NY Times Editorial: Time for 'Sensible' Gun-Control

[kevin9]

Subscription rates are down, the stock is in the dumper...Who the hell reads the New York Times.....

They're obviously angling to be the replacement for the Brady Campaign newsletter.

 

[bambame2]

Buy a case of ammo. And stand up.

I'm not bending over. I'm fighting. No more running. No more excuses.

Come and take them, Eric Holder.

+1 no more.

 

[Laryk]

His whole "I support the 2nd amendment but want to keep ak's out of the hands of criminals" line is nonsense. The only people his laws will affect are law abiding ak owners.

I was gonna post the same thing almost verbatim

 

[mikem317]

I for one am all for sensible gun laws. Namely, I wholeheartedly support a law stating that there should be no laws infringing the right of the People to keep and bear arms. That's sensible.

Yup. That's the rub.

"Sensible" is subjective. Like "high", or "low" or "mediocre" or "hot" or "cold" or "light" or "dark".

Let's get more objective: "10,000 feet altitude", "6 feet under the surface" or "sea level" or "100 degrees Celsius" or "-200 degrees Fahrenheit" or "160 lumen" or "0 lumen".

 

[Carguy]

I started reading this thread and gave up quickly.

The only sensible gun control I can think of is, "don't point at it if you aren't going to shoot it".

 

[ronbok]

GUN CONTROL: THE ROAD AHEAD

The NY Times is wrong - yet again. Anyone who found this article appealing, containing any facts, in any manner shouldn't be on this forum.

Let's look at the real facts. In his peice GUN CONTROL: THE ROAD AHEAD, Howard Nemerov spells it out for you. If the New York Times wants to think this election was a referendum that America wants more gun control they are severely mistaken. More importantly they are severly mistaken on Congressional support for more gun control measures.

 

[jcr]

Good to see them highlight the Brady failure as well....which really just invalidates the entire piece, since by their logic the Bradys should have given up in 2006.

Without a "smiley", I think you've misplaced the antecedant to "its" in the original NYT editorial.