NYTimes Reveals Distrust of 'Law Abiding' Citizens

Change font size:  A |  A

The New York Times thinks you are a criminal if you own a gun. The editorial writers at the Times simply don't believe that you could possibly be a law abiding citizen if you are interested in self defense, their most recent anti-gun piece reveals.

Their January 30th piece, incongruously titled "A Day Without Guns ..." -- incongruous because the piece itself does not address any such subject as a day without guns -- cannot be interpreted too many other ways than contempt for both the citizenry as well as the Constitution.

Twenty years ago, the Florida Legislature cravenly decided to allow "law abiding" citizens to carry concealed weapons merely by declaring their preference for self-defense. Then last July, at the prodding of the gun lobby, the current crop of state lawmakers proved they could be even more corrupt and cowardly than their predecessors by deciding to make the list of gun-toting Floridians a secret.

The quotes around "law abiding" says it all. In such a case, the usage of quotes marks obviously denotes sarcasm as opposed to a mere quote and their position that no gun owner could be a law abiding citizen rings through loud and clear.

More ridiculous is all the overly emotional language. Words like "cravenly", "corrupt and cowardly", and "gruesome" infuse the piece with a healthy dose of unbridled disgust and hatred making the editorial more fire-and-brimstone sermon than policy discussion. It also makes any thinking person who might be open to question the 2nd Amendment incredulous.

It should be reminded that the NYT is objecting to a full expression of an Amendment to the Constitution. If the Times is so dismissive of the Constitution, one wonders why they got their undies in a bunch when fellow "journalist" Judith Miller was under the microscope a few years ago. They were falling all over themselves to express HER Constitutional rights, but those who want to assure their rights to self defense are not so fortunate as to receive the Times' support, it seems.

No, according to the times, Florida's gun owners are just murderers, burglars and child molesters.

More simpleminded than their claims that gun owners are somehow untrustworthy is their claim that Florida's state government wants gun owner's to go about shooting anyone who gets in a their way.

Florida’s legislators take the position that it’s no fun to have a gun if you can’t use it. So they loosened the laws on self-defense to allow a civilian to stand and use deadly force “if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary.” If lawmakers had any sense of shame, they would undo these lethal threats to their constituents.

"No fun to have a gun if you can’t use it"?

I'd say the Times feels the same way about the 1st Amendment. It isn't nearly as fun to have a Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of the press unless you use it. I see, though, that the Times is all for expressing THEIR favorite Constitutional right.

Tell ya what New York Times. You express your right to a free press and I'll express mine to self-protection. The difference is, I understand and support your Constitutional right. Too bad you aren't American enough to support mine.

One last point is interesting. The Times does not mention how, as they seem to see it, a rampant increase of gun ownership in Florida has increased their usage. Maybe it's because a corresponding rise in gun crime has NOT been observed with the increase in gun owner's rights? After all, if illegal gun usage was running high in Florida, wouldn't you imagine the Times would be ballyhooing such a statistic to buttress their irrational hatred of the 2nd Amendment?

I have a deal for you New York Times. Along with us both observing our favored amendment I'll also express my right not to buy your rag. Deal?