For the past several years, anti-gunners in the so-called “mainstream” media have trended away from promoting actual gun bans in so many words, talking instead of “common-sense gun safety measures” and the like. Of course, we knew all along they really meant gun bans. But polling showed they were on the wrong side of that issue, so many attempted to hide their true agenda.
Lately, however, some have begun to come out of the closet, so to speak. And none more than The New York Times—a once great newspaper that has continually lost relevance over the past few decades.Are the members of the Times editorial board stupid, or do they just have no regard for the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans?
Earlier this month, the Times ran its first front-page editorial in 95 years (the last one was published in June 1920). What issue is so critical that it tops anything faced by America in the past century, you might ask. As you have probably guessed since we are discussing it here, the op-ed was an outright call for banning and confiscating currently legal firearms owned by law-abiding American citizens.
The Times editorial board titled the piece, “End the Gun Epidemic in America,” with a subhead stating: “It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.”
“Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership,” the Times editorial board pontificated. “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.”
Of course, they are talking about banning—and confiscating—what the media refers to as “assault weapons,” but what you and I know as semi-automatic rifles. Most in the media just can’t seem to figure out that these rifles aren’t really different than other firearms.
They’re not machine guns, as they fire only once with each pull of the trigger. They’re not commonly used in crime—even the FBI reports that less than 2.4 percent of murders are committed with rifles of any kind. And the last time they were banned—the Clinton gun ban that lasted 10 years—even the government admitted that the legislation had no effect on violent crime.
Given those three important facts, one has to ask the question: Are the members of the Times editorial board stupid, or do they just have no regard for the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans?The detachment from reality of The New York Times’ editorial board is a sad commentary that exemplifies much of the “mainstream” media today.
Rank-and-file American citizens certainly understand the topic better than the media. In fact, just last week an ABC News/Washington Post poll revealed that a majority of Americans now oppose banning so-called “assault weapons”—a first in more than 20 years of ABC/Post polling. From the peak of 80 percent in 1994 and down 11 percentage points from 2013, of those surveyed, only 45 percent now favor a Bill Clinton-style ban.
The fact that most Americans now understand the deceit behind a so-called “assault weapon” ban indicates that the Times’ call for a ban is likely to fall on deaf ears—or possibly have the opposite effect of causing another buying spree of the guns.
As NRA-ILA recently pointed out, even the Washington Post hypothesized that few Americans care what the Times editorial board thinks about guns.
“Swing voters in Middle America aren’t its subscribers, and the swing voters in Congress don’t have to appeal to voters who care much about what TheNew York Times thinks,” the Post wrote. “In fact, you could make a pretty convincing case that this would have the opposite of the intended effect by overreaching on something most Americans simply don’t think will do much to prevent mass shootings.”
The detachment from reality of The New York Times’ editorial board is a sad commentary that exemplifies much of the “mainstream” media today. And it should serve as a call to action to law-abiding American gun owners, reminding us that we are still in a battle for freedom that will only be won by diligence and perseverance.