[Xiclotl]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/26/opini ... ml?_r=1&hp
Great opening line:

The National Rifle Association keeps coming up with clever new ways to undermine public safety.

:screwy:

 

[CoffeeMate]

Just in the past year, the gun-rights group sought to scuttle basic gun controls enacted by the District of Columbia, including a ban on powerful semiautomatic weapons in the nation’s capital.

Um, I think the ban was on all semi-automatics, not just the "powerful" ones... This, in the very city which houses and hosts our Federal government, which is charged with carrying out, protecting and preserving the integrity of our Constitution.

The group also blocked common-sense efforts in Congress to bar people on the F.B.I.’s terrorist watch list from buying guns and explosives.

Huh? ... Also, the FBI needs a list to remember the name "Osama Bin Laden"?

It kept open the deadly loophole in federal law that lets gun traffickers and other unqualified buyers to obtain weapons without background checks at gun shows.

What is this person talking about? There is no such "loophole".

 

[CoffeeMate]

The Supreme Court has said nothing to suggest that the Second Amendment requires Americans to allow armed teenagers in their communities.

The problem isn't armed teenagers -- it's thugs committing crimes.

 

[CoffeeMate]

Beyond the dubious legal claims, the idea that young individuals ages 18 to 20 have a constitutional right to buy weapons and carry them loaded and concealed in public is breathtakingly irresponsible.

The Second Amendment is irresponsible?

 

[Puffyfish]

 

[atlsrt44]

if you want to keep your food down dont read the comments. Only a few arent bedwetters

 

[suttree]

RFM's comment, "If the US version of democracy fails, history can look at the voting public's support of the adolescent NRA mentality as a significant reason."

You weren't kidding.

 

[RedDawnTheMusical]

Just in the past year, the gun-rights group sought to scuttle basic gun controls enacted by the District of Columbia, including a ban on powerful semiautomatic weapons in the nation’s capital.

Ummm, how does the right to defend yourself and your family/home get rewritten as "basic gun controls"?

RFM's comment, "If the US version of democracy fails, history can look at the voting public's support of the adolescent NRA mentality as a significant reason."

With their best efforts the NRA couldn't do nearly as much damage to this country as Obama has in the last couple of years.

 

[CoffeeMate]

Just in the past year, the gun-rights group sought to scuttle basic gun controls enacted by the District of Columbia, including a ban on powerful semiautomatic weapons in the nation’s capital.

I thought "basic gun controls" were things like triggers, safeties, selector switches, etc.

 

[pml]

if you want to keep your food down dont read the comments. Only a few arent bedwetters

The NYT only selects a handful that disagree with them. I guess they try to make it look by the number of comments that agree with them, that there is huge support for their argument.

The truth is I have submitted a lot of comments over the years that disagree with them, but never get published

 

[HydroAuto]

Every right has limits. I don't think anyone (hopefully including the NRA) would argue that 10 year-olds should be able to buy guns, so where does one draw the line? As statistics show, this young group of adults causes a disproportionate percentage of gun crimes; so why would we want to exacerbate the situation by allowing them to buy handguns?

Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. They also have the right to be free from crime. The balance must be struck and in this case, the NRA is dead wrong on where that should be.

I can't begin to understand the mentality of the NRA; they seem deranged. The idea that guns should be sold to people who are on a terrorist watch list is ludicrous, and what happened to aiding and abetting the enemy? Is treason no longer against the law? I've often thought that the gun dealers near our southern should be brought up on charges of treason for selling assault weapons to Mexican drug cartels

This latest idea of theirs that people between 18 and 21 should be able to buy handguns legally almost sounds like someone's idea of a sick joke. At least they won't be under the influence of alcohol since they are too young to legally drink. wink wink

It's obvious that too many Americans of all ages are unable to handle the responsibility of gun ownership. There are countries where there is more gun ownership per capita than in the U.S., but there isn't nearly the incidence of gun-related crime. I think living in this country is more stressful than many other places with our myths of rugged individualism and dog-eat-dog ethos. We claim to be a Christian country, but there is such a culture of consumerism and trying to keep up with the rich, people lose track of what counts in life. Our country was founded by violence and the wiping out of native peoples so we could have what we thought white people were entitled to, and that mentality hasn't left us. Our legacy of slavery and racism has left scars that produce violence by people who feel that they are left out of mainstream America, and has produced a culture of self-hatred among a number of people that causes them to use violence against their own.

Until we change our national psyche and start to have more respect for real values and ethics, we will always have gun violence. In the meantime however, we don't have to make handgun ownership easier, and the idea that assault rifle are legal has got to go. I grew up in Pennsylvania, where there are more guns per capita than any other state and the opening of hunting season is practically a holiday, but hunters don't need handguns and assault rifles.

gag

 

[CoffeeMate]

I don't think anyone (hopefully including the NRA) would argue that 10 year-olds should be able to buy guns, so where does one draw the line?

Don't be silly. 10 year olds get them as gifts.

Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. They also have the right to be free from crime.

I can't seem to find that "...right to be free from crime..." thing anywhere. I DO however, see the part about the right to keep and bear arms being laid out pretty clearly -- it says "...shall not be infringed..."

Wait, wait... I'm having a "leap of intuitive logic" here... hang on... ... maybe, just maybe... Maybe the part about the right to keep and bear arms not being infringed is because it's the closest way possible to produce some semblence of freedom from crime?

The idea that guns should be sold to people who are on a terrorist watch list is ludicrous...

The idea of a "terrorist watch list" is ludicrous.

I think living in this country is more stressful than many other places with our myths of rugged individualism and dog-eat-dog ethos.

Unicorn droppings.

 

[zeebo]

Hmmm if the NRA really is guilty of the things the article is suggesting then perhaps I should have renewed my membership this year. Also, I always find this argument of restricting firearms to people on the "terror watch list" fascinating. I watched the Senate hearings earlier this year when Mayor Bloomberg, as one of the leaders of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, testified in favor of this restriction. He, of course, tempered this argument by reaffirming is support for the 2nd Amendment and the constitution. He did not explain; however, the process by which government could legally deprive someone of their 2nd Amendment protection without the 14th amendment's due process protection. After all, the means by which an individual is put onto the terror watch list is unknown to the public, much less how one would get off the list. Remember when Senator Kennedy was put on the "terror watch list"?

 

[Macktee]

Obviously, this particular editorial writer has never experienced violent crime or known anyone who has.

Funny how even the most ardent antis seen to have an epiphany moment if that ever happens to them.

Or maybe, it's just a case of ...

 

[niadhf]

Ok, i agree with all your comments, but i think you are missing a part of the picture here.

IT"S THE @#$^%&$ NEW YORK TIMES!!! I mean they think CHuckie Schumer (D-NY) is GREAT. THey are Happy that former blue-dog Kirstin Gillibrand has joined lock step with CHuckie!

I am ALL for reading opposing views and responding, but this is like trying to convince noah that all he had was a "really wet month".

Now responding by changing the minds of individuals. Great. Thinking to change anything about the UBER-LIBERL NYT? I could sooner move a mountain wih my mind.

Now ya-all see why i want to move down there?

 

[smn]

The NYT is really upset over the NRA's D'Cruz lawsuit. D'Cruz is 18, an American of Latino descent, and is trained in the use of arms. The NYT's panic and use of all the fear speak tells volumes at how much the left fears at the precedent Heller and McDonald give in reinforcing the 2A's fundamental nature to our Constitution.