Green Room

New York Times: The National Rifle Association is Undermining Public Safety

posted at 11:39 am on November 26, 2010 by

In the spirit of “American Traditions”, the ever liberal New York Times Editors published this Thanksgiving Day story making their case that the NRA is not concerned with public safety. In their typical “progressive” spin mode, the Times pontificates that two NRA suits in Texas would “ARM TEENAGERS”:  

HANDGUNS FOR 18-YEAR-OLDS?  

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

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. 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. 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. LINK  

 

Shortly after the Supreme Court struck down the DC gun ban, another liberal judge ruled that DC actually does still retain the rights to ban gun ownership by injecting “public safety” as their reason for continued restrictions. The NRA is appealing the judges decision:  

Washington can restrict the right of its residents to own guns — again — a federal judge ruled Friday.  

In his opinion, Judge Ricardo M. Urbina of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia found that new gun laws, which were passed after the United States Supreme Court struck down a previous firearms ban, are constitutionally sound.The 2008 Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. That decision, however, left open the possibility of measured firearms regulation. LINK  

 

Got that? Just when many law abiding citizens thought the DC versus Heller decision had finally laid these basic rights to rest, along comes another liberal judge who spits in our faces, and the Supreme Courts. But let’s digress to this recent Times editorial:  

Finally, the gun lobby has filed two lawsuits in federal court in Lubbock, Tex., to compel the State of Texas to allow young people between the ages of 18 and 20 years old to buy handguns and carry them concealed in public places.  The first suit challenges the longstanding federal law prohibiting licensed gun dealers from selling handguns to anyone under 21 years old. The second case contests a Texas law setting 21 as the minimum age for carrying a concealed weapon.  LINK  

 

Of course, the New York Times says, “As a legal matter, both lawsuits should fail”, and claims both are “breathtakingly irresponsible”.  

Please read the short and complete editorial at the link above for their pathetic excuse to continue assaulting our 2nd amendment rights.  

After 14 comments the Times closed its comment feature with this message:  

“Comments are no longer being accepted. Please submit a letter to the editor for print consideration.”  

 

Personally, I wouldn’t waste my time or yours to suggest writing to the Times “letters to the illiterates”. It won’t get printed. My take to this latest assertion (which the Times ignores), is this obvious fact:  the men and women who can pack weapons into battle and die preserving our Constitutional rights to carry and bear arms, shouldn’t be allowed to purchase one at home because they are 18-20 years old? Got it Editors. “Funny” how they left this part of the argument out of the story. Oh, that’s right, this would be responsible and sensible. (sarc)  

The lesson here is, as long as there are liberal judges supported by the liberal news media, the fight for your Constitutional Rights continues.  

Update: Apparently the Times opened up their comments feature and then closed it again after 172 mostly savoring comments. For expanding the conversation, here’s a few that I like:

cw Colorado November 26th, 2010 8:49 am 

I’d just be curious what the statistics are for crimes committed in Texas by 18-20 year olds who legally carry a handgun…not illegally…but legally. And I am curious as to what “explosives” people on the terror watch list can buy. 

 

Prof.Jai Prakash Sharma Jaipur, India November 26th, 2010 10:29 am 

With strong opposition to gun control legislation or any regulatory move at that, both at federal as well as state levels, the National Rifle Association of the US, does seem to have emerged a bigger threat than terrorism to America’s law and order situation, and public peace, emboldened further by the Supreme court’s second amendment ruling rejecting a complete ban on gun ownership, and whatever little checks of age restriction for gun ownership were considered desirable by the court, that too might go away with the impending rulings on the latest lawsuits filed by the Rifle Association in the states of Columbia and Texas. It seems the American gun lobby with its profiteering obsessions seems so blinded that even at the cost of bleeding American society, it’s not prepared to see reason or the very future of progeny, the trailer of which could be seen at the school and college campuses, that have fast turned into killing fields for the youngsters, who are more and more engaged in bloody feuds instead of seeking knowledge. Curiously the lawmakers too seem to be working as the sales representatives of this weapon manufacturing lobby, that tends to as much exploit the deep rooted insecurity concerns of people, arising out of the violence caused by armed confrontations, as the ever more growing demand for arms for self-defense, fuelled by this sense of insecurity. Thus, the National Rifle Association of the US seems to have become a real anti-national body of deadly arms merchants, hence to be confronted with all the social force of saner elements. 

Paul Weiss NY November 26th, 2010 10:29 am 

In Vietnam I led a platoon of mostly 18 and 19 year olds who who were armed with far deadlier weapons (and explosives) than any potential young gun owner today would dream of possessing (outside of a video game). They were properly trained and trusted to use them properly.

Current 18 and 19 year olds in the military are trusted to use similar and even more deadly weapons today, whether in training or actual combat, in this country and throughout the world.

Any weapon, including guns and rifles, are only as dangerous as the person who owns and uses them. Gun control laws, no matter how restrictive, affect only those good citizens who choose to obey the law. Those who choose to disregard the law will obtain a weapon to use for their own nefarious purposes, since its just another law for them to break. 

The type of gun control laws advocated by the Times for so many years (and, thankfully, now on the way out due the recent decisions by the Supreme Court) only disarm honest citizens, making them easier prey for the lawbreakers. Hundreds of years ago, when firearms first became widely available in Europe, the kings and their governments chose to centrally control these weapons (hence the “Royal Armories” because they would not (or could not) trust their own citizens. Apparently, the editors of the Times wish to replicate that long tradition of mistrust in this country today. 

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

An 18 year old can go to war, be trained and equipped in all manner of modern weaponry – in fact have small arms issued to them which they carry for days, weeks or months on end…

18 year olds can vote, helping pave the way for the future of our country…

18 year olds are legally considered ‘adults’ – they can pay their own bills, own their own property, acquire loans, etc…

Yet can’t own handguns or buy beer. The kicker is (in most places) 18 year olds can buy long guns (rifles, shotguns) – but not handguns.

Ponderous…

catmman on November 26, 2010 at 11:52 AM

If the government should not be empowered to ban selling hand guns to 18 year old people, why should it be allowed to ban sales to 16 year olds?

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 11:57 AM

“common-sense efforts”

Ah yes, the ubiquitous “common sense” diatribe usually followed by the “reasonable” diatribe .
Well, how about “common sense” or “reasonable” controls over newspaper content, making sure people can discern the constitution and economics to be able to vote I believe will be “reasonable, common sense” efforts to have informed voters that will easily be for the common good.

Amendment X on November 26, 2010 at 12:17 PM

If the government should not be empowered to ban selling hand guns to 18 year old people, why should it be allowed to ban sales to 16 year olds?

The government shouldn’t be empowered to ban guns at all-for anyone. In fact, it’s explicitly forbidden to do so.

single stack on November 26, 2010 at 2:17 PM

If the government should not be empowered to ban selling hand guns to 18 year old people, why should it be allowed to ban sales to 16 year olds?

Also, 18 year olds have all the responsibilies of adults. They should also have all the rights.

single stack on November 26, 2010 at 2:20 PM

The government shouldn’t be empowered to ban guns at all-for anyone. In fact, it’s explicitly forbidden to do so.

single stack

Darn tootin. Once a guy has finishing serving his time, hell, even if he’s still inside, the government can’t be denying him hizz guaranteed second defendant rights.

If a guy can’t carry a piece into the shower room, how is he gonna protect his family?

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 2:44 PM

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 2:44 PM

I find this last comment to be impertinent and contumelious. If you can’t or don’t care to contribute to the conversation objectively, please abstain from participating.

Rovin on November 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Rovin on November 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Beautiful!

Long ago and far away, sling shots and clubs were banned. Then spears then bows then swords. Somehow pitch forks and torches were beyond the attention of the noble banners.

You know where this leads.

Caststeel on November 26, 2010 at 5:07 PM

My dear Rovin,

both your post and some of the comments following same, ain’t nothing to write home about.

It doesn’t take any woolly-headed liberalism to find that your position about the governmental right to regulate the sale of guns is based on a very dubious understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment.

I would appreciate it if you would consider other viewpoints without yourself resorting to ridiculous comments about the opinions differing from your own and quite possibly better grounded in law and fact.

You might try setting a better table if you’re hoping for better, more “objective,” guests.

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Since like the next logical step in liberal jurisprudence. First, we had the “living Constitution,” meaning the Constitution means whatever the current judge wants it to me, not what the original writers wanted it to mean. Next, “living Supreme Court decisions,” means the decisions mean whatever the current judge wants them to mean.

David Shane on November 26, 2010 at 5:16 PM

David Shane

then we have folks can’t differentiate between the meaning of a well-regulated militia and a couple of drunk kids pulling handguns out their waistbands on a Friday night

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 5:23 PM

Haha I had my first handgun at 12.

tarpon on November 26, 2010 at 7:37 PM

You might try setting a better table if you’re hoping for better, more “objective,” guests.

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM

No, we still don’t let the kids sit at the adult’s table – your posts show why.

mnealtx on November 26, 2010 at 9:37 PM

adults’

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 9:55 PM

I would appreciate it if you would consider other viewpoints without yourself resorting to ridiculous comments about the opinions differing from your own and quite possibly better grounded in law and fact.

“Better grounded in law and fact” – like asserting that a criminal still in prison has the right to own a gun?

You decry ‘ridiculous comments’ while that is all you have provided in the thread.

You might try setting a better table if you’re hoping for better, more “objective,” guests.

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM

Act / argue like an adult and you’ll be treated like one. Act / argue like a child and you’ll be sitting at the kid’s table.

mnealtx on November 26, 2010 at 10:14 PM

you might find that my comment about felons was in response to an assertion that the government “shouldn’t be empowered to ban guns for anyone” and was an extremely unserious attempt to show the ludicrousness of that assertion.

Rovins assertions aren’t that extreme but are not well-grounded.

The NYTimes is quite correct to say that the NRA lawsuit

n federal court in Lubbock, Tex., to compel the State of Texas to allow young people between the ages of 18 and 20 years old to buy handguns and carry them concealed in public places.

is a loser. Most anyone reading Rovin’s link to Scalia’s decision (see Sec 2) in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER can conclude as much.

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 10:27 PM

Really?

So, you’re in favor of stripping the common right to contract, the right to vote, etc from the 18-20 year old group?

If not, you’re a hypocrite.

mnealtx on November 26, 2010 at 10:39 PM

you’re not thinking clearly. none of those things are “stripping” by regulation of the sale of handguns.

How old do you have to be in Texas before someone is allowed to sell booze to you?

(and, BTW, just because I think that the law allows regulation of something doesn’t mean that I agree that it should be regulated).

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 11:04 PM

I should have said “stripped”

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 11:05 PM

You are advocating restriction of a right due solely to age – I’m trying to figure out what OTHER rights you’re willing to restrict due to that fact.

mnealtx on November 26, 2010 at 11:19 PM

I not advocating, I’m asserting that the right to own and carry a concealed weapon is not an absolute right and that the government can deny permission to people on the basis of age. I expect that they can also exclude people over 83.

What is legal drinking age in Texas… is it 21?

It’s 21 where I live and I sure as hell wouldn’t advocate that if I was 19, but I would have to agree that the government could set it 21.

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 11:27 PM

You *are* aware of the fact that 18-20 year olds, can, in fact, own firearms – just not one specific type of firearm, yes?

mnealtx on November 26, 2010 at 11:49 PM

they can’t legally own many types of firearms, but I think I understand what you’re getting at.

But, also, the NRA’s Texas challenge is also demanding that the under-21 crowd be allowed to carry concealed in public.

I hope that we can agree that that goes a bit beyond ownership.

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 11:54 PM

they can’t legally own many types of firearms, but I think I understand what you’re getting at.

Name one other type of firearm that only 18-20 year olds cannot own.

But, also, the NRA’s Texas challenge is also demanding that the under-21 crowd be allowed to carry concealed in public.

I hope that we can agree that that goes a bit beyond ownership.

If they go through the training and cost to obtain the license to do so, why not?

mnealtx on November 27, 2010 at 12:08 AM

If they go through the training and cost to obtain the license to do so, why not?

“why not” is a good question and it’s something to debate. My guess is that hand guns in public places held by people under 21 might cause more harm than they prevent. generally, 18-21 year-olds do more dumb stuff than us old folks. Miight be sorta the same reasons that 18-21 year-olds think that they’re perfectly OK when they have a couple of drinks and drive around town.

I assume that Terxas had that debate and decided that there were reasons that added up to why not and the NRA doesn’t like that decision so it’s attempting to use the federal courts to invalidate Texas’ law.

audiculous on November 27, 2010 at 12:42 AM

I assume that Terxas had that debate and decided that there were reasons that added up to why not and the NRA doesn’t like that decision so it’s attempting to use the federal courts to invalidate Texas’ law.

You assume wrong – GCA ’68 makes the restriction.

Perhaps you should get ‘better grounded in law and fact’.

mnealtx on November 27, 2010 at 12:58 AM

Nope. The NRA is looking to overturn Texas law about carrying concealed weapons as part of their suit. They’re asked the federal courts to order not only to issue permits, but as well permits for concealed carry in public places.

(you’ll find that in the post)

audiculous on November 27, 2010 at 6:52 AM

but here’s

NRA opens new front in gun rights battle

Attorneys and supporters on both sides of gun rights issues said the federal court cases pose a significant test of Texas’ concealed-handgun law and a separate, 32-year-old federal law barring handgun sales to those under age 21.

Texas Department of Public Safety

Concealed Handgun Licensing

discusses the Texas legislation being challenged.

audiculous on November 27, 2010 at 7:03 AM

Maybe parents should decide?

tarpon on November 27, 2010 at 7:54 AM

I would appreciate it if you would consider other viewpoints without yourself resorting to ridiculous comments about the opinions differing from your own and quite possibly better grounded in law and fact.

You might try setting a better table if you’re hoping for better, more “objective,” guests.

audiculous on November 26, 2010 at 5:10 PM

I may have “over-reacted” to the last line in that one post—(something goofy about a criminal in a shower)—but I see the “slim pickins” on “the table” has developed into some reasonable conversation—thanks.

“why not” is a good question and it’s something to debate. My guess is that hand guns in public places held by people under 21 might cause more harm than they prevent. generally, 18-21 year-olds do more dumb stuff than us old folks.

This is where (I think) the heart of the debate is. While I would agree 18-20 year-olds might do “dumb stuff”, are the ones that will have taken certified courses and become licensed gun owners likely to contribute to the crime statistics in Texas? Outside of Texas’ big cities much of the country is just that—country. Most families, (including “children under 20”), pack their weapons around like folks in New York pack their laptops or briefcases. I believe there’s a big “disconnect” between two completely different societies—the generations where possession of a pistol or rifle in rural America is getting squeezed by the “urban protectors”. Washington DC is a perfect example of a flawed system where the law abiding citizens have had no rights to possess a firearm, and yet the homicide rate is one of the highest in the nation because, simply, (with the exception of the police force), only the criminals have guns. But, I would argue that while arming the general public in DC might not be the best remedy for bringing down crime, denying law abiding citizens the right to possess a weapon is a slippery slope. And many thought the latest SC decision made that case. Years ago, I read where some large city in the east began cracking down on gun crimes by enforcing a new law where a ten-year MINIMUM prison sentence was implemented when a crime was committed with a gun. The stats after the first year showed gun crimes were substantially lower.

Audiculous said: “My guess is that hand guns in public places held by people under 21 might cause more harm than they prevent.”

I my view this would/could depend on the demographics.

Rovin on November 27, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, a Somali-born U.S. citizen, was arrested at 5:42 p.m., 18 minutes before the tree lighting was to occur, on an accusation of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.

A US citizen reduced to relying on bogus explosives because he, although over 18, wasn’t a winner

(I went for a “cheap shot” here) because while Oregon is overall pro-gun, The cities of Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Oregon City, Salem, and Independence have banned loaded firearms in all public places.

More seriously, moving the argument away from the position that governments haven’t the right to restrict arms or the associated view that every restriction is tantamount to an egregious bit of usurpation of a guaranteed freedom, and getting into figuring out a fair and balanced approach to freedom and public safety is way difficult and pretty damned necessary.

audiculous on November 27, 2010 at 9:25 PM

Mohamed Osman Mohamud, 19, a Somali-born U.S. citizen, was arrested at 5:42 p.m., 18 minutes before the tree lighting was to occur, on an accusation of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction.

A US citizen reduced to relying on bogus explosives because he, although over 18, wasn’t a winner

(I went for a “cheap shot” here) because while Oregon is overall pro-gun, The cities of Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Oregon City, Salem, and Independence have banned loaded firearms in all public places.

More seriously, moving the argument away from the position that governments haven’t the right to restrict arms or the associated view that every restriction is tantamount to an egregious bit of usurpation of a guaranteed freedom, and getting into figuring out a fair and balanced approach to freedom and public safety is way difficult and pretty danged necessary.

audiculous on November 27, 2010 at 9:27 PM

The “Grey Lady” as an “advocate for gun safety” is a joke as is the Violence Prevention Center or the Brady Bunch. They are stalking horses for disarmament of citizens, not “reasonable” gun control.

The NRA has the most to gain from real gun safety, and the most to lose from irresponsible actions from the ignorant or criminal actions involving guns. The NRA is responsible for more gun safety training than any other entity in this country, outside the military.

The anti-gun industry will remain on their heels for the near future. Thank-you C.J. Roberts, et al.

trl on November 28, 2010 at 5:22 AM

I find this last comment to be impertinent and contumelious.

Eschew obfuscation!

If you don’t take my musings to be as serious as a heart attack an beyond unimpeachable can’t or don’t care to contribute to the conversation objectively, please abstain from participating. And don’t tease me, ever! I’m a Green Room constributionerRovin on November 26, 2010 at 4:09 PM

Akzed on November 28, 2010 at 7:58 PM

Akzed,
thanks but Rovin sort of apologized and gets credit for doing something that most folks would not have done.

audiculous on November 28, 2010 at 10:20 PM

I strongly suspect that what the Progressives real concern here is, is making sure most blacks don’t get guns.

Yeah, I’m calling them bigots.

LarryD on November 29, 2010 at 10:20 AM

good going Larry, you can call them puff pastries also if it makes you happy.

audiculous on November 29, 2010 at 3:01 PM