New York Times Article on Assault Rifles

[fadigi 0]

I think our legislators need to read this!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[T Bill 649]

Who the hell was asleep at the switch at the NYT when this article came up for publication?  Is the NYT publishing staff on crack?  Curious minds want to know!

[HBecwithFn7 296]

I think our legislators need to read this!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?smid=nytcore-ipad-share&smprod=nytcore-ipad

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Being discussed here....   http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php/topic/43322-njgf-online-resource-compendium/?p=911206

[CMJeepster 2,778]

Good artilce. Thanks for sharing!

[Oakridgefirearms 224]

Who the hell was asleep at the switch at the NYT when this article came up for publication?  Is the NYT publishing staff on crack?  Curious minds want to know!

^^^^^THIS!

 

I expected this in the NYT about as much as I expect Loretta Weinberg to sponsor right to carry legislation........

[siderman 1,137]

looking forward to the retraction blaming the article on a NRA sabateur.

[mark_anthony_78 0]

It was discussed here too:

 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/foghorn/ny-times-finally-admits-assault-weapons-myth/

 

In short, don't get your hopes up.  It's a tactic change to start going after the people (more aggressive push for Universal Background Checks) instead of the hardware.

 

Sure, the NYT admits banning rifles won't do anything or can't be done... but UBC's can ban YOU from owning anything (so why pick and choose certain firearm categories when you can just be denied across the board).

[Shane45 807]

Are people waking up? Or are we becoming trendy?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-p-stadtlander/gun-bans-a-safe-haven-for_b_5792314.html

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Are people waking up? Or are we becoming trendy?

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jason-p-stadtlander/gun-bans-a-safe-haven-for_b_5792314.html

 

Gotta love how the author, "at best," exaggerated the truth of what Panera is doing to spin the article towards his agenda.

 

Panera is not "banning" anything. The are simply "requesting" that people not bear arms on their property. They are not (to my knowledge) putting up restrictive signs (i.e. Weapons not permitted on the premises).   But his story (and his agenda) sure sounds better if he says, "they're banning" weapons.

[Shane45 807]

What your missing is the point pro gun positions are appearing in publications that have a history as anti gun. And you know what, if the libtards reading it can so easily fall for it against, then they can fall for it in favor.

[matty 810]

Aaaannnd cue up rationalizations for bans of ALL semi auto firearms, coming soon to the NYT/HuffPo/ABCCBSNBCCNNNPR. Just more battlespace preparation, STAY VIGILANT

[maintenanceguy 510]

 

As much as this article says it's silly to focus on getting rid of rifles, it also says it's smart to focus on getting rid of handguns.  

[raz-0 1,259]

 

As much as this article says it's silly to focus on getting rid of rifles, it also says it's smart to focus on getting rid of handguns.

Correct. Handguns are used more in crime. Rifles are not allowed to be concealable or they are NFA items. This is just a signal that they are going to push for what amounts to bans on handguns. Look at CA and their approved list shenanigans.

 

Doing this means they can make their emotional appeals, then have stats in their side, and for the rifle side if things they believe they can successfully get location by location bans on open carry and NFA covers the ban on concealing other than handguns.

 

Rumor also has it that they will have a smart gun dealer. From the sounds of it, someone finally figured out that an 01 ffl is cheap.

[Newtonian 453]

Not a bad article. Lots of good facts. Unfortunately the writer continues to use "assault weapon" throughout, and she doesn't make the point of how arbitrary the term is. 

[Underdog 1,593]

Foolish humans to believe that that article is fair and balanced, or that it is a step in the right direction. Kudos to calling it a trap!  It is for a particular audience, those that cannot see the schumer on the wall.

 

Yes, lets stop looking at black rifles for a couple of hours, and instead ban those deadly handguns.  And while we're at it, implement "No Sheeple Left Behind" and "Common Crock of Core" to make the masses too stupid to use common tools such as firearms. 

 

Anything that rag presents can only be a Trojan Farce.

[mipafox 438]

It's a trap.

 

They were absolutely dumbfounded that the press could not get any federal control passed in 2013. And then came to the realization that there was going to be a lot of backlash.

 

The media is saying that gun control organizations, which would support complete disarmament of the public if they could get it, are less interested in sweeping gun bans to try to reduce the turnout of extremely pissed off people in the 2014 elections.

 

 

[fslater 62]

The article does point toward the root of violence being  the person committing it and not the tool. How bout this for an idea: Instead of banning an inanimate object why don't we ban/quarantine the person committing the violent act.... Maybe we could call the quarantine holding facility "prison"? and an even crazier idea, when one gets sent to this place they remain there until the designated time has expired? And if one must be sent there on more than 3 occasions just make it their permanent residence? Call me crazy, Just my thoughts