Zionist-controlled New York Times Calls for Confiscation of Firearms from U.S. Citizens; U.S. Supreme Court Backs Assault Weapons Ban
Yes, They Do Want To Take Your Guns
If
the anti-gun crowd is going to be honest about its intentions, then it
should at least be honest about the devastation its agenda would wreak
upon the country.
That’s the impression one got last week, anyway, after reading the Times’s bombshell front-page editorial—the first one in almost 100 years—that demanded in no uncertain terms we “end the gun epidemic in America.” The Times declared we need to “reduce…drastically” the number of firearms in this country, “eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition,” claiming it is a “moral outrage and a national disgrace” that American individuals can buy firearms “designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.”
Editor's Note: The Zionist-run New York Times apparently has no problem with the federal government arming its workforce, our public servants, with such firearms and buying billions of rounds of ammunition, including hollow-point bullets. In recent years, federal agencies (excluding the DOD/military) have purchased about two billion rounds of ammunition — that would be about six bullets for each U.S. citizen.The Times’ Proposal Won’t Reduce Violence
There is a rich and tragic irony underneath this rather shameless screed, namely that the two rifles used in the recent San Bernardino shooting—rifles the Times explicitly flagged—were modified in such a way that they were already illegal under California law. This made no difference to the shooters who carried out the act, which is an archetypal example of criminal behavior. It turns out that murderers aren’t interested in following the law, and that they will violate gun regulations if it suits their murderous intent.
Missed points aside, it is reasonable to assume the Times’s proposed bans will not stop at the kinds of rifles used in San Bernardino. The paper lists five other shootings in order to bolster the editorial board’s case—shootings that took place in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, and Connecticut.
The Times’s proposed bans will not stop at the kinds of rifles used in San Bernardino.
But these incidents involved a great many different weapons: Charleston’s killer used a .45-caliber handgun, Virginia Tech’s shooter used both a 9mm and a .22-caliber pistol, the Colorado movie theater shooting involved a Remington shotgun and a .40-caliber handgun in addition to the shooter’s rifle, and the Oregon shooter was armed with five different handguns. The Navy Yard shooting two years ago—which killed almost as many as the shooting in San Bernardino—was carried out largely with the same Remington shotgun used in Aurora. If someone is both trained and determined, in other words, virtually any kind of firearm can “kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.”
Does the Times wish to confiscate and ban these types of extremely common firearms? One assumes the answer is yes—which is to say, the newspaper is demanding not simply a ban on a few classes of guns, but rather the wholesale prohibition of essentially every practical firearm in America.
Seizing Guns Will Ignite a Civil War
All of this is somewhat subordinate to the larger and more pressing problem, one National Review’s Charles Cooke is wont to point out: a confiscatory gun regime in the United States would almost assuredly lead to another civil war—different and more righteous in its intentions than the first one, to be sure, but just as threatening to the Union, and likely more deadly than the astonishingly fatal conflict that ended in 1865.
What the Times is proposing is distinctly, inherently dangerous.
I know of no Second Amendment enthusiast—myself included—who desires such a war. The prospect itself is uniquely horrifying from about every possible angle, not the least of which would be the existential threat it would pose to these United States. Indeed, all but the most blustery and irrational gun owner obviously prefers not to raise his weapon against his fellow countrymen and his government.
But plainly the prospect nonetheless lies. This country is not Australia, it is not England—it is the United States of America, and consequently what the Times is proposing is distinctly, inherently dangerous. They are not calling for some crummy, expensive health insurance law or another hike on the top marginal tax rate, after all; the realities of gun ownership and gun culture in the United States are much more significant and much more potentially catastrophic than the average progressive political endeavor.
If this has become the established tenor of the gun control movement, so be it. At least we can be done with the shallow euphemisms and preposterous rhetoric that has defined the gun control agenda for years. But if the anti-gun crowd is going to be honest about its intentions, then it should at least be honest about the potential devastation its agenda may wreak upon the country.
Prior to last week, the gun control movement consistently assured everyone: “Nobody wants to take your guns.” That veneer has apparently been cast aside, and has been replaced with an outright call for confiscation. So be it. But let us hope this ridiculous and dangerous idea goes no further than the front page of The New York Times.
Daniel Payne is a senior contributor at The Federalist. He currently runs the blog Trial of the Century, and lives in Virginia. Follow Daniel on Twitter.
AFP - The US Supreme Court appeared on December 7, 2015, to back lawmakers who want to restrict the type of guns such as semi-automatic assault weapons used in recent mass shootings.
The court's move is a small victory for activists against the spread of such guns, which can potentially kill many people in a short period of time.
Conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissent, said they would have taken up the challenge.
Related:
US Supreme Court gives nod to assault weapons ban
December 8, 2015AFP - The US Supreme Court appeared on December 7, 2015, to back lawmakers who want to restrict the type of guns such as semi-automatic assault weapons used in recent mass shootings.
In a 7-2 vote, the high court's
justices refused to take up a challenge to a Chicago suburb's ban on the
sale or possession of semi-automatic weapons or high-capacity magazines
with more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
The court's move is a small victory for activists against the spread of such guns, which can potentially kill many people in a short period of time.
"By rejecting this case, today the Supreme Court sided with a community that has taken action to protect itself from the type of violence we've seen in San Bernardino, on college campuses and in movie theaters," said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Center and Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Pediatrician
Arie Friedman and the pro-gun Illinois State Rifle Association filed
suit, saying his Second Amendment rights to bear arms under the US
Constitution had been violated by the city of Highland Park's ban.
Friedman took his challenge to the Supreme Court after losing in lower
courts.
Conservative justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, writing for the dissent, said they would have taken up the challenge.
"Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles," Thomas wrote in a six-page dissent. "The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting."
The justices have shied from weighing in on state and local disputes on gun rights in recent years.
Related:
No comments:
Post a Comment