Since the New York Times is patting itself on the back (look mom we made the front page of our own newspaper!) for entering into the partisan hackery that is the media today, since they have forgone the facade of objectivity and returned to their roots of yellow journalism, a quick look at this rant — since it is a glorified rant without much substance or factual support — is warranted. Warning: while most of this article is a rebuttal to the New York TImes, sarcasm is used infrequently. For liberals incapable of following this, I offer this as a trigger warning.
(As an aside, aren’t trigger warnings too eerily similar to guns? Don’t you all feel triggered just by the mention of a trigger?)
“Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are searching for motivations, including the vital question of how the murders might have been connected to international terrorism.”
Well sure, let’s ignore the witness account of bearded Muslims entering the perpetrators garage and dropping off packages tonight and let’s ignore the reports citing their interest in radical doctrine. Let’s ignore the terror group welcoming them with open arms and claiming them as their own.
“But motives do not matter to the dead in California..”
Except, they did. In fact, this event might have been triggered by a Jewish victim who had an argument with Syed Farook about the violent tendencies of certain Muslim groups and his support for Israel that likely placed the target on his back. Let’s not let his memory pass into an abyss of irrelevance by ignoring the fact that his sacrifice may have well saved lives by setting off Farook’s soon to blow fuse before he was fully prepared.
Let’s not forget that Farook and Malik were armed with an additional 1600 rounds of ammunition and a dozen or so pipe bombs — clearly indicating that the scale of this attack was intended to be far greater than the already too deadly result.
But why let reality stand in the way of your arrogance and condescension? Even in death, it seems, liberals will still tell ghosts how to think. If only the conservatives were graced with such powerful intuition as to read the minds of those departed.
“The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms.”
I’m curious how many NRA members have been the perpetrators of mass shootings? I am willing to wait for a tally.
“It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.
God forbid we be able to defend ourselves with any agency. God forbid one should wish to expedite the removal of a mortal threat. God forbid we own guns so that we can kill those that wish to kill us — and how dare we wish to own guns powerful enough to do so before they are able to beat us to the punch.
“These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.”
Man, I love all those commercials on TV about how I should go out and buy an AR-15 so that the South might rise again. Citation, please?
“Reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing” (Here they refer to no fly list gun ban proposal that was recently rejected by Congress)
Ha. So you guys forgot about publishing this piece, huh? The one where you talk about false positives on these lists? Awkward.
“Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. That is true.”
Cool, so you admit that this has been an exercise in futility and that this is just a frustrated rant, I empathize, but I assume this means we’re done here, righ?
“They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England, and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes they did.”
Awesome, so you admit they don’t work. This has been fun. See you next time when you shamelessly politicize murder and then admit your suggestions won’t work.
“But at least those countries are trying [… failed methods.]”
Oh come on.
“Eliminate some large categories of weapons and ammunition”
So you want guns to be taken away from lawful citizens by using police forces with even bigger guns to scare them into submission. Okay, I can’t see anything going wrong with this scenario.
“It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the second amendment”
Wait, forgive me for ignoring the temptation to let you think for me, but I have just one question. What is so peculiar about “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?”
Clearly it is necessary if you think that notion is peculiar.
“No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”
No rights, huh? I seem to remember something from history about certain, “unalienable Rights.”
“It would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.”
Come and take them yourself.