Yes, you read that right. I just said something nice about the NYT. And furthermore, I’m saying something nice about their latest anti-gun editorial. This little gem was printed on Page 1 of their dead tree version and it’s chock-full-o-errors and falsehoods. Par for the course, in other words.
So long story short, they’ve got their collective knickers in a wad over the fact that Americans own modern rifles and that our founding document recognizes our right to do so. We’ve heard it before: Guns are bad… Gun owners are icky… We should be more like Europe… Yadda, yadda, yadda…
But the payoff comes near the end. The NYT editorial board writes:
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.
I don’t know about you, but I find it refreshingly honest of the NYT to admit that their gun control/ban schemes will require the cooperation of American gun owners to work. Most of the time, gun grabbers seem to think that government has a magic wand that it can wave and that all of the bad, bad guns will be rounded up when a bureaucrat shouts “Accio guns!”. The truth is that they cannot disarm us without our help. And since Americans are famously uncooperative about obeying gun laws, it’s quite unlikely that they’ll get it.
Now the question is this: Will the NYT and their gun hating pals follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion? To confiscate our guns without our cooperation, which they admit that they need to succeed, they will have to go to war with the American people. Their stated goal for disarming us is to prevent violence, but they will have to commit violence, and lots of it, to achieve their ends. Just how much blood are they willing to spill to make us “safer”?
Now there are some on the pro-gun rights side who don’t like seeing things like that last paragraph in print. They say that talk of armed resistance to unconstitutional laws will only scare people. But that’s the point; they should be scared. I know I am! Left to pursue their fever swamp fantasies, the gun grabbers would eventually do something horribly stupid. That’s what should scare people! That’s what needs to be prevented.