NY Times appears to be getting the point . . .

[Swampman]

that banning so-called assault weapons has little to no effect on crime rates and the perpetrators.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunda ... .html?_r=1

This really isn't a bad piece, that is, until you get about three-fourths of the way through and the author makes this statement:

But these acts of violence in schools and movie theaters have come to define the problem of gun violence in America.

One incident in one movie theater has morphed into more than one? Statements like this are where the left loses their credibility with most arguments they make about anything. Proof reading also means thinking about WHAT you have written, not just about HOW it is written.

[10mmSnob]

It also tries to perpetuate the myth that universal background checks will somehow keep criminals from getting guns, but it is a step in the right direction (especially for the NYT).

[ShotgunBlast]

Don't think anything of this. When your job is to spew propaganda day after day, every now and then a moment of clarity slips out.

I'm sure this drone has already been reassigned.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

EXACTLY SB! "That one ain't towin' the line boys! Git'em!"

Or as they said on "Southpark" "....we have a turd in the punch bowl, repeat, turd in the punch bowl..."

[dorminWS]

I don't think it's a moment of clarity or even accidental honesty on the part of the NYT. I think it's just a tactical withdrawal to facilitate a change of objective.

I think they're abandoning the "assault weapons" ban so they can pivot to pursue a ban on handguns and "universal background checks" as a code word for firearms registration.

[ShotgunBlast]

While I agree dorm that they'll move on to another topic, usually when someone pivots they don't admit that their original position was wrong. They usually just stop talking about that original position and start yammering about the new position.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[dorminWS]

While I agree dorm that they'll move on to another topic, usually when someone pivots they don't admit that their original position was wrong. They usually just stop talking about that original position and start yammering about the new position.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ah, but you see they are demonstrating to the world how "reasonable" and "common sense" their proposals are. The argument will be made that they have made a huge concession and that if the pro-gun community possesses even a scintilla of reason they must now "compromise" by agreeing with their new, (and different but no less extreme) "common sense" position. And I also expect they will point to statistics showing how many more hand gun homicides there are than rifle homicides. And they may even pander to the perceived racism of us "rednecks" by arguing that universal background checks, in view of the distressingly high murder rate among certain ethnic groups, are the only way to keep "the wrong people" from getting guns.

[j1mmyd]

I wish people would stop perpetuating the notion that the NYT has changed their position. The NYT has changed nothing.

The piece was an op-ed by a virtual nobody that actually sets the stage for increased restrictions on handgun ownership.

By claiming that black men committing violence against one another is at the statistical heart of the matter, the author baits racially insensitive/politically incorrect responses that will be used to make this a topic for another Holder-Sharpton-Jackson Grievance Extravaganza.

Basically: Handguns are the problem; defend them and you're a racist.

[Swampman]

Then we're all in good company.

[j1mmyd]

Then we're all in good company.

Indeed. I guess we can play whatever roles they want us too. Funny thing is that the allegation of racism used to mean something to some people, but its been so overused that it can mean something as simple as disagreeing with a politician. On the off chance that I'm right about this, I'm willing to wear the racist label if it also now means loving my gun rights.

Anyway, my point is that this op-ed feels like an artifact of the Left's information operations. At best, its an aberration; at worst its a provocation that we should ignore. It is most definitely not an indication of sanity from the NYT.

Something I'm interested in watching: We all know that politicians run toward their base in primaries, then back to center in general elections. I've seen CNN provide what could be mistaken for unbiased coverage of 2A related stories lately and I do wonder if media outlets are easing their way back to center in an attempt to seem more credible prior to the 2016 elections.

Maybe its even simpler than that and they're just sensing that the real majority leans a little more right than they have thought for so long.

But, what do I know? Maybe I should sleep more and watch less TV...