Finally — Gun Confiscation Is Out in the Open

By Woody published on in News

Last week, the New York Times newspaper did something remarkable—the paper ran an editorial on its front page for the first time in nearly 100 years. This has the potential to be very good for gun owners, because the editorial called for an outright ban and implied confiscation of certain types of guns, namely AR-pattern rifles. Admittedly, the Times editorial board doesn’t have the firearms sophistication necessary to describe a certain class of semiauto rifles accurately.

hillaryclinton

Despite its financial troubles, the Times is relevant because it sets a political agenda for the New York City/Washington, D.C., corridor, so gun owners should hope that already-anti-gun-rights candidates, such as Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Martin O’Malley, endorse the Times’s far-out position on firearms, which includes the concepts of  “banning” the possession of certain types of firearms it does not like.

The Times editorial, which ran in the Dec. 4 print edition on page 1, was entitled “End the Gun Epidemic in America.” Though it’s counterintuitive at first, this editorial may actually be helpful to firearm owners who want expanded gun rights—because the editorial clearly, and publicly, contradicts the anti-gunner mantra that “nobody wants to take your guns.”

Several prominent politicians from the left and hangers-on, very much want gun confiscation and have recently publicly expressed that desire on numerous occasions. The difference is that we can now point to the NYT editorial as a public display of the private desire of anti-gun-rights politicians and organizations, who have wanted gun bans all along, but who knew that outlawing guns and taking them away were toxic political positions, except in a handful of mostly coastal states.

The Times wrote, “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.”

The Times left out the notions of self-defense, hunting, and target shooting as just a few of the legal pursuits AR-15s can be put to. It also failed to mention that it is not the gun community, but rather the Federal government’s own admission and definition that separates the AR-15 from “weapons of war.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein holding an AR-15

Senator Dianne Feinstein said these weapons are not for hunting deer – they’re for hunting people.

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

Hmm. We thought “shall not be infringed” actually meant something. They must use a different dictionary than us, wherein “infringed” means “unless it looks scary.”

And this: “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership.” Instead, the Times prefers to use fear mongering through rhetoric and isolated incidents. There have been over 80 million new firearm sales since President Obama took office. The Times’ argument points to one incident where bombs were used and illegal straw purchases—an illegal action that the gun industry and BATFE have teamed up to combat.

Now, voters who care about gun rights can simply, and easily, ask politicians if they support the Times‘s position on banning and confiscating guns. Rarely are voters handed such an easily wielded tool to sort out the bad politicians from the good. Thank you, NYT.

Tags: ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (103)

  • Jons_On

    |

    Like I always say what part of “Shall not be infringed” do you not understand? The government can make all the gun confiscation laws it wants. The fact is tyranny will lose in this country.

    Reply

  • Secundius

    |

    Out In the Open Since WHEN? Since 2012, I can Believe! Since, 2015!! NOT. MAP-21 or HR. 4348, part of the “Patriot Act II”, was singed into Law by BOTH House and Senate in 29 September 2012…

    Reply

    • Wzrd1

      |

      @Secundius, have you read HR4348? I just did, didn’t see any Patriot Act riders in it. Loads of transportation stuff and a boost for NFIP and some odds and ends, nothing Patriot Act related that I could find.
      It is a long document, so perhaps I missed something, but it’d have to be tiny.

      Reply

    • Secundius

      |

      @ Wzrd1.

      ALL 584 pages of it, Sir. Almost a week’s worth of reading…

      Reply

    • Wzrd1

      |

      @Secundius, it took me a bit over an hour to skim it, didn’t see anything Patriot Actish in it. I then did keyword searches and came up empty.
      Want to give a hint as to even a phrase?

      Reply

  • Bill

    |

    Doesn’t really matter. I don’t think the Democrats are going to have much representation after 2016 and even less after 2018. I also foresee the balance in the Supreme Court swinging toward the conservative viewpoint.

    Reply

    • Paityr

      |

      Really, Politifact gave Maro Rubio. A “Pants On Fire” rating, I’m exactly sure what that means?

      Reply

  • Wzrd1

    |

    Erm, one of us has a problem with reading English, as that editorial said anything all about confiscation, it said to “outlaw them”, which is something different.
    To outlaw any property, the confiscate it makes the law an ex post facto law, something Feinstein never did quite gasp.
    Add that NY – D.C. corridor you spoke of has the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania smack dab in the middle of it and anti-N.J. east of it. PA isn’t changing any laws and you damned right well should know it.

    But no, one liberal paper has one editorial and you get your knickers in a bunch, after all, newspapers are government and space aliens are government too or something.
    But, I’m sure a lot of people will now panic buy that which you proclaim is open for confiscation, which is also unconstitutional, as it is property and property may not be taken without compensation, save if the property was involved in the commission of a felony.

    Reply

    • Schmairb Dandlefatch

      |

      Wzrd1:
      Your snarky comments appear to designed for self-aggrandising.
      The “points” you attempted to sell are full of assumptions and suppositions so ignorant they merit no response.

      Reply

    • Wzrd1

      |

      Ah, *one paper*, per this article, had an editorial, at that, front page.
      That’s an assumption?! No, it’s called reading.
      Making that which you possess and are forced to give up is an ex post facto law, go read the Constitution about that kind of law. It’s prohibited. Again, not an assumption, reading.
      I’m from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I know my home state very well, thank you. An open carry state isn’t about to outlaw firearms. Experience and intimate knowledge of my state.

      I was being snarky at the end, there is far too much alarmist nonsense going on on blogs here, with the “Obama gun grab” that never happened being touted since he took office.
      But, one thing does follow such panic prodding, increased gun sales.
      Which is about the stupidest thing imaginable. Let’s say that somehow, the Constitution is amended so that your property can be taken without compensation. You just bought it, then lose that investment?
      That’s as dumber than Private searching for a box of grid squares!

      Reply

    • Secundius

      |

      @ Schmaib Dandlefatch.

      The “So Called” Gun Confiscation Act, is actually called: “To Suppress Insurrection, to Punish Treason and Rebellion, to Seize and Confiscate the Property of Rebels and for Other Purposes” Act of 1862. By Executive Oder of the XVI President of the United States of America, President Abraham Lincoln. Signed, Sealed and Delivered in 13 November 1862. ISN’T that a “Swift Kick” to the Brainpan…

      Reply

  • REV BROIKE

    |

    It appears to me the NYT is *&#$#%-ing stupid. They need to ban mentally ill people, not guns.

    Reply

    • Wzrd1

      |

      Um, the folks in California were terrorists, new on the job, but still terrorists.
      Meanwhile, the NYT didn’t say crap about stealing property, which is what confiscation is.

      Reply

    • Jon

      |

      Erm, I suspect that you have a problem with English, and that liberals have a problem using plain language.

      They chose the term “give them up for the good” rather than using the single word that describes the action they advocate: confiscate. LOL, Epic fail!

      “and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.”

      Reply

    • Wzrd1

      |

      Again, the word confiscation was not used, at all, save by you and the author and that also ignores the unconstitutionality of confiscating property without any form of compensation.
      That is stealing under our Constitution, as it is your property.

      And what the f%^& is this liberal s#$%? Seriously? “Oh, you’re a liberal and can’t understand English”, without any evidence to support that bull?
      Let’s see now, I cleaned my 30-30 two days ago, I cleaned my M4gery yesterday. My wife is overdue to clean her .38 and I’ll remind her *again* about it. My .22’s will be cleaned this weekend and my .308 is at the gunsmith for some enhancement.
      If I’m a liberal, I’m pretty well armed and I didn’t even name all of my firearms.
      Making assumptions can easily make an ass of one.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Wzrd1,

      Unfortunately your misunderstanding of the Constitution will cause you great disappointment once you realize the government may lawfully take your guns without giving you a dime.

      It is apparent you are unaware of the two means by which the government is allowed to take private property under the Constitution; these are “Condemnation” versus “Confiscation”.

      Condemnation is private property deemed for government use and of which MUST be compensated when taken. Confiscation is private property deemed unlawful to possess and therefore WILL NOT be confiscated when taken.

      Once they outlaw your guns, they will “Confiscate” them under the Constitution; not only will you not get a penny, but you will be going to jail for possessing them unlawfully.

      Reply

    • G-Man

      |

      @ Wzrd1,

      TYPO CORRECTION-

      CHANGE: “…therefore WILL NOT be confiscated when taken.”
      TO: “…therefore WILL NOT be compensated when taken

      Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: