Suppose that anytime something bad happens, Janie blames Jimmy, even though Jimmy has nothing to do with it. In response to the problem, Janie always proposes changes in house rules that would punish Jimmy, but do nothing to solve the problem. Furthermore, Janie, like anyone else with normal reasoning skills, should understand that Jimmy is not culpable, and also that the new rules will not fix the problem. Yet Janie nonetheless proposes the new rules, again and again, every time the problem occurs.
In this situation, would it be reasonable to conclude that Janie has it in for Jimmy? That maybe Janie just plain hates Jimmy? We think so. Likewise, leftists and their house organ, The New York Times, just plain hate law-abiding Americans in flyover country who are part of America’s gun culture. How else to explain why, in response to the terrorist attack in San Bernardino, the New York Times would launch an attack against law-abiding gun owners?
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.
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.
You like your gun and enjoy shooting it and like that it offers you some security against the thugs and terrorists that our dysfunctional government allows to roam freely. But the New York Times doesn’t care; they have decided that you have to give up your gun ‘for the good of your fellow citizens.’ Never mind that fewer guns in the hands of the good guys will not help your fellow citizens. Now that we know ISIS terrorists are going around shooting up Western countries, you might expect that someone who cared about his fellow citizens would sympathize with their desire to arm themselves for the purpose of self defense. But the New York Times does not care. The government allows terrorists to shoot up American citizens, and the Times proposes to make the citizens defenseless by disarming them.
Of course, the proposal is not a serious attempt at problem solving. Even the Times must understand that, as a practical matter, they could never ‘drastically’ reduce the number of guns. By some estimates, draconian measures in Australia succeeded in removing no more than 40% of the guns in circulation. Moreover, new laws will not stop ISIS terrorists. Even the French understand now, if they did not before, that we can’t fight ISIS with gun control. The solution is not gun control, but terrorist control.
Why would the New York Times propose new gun laws if they know the laws won’t work? Answer: Janie hates Jimmy. Leftists apparently have a psychological need to believe that the vast swath of Americans who “cling to their guns and religion” are stupid and evil. This makes the leftists feel somewhat better about their vile selves. The Times’ editorial is hate speech.
Shifting the conversation to gun control also provides a useful political diversion from the utter failure of leftist governance under President Failure McWorstSinceWilson. As Glenn Reynolds explained,
Remember, when we’re talking about gun control, we’re not talking about how Obama told us us that ISIS was the JV team, or how he’s importing lots of poorly “vetted” middle eastern Muslims, or how he has botched Syria and Libya, or how his hashtag campaign against Boko Haram failed, or how the domestic protections against terror are looking porous and ineffectual, or how . . . well, you get the idea. Plus, gun control is a tribal rallying cry for uninformed Obama supporters. Or, to be less redundant, Obama supporters.
The issue of terrorist mass shootings is serious, but the New York Times’ proposal is not. Why, therefore, should we take what they say seriously on other issues? Seems to us the New York Times can be safely ignored.
By the way, this marks the first time that the Times editorialized (explicitly) on its front page since 1920, which perhaps not coincidentally was also the last time the United States had a president (Wilson) as bad as Obama. At that time, the Times
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.”
Harding ended up winning by 26 percentage points, the largest victory margin in the history of U.S. presidential elections. Harding carried even the home of the Times, New York City. Seems that as early as 1920 people had figured out that the New York Times can be safely ignored.