We are getting bombarded with gun control in NYC.
The New York Times is running an editorial on its front page on Saturday, the first time the paper has done so since 1920, calling for greater regulation on guns in the aftermath of a spate of mass shootings.
The editorial, headlined “The Gun Epidemic,” describes it as “a moral outrage and a national disgrace that people can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill with brutal speed and efficiency.” It suggests drastically reducing the number of firearms, and “eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.”
“It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment,” it reads. “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”
The editorial reflects the intensifying debate over gun laws that is taking place in the days following two recent mass shootings — one in Colorado Springs on Nov. 27, and another in San Bernardino, Calif., on Wednesday in which 14 people were shot and killed.
The front page of The Daily News on Thursday collected Twitter posts from Republican politicians offering their prayers to the victims, around the headline “God Isn’t Fixing This.”
The last time The Times ran an editorial on the front page was in June 1920, when it lamented the nomination of Warren G. Harding as the Republican presidential candidate. It was a move, The Times wrote, that would “be received with astonishment and dismay by the party whose suffrages he invites.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/gun-debate-yields-page-1-editorial.html?emc=eta1&_r=0
“a moral outrage and a national disgrace that people can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill with brutal speed and efficiency.”
If that’s the purpose of weapons like the AR-15, then why do the police have them? Is it the job of the police to “kill with brutal speed and efficiency”?
One other point:
“It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment,” it reads. “No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”
The only reasonable bounds on the right to self-defense arise from the equal rights of others. There are very few weapons whose possession and potential use would automatically violate the rights of innocent people. Nukes and bioweapons are the obvious examples and are useless for self-defense anyway. One might also argue that substantial quantities of explosives should not be possessed in densely populated areas.
Wherever the boundary lies, ALL small arms and ammunition lie well within it. Merely owning firearms harms no innocent people, nor does their proper use.
America has been poisoned by the notion that it’s legitimate to restrict rights on the basis of the mere *possibility* that those rights might be abused. This sort of legislation has no place in a free society, yet America has been crushed under the weight of such laws. Next they’ll demand that all citizens wear body cameras everywhere, with footage available to the police on demand, because some people abuse their right to privacy. Screw that! The proper way to deal with violations of rights (including those perpetrated by government employees) is to punish them after the fact.
Well if the editor feels so strong about this why doesn’t he/she or it suit up grab his pen or whatever he thinks a viable weapon is and start eradicating these evil inanimate objects. I bet he doesn’t get past the first house. So sick of these POS commies.
“It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment,” it reads.”
Absolutely correct! (except for the word ‘peculiar’). There will be no debate (among REAL Americans) PERIOD! You communist c#cksuckers can debate all you want to, it won’t change a damn thing.
But just TRY taking our guns – our only ‘debate’ will be whether to bury the bodies, or incinerate them.
“No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”
UNALIENABLE RIGHTS ARE IMMUNE, JEWB#TCH!!!
Can’t wait until every last POS commie in this country is dead and stinking!