The New York Times has set its aims against guns in the paper’s first front-page editorial in nearly a century:
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.
Because of this The Gray Lady then goes on to say that law abiding Americans cannot be trusted with such weapons:
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kind 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.
And what if law abiding Americans are unwilling to give up those kinds of weapons for the good of their fellow citizens? They don’t spell it out, but the next step would be confiscation. Of course, it would be argued that it would only apply to certain weapons. But governmental appetite for control and power is seldom satiated. If one set of guns is outlawed, other classes of guns would be sure the follow. In short, it would the first shot fired in the War on Guns.
And what would this War on Guns solve? It would be an act of collective punishment which would only punish law abiding citizens and render them unable to protect themselves. Meanwhile, a lucrative black market in weapons would flourish. Criminals would also thrive while our declining crime rates would decline no more. The War on Guns would be every bit the disaster the War on Drugs has been.
There are, of course, other equally ridiculous assertions in the editorial. Even though the slaughter in San Bernardino was an act of Islamic terrorism, the NYT states that claims of terrorism are nothing more than a distraction. Pledging allegiance to ISIS as the two terrorists killed 14 people is hardly a distraction. After the Paris attacks last month, it was ISIS that declared, “American blood and is the best and we will taste it soon.” Well, soon arrived very fast. Even if the San Bernardino terrorists lost their guns, they still had their pipe bombs.
While the editorial concedes that France’s tough gun laws didn’t prevent the Paris terror attacks, the NYT praises the gun laws of France and other European countries by saying “at least those countries are trying.” I seem to recall that Oregon toughened its background checks this summer. Yet that didn’t stop the shooting at Umpqua Community College. Colorado toughened its gun laws two years ago, but that didn’t stop last weekend’s Planned Parenthood shootings. Four years ago, California toughened its gun laws. Did that stop the slaughter in San Bernardino? At the time these laws were passed, all three states had Democrat majorities in their legislatures (the GOP now controls the Senate in Colorado). Yes, Democrats are more than trying to toughen gun laws. And when the next shooting happens Democrats say they will toughen the gun laws even more. It is a vicious cycle that gives more power to the government and to criminals. Of course, many would say they are one in the same.
But now we have moved into a new stage in this debate (or rather diatribe). Now that the New York Times is calling on Americans to surrender their weapons, President Obama and Hillary Clinton will be sure to follow.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://thespectator.com/world.