NYT uses front page to spout inanities

Okay, it’s not exactly news that the New York Times spouts nonsense, especially when it comes to guns and gun rights. But when the senile old hag venerable Gray Lady prints an editorial on its front page for the first time in 95 years — and that editorial (obviously sparked by this week’s jihadi-team murders in California) is 100% dedicated to spewing obvious silliness on guns — it’s worthy of note.

TZPNYTFrontPageEditorial_121415

Here are a few selected gems from the editorial:

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.

Yes, confusing plain old semi-auto with full-auto again just based on the scary appearance of the rifles shown in media photos.

No mention of the emerging information that the murdering jihadis in San Bernardino may have broken the law both attempting to modify their weapons and, of course, in going out and slaughtering people. As if they’d ever care what “civilians” are legally allowed or not allowed to do.

So what do you want, NYT? Another ugly-gun ban like the one we already had for 10 years, which didn’t accomplish one thing except to create new criminals out of the formerly law abiding?

Well, yes, that appears to be precisely what the NYT wants, because they then go on to say (emphasis mine):

Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true. They are talking, many with sincerity, about the constitutional challenges to effective gun regulation. Those challenges exist. They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not.

“At least those countries are trying.” So let me get this straight. As long as you make a really sincere try at things that deprive people of freedom while doing absolutely zero, nothing, nada, zip, bupkis to protect lives … it’s okeydokey. It’s good.

Take even more freedom. Leave people vulnerable to even more death. It’s all to the good as long as you do something.

The shrieking old bat Gray Lady continues:

It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.

As usual no plan is outlined for drastically reducing numbers and eliminating large categories.

That this is a) impossible and b) would require stormtroopers bearing large numbers of those very categories of scary weapons (even for a vain attempt) is a fact too untidy for the front page of the New York Times. So no, let us delicately sidestep any actual thinking about any actual plan for “reducing” and “eliminating.” We don’t want to consider what would actually end up being reduced and eliminated, now do we?

But not to worry! Because you see, no untidiness would be required:

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.

Yes, despite the fact that the censorious, dried-up old biddy Gray Lady opens and closes her editorial by implying that Americans who support gun rights and own ugly guns are “indecent,” we nasty folk would simply turn over our weapons for the good of humanity.

I can envision us now, patiently lined up outside our local police stations or firearm melting centers by the thousands, little American flags waving from the barrels of our Evil Black Rifles, patriotic gleams in our eyes as we wait to surrender these indecent, macho, insurrectionist arms for destruction.

TZP_Poster-The-German-Student-Fights-for-the-Fuhrer-and-the-People

Yes, there we are, converted into Times believers simply by passage of yet another law. Because of course this law, unlike all other laws the world has ever known, has shown us in a “clear and effective” way the evil that we have been harboring in our gun cabinets and in our hearts. So we have repented and with the fervor of new converts are delighting in “giving up” all that the Times dictates we should give.

And a new day dawns in which nobody — nobody! — ever again commits mass violence because the tools to do so have been made clearly and effectively illegal!

Hooray and hallelujah for our glowing future! The sun will shine upon us forever, its pure radiance never again dimmed by the blood of innocents. Our Glorious Leaders will protect us with their Great Wisdom. And we are proud — proud! — to surrender our evil, knowing we will forever be protected and kindly led by those Above Us.

TZP_Stalinist-youth

—–

It must be so, right? Because the NYT thought their words were brilliant enough, original enough, revelatory enough, and necessary enough to write a front-page editorial for the first time since 1920. Surely they wouldn’t have resorted to such drama merely to spout cliched and bloody nonsense.

(H/T Jim Bovard for the inspiration)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

14 thoughts on “NYT uses front page to spout inanities”

  1. In a nutshell: NO

    And, Gray poupon lady NYT – just how many Americans are you willing to kill or have killed – with guns yet! – to supposedly prevent all this “gun violence?” Why do YOU want to start a civil war/revolution? We just want to be left in peace.

  2. i have until now been quite patient and reasonable with all of the gun banners. Until now. Now i am beginning to get pissed off and more than a little bit mad.
    i am sure that won’t do much good, but if myself, a person who takes more than almost anyone to get angry, starts to get pissed, i can imagine there are many others out there.
    The times they are achanging.

  3. But at least those countries are trying.

    And they deserve a participation trophy. It will be interesting to see how long the victim disarmament lasts in Europe once the ISIS storm really breaks.

  4. Further proof that when leftists claim that no one wants to take your guns they are full of $@!t. That is precisely what they want to do.

  5. Yes, I think the gloves are coming off, the mask is lowering. But I wonder, what has changed that they feel safe in openly showing their intentions now rather than feeling to compelled to conceal them?
    Fabulous article Claire!

    1. What has changed?
      They are more desperate than ever.
      If they can’t accomplish it now, they never will.
      We’ve tolerated (barely) the existing “reasonable” (ahem)
      laws so far, because it’s convenient to do so. But that can change in a millisecond.

  6. A few years ago our friend L. Neil Smith penned an article entitled “Diana DeGette Wants You Dead”. He argued therein that our gracious assumption that hoplophobes are mislead, ignorant, biased, but generally well-intended is wrong. Indeed, many of these people actually, justifying it by projection and other psychological problems, DO want us dead. They are simply too gutless to wield the gun, stab the knife, or pull the garrotte with their own hands. So, instead, they employ willing functionaries of the State. Badge and Clipboard. Statute and Robe. Uniform and Rousing March. Or, they support and sponsor “Terrorism”; which my friend “Y.B. ben Avraham once defined as “Acting like a State, but without permission.” In the end, it boils down to the same thing. So, for those of us who love life, the ethical question is decided. All that remains is tactical considerations. The New York Times’s brazen editorial simply underlines how small they think the “remnant” is. And, thus, how safe they believe they are in their deadly plans for us all.

  7. This one is actually a tough question – if they really want us dead or not.

    I generally think people at the top of the dung heap (including those running NYT et. al.) pretty much do want that, and don’t really care about reducing the numbers of deaths. They are a bloodthirsty sort. These same people are invariably cheerleaders for pointless war, after all.

    Those gun banners among the peons, on the other hand, probably don’t really want us dead. They just haven’t thought things through. It’s not that hard to come to the conclusion that “weapons designed specifically to kill people,” might incidentally have some utility for deterring others from killing ourselves; but they simply haven’t made the effort to figure it out. Or they are stuck in an echo chamber somewhere.

    Still, the inanity is breathtaking.

    Well, if they are successful in starting a war in this country, they may rue the day they penned those words. Reality is a bitch. Government is not the only entity that can maintain a list of people.

  8. We have to congratulate the NYT for redirecting our attention from the imaginary problem – young Muslim radicals trying to bring death & mayhem, and eventually a Caliphate – to the REAL problem, that California doesn’t have enough gun laws.
    I have it on the word of the Administration that now that NASA is doing Muslim outreach, no-fly Moslems have high-level jobs in Homeland Security, and we’ve made Iran into frisky puppy dogs just wanting to cuddle with the West, all Moslems love us.
    Obviously, it was the lack of gun laws in California, together with Republican Islamophobic rhetoric that caused sweet Syed & his lovely bride to shoot up his fellow county workers. County workers in California, of course, are notorious for voting Republican and toting guns.
    Besides, he was goaded on by co-worker Nicholas Thalasinos insisting that Islam couldn’t call itself a peaceful religion. How much self-esteem stripping talk like that could one person take, anyway? And about the religion whose followers came up with the algebra that all NASA discoveries are based on, yet!
    Thanks, NYT, for turning the debate from false Islamophobic talk to true Gun Control talk!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *