Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: NY Times Editrorial

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Bend, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post


    Some of the comments are mind blowing.


    Editorial:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/27/op...rol&st=cse

    Comments:

    http://community.nytimes.com/article...on/27fri1.html


    Lock and Load





    Published: June 27, 2008

    Thirty-thousand Americans are killed by guns every year — on the job, walking to school, at the shopping mall. The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law.




    Landmark Ruling Enshrines Right to Own Guns (June 27, 2008)

    In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.” The ruling will give gun-rights advocates a powerful new legal tool to try to strike down gun-control laws across the nation.

    This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.

    There already is a national glut of firearms: estimates run between 193 million and 250 million guns. The harm they do is constantly on heartbreaking display. Thirty-three dead last year in the shootings at Virginia Tech. Six killed this year at Northern Illinois University.

    On Wednesday, as the court was getting ready to release its decision, a worker in a Kentucky plastics plant shot his supervisor, four co-workers and himself to death.

    Cities and states have tried to stanch the killing with gun-control laws. The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned the possession of nearly all handguns and required that other firearms be stored unloaded and disassembled, or bound with a trigger lock.

    Overturning that law, the court’s 5-to-4 decision says that individuals have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. But that’s a sharp reversal for the court: as early as 1939, it made clear that the Second Amendment only protects the right of people to carry guns for military use in a militia.

    In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens was right when he said that the court has now established “a new constitutional right” that creates a “dramatic upheaval in the law.”

    Even if there were a constitutional right to possess guns for nonmilitary uses, constitutional rights are not absolute. The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but that does not mean that laws cannot prohibit some spoken words, like threats to commit imminent violent acts. In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer argued soundly that whatever right gun owners have to unimpeded gun use is outweighed by the District of Columbia’s “compelling” public-safety interests.

    In this month’s case recognizing the habeas corpus rights of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Justice Scalia wrote in dissent that the decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Those words apply with far more force to his opinion in this District of Columbia case.

    The gun lobby will now trumpet this ruling as an end to virtually all gun restrictions, anywhere, at all times. That must not happen. And today’s decision still provides strong basis for saying it should not.

    If the ruling is held to apply to the states, and not just to the District of Columbia — which is not certain — there will still be considerable dispute about what it means for other less-sweeping gun laws. Judges may end up deciding these on a law-by-law basis.

    Supporters of gun control must fight in court to ensure that registration requirements and background-check rules, and laws against bulk sales of handguns — a major source of guns used in crimes — are all upheld.

    The court left room for gun-control advocates to fight back. It made clear that there were gun restrictions that it was not calling into question, including bans on gun possession by felons and the mentally ill, or in “sensitive places” like schools and government buildings.

    That last part is the final indignity of the decision: when the justices go to work at the Supreme Court, guns will still be banned. When most Americans show up at their own jobs, they will not have that protection.

    This audaciously harmful decision, which hands the far right a victory it has sought for decades, is a powerful reminder of why voters need to have the Supreme Court firmly in mind when they vote for the president this fall.

    Senator John McCain has said he would appoint justices like Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito — both of whom supported this decision. If the court is allowed to tip even further to the far right, there will be even more damage done to the rights and the safety of Americans.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    And the NYT continues it's decline into irrelevance.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Graham, Texas
    Posts
    313

    Post imported post

    What Trash! Doesn't this statement mean anything to anyone?

    Cities and states have tried to stanch the killing with gun-control laws. The District of Columbia, which has one of the nation’s highest crime rates, banned the possession of nearly all handguns and required that other firearms be stored unloaded and disassembled, or bound with a trigger lock.
    WTH! It's not like this law is a new one, it's been in effect for what, 30 years? Most of which there was in INCREASE in crime!!! ARG!!!!!!

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    Too bad they are simply wrong, and not a thing the NYT can do about it. :celebrate:celebrate


    In fact the NYT will be lucky to not have to have more rounds of major layoffs, with the cost of transporting it's papers to distribution up so much and their ever declining circulation.:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate


    Hey NYT - Bite My Freedom :celebrate:celebrate:celebrate

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    And the NYT continues it's decline into irrelevance.
    In a way what they are trying to do is lay the groundwork to do something precipitious to change this decision - like have Obama add justices to the Supreme Court. Adding Six new communists like the professors Obama "sought out" in college ought to do the trick. Obama seeks to succeed where FDR failed.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    The internet is making newspapers more and more obsolete, and this is a good thing for those with differing points of view. The traditional papers are owned and run by powerful people with establishment-friendly viewpoints and agendas, and increasingly they are owned by the same people who own CNN and Faux News.

    So far, the internet offers a lot more independence for the little guy with the off-the-wall view that takes off and gets recognized.

    Look at OCDO, for instance. How far do you think John and Mike would have gotten this movement if it was 1985 and they had to rely on print media?

    NYT can go pound sand. I don't have to read it, I don't have to pay for it, and I and many other people don't have to give a crap about their birdcage liner.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    VA Beach, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    558

    Post imported post

    The editorial is quite right in urging gun control advocates to fight every last case in court. The Democrats must also make this a major campaign issue as to the importance of the election to the appointment of supreme court judges along with Roe v Wade. I'm afraid on the gun issue,however, support will not be forthcoming.
    — TEK, NY

    Let's hope and pray they make gun control a major issue because if they do they'll surely loose this election.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    It's the NYT. Probably a slow news day and they didn't have any national security secrets to publish to benefit our enemies.
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  9. #9
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849

    Post imported post

    Many of the letters are really sickening. Hard to imagine these people call themselves Americans. But then, that tends to be the general attitude in the northeast.

    And where do all of the foreign opinons get off. Hell, look where they live. Where do they get off voicing opinions about America?

    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    4 hours south of HankT, ,
    Posts
    5,121

    Post imported post

    They're just scared that some of our pro-freedom ideas may spread, that's all.

    New York Times: Squeal likeSaslaw's pig!

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    This reaffirms that many member of the MSM lack reading comprehension skills (in addition to writing skills). First, Heller isn't incorporated. Do you live in DC? No? Guess what? Heller doesn't really matter!

    The gun control advocates should be cheering this decision, really.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia USA, ,
    Posts
    1,688

    Post imported post

    4-5 years crime in DC will drop.

    True story.

  13. #13
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    This reaffirms that many member of the MSM
    Penalty Flag. Failurte to define acronym on the play.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    Mike wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    This reaffirms that many member of the MSM
    Penalty Flag. Fairlure to define acronym on the play.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Stream_Media


  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    Mike wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    This reaffirms that many member of the MSM
    Penalty Flag. Fairlure to define acronym on the play.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Stream_Media
    *Goes back 10 yards*

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •