Bravo, NYT!

What could go wrong?

It's not like trashing the 4th Amendment in the wake of 9/11 had any bad repercussions...



-app

govt, it's not really "the people" bearing them - is it?

How else would you define "keep and bear arms"?

It is a Constitutional right. I plan to stand-up for it, and all the others as well. You are free to do otherwise, but you don't get to define my rights.

-app

It's an outdated reading to believe you have a civil right to own a gun. Really

You DO know what the wording of the Second Amendment is, no? "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The right to "keep and bear arms" is dependent on the need for a "well-regulated militia". There is historical context here. There was a longstanding distrust of standing armies, hence the need for militia (the US Army only had eight hundred men in 1792). In eighteenth-century usage, "bear arms" always had a specifically MILITARY context, never a civilian one; to "bear arms" was to be a soldier. (I invite you to go to Google Books and date-limit the search range from 1 Jan 1700 to 31 Dec 1799, search for the phrase "bear arms", and find any reference whatever that isn't specifically military, or in reference to heraldic arms.) There was some historical context for the "not be infringed" in the context of "well-regulated militia", as well; the last use of the royal veto in Britain was the veto of the Scottish Militia Bill of 1707 (the year of the Act of Union); there was some worry that the Scots militias would be disloyal in the event of a French invasion, so the Scots were effectively denied the right to form a militia and disarmed.

Getting rid of guns entirely will never happen.

I support regulating and controlling gun ownership through federal laws. If something like health care -- a matter of life and death for millions, and something that every single person will need at some point -- is not enshrined as a right in the Constitution with its own amendment, why should gun ownership be?

Many of our most important legal protections exist in laws, not as Constitutional rights. Protection against discrimination, voting rights, health care, many privacy protections: none of these are in the Constitution. So, again, why should gun ownership be?

It won't happen, but it's what should happen.

That do ok without wackos walking around with weapons of war

Hard to take seriously, any opinion so disconnected from reality.

"It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation."

appears the 1%ers are getting nervous as to the shit storm they have created. Anytime the Times runs something like this,you know darn well the elite are trying to get ahead of something big.

hoping THIS event will finally be the one to provide the impetus to achieving their political goals.

says there is something different going on,hope I am wrong on this one. Here is hoping it is only a distraction.

and that is a very good observation. Check what was happening the last time they did this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920_in_the_United_States

Notice in particular the Wall Street bombing...

in and around Wall Street,tons of Police presents. And History has a repetitive nature.

An embarrassingly delusional display of poutrage on the front page of the New York Times. The article actually calls for confiscation.

hundreds of thousands of Americans murdered.

Nothing funny about this as you personify the disgusting nature of all those groups listed above.

And you probably consider yourself a Christian, McVeigh.

measures that will never see a floor vote in the United States congress. When realists point this out, gun controllers attack with petty insults and name calling. 

Truth be told, I love opinion pieces like this. I really do.  This is nothing more than a gun control publicity stunt. That’s it. This article, like most gun control bills will never see its call to action materialize as even a committee vote.  No one will formally discuss or debate the merits of this call to action in any legislative committee. That’s the reality of it. 

But a lot of folks don’t realize this. The GOA & NRA will trumpet articles like this using social media and direct mailers. State based 2A organizations will talk about the New York Times article during their chapter meetings. Money will flow into the NRA/Pro-2A coffers. When nothing materializes the national 2A orgs will celebrate this as another victory…all thanks to the support of ordinary folks. With each of these publicity stunts, we are able to bring in more and more money. With more money we can get more done; while making it all the more likely we will be able to defeat any potential legitimate gun control proposal in the future. Today’s “Assault Weapons Ban ” article is funding for tomorrow’s constitutional carry state. It provides resources for more sophisticated marketing efforts that allow us to grow the base. We’ve been able to do a lot over the last few years and have made significant progress in expanding our reach thanks to monetary inflows. Articles like this indirectly provide funding for groups like SAF to file and support lawsuits against gun control. This year alone, we were able to get suppressors in Minnesota, spent shell casing laws repealed in Maryland, constitutional carry in Maine and Kansas, some campus carry in Texas, simplified permitting in Michigan, reduced permit costs in Mississippi, repeal of the 48 hour waiting period in Wisconsin, and expansion of carry rights in states across the country. Last Friday, we sold more civilan firearms than any other day in U.S. history. For that, I have to thank the gun controllers because without their absolutism, a lot of what we do just would not be possible due to lack of funding. 

Any gun control proposal, regardless of its merits is a good thing for national 2A. So, in that regard I love articles like this. They amount to a huge fundraising effort for 2A. What’s not to love? Well, there is a major downside… 

The message that many folks around the country hear when they read articles like this, is “the only thing standing between you and an assault weapons ban is the Republican Party.” They remember that and they will be at the polls 100% of the time. As a lifelong Democrat, I think its seriously time we push gun control support as far away from the party as possible.

maybe they should man-up?

...is that we are building up a military-type police force across this nation that will not be easy to dismantle. It may be impossible. And the day will come that we will regret that we let civilian police forces grow into military units. They are growing to dangerous levels because of guns and violence in our streets and because of the threat of terrorism. This, in the end, could be more fearful to the citizens of this country than all the terrorists in the world. We need to do something about the guns in the hands of unstable and violent criminals.

The Old Gray Lady's going all Murdochy on us?

No..... that's why some of us still get the paper.

News goes in the NEWS section and opinion goes in the OPINION section.

It's worked pretty well for a loooooong time.

the editorial board is correct in pointing out that these are barely modified weapons of war, but the M1 Garand is also a military grade rifle, and so is any bolt action, .308 chambered hunting rifle (they are still used by snipers).

Going by the scary looking paradigm will not get us anywhere. And I agree we need to do something about it and gun owners need to take responsibility.

And yes, I agree we need quite a bit of regulations, that our congress is too scared (or bought off ) to pass... but this editorial will not be received well in many quarters...

But we also need a cultural change, one that might be happening under our noses already.