As NYT Calls for Gun Confiscation, Majority of Its Readers Oppose Gun Ban
Last week, the New York Times called for gun confiscation in an editorial that was posted for the first time in nearly one hundred years on its front page, but the majority of its readers and the current trend in gun buying, gun training and gun ownership are completely against them.
In End the Gun Epidemic in America, the Times said, "It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. . . . It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition. . . . Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."
Later, the paper admitted that confiscation of millions of semi-automatics rifles and shotguns "might not have prevented the San Bernardino shooting." However, they just "wanted to shout our frustration and anger from our rooftop."
Well, no one cares about anyone's frustration. If they did, the New York Times would be calling for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama, wouldn't they?
Rival paper, The Washington Post, blasted NYT by writing, "Swing voters in Middle America aren't its subscribers, and the swing voters in Congress don't have to appeal to voters who care much about what the New York Times thinks." In other words, no one cares what the New York Times thinks!