Their first front page editorial since 1920. A lot of you won't agree with this. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?_r=0
The fellow is barely awake. I quit reading when I got to this point; "weapons designed specifically to kill". No point in going further, just like there is no point in having a weapon designed for any other purpose. Hell, that doesn't even make sense, it wouldn't be a weapon.
Man protests New York Times gun control article by shooting it several times http://www.thedrum.com/news/2015/12...gun-control-article-shooting-it-several-times
There is a flaw in his logic. He agrees that the bad guys will still be able to get guns, but says that at least America would be trying. Well, if that blind trying makes civilians less safe in the long run than than it would be better to not try. The outcome matters. If someone is depressed and we give them a lobotomy we are trying, but the outcome is worse than not trying. And then there is the fact that some people on the other side the issue are trying, just not in the way the writer agrees with. Trying to arm more citizens is (for right or wrong) trying to solve the issue. So if he just wants America to try something without caring about the result, we could arm everyone and teach firearm skills and safety in all public schools. Or we could try to fix the mental health issue here. Or we could kill the family of any terrorist (I consider this idiotic) here or abroad. We could try anything if just trying counts. Point is, you don't just do something to just to say you are trying, you do something to solve or rectify a problem. There are arguments the writer could have used to argue his point and try and prove that severe gun restriction could reduce gun violence (I don't think he would be correct) but to make the main reasoning be we should do it just to try something is a boneheaded point of view.
http://www.nationalreview.com/NYT-Epic-Gun-Fail The Most Pressing Issue in 95 Years Third, while I have no doubt the authors are sincere in their desire to mount a national movement against guns (I also have no doubt they’ll fail), it is impossible to read this as anything other than an attempt to change the subject in the face of all the facts we learned today. These include, off the top of my head: This was a terrorist attack, the most deadly since 9/11. The killers were inspired by ISIS, a group the president has insisted is “contained” and only last week said posed no threat to the homeland. No remotely plausible gun-control reforms would have prevented the Farooks from killing people. The immigrant screening process let Jihadi murderer, Malik Tafsheen, into the United States despite the fact she gave a fake address. This happened at a moment when the president — and the New York Times – have insisted time and again that concerns about Syrian refugees amount to little more than xenophobia and know-nothingism. One hour before the FBI confirmed this was a terrorist attack the White House still refused to describe it as one. This fact is particularly salient given that the president has always downplayed, diminished, disregarded, and dismissed concerns about terrorism in America. He simply doesn’t want Americans to sweat terrorism. But he does want Americans to sweat guns. And so does the New York Times. So, by all means, this is exactly the moment to break a 95-year precedent and run a front-page editorial making the case for reforms that would not have prevented these murders, have no chance of passing Congress, and detract from the most pressing issues of the moment.
All very well said Denny and all Spot on! But the defection of the biggest issue of this Century, to the old standby of gun control, should give every American a bad feeling, we do not have a leader. He can only follow his road map and no doubt, an aid has to tell him where he is everyday on the trail. No event can alter his mission. This is not a leader.
I'm not a big fan of Jonah Goldberg, but he did comment directly on the joke that Obama has made of this sorry and tragic incident. Since 9/11, there were no terrorist attacks on American soil. Until now. Thanks Obama.
Oh I don't think it was the first. When a Muslim says he is defending Islam or a call to Jihad, I think you can accept it as true. Major Nidal Hasan would fit. The Kids that bombed Boston fit, the guy that cut off the head of woman in Oklahoma fits. Maybe more. I don't know what radicalization means? The Quran authorizes Muslims to answer the call to Jihad and defend Islam, those that do may or may not want a Caliphate, although this latest couple apparently did. People need to read about Jihad, all sort of bad shit is authorized and believers on Jihad can act independently, no orders from the Caliph required. Obama is lying to the American people in my opinion, at least misleading the ill informed. http://www.answeringmuslims.com/p/jihad.html
Yep! Hell, it would take Obama the rest of his life to find out, I can make a weapon out of friggin near everything. Make ammo from a hell of a lot more than he ever thought of. The man is fool, leading the followers down the yellow brick road, a merry tune from his pipe.
