvest almost any game in north America. I have harvested several white tail with an evil black rifle (one shot mind you). It is much easier to utilize a flat shooting cartridge and something that recoil is negligible with just in case a follow up shot is needed. That is just for regular game. Now let’s talk dangerous game, IE invasive bore in Texas. Have you ever been charged by a 600 lb boar? Seen what those tusks can do to a man? Accurate follow up shots are of the UTMOST importance when facing situations such as this. I’m not going to even get into the idea of self defense with an “evil black rifle” because judging from your demeanor you would not comprehend it. Good day sir.

    • JR December 11, 2015, 6:30 am

      You are putting a blanket description of “assault rifles” in your poorly thought out dialogue. Many, if not all, of your cherry picked list are all ready covered for ownership by the $200.00 tax stamp.
      A semi-auto AR/AK or shotgun are not, by proper defination assault weapons.
      What you are supporting is mass registration. How well did that work in California? First it was “we don’t want your AR’s we just want to know where they are.” Later it was “turn them in.”
      It is people like you that put legitimate gun owners on the slippery slope of having our 2nd Amendment rights slowly eroded. Give up one right now and soon you will have no rights. This line of thinking worked for Hitlet, Stalin, Pol Pot and others who took guns from the civilian population and then took to mass murder of those same civilians who were no longer able to defend themselves.
      Evil is and will always be with us and those who are committed to doing evil will try be it with a gun, fire, or weaponized fertilizer, and how much credence do you think the criminal/terrorist element will give your proposal? A rhetorical question I know because the answer is none.

    • Kevin Mathews December 11, 2015, 6:54 am

      So it’s ok as long as the firearms you enjoy remain legal, while the rifles that both I and a large portion of the American population enjoy become illegal. Some within the firearm community (surprising)believe that the second amendment is only for hunting, and therefore firearms available should reflect that. That the idea of self defense should only include access to the most basic weapons (shotgun). This is dangerous not just to the future of the second amendment, but the continuance of our liberty.

    • JT December 11, 2015, 7:22 am

      Um, jeez… I must have missed something in reading the second amendment. George, can you please point out the part that says my right to own a firearm only pertains to hunting?

    • Roe December 11, 2015, 8:19 am

      I have killed several deer with a sporterized Chinese AK-47 in the past. It has about the same range as a 30-30 and works in the most adverse conditions. Drag it through a mud hole and tilt it so the water runs out of the barrel wipe it on your shirt tail and shoot some more. Try to do it with your AR-15 or M-16 and you will understand why they made us learn to disassemble and reassemble it blindfolded in training. I made expert with the M-16 and I will never have it or any variation of it in my collection. I’m sorry to say that our troops have been badly hindered by the least bit of dirt or sand because you can not return fire with a weapon that will not fire. I have always thought that colt paid the correct person in power to make sure that it was adopted by the military as the primary weapons system for the regular troops. If you want to use that round of ammo the ruler mini 14 is as reliable as the ak and sks with more accuracy and range. My primary weapons were the 1911 and the grease gun so after Ft. Knox I’ve not had one in my hand. I would rather have a good hickory stick around 4 feet long if it will not fire when I need it to. The 12 gauge you talk about is a good weapon short range it is great for thick brushy areas that is the reason for the Vietnam Veterans throwing the M -16 down if they could get their hands on one and some buckshot. I will never understand the thought process of the powerful people who are in Federal officials elected by us the law abiding citizens. They are probably more educated and have a high IQ but no common sense. Why make us into criminals. Then they will see that the real criminal will be armed but the law abiding citizen will have a hickory stick to defend themselves with or if that citien defends his constutonal right now he’s a criminal. HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO YOU AND ALL OF MY FELLOW AMERICANS.

    • Cyrus December 11, 2015, 8:49 am

      Somewhere in the USA a Village lost an Idiot by the name of George, if you see him please return him.
      Thanks . . .

    • Gordon December 11, 2015, 11:46 am

      All weapons that are used against another human or animal are by definition an assault weapon ( Gun, Knife, Axe, Ballpoint Pen, Car, Truck, Etc, Etc. ) Also most of those have also been used in combat. So we just ban everything that we can use against one another to do harm and we will all be safer… Oh wait the laws only apply to you and me not the military, police, FBI, and all the others, So I guess all bets are off. I’ll keep mine and you can give up yours. Gun Control isn’t about Safety it is about CONTROL PERIOD !!!! MOLON LABE

    • Rouge1 December 11, 2015, 12:09 pm

      You idiot , your 30-30 is more powerful than a 556. Torn to shreds? I guess we can’t fix stupid.

    • Timbo December 11, 2015, 12:12 pm

      You’re an idiot! An AR 15 is nothing more than a semi-auto .223 hunting rifle that can accept a magazine. People use 5 rd. mags and legally hunt deer with them all the time! Go crawl back under your rock with your b.s., liberal Euro-propaganda!

    • stevriot December 11, 2015, 7:05 pm

      george03a31911.DID I GET THIS RIGHT ABOUT YOUR SIGNATURE? what do you think the 1903a3 and 1911 was made to do? please start a go fund me account so we can get you back to france

    • ejharb December 11, 2015, 7:11 pm

      This shows we are our own worse enemy.we tolerate people like this liberty thief with his hunting guns who is beyond stupid in thinking he won’t be in the same semi trailer with us going to our death camp.if he is put in my trailer and I recognize him he will be a stain on my sole and the section of floor I stomp him to paste on

  • Aaron December 10, 2015, 1:00 pm

    They are operating this openly because they sense that they have power.

    How can we organize anymore than we already are to prove they have no power to do this?

    They are delusional. It’s a psychosis. No information we can provide will change that. Like a strong man on PCP, they’re running naked in the street and tazers have no effect.

    • Gunflint December 11, 2015, 7:33 am

      Any mention of Civil Disarmament will be met as an act Tranny of Government. Force will be met with force, and those designing a future Civil War will be judged & prosecuted by “We the People.” We will remember they’re names.

    • Gunflint December 11, 2015, 7:36 am

      Any act of Civil Disarmament will be answered as an act Tranny of Government. Force will be met with force, and those designing a future Civil War will be judged & prosecuted by “We the People.” We will remember they’re names. Hopefully it never comes to this, but if it does.

      • Cyrus December 11, 2015, 8:40 am

        I need to stay properly informed – What is Tranny of Government?

        • KMacK December 11, 2015, 2:46 pm

          “Tyranny in Government” is what we have now. Look around and see it in action.
          And remember – In this country we get the Government we Deserve, not what we want.

        • DIY December 18, 2015, 8:59 am

          I think “Tranny” is what the porn industry calls “chicks with dicks.” Maybe Gunflint thinks that Obama “dresses up” when he is not in the public eye. Who knows, who cares? Gunflint also uses “they’re” instead of “their.” What side of the Civil War will the grammar nazis take?

    • Badshot December 11, 2015, 8:08 am

      They only have power as long as they have readership. STOP buying the paper (sales have been falling for years), STOP reading any of the rubbish they put out on line. The Times has long outlived its usefulness a paper to read for unbiased truthful news, taking it to the outhouse is a different story.

    • Edward Rambo December 11, 2015, 2:02 pm

      We need to stop purchasing anything from Companies like this that support disarming the American People, we need to let everyone know where they stand and stop buying anything they sell, the only way to hurt big Money is to make them Broke like the rest of us, and News Papers are the worst, and you would think that with all the investigative resources at their disposal they would really look into what they want to support and they would learn the truth about Gun Control, it doesn’t work, except for Law Abiding people, which by the way is the only ones that your effecting, and these idiots that support Gun Control refuse to believe that Criminals won’t follow the Law, they just don’t get it Criminals are Criminals for a reason, because they don’t obey the Laws, and it don’t matter what Gun Laws you pass Criminals will be able to purchase a Gun within minutes, where us poor Law Abiding Citizens would take hours, or days to purchase a Gun the legal way, so if you really want to throw your money around why don’t you spend it on ways to keep Guns away from Criminals and leave the Law Abiding Citizens A L O N E…..

      • John Chinn December 13, 2015, 9:12 am

        One of the main problems of not “purchasing anything from Companies like this that support disarming the American People” is that every time we buy guns, ammo, NFA items, powder, primers (and who knows what else) the taxes attached to these purchases continue to pay for their existence! Wanna defund the BATFE and kill their regulatory might? Easy, just get everyone to stop buying alcohol, tobacco and FIREARMS! Real good catch 22 they’ve engineered for us. Aside from the prohibitive cost of a suppressor (let’s say we all have an extra 600 – 800 bucks just lying around after bills & life expenses) I choke on the thought of my $200 tax going to pay some bureaucrat to regulate my freedom a little more. Part of the “let’s close the gun show loophole” rhetoric (which is really just sneaky-speak for prohibiting private sales) has to do with the fact that the organized crime syndicate (i.e. government) isn’t getting their pound of flesh.

      • Martin B December 15, 2015, 4:42 pm

        The tactic in this case would be to write to all the firms that advertise in the New York Times and tell them that while they support the current editorship of the NYT, you will not purchase any of their products, and that you will actively campaign against them. Do this until they stop. Don’t give money to people who want to disarm you and leavwe you helpless.

    • KMacK December 11, 2015, 2:51 pm

      We need to remember that this is the TIMES! This newspaper is a poster child for yellow-journalism and crackpot editorials.
      While the TIMES used to be a somewhat moderate publisher of news stories. these days it’s so far left that it’s almost a caricature of itself. Note the word “almost”… the quality of reportage isn’t good enough to be a caricature, it’s more like a buffoon version of itself.
      If you want news, try the BBC. At least they’re up front with their prejudices.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend