NYT: Americans With Assault Rifles Should 'Give Them Up For The Good Of Their Fellow Citizens'

Gotta love the gun Nazis! Reminiscent of 1930s Germany when the fascists went around burning books they didn't like. The modern day equivalence the Nazis are at it again trying to 'burn' guns they don't like.

Why yes my fellow Americans we should give up our 'assault' weapons for the 'good' of our fellow citizens!

Ok I will get right on that. Gimme a sec I got's to get rid of my black scary looking things, that go boom,boom,boom. Bang,Bang.Bang. Ok well that didn't take long. Let's get to the points.

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. 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, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.

You are a terrorist now gun owners.

So now Imma a 'terrorist' for merely owning a 'assault' weapon! Never mind I, and millions of other Americans haven't done anything. Why no Imma a terrorist!

The left is now mixing terrorism and mass shootings to push a narrative to eviscerate the Second Amendment.

Danger. Danger Will Robinson.

War just been declared on you gun owners.

They will never falter. They will not waiver. They will not yield.

Gun owners civil liberties are of no consequence to gun nazis.

Get ready for the, 'Your either with us or against us'.

Coming to a city near you soon.

Who makes the "Assault" rifle?

Where can I get one?

A link to an article about an article in the NYT. OK.

The Old Grey Lady has really turned into a crazy ol' Biatch.
Hard to believe it was once such a respected paper.

a reply to: neo96

I will gladly relinquish my arms when I catch them killing people while I'm at the grocery store.

So... Nah

No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

So freedom of speech should be regulated as well.

So easy to see that NYT is cool with that.

a reply to: neo96

Lemme think about this for a second...

...

OK, all done.

No.

I've done nothing to worry anyone with my mean lookin' guns. Actually, all my guns are mean lookin'.

Except maybe this one. I'm thinking I might buy this for my niece. It's just too cute to be considered "mean".

The New York Time editorial staff can pack sand.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Aw what's the matter ?

I am sure you have an opinion on the New York Times article trying to shame people that don't do anything wrong.

To the mobs whim of giving up their personal property for the common 'good' without so much as a by your leave or recompense.

a reply to: neo96

9 years before the Constitution

Gun nut - The armed forces and police would never take our guns, they'd be on our side...

Anti Gun nut - Then why do you need guns...

Gun nut - I need guns because the government want to take my guns...

Anti gun nut - Wait... What?



^^^^^^^^^
That's why you all sound like raving lunatics.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Rather be a gun nut than a government nut arming terrorists overseas with 'ASSAULT' weapons.

Second verse same as the first verse with the third verse saying.

Incroyable.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Rather be a gun nut than a government nut arming terrorists overseas with 'ASSAULT' weapons.

Second verse same as the first verse with the third verse saying.

Incroyable.

Your posts are hard enough to comprehend without you making up words, Neo.

Spare me the red herrings you so hate, as well.

a reply to: seagull

If I ever become a bank robber, my dream is doing so with a hello kitty AR

a reply to: neo96

I didn't find the link to the actual NYT article.

My opinion is that I like to read things in context without quote mining.

Is the NYT piece an opinion piece? I don't know, but if it is there is nothing shocking about differing opinions.


Who knows maybe someone will get upset about a post in this thread and write a thread on a post in this thread about an article that is about an article in a newspaper that may or may not be an opinion piece.

If it happens I wouldn't even find that shocking anymore.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Gun nut - The armed forces and police would never take our guns, they'd be on our side...

Anti Gun nut - Then why do you need guns...

Gun nut- I need guns because the government want to take my guns...

Anti gun nut - Wait... What?



^^^^^^^^^
That's why you all sound like raving lunatics.

What is a "Gun nut"?

Do I need one for my "Assault" rifle?

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

You hear what you wanna hear.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Guess someone missed the red herring in the New York Times article.

The only made up words in this thread is 'assault' weapon.

But that term came from politicos pushing fascism.

originally posted by: neo96

So now Imma a 'terrorist' for merely owning a 'assault' weapon! Never mind I, and millions of other Americans haven't done anything. Why no Imma a terrorist!



Coming to a city near you soon.

Imma?

I'm a is the words you're looking for sir.

Also, I, from Canada totally agree with you. People should have the same guns as the police. If Obama or Clinton want to take away the guns, let them be first in line to give up their armed protectors, as if their lives are somehow more valuable then ours.

a reply to: RoadCourse

A raving lunatic who cries about their guns being taken away when in reality, ie away from LaLaLand where the raving lunatic resides, their guns will never be taken away.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I didn't find the link to the actual NYT article.

Didn't look too hard then cause it was there.

In highlighted blue.

Well, it seems the media’s horrific campaign of inaccuracy hasn’t stopped. According to Reuters, for the first time in nearly a century, The New York Times editorial board took their plea for gun bans to the front page on Saturday, calling our nation’s inaction on gun control a “moral outrage and a national disgrace.” No, we shouldn’t be surprised that they decided to follow the likes of the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times with their own inane call to arms for gun control. And we shouldn’t be shocked that they want policies that employ confiscatory measures, while also banning an entire class of firearms, specifically assault rifles and certain types of ammunition [emphasis mine]:

Which linked here:

www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Guess someone missed the red herring in the New York Times article.

The only made up words in this thread is 'assault' weapon.

But that term came from politicos pushing fascism.

1) I don't read that trash

2) Incroyable is not a word

3) Sure thing, king