« | »

NYT Really Hates The 2nd Amendment

An editorial from our moral superiors at the New York Times:

Packing Iron Before the Cameras

August 21, 2009

It is hard to know what is more shocking: the sight of a dozen Americans showing up to flaunt guns outside the venue for President Obama’s speech in Phoenix on Monday, or the fact that the swaggering display was completely legal. We are all familiar with the right to bear arms and the noisome extremes indulged by its zealots. But is there no sense of simple respect due the nation’s elected leader when he ventures forth among the citizenry?

One man strutted through the crowd with an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle slung over his shoulder. (That weapon was banned in recent American history until a bipartisan retreat before gun-lobby propaganda.) The man also packed a holstered handgun and completed this war-games ensemble with an ammunition clip in his back pocket. Such lethal parading, he announced, was legal under Arizona law and the public should “get kind of conditioned to it.”

The local police and the Secret Service were aware of the armed protestors and noted that they were kept out of the guarded convention hall where Mr. Obama spoke. That is hardly reassuring, especially this summer when so many protestors seem to consider primal rage a reasoned political statement.

New Hampshire is another “open carry” state. When Mr. Obama held a town hall meeting in Portsmouth on Aug. 11, gun-packing protestors were also there. As the television cameras zoomed in, one man preened as if in the O.K. Corral, his holstered gun strapped proudly to his thigh. What’s next? Citizens strolling in helmets and camouflage flak jackets? If we didn’t know better, we would think that the National Rifle Association would be embarrassed by such macho nonsense.

This is almost a vehement as the New York Times editorial condemning Mr. Obama’s justice department for dropping the case against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation.

Oh, wait…

But is there no sense of simple respect due the nation’s elected leader when he ventures forth among the citizenry?

Remember how outraged The Times got at those who were disrespectful to our elected leader President Bush when he ventured forth among the citizenry?

We don’t either.

If only these ‘gun zealots’ would show a little more decorum in their protests.

Like the New York Times’ favorite lobby, the homosexual rights activists.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, August 21st, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

31 Responses to “NYT Really Hates The 2nd Amendment”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    “An ARMED society is a POLITE society”

    NYT, get over yourselves.

    Given your leaps of logic where “what’s next is helmets and flak jackets” then I would assunme by that approach, homosexual demonstrations would have protestors egaging in sexual acts out in the open….oh wait.

    So I guess I can understnad your concern, given that protestors in the liberal camp lack the ability to control themselves.

  2. Helena says:

    “If only these ‘gun zealots’ would show a little more decorum in their protests. Like the New York Times’ favorite lobby, the homosexual rights activists.”

    heh, heh. That’s right. If you can’t say it with a feather boa and a leather collar, it ain’t worth saying.

  3. BillK says:

    Why would the NRA be “embarrassed” by people engaging in a perfectly legal activity?

    Now I’d be embarrassed if anyone ever caught me reading the New York Times.

  4. wardmama4 says:

    If the picture is the guy that the NYTs is wetting it’s pants about – I’d really, really reconsider their position – he seems to me to be the epitome of exactly the opposite of what the NYTs portrays as gun ‘zealots’:

    zealot
    One entry found.

    * Main Entry: zeal·ot
    * Pronunciation: \ˈze-lət\
    * Function: noun
    * Etymology: Late Latin zelotes, from Greek zēlōtēs, from zēlos
    * Date: 1537

    1 capitalized : a member of a fanatical sect arising in Judea during the first century a.d. and militantly opposing the Roman domination of Palestine
    2 : a zealous person; especially : a fanatical partisan

    From Merriam-Webster online.

    I defy the NYTs to answer exactly how exercising a Second Amendment Right in combination of a legal (Open Carry) local Right comprises zealousness at all?

    Gee, just a few short months ago – we heard for the past 8 years that dissent was patriotic and that running up to someone with ‘blood’ splattered hands, disrupting Congress and Congressional hearings and publishing posters, books and movies about assassinating the sitting President was art and protected by the 1st Amendment.

    But now simply going to a rally (and not even being allowed into the building – I heard in the NH event the gun carrier was 3 blocks away – big time threat there) without yelling, screaming or running up to someone – is ‘is there no sense of simple respect’.

    Wow – back to the picture – if it is the guy – this comment –
    -‘and completed this war-games ensemble’-
    is just so stupid – but I guess you write to your audience and of course it probably is what the NYTs thinks about 99% of America – Stupid enough to believe their crappola – you’d think that their falling subscription rates would give them a hint that isn’t true.

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  5. curvyred says:

    Notice the absence of the mention of race in the story – if the gentleman had been of the caucasion persuasion the story would have been filled with charges of racism.

    I think it is interesting that none of the folks who have exercised their 2nd amendment rights have hurt a single soul while the same can not be said for those exercising their right to wear purple shirts.

    What ever happened to objective journalism?

  6. Liberals Demise says:

    The NYT won’t be happy until Barry and the Brown Shirts make it mandatory that all citizens who voice opposition against the King, be wearing the Obama 1st Amendment “GAG BALL” for proper pronunciation.
    We won’t be heard from anyway!!

  7. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    The more the NYT’s rants about people exercising the Second Amendment the more they seem reactionary and out of touch than the people they spotlight. What frustrates the NYT’s and people of like mind is knowing that not all gun owners fit into a single category.

    It isn’t just the Rednecks as they generally believe, going around toting weapons. I’ve known single women who keep them for protection. Then there’s my brother in law who buys limited edition weapons for their beauty (all that fancy scroll work, ivory, and gold overlay). I have an uncle whose gay and keeps a weapon for his protection against those who literally want to practice gay bashing. My friend in Austin is a World War II re-enactor and keeps many period weapons in his home because thats his hobby (M-1 Garand, Thompson .45, Enfield .303 SMLE, Sten, German burp gun etc.). And then there’s me of which I keep my weapons not only for protection of my family but because I think they’re fun to shoot. Plinking cans with my .22 is a great stress reliever.

    Isn’t it ironic though that a lot of our best weapons are made in blue states? Charter Arms is based out of Ohio, Dayton I think. And who can forget about Smith and Wesson, made in Massachusetts, a very liberal blue state. In New York City itself, Kimber firearms are made in Yonkers. And Henry rifles, a symbol of the American west, are made in Brooklyn. Why doesn’t the NYT’s do a piece about these facilities in their own midst?

    Elitists don’t like the Second Amendment because it puts power into the hands of those they look down on. In short, it levels the playing field. God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

  8. proreason says:

    “Like the New York Times’ favorite lobby, the homosexual rights activists.”

    Is there a difference?

  9. wardmama4 says:

    Q: (This inquiring mind wants to know) – that is CNN video – but is this the man that MSNBC did the hatchet edit job on to imply (by omission) that everyone carrying guns at these rallies are white and out gunning for the President ?

    Take a look at HotAir or Ace of Spades HQ – it appears to be the same guy – which does indeed make MSNBC NEWS deceptive as he!!

    I guess I’m going to start OC just to make a point.

  10. suek says:

    Wardmama…

    I was just going to post the same thing. I think you’re absolutely right.

  11. jasper says:

    The second amendment;

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    So the Constitution only guarantees gun possession for people who are active in local militias and, thus, answer to a captain. This dude does not look “well regulated”, as the founders required. Where’s his commanding officer?

    The Constitution could have easily said “self defense being necessary to the security of the citizen…” but it doesn’t.

    • pdsand says:

      Justice Scalia’s response to that answer was very thorough. A prefatory clause does not restrict or define what comes after it. So in that sentence the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not restricted to members of the militia.
      Along that same line of thought, you could say, ‘Prevention of heat stroke and death by dehydration is a serious concern, so all bars must give free drinks from noon until four in the afternoon.” Well, that sentence doesn’t restrict the free drinks to hot days in the summertime, so technically everybody would still have the right to drink for free from noon to four in the afternoon even when it’s not hot out.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

      “Is the amendment one that was created to ensure the continuation and flourishing of the state militias as a means of defense, or was it created to ensure an individual’s right to own a firearm(?)

      Despite the rhetoric on both sides of the issue, the answer to both questions is most likely, “Yes.” The attitude of Americans toward the military was much different in the 1790’s than it is today. Standing armies were mistrusted, as they had been used as tools of oppression by the monarchs of Europe for centuries. In the war for independence, there had been a regular army, but much of the fighting had been done by the state militias, under the command of local officers. Aside from the war, militias were needed because attacks were relatively common, whether by bandits, Indians, and even by troops from other states.”

      ——AND:

      “This means that within its own constitution, a state may be as restrictive or unrestrictive as it wishes to be in the regulation of firearms; likewise, private rules and regulations may prohibit or encourage firearms. For example, if a housing association wishes to bar any firearm from being held within its borders, it is free to do so.”

    • I have often thought of it as being two parts anyhow.

      Two separate statements, but the second being very clear; SHALL NOT.

      Which works well and is agreeable to Scalia’s opinion. Well put pdsand

  12. catie says:

    Wasn’t this kind of found to be a set-up, or maybe I’m wrong. Wonder who the NYT would rather have during a violent home invasion at their side-the ACLU or someone with a gun who will use it.

  13. jasper says:

    When I was a freshman in college my dad sent me a letter. It read;

    “Because I want you to have money for gas or a ticket home in case of an emergency, here is a credit card in your name.”

    I maxed it that same day on a jet ski and girly mags. My dad called me when he got the bill and I explained to him that Justice Scalia convinced me that a prefatory clause does not restrict what comes after it in the same sentence. My dad did not agree. I guess that he and Justice Scalia disagreed about my dad’s original intent.

    Using this same logic, these guys are abusing their rights in order to make it look like they can threaten the President of the United States with assault rifles.

    • proreason says:

      Maybe you should have stayed in school past your freshman year Jasper.

      Education can’t totally overcome abject stupidity, but it can help mitigate it.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      jasper,

      I submit that I should want to prevent you from being anywhere near children. See, I have a strong suspicion that you would molest at least one of them. Now, I know I shouldn’t go on just a premise that I merely suspect that you might…but it’s a very strong suspicion. By just being anywhere near them gives me fears. Therefore, you should be prevented from being anywhere near any children. Denying that you would harm any of them, won’t do you any good because clearly, to me, just by being a male…you are EQUIPPED to be a child molester. Regardless that the law says you can go anywhere you want…I fear that your presence near any children is a threat..and you shouldn’t walk around anywhere near them just because the law says you can. Obviously, you would be taking advantage of your constitutional rights by venturing anywhere near children as if to say, “Ha! I can be around kids and nobody can do a thing!”

      Think that sounds ridiculous?

      It’s actually happened.

      In Phoenix, actually, when I lived there. To a homeless person who had set up his “squat” not half a block from a day-care center.

      jasper, get your head out and see the world. If you really did that with the credit card then you are an ass. Abusing his rights? Let’s take another spin on it….he’s black and he’s afraid that if he speaks out against Obama, the liberal thugs will beat him up. So….he carries his weapons with him…and liberal thugs, stupid though they may be, would still have to think twice about trying to clobber a guy armed thus. As I said, an ARMED society is a POLITE society. Shame you cannot understand that it’s not the weapons that are bad…it’s people’s bad behavior that cause guns to be demonized.

      I hope that your utopian dream of everyone living in peace and harmony comes to pass but history proves otherwise.

  14. jasper says:

    The Constitution allows us all to keep a shotgun to defend our house. But bringing an assault rifle to a political event is not polite, it looks crazy.

    These guys hurt the image of people who favor gun rights because they are pushing their rights too far. I would say that these news stories made teh chances of another assault wepaons ban much higher. The area was crawling with cops and secret service, and no one had to fear that they would be beat up. Moreover, if you are willing to get beat up in public for speaking your mind politically, then this makes your moral case stronger. That’s what MLK and Gandhi figured out.

    Taking an M16 to an appearance by the President of the United States is just not reasonable behavior.

    No, my parents never gave me a credit card. I was just making the point that the 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose of guaranteeing our gun rights – to participate in a regulated militia. You have to use tortured logic and ignore the intent of the framers to claim otherwise.

  15. proreason says:

    Article 2: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Gee, they could have written it differently, couldn’t they have?

    They could have written: “The right of the People to keep and bear arms as members of a well regulated militia, which is necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.”

    But they didn’t write it the way you would have liked, did they?

    The founders were notoriously careless with words. That shows you the difference between William and Mary attendees like Jefferson and Monroe, and REALLY educated people like Obama, Drooling Barney and Traitor Kerry..

  16. Rusty Shackleford says:

    You said:

    The Constitution allows us all to keep a shotgun to defend our house. But bringing an assault rifle to a political event is not polite, it looks crazy.

    These guys hurt the image of people who favor gun rights because they are pushing their rights too far. I would say that these news stories made teh chances of another assault wepaons ban much higher.

    —–I say, let them carry them wherever and whenever they want. If it “causes” an “assault weapon” (got what a PC term for “rifle”) ban then the system is really out on its ear. The key issue being fear. As I fear heights, I do not put myself in that position. It’s the old age argument of self-discipline versus enforced. This is why you don’t see gun-fearing liberals at gun shows, unless they are there to make trouble. But certainly nothing wrong with walking around and looking.

    And even if walking around with guns on your person “makes the chances of a ban much higher” so what? Perhaps you’ve been watching too many westerns where everyone was carrying a sidearm and gunfights in the streets were “commonplace”. Well, the truth be told, they were more common than today, but not to the extent of an ‘everyday occurrence’. Cowboys carried them to ward off coyotes, wolves, bears, etc that would attack the herd. Most “gunfighters” died not from gunplay in the streets but by being ambushed, which says a great deal about not wanting to attack someone who is carrying a gun.

    And looks bad “schmooks bad” (sorry)… Who the frig cares? Here again, you CANNOT LEGISLATE WHAT PEOPLE THINK. To hell with gun haters and all the rest. By and large I believe the gun OWNERS have less of an agenda to antagonize non gun-owners than the other way around.

    You say:

    The area was crawling with cops and secret service, and no one had to fear that they would be beat up.

    —-I say: Yes, that’s always been the deterrent. Cops and Secret Service. I got popped in the face once while standing right next to a cop. Sure, the guy got dragged out but I still had a broken nose and wondered what the hell happened. Eventually the idiot got to spend a month in jail and pay a huge fine. But it took a long time and it didn’t fix my nose. Since he was broke, the court decided he was unable to pay the medical costs so he got the month in jail. Yay! If I had a gun, I cannot say he wouldn’t have hit me (and to this day I have no idea why it happened)…but he might be sporting a new wooden box to spend eternity in. However, even then, getting popped in the face is usually not grounds for firing a weapon. If I told the judge that I feared for my life because the guy had threatened me that way, then I might be able to stand my ground…and gun owners know this, usually better than non-gun owners. In many states it is not legal to shoot a guy simply for breaking into your house. Though I disagree with that, that’s the law.

    You say:

    Moreover, if you are willing to get beat up in public for speaking your mind politically, then this makes your moral case stronger. That’s what MLK and Gandhi figured out.

    —-I say: I don’t know a lot of people who are WILLING to get beat up….for any reason. And my point was exactly that; That he DIDN’T want to get beat up and a no-kidding deterrent for that is carrying a weapon. He did not go there to GET beat up…but if he should get into a discussion whereby he had the RIGHT to speak his mind, certain “liberal” morons…as what happened in Texas, might take affront to that and bash him one or two. Then hide in the crowd before the police knew what the hell happened. Sure, they might get caught eventually but their damage has been done and they probably thought it was worth it.

    And, going anywhere hoping to get beat up in order to “make your moral case stronger” is just whacked.

    You say:

    Taking an M16 to an appearance by the President of the United States is just not reasonable behavior.

    —-I say It’s not? What is? Carrying Bush on a pole hanging in effigy? Signs that say “KILL BUSH!”? I submit to you that a man carrying a rifle, peacefully, not bothering anyone makes exactly the right statement. I also submit that it’s your desire to CONTROL that person that makes you on the side of wrong.

    You say:

    No, my parents never gave me a credit card. I was just making the point that the 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose of guaranteeing our gun rights – to participate in a regulated militia. You have to use tortured logic and ignore the intent of the framers to claim otherwise.

    —–I say, I agree with ProReason on that. And I do see the argument which you illustrated rather well. But to that end, if I did that to my father, taking your argument to its logical conclusion, he would’ve pulled me out of school, and cut me off financially and told me to go get a job and see how it is to work and earn money then not have any. In fact, I went to college with a guy who did pretty much what you described. His father was a very wealthy brain surgeon….and while I struggled on my own dime, and other guys would write home and maybe ask for 2 or 3 hundred dollars, this guy would whine to his old man for 4 or 5 grand. And get it. Just about every six months. Then, he’d go buy a motorcycle, stereo equipment, Scuba gear, etc. I graduated. As a matter of fact, I got there after he did, and after I graduated, he was still there. I have no idea what his dad was thinking but perhaps it was just to keep him the hell away. Spoiled rich kid….no discipline at all. Never been told “no”.

  17. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    PR, Rusty, you guys have said it better than I ever could. If the man carrying the AR-15 had meant to threaten Obama he wouldn’t have been in the open where others could see his deed. While I totally disagree with our current POTUS on many issues, I certainly don’t wish him nor his family any bodily harm. I just want him to stop spending money like a drunken sailor.

    As the Second Amendment goes away, so does the First. The Second Amendment puts teeth in the First.

  18. The Redneck says:

    I was just making the point that the 2nd amendment clearly states the purpose of guaranteeing our gun rights – to participate in a regulated militia. You have to use tortured logic and ignore the intent of the framers to claim otherwise.

    Or you can simply read what they wrote–both in the Second Amendment and in dozens, if not hundreds, of other writings and statements. Sorry to tell you this, but your basic, already-established premise is simply not true.

    -I say: Yes, that’s always been the deterrent. Cops and Secret Service. I got popped in the face once while standing right next to a cop. Sure, the guy got dragged out but I still had a broken nose and wondered what the hell happened.

    In at least two high-profile court cases, the courts have determined that the police do not have a duty to protect you. Their job is to chase down criminals, but you officially cannot depend on them to protect you.

    Well, the truth be told, they were more common than today, but not to the extent of an ‘everyday occurrence’.

    Here I got to disagree. Louis L’Amour did the research and found more than 10,000 documented gunfights in a ten-year period of time during the Old West.

    • Rusty Shackleford says:

      That’s 3 per day in The West.

      They are more common today. Perhaps just due to a larger population. But easily, in every major city west of the Mississippi there are at least three shootings. (“gunfight”) if you will per day. But if you mean groups of men against other groups of men, then….there were many documented cases of that, but not nearly of the regularity that hollyweird would have you believe.

      My point being that they were not the “organized-meet-me-at-high-noon” affairs the movies make them out to be. And very often, the best gunslingers preferred to avoid confrontation, if at all possible, though there is a well-documented case where Bill Hickock did just that after being insulted one day.

      Perhaps that’s where the myth grew out of.

  19. neocon mom says:

    Jasper, your whole argument boils down to “yes huh!”

    At least you are persistent.

    You are not presenting any arguments that have not been thoroughly vanquished, both by logic, history and the S.C.O.T.U.S.

    If you wish to convince the voting public at large that you are correct on this one, you have an uphill climb. Our forefathers seemed to understand that government micromanagement of personal freedoms was a recipe for disaster. The whole purpose of a constitution, especially our constitution, is to preserve a set of values in the wake of inevitably changing leadership. In this case, personal freedoms.

    With freedom comes responsibility and sometimes personal failure. Your position on this issue seems to indicate that you don’t think people are deserving of freedom, that it’s too hard and that folks should consign personal choice on the most important, fundamental issues to a panel of their elected or appointed “betters”.

  20. proreason says:

    I’ve been thinking about the racist white guy who showed up at the townhall meeting in Arizona. You know, the white guy whose skin looked an awful like like a Negro.

    He did the country a great service. He’s an extraordinary hero.

    The whole purpose of the 2nd amendment debate is to take away the right of the people to resist government power. There isn’t a more clear statement of a right in the entire Constitution. The Supreme Court has recently unnecessarilly ruled that the amendment means what it says. So there can be no doubt that the people have a right to bear arms. Moreover, we know that the argument that restricting guns will save lives or prevent crime is false. That has been shot down a million times in dozens of ways.

    So why is the racist white guy a hero?

    Because he made an in-your-face statement to all of the idiots on the Left that we all agree with and that had to be stated. Yet, he is the only one to act forceably to do so. It took a lot of guts. And the fact that the white guy looks an awful lot like a black buy makes it brilliant.

    So here we have a person who just spit in the eye of the lunatic left and has their bowels moving still. It took tremendous guts because he knew the false rage would be compounded by their fear. It had to be said. It put the nutters on notice. And it twists the guts of the loons, not just because they are cowards, but also because it turns their one-trick-pony racial canard on its ear.

    He’s a hero.


« Front Page | To Top
« | »