The NY Times Editorial Board is apoplectic over the gun control positions of the Republican candidates, and is more than happy to let us know about it
Republican Candidates Deeply Entrenched Against Gun Controls
…..
President Obama has labored and even shed tears in pleading for just a bit of compromise to widen background checks on gun buyers and do more about the mental health problems underlying many of the mass shootings. He has also done what he can through executive actions. But the winner of the Republican nomination is almost guaranteed to be an ironclad defender of the gun lobby, pandering to voters by portraying the government as intent on trampling gun owners’ rights and confiscating their firearms.
That sounds like an excellent position to me.
“No more gun-free zones!†vows Donald Trump of local governments’ efforts to limit the killings. “Gun laws fail everywhere they’re tried,†insists Senator Marco Rubio, contradicting studies showing that states with strong gun safety laws suffer fewer shooting deaths. “We define gun control real simple — that’s hitting what you aim at,†Senator Ted Cruz says with a grin as the industry’s concealed-carry campaign to arm more and more Americans advances from barrooms to college campuses.
I’d like to use the thumbs up animated emoticon right here, but, it won’t work for the cross-post at Right Wing News.
Of course, the NYTEB is thrilled that Hillary is a staunch advocate of gun control (without mentioning that she’s a staunch advocate of killing the unborn), and that Bernie Sanders is slowly getting on board. Interestingly, they never mention how many Black people kill and shoot each other with guns, usually illegally obtained and possessed, only mass shootings. It’s like Democrats do not care that Black people are offing each other at a very high rate.
Gun safety should be a bipartisan issue, but the Republican candidates seem too afraid of the gun lobby to let that happen. All the more reason for the Democrats to drive the point home all the way to November.
It’s cute how they end the screed by changing it to “safety”, when the rest of the piece is about “control”. It’s right there in the headline. You want gun safety? Stay out of most big cities, which are run by the Democratic Party and have high rates of shootings.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
[…] William Teach on The Pirate’s Cove: Good News: GOP Candidates Entrenched Against Gun Controls […]
gun laws fail? soooo guns for felons?
If they can vote why not return ALL civil liberties to them
Don’t their kids deserve to live in a home that can be defended?
There is john again trying to put criminals and felons above the rights and liberties of law abiding citizens.
John got it wrong: it isn’t that they should have their Second Amendment rights restored, but that they should not ever regain the right to vote.
How do we keep firearms out of the hands of the 11,000 or so who will murder someone, or the several hundred who will irresponsibly shoot someone accidently, or allow their firearm to be picked up by a child?
Jeffery,
You’ve asked that question over and over and never accept any answer other than your proposal of “ban all guns.”
Of course, you claim to have weapons in your home and won’t give them up because, well, because you won’t do what you demand others do. That’s just who you are.
But since pharmaceutical drugs will kill more people this year than guns, (almost twice as many people in fact) (how do you propose to regulate the business in which according to you, have made tons of money? How do you propose to keep drugs out of the hands of those who will die from their use?
Or are you happy just making money while people needlessly die?
Jeffrey wrote:
Well, most of the people who commit murder were already felons, who are legally banned from having firearms in the first place. Oddly enough, in a concept which seems to shock the left, criminals don’t obey the laws, so those future murderers obtain firearms anyway.
There is a more famous than good movie called ‘Minority Report,’ in which a future police department will be able to arrest criminals before they commit their crimes, by the use of psychic power which enables the police to know that someone is going to commit a crime before he actually does. Absent that, how would you go about protecting society from people who have not yet committed crimes, but will in the future?
Oh, wait, I already know the answer: the left assume that everyone who has not yet committed a crime will do so anyway, and restrict their rights.
But wait, we can certainly narrow that down. While not every black male will commit a crime, we know that each individual black male is statistically more likely to commit a felony than the population as a whole. Surely, as leftists, the J boys would go along with the idea that we should ban all black males from possession of firearms, because such would have a disproportionately positive impact on the crime rates, right? That would restrict the rights of a much smaller number of Americans, while preventing the largest number of murders.