Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


Say Hello Again to the Left’s Misdirected ‘Moral Outrage’ Over Gun Ownership

Gun, Girl, Woman

The sanctimonious leftists on The New York Times Editorial Board (NYT) are outraged over guns and deem to tell law-abiding gun owners what’s best for America. Well, I beg to differ, comrades.

NOTE: The original NYT article appears in the gray box quotes with my remarks below each. It’s always best to begin at the beginning, shall we?

End the Gun Epidemic in America

Guns are not a contagious disease, but one wouldn’t know it by this title. Using a word like “epidemic’ right off the bat, the NYT establishes it’s anti-gun stance and promotes the idea that a large number of people are negatively affected by guns in this country. Nothing could be further from the truth though, since the chances of the average non-gang-banging American being involved in a shooting is relatively low.

How does the NYT want to ‘end’ this non-existent ‘gun epidemic’? More government regulation and trampling of law-abiding gun-owner rights, of course.

It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.

‘Civilians’? The NYT actually means, legal American citizens like you and me. Well, guess what? We Americans can and do purchase any kind of weapons we want because the Second Amendment gives us that right. No amount of faux leftist outrage changes that constitutional right. Period.

Notice the NYT’s use of inflammatory language here:  ‘brutal’ and ‘speed’ and ‘efficiency’ as if these were bad things to have in a weapon. Maybe the NYT would like us all to trade in our scary, scary guns for a benign and compassionately practical weapon like, say a knife.

All decent people feel sorrow and righteous fury about the latest slaughter of innocents, in California. Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murderers might have been connected to international terrorism. That is right and proper.

Yes, ‘all decent people’ do feel sorrow for the victims in San Bernadino; why we feel sorrow differs, though. Leftists like the NYT, feel sorry they could not control everyone and everything while freedom-loving Americans feel sorry we weren’t there to do something to help. You see, we know one good guy with a gun could have saved lives in San Bernardino. We also know those victims could easily be us someday because leftist gun-control regulations do not stop terrorists or criminals from getting guns.

By the way, even President Obama admits what happened in San Bernadino was an act of terrorism. It’s past time for leftists to give up searching for motives. The motive was Islam.

But motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.

If motives do not matter to the dead, what makes the NYT think their political grandstanding does either? Leftists never let a crisis go to waste.

The left’s constant politicizing of every “mass shooting” into a call for gun-control backfires every time as gun sales show. Instead of directing anger at politicians and industries, the NYT would be smarter to direct it at Islam and its doctrine of hate and not disarming law-abiding Americans.

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. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

It’s cute and stomach-turning that the party of baby butchers dares claim ‘moral outrage’ over anything let alone killers.

Note more inflammatory language here: ‘weapons of war’ and ‘vigilantism’and ‘insurrection.’ Repeating of the ‘brutal speed and efficiency’ line is nice Marxist repetitive touch, as well.

Clearly, the NYT needs to look over California’s multitude of restrictive gun control laws. California has way more than ‘the most basic restrictions’ and yet, the San Bernadino terrorists managed to arm up. By the way, all the weapons and bomb-making materials used in San Bernardino were purchased legally. They were, however, not possessed legally by the terrorists which is a fine point no lefty seems to grasp.

Let’s be clear, the left now has no choice but to concede these shootings are ‘terrorism,’ but notice how they’ve shifted the conversation from the incompetence of President Obama and his administration to gun-control. Yes, they allow these acts of terrorism, however, the left sees guns as the problem and not Obama or Islam.

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.

Sayed Farook and his murderous bride Tashfeen Malik had no criminal records. Malik even passed the DHS background checks which certainly brings into question Obama’s entire so-called “thoroughly vetted” immigration system.

By all means, look at other countries for examples of failed gun control laws, but truly, one need look no further than leftist-run American cities like San Fransico, Los Angeles, Chicago and Detroit. There, terrorists and criminals get guns every single day of the week and use them without ever following a single law.

But at least those countries are trying. The United States is not. Worse, politicians abet would-be killers by creating gun markets for them, and voters allow those politicians to keep their jobs. 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.

Trying? Yes, I guess you could call it ‘trying’ if you think letting your country be overrun by foreigners is ‘trying.’ Besides, being stabbed or beheaded or blown up is so much more tolerant and humane than being shot by a gun, right? It’s much more reasonable to have our police forces flee because they’re unarmed, right?

What gives the NYT or any other leftists the right to decide what number to ‘reduce’ guns to? What gives them the right to ‘eliminate some categories of weapons and ammunition’? Where does this reduction and elimination end?

Ah, but there’s the rub, isn’t it? Leftist never stop and are never satisfied. They always hunger for more and more power and more and more control.

It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

Not necessary? Of course it’s necessary! Healthy debate and discourse is always necessary in a free country. You know what’s not necessary NYT? Rewriting history or the U.S. Constitution to fit your lefty political agenda.

As one man’s ‘reasonable’ is another man’s infringement, who gets to decide what’s reasonable? The Second Amendment is not up for ‘regulation.’ Our right to bear arms is guaranteed. Period. Our gun rights are not given to us for hunting or target practice, nor are they there to make leftists comfortable. Our Second Amendment rights are there so We The People can protect ourselves and overthrow a tyrannical government. Tyrannical, you know NYT, like when leftists try to over-regulate gun owners’ constitutional right to bear arms? Yeah, like that.

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds 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.

I realize it’s like a given or a throwaway line to you leftists at the NYT, but saying “…it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens” is tantamount to asking for civil war!

Let me make this exceedingly clear:  American citizens will never ever willingly give up our guns. Not this type or category. Not any type or category. We’ve seen this play out before and we will not comply. Ever.

The United States of America is a democratic republic and not a freaking leftist autocracy, so listen, comrade, if you want to live in a gun-free totalitarian country, then I suggest you move to one pronto; there are lots to choose from in the world; you’ll recognize them because they’re the ones on fire in every sense of the word.

What better time than during a presidential election to show, at long last, that our nation has retained its sense of decency?

It’s ironic of you NYT, to say the U.S. has ‘retained’ its decency as it implies the past was decent. I’d have to agree with you here, NYT. The Constitution in all its glory is the past and we gun owners will keep it just the way it is, thank you very much!

I wholeheartedly agree, an election year is a perfect time for those of us on the right to show the good and decent principles we hold dear.

It’s also an absolutely perfect time to demonstrate the wave of leftist indecency like:

•The horror that is Planned Parenthood abortion factories.

•The four Americans who were left to die in the streets of Benghazi by Hillary Clinton.

•Hillary’s ability to continuously and unabashedly lie to Congress and the American people.

•The obscene amount of the national debt generated by Obama over the past seven years.

•The targeting of conservatives by an out of control Obama IRS.

•The Fast and Furious Gun-walking scandal by an out of control Obama Justice Department.

•Fanning the flames of racial tension by Black Lives Matter thugs

•Open U.S. Borders that allow illegal immigrants to enter the country and murder Americans.

Trust us NYT, we will ride that wave all the way to the White House in 2016.

Photo credit:  taymtaym

Gwendolyn Sims

Gwendolyn Sims

Gwendolyn Sims is a Conservatarian surrounded by CA crazies. 9/11 was her Day of Awakening and she's been waking up others ever since. God, her teenage boys, her rocket scientist husband, her two dogs, her 14lb cat, volleyball, and the Buckeyes are her life. She hopes to get back to them all after the 2020 elections. Follow Gwendolyn on Twitter at @scvbuckeye.

Leave a Replay

About Me

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

Recent Posts

Follow Us

Weekly Tutorial

Sign up for our Newsletter

Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit