Saturday, December 05, 2015

THERE IT IS: Democrat Party Organ The New York Times Calls for Forcible Gun Confiscation

The press release outlet best known for its fanatical dedication to the socialist agenda -- you may know it as The New York Times -- has finally issued the Democrats' long sought-after call for government confiscation of America's guns.

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.

Of course, the Times fails to note that the recent Paris terror attacks (and many other examples of mass shootings in Europe) occurred under strict gun control regimes. They refuse to describe how disarming law-abiding citizens might prevent killings by Jihadists and the criminally insane (but I repeat myself).

Oh, and box-cutters were used to kill 3,000 Americans on 9/11. A home-made IED killed and crippled more than 100 people at the Boston Marathon. Knives and automobiles are the weapons of choice these days for slaughtering Israeli Jews.

The enemies of mankind will always find ways to kill en masse. Disarming Americans is not only unlawful and functionally impossible, it is a predicate for more terror and tyranny. But The New Democrat Times knows that, of course.

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.

Guns are tools of a free people, and are used hundreds of thousands of times a year -- by the federal government's own measures -- to protect life and property. In fact, statistics indicate that crime would increase if gun ownership were to be further restricted.

As the Left likes to lecture us: the science is settled. Over the past several decades, concealed carry laws have propagated like weeds and invariably violent crime rates decrease as a result.

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.

There it is: a call for gun confiscation. In the words of one of Obama's favorite apparatchiks, Rahm Emanuel, never let a crisis go to waste.

Guns in the hands of America's law-abiding citizens are the problem.

Not failing to name the enemy of Western civilization that has carried out more than 27,000 deadly terror attacks since 9/11.

Not failing to crush the cockroaches that take credit for religiously inspired attacks around the world.

Not refusing to profile and track the organizations than inspire, fund and facilitate an ideology of hatred, terror and world domination.

No, the criminally insane editors of the Times want Americans helpless and more Jihadists imported into the U.S.

I would bet that there was an editorial like this in Germany during the rise of Hitler, Red China during the era of Mao, and Cambodia amidst the ascent of Pol Pot.

The Democrat Party and The New York Times are enemies of freedom and allies of Jihad.

Hat tip: BadBlue Real-Time News.


Anonymous said...

I'm on the front lines, apparently: I live in CA.

Where I live is "may issue" for concealed carry licenses; which means in practice that only Democrat politicians (e.g. Dianne Feinstein) movie stars (e.g. Sean Penn) and rich donors to Democrat Chiefs of Police can get them.

As I'm not in any of the above categories, I can only argue that the Constitution confirms the right of any free citizen to keep and bear arms, a right granted by God and endorsed by our Founders. This won't protect me from CA police, or CA courts; I'll have to take my chances with them.

I would go to my grave well satisfied if I could take some jihadis there with me when I go. (Or members of Obama's team; but I repeat myself.)

Anonymous said...

Molon Labe

Joe Mudd said...


Anonymous said...

I believe this article has two purposes: 1) condition people to the idea of gun confiscation by repeatedly proposing it, and 2) gauged by the reaction to the article (or more accurately the lack of it) to determine if it may now be possible to implement gun confiscation.

Anonymous said...

The Times and the people who comment there are so disturbing, depressing.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

After the civil war, we'll be in a better position to handle Islamic threat.

I don't want it, but that is what the NYT is calling for.

Anonymous said...

Ivory Towers.

Anonymous said...

3rd comment down has it nailed.
The Left is always prodding and nudging (see the writings of the execrable Cass Sunstein) to change the language and positions that get them to where they can make their fascist dreams a reality.
This is the exposed face of tyranny.

mtnforge said...

It is obvious the sonofabitches are getting ready to pull a fast one.
It is getting really old when these cultural marxists all start to chattering like parrots in unison about bitter clingers and their guns. They don't give a rats arse who shoots who and who has what long as they are safe from the unintended, and intended consequences of their meddling in every facet of our affairs. It comes down to a simple matter of them controlling the gun and not being controlled by the possibility the common people could use guns to stop them and their political power.
That all they truly seek is power without consequences of an America which can fight back against their nasty slavery.
When the cultural marxist start to pontificate about their moral superiority where they get to decide who has guns and who doesn't, and you have a psychopath with a phone and a pen running the regime in DC, and he and his sycophants won't shut their lyin' pie holes either about disarming everyone who isn't part of the agenda of the long march, it is pretty obvious we, the American people are being set up again to deny us another freedom and more of our liberty and means of self determination and defense.

Molan Labe Bitchez!

Anonymous said...

This is a real gem by that cultural marxist who wrote that agitprop:

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

I think these clowns are going to end up having to find refuge behind the constitution from the wrath of the people and their primal freedoms they despise and spit upon.
"No right is unlimited and immune"?
Well that is a two way street right there if I ever saw one.
No rights or power of kings, potentates, oligarch's, cultural marxists, presidents, the whole lot of them, are unlimited and immune either.

Ya, come and get em'

Anonymous said...

Conservatives need the next POTUS to be as ruthless, conniving, and duplicitous in forwarding Conservative principles as the Jug Eared Kenyan has been. His Occidental records have allegedly popped up, and he received a grant as an Indonesian Citizen under the name Barry Soetoro. This will be part of the clean-up - removing any vestiges left by this Muslim pretender and bringing a recovery of breath to the American people. Americans have discovered that someone can come along, snap a leash on them and walk them to the Pound to be put down... it must never happen again.

Unknown said...

That's not a call for gun control. 0bammy and the NYT are calling for civil war.

bruce lorraine said...

Weapons of war oh my, lions tigers and bears oh my.
From my cold dead hands MF's