Anyone surprised?
For the first time since 1920, @nytimes runs an editorial on Page One: https://t.co/nx7NByHJqW pic.twitter.com/iilQmyPps2
— Tom Jolly (@TomJolly) December 5, 2015
From the article
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.
All guns can be considered weapons of war. Do they propose banning all guns? Oh, and a goodly chunk of the scary looking ones are already banned in California.
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.
In other words, forced confiscation in violation of the Constitution. This is the modern Left, folks. Our Rights are not up for negotiation.
While William thinks all guns are tools of war, they are not all equal. Semi-automatic, high capacity magazines, light weight and a caliber and cartridge designed for killing humans can and should be restricted. These weapons are used for neither hunting nor self-defense. They are used by terrorists to kill children and other innocents. Enough.
Your right to a deadly plaything does not trump a child’s right to live.
These weapons are used for neither hunting nor self-defense.
False.
So therefore, a child’s right to live trumps leaving our borders open where terrorists can easily enter our country. Thank you.
Wrong. Any more lies you’d like to trot out Jeffery?
This from the guy who think the killing of children by abortion is acceptable.
“Your right to a deadly plaything does not trump a child’s right to live.”?
I am confident that I will never use my firearm to kill a child. Although I am equally confident that I will never use my automobile to kill a child, the likelihood of that happening is far greater. Also, assault style weapons have NO statistical relevance to “killing children”. The overwhelming number of “children” killed by a firearm are NOT killed by assault style weapons. These “children” are also overwhelmingly 15 to 21 years old, involved in criminal activity and a products of a liberal welfare state that specifically eliminated strong male role models and influence.
Abortion is not the killing or murder of children, so your analogy is not apt.
Semi-automatics are the weapons of choice for mass murderers (except for cigarette manufacturers). If you want to reduce mass murders you limit the tools they use. And how many mass murders have been stopped by good guys with “assault” rifles?
The sane members of our Supreme Court refused to hear a case attempting to overturn a local ban on semi-auto “assault” type weapons.
We should restrict semi-automatic rifles as a start.
Yeah, blame the guns not the jihadis.
Actually we can blame both the guns and the terrorists.
Suggest we stop importing reinforcements but Obama’s State Department says “no, we like the system exactly the way it is”.
As the life of a child is ended by abortion, the analogy is spot on.
Maybe you should ask the terrorists in California what type of weapon shot and killed them? (HINT: It wasn’t a hand gun.)
Yeah….. go ahead and restrict a person’s right to defend themselves and their home.
Since most murders in the US are committed by young males, maybe we restrict guns to men over 35 and all women.
I’m comfortable with the police and military having military grade weapons – just not crazies.
The overwhelming majority of murders committed with firearms in America are due to three groups of perpetrators:
(a) Career criminals
(b) Nut cases
(c) Foreign terrorists
Let us propose to the voters what ought to be a simple enough agenda, to wit: Put career criminals in prison. Put nut cases in asylums. Stop letting foreign terrorists into the country.
Huh. Since 50% of the murders are committed by less than 14% of the population, Blacks, Jeffrey would approve of restricting Blacks from owning guns, right?
What, exactly, is a military grade weapon? Most of the weapons the police and military use are exactly the same caliber as citizens can purchase. Is it just the looks of the weapon, Jeff, or what they shoot? The military and police have automatic weapons, and, I’ll agree there is no need for civilians to have them (others might argue differently). But, what of caliber? The most popular handguns for police use 9mm, 10mm, and .40. The FBI, US Coast Guard, and Navy SEALS all favor the Sig Sauer P226. Fires standard rounds in multiple calibers. Should that semi-automatic handgun be banned for civilian use?