No announcement yet.

New York Times Issues Ridiculous Anti-NRA Screed

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    New York Times Issues Ridiculous Anti-NRA Screed

    New York Times Issues Ridiculous Anti-NRA Screed

    At the same time establishment newspapers are openly abandoning their usual façade of impartiality in their news coverage, their editorial boards have been working overtime to elect Hillary Clinton. However, few have been doing Robby Mook and David Brock’s work for them quite like the New York Times, as evidenced by a ridiculous pro-Clinton/anti-NRA screed that appeared in the August 14 edition of the paper.

    Titled, “Donald Trump Courts the Gun Zealots,” the editorial is laden with hyperbole, unsupported claims, and outright falsehoods. Moreover, the Times’ decision to label NRA as “zealots” should strike many as ironic coming from a “news” outlet that used its front page to advocate the undeniably extreme position of confiscating Americans’ lawfully owned firearms.

    As there may still be some under the misimpression that the Old Gray Lady contains “all the news that’s fit to print,” a handful of the editorial’s more outlandish passages should be addressed.

    A quick myth/fact comparison:

    NYT MYTH: [T]he epidemic of gun carnage that claims more than 30,000 lives in the United States each year…

    FACT: This bit of sleight of hand comes directly out of the gun control lobby’s playbook and misleads the public into believing that gun homicides are far greater than they are.

    Out of the 30,000 figure, two thirds of these deaths are attributable to suicide. While certainly unfortunate, the Times’ inclusion of these deaths in their purposefully incendiary term “gun carnage” gives the misleading impression to the unsuspecting reader that there are in excess of 30,000 homicides carried out with firearms each year. The Times is following the lead of gun control advocates that lump these self-inflicted injuries into the term “gun violence” in order to deceive the public as to the scale of homicides perpetrated with firearms.

    Of course, in normal usage the terms “carnage” or “violence” give the impression of harm inflicted upon others. To illustrate the absurdity of how gun controllers and the Times use these terms, ask yourself if any reasonable individual would describe other leading methods of suicide as rope violence, blade violence, pill violence, water violence, car violence, or carbon monoxide violence.

    While quick to use the term “epidemic,” the Times failed to properly contextualize this passage for the reader by explaining that according to the most recent available date, violent crime is at a 44-year low and the murder rate is at an all-time low.

    NYT MYTH: [Clinton] offers a wide list of lifesaving proposals including restoration of the assault weapons ban…

    FACT: The Times correctly pointed out Clinton’s support for the reinstatement of the 1994 ban on commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms, but fails to acknowledge that government-funded research found the ban to be ineffective rather than “lifesaving.”

    In pointing out the difficulty of measuring any effect of the 1994 ban, a 1997 Department of Justice-funded study noted that prior to the ban, “the banned weapons and magazines were never used in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.” A 2004 update to the study determined “we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence,” and, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”

    This point was reiterated in a 2013 Department of Justice National Institute of Justice memo, which noted, “Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence.” The memo also made clear that even if the Times’ goal of confiscation was successfully carried out, “a complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.”

    Further, aside from conjecture, there is little to support the notion that a ban on these types of firearms or certain types of magazines would have an effect on individual instances of violence. Following the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, then-Governor of Virginia and current Clinton vice-presidential running mate Tim Kaine formed the Virginia Tech Review Panel to study the tragedy. Addressing the topic of so-called “high capacity” magazines, the panel’s report stated, “The panel also considered whether the previous federal Assault Weapons Act of 1994 … would have made a difference in the April 16 incidents. The law lapsed after 10 years, in October 2004, and had banned clips or magazines with over 10 rounds. The panel concluded that 10-round magazines that were legal would have not made much difference in the incident."

    NYT MYTH: Research shows the folly of [NRA’s] “concealed carry” campaign to arm millions of ordinary citizens… Far from stopping mass shooters in their tracks, these gun owners have been shooting themselves, family members and others.

    FACT: Here, the Times flippantly disparages the more than 13 million law-abiding Americans who choose to exercise their Right-to-Carry, based on a handful of accounts of permit holder misconduct.

    In reality, permit holders, as a group, are extraordinarily law-abiding. We know this because certain jurisdictions make available a variety of statistics concerning Right-to-Carry permit holders, including the numbers of permits that have been revoked. Analysis of this data has repeatedly shown that that permit holders, on the whole, are more law-abiding than the general public. In fact, analysis of permit revocations from Florida and Texas conducted by economist John Lott found that Right-to-Carry permit holders are more law-abiding than law enforcement.

    In making its derogatory claim, the Times cites Violence Policy Center and their flawed collection of instances where individuals who happen to have a Right-to-Carry permit have engaged in criminal behavior, or committed suicide. In VPC’s bizarre compilation of anecdotes, the wrongdoer’s criminal conduct often bears no relation whatsoever to their status as a permit holder.

    Obviously, a Right-to-Carry permit would not be a factor in any instance where a person took their own life. VPC also lists incidents that took place in private residences, where a permit to carry a firearm would not be required. Other cases involve the use of long-guns unsuitable to be carried concealed, thus making the permit irrelevant. VPC even lists two incidents where an individual strangled their victim to death. Predictably, the Times chose to completely ignore the numerous documented instances where permit holders have defended themselves and other from criminal violence.

    In a further bit of deception, the Times inaccurately described VPC as a “gun safety group,” in order to hide the organization’s fringe nature. While defining VPC simply as a gun control group would have sufficed, an even more accurate way to describe the organization would be to refer to them as handgun prohibitionists. Contrary to the moderation implied by “gun safety,” in a document titled “Cease Fire: a Comprehensive Strategy to Reduce Firearms Violence,” the group contended that “Handguns should be banned from future sale.”

    NYT MYTH: Why can gun-show customers evade the federal background checks that other gun buyers must undergo?

    FACT: Such evasion doesn’t take place. Contrary to the gun control lobby’s efforts to demonize gun shows, federal law pertaining to background checks is the same at gun shows as it is anywhere else.

    Under federal law, gun show patrons are subject to the same background check requirements as any other gun buyer. However, a better way to understand this issue is that gun sellers are subject to the same federal requirements to conduct background checks regardless of location.

    Federal law requires those who are “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms to acquire a Federal Firearms License and conduct background checks on those they sell to, whether the sale takes place at the dealer’s place of business or a gun show. A private individual who sometimes transfers firearms from his personal collection is not required to conduct background checks. This is true whether she is trading firearms with a friend or relative at private residence, transferring a firearm pursuant to a notice on her church bulletin board, or if she chooses to rent a table at a local gun show.

    Whether or not a customer is required to undergo a background check is dependent upon who the customer is transacting with, not where a firearm transfer takes place.

    Further, the Times’ emphasis on gun shows is misplaced, as gun shows are not a significant source of firearms for criminals. In 1997 and 2004 the Bureau of Justice Statistics surveyed state prison inmates about the source of the firearms they possessed at the time of their offense. In both surveys, less than 1 percent of inmates cited “gun show” as the source of their firearms.

    NYT MYTH: Mr. Trump surely has views on whether firearm makers truly deserve blanket protection from damage lawsuits, an extraordinary shield enjoyed by no other industry.

    FACT: The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) does not provide firearms manufacturers with blanket protection from liability suits. Further, the firearms industry is not the only industry to enjoy the type of protection the PLCAA affords.

    The Times should know better than to traffic in this falsehood, considering this issue received significant attention during the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. In an October 2015 statement, which the Times appears to have dutifully parroted, Clinton incorrectly claimed that the gun industry is the “only business in America that is wholly protected from any kind of liability.” Clinton repeatedly used this issue to attack opponent Sen. Bernie Sanders, who espoused the reasonable position that firearms manufacturers should not be held responsible for the criminal acts of third parties.

    In May, constitutional scholar and law professor David Kopel addressed Clinton’s inaccurate PLCAA statements with a comprehensive explanation of exact contours of the PLCAA. Further, Politifact managed to conduct a reasoned analysis of Clinton’s October 2015 claim and rated it false.

    As Kopel made clear, the PLCAA merely prohibits lawsuits against gun makers for damages resulting from the third-party criminal misuse of their firearms. The PLCAA does not protect members of the gun industry from products liability suits for manufacturing or design defects, or certain types of negligent conduct. Moreover, this type of protection is not unique to the gun industry. Citing several legal scholars, the Politifact piece pointed out that federal law bars torts against vaccine manufacturers, and similarly limits suits against other industries.

    NYT MYTH: Rejection of Mr. Trump at the ballot box would also mean a decisive vote against N.R.A. and the human destruction its agenda continues to inflict upon the nation.

    FACT: Here the Times’ hyperbole hit a crescendo, and revealed just how out of touch these Manhattanites are from the average American. Despite the paper’s decades-long efforts, the public at large doesn’t agree with the Times’ deranged assessment of NRA and our mission.

    An October 2015 Gallup poll asked respondents, “Is your opinion of the National Rifle Association very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable or very unfavorable?” 58-percent of those polled answered either “very favorable” or “mostly favorable.” A June 2016 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll sure to bristle the Times’ editorial staff found that NRA’s favorability well outpaced that of their beloved Clinton. NRA’s favorability was found to be 9 percentage points higher than the widely-untrusted candidate, while Clinton’s unfavorable numbers dwarfed NRA’s by 19 points.

    As evidenced by the latest edition of a long-running Gallup poll, the American public’s trust in the media has been trending downwards, and currently rests at a “historical low.” Given the establishment press’ flagrant unwillingness to accurately report or comment on the 2016 presidential race, epitomized by the Times’ editorial and other similar poppycock, we have no doubt that this trend will continue apace.
    At the same time establishment newspapers are openly abandoning their usual façade of impartiality in their news coverage, their editorial boards have been working overtime to elect Hillary Clinton.
    Pat ------> NRA Lifetime Endowment Member #FAAFO

    Couldn't finish it. My blood pressure was getting too high.
    "The devil doesn't come dressed in a red cape and pointy horns. He comes as everything you've ever wished for.”
    Tucker Max

    Infirmitate Invitat Violentiam
    Finicky Fat Guy


      The times is no longer fit for toilet paper.

      Joirnalism is dead.


        Facts Shmacts, I'm busy catching Pokémon!


          Excellent article about how the NY Times "used to be" a respectable source of news, from a former employee, and how they kept it that way by having completely separate editors from the "News" department, and the "Opinion" section, and also how the Mainstream Media stopped even trying to hide their bias.
          Donald Trump <a href="">may or may not fix his campaign</a>, and <a href="">Hillary Clinton may or may not become the first female president.</a> But something else happening before our eyes is almost as important: the complete collapse of American journalism as we know it. The frenzy to bury Trump is not limited to the Clinton campaign and the Obama White House. They are working hand in hand with what was considered the cream of the nation’s news organizations. The shameful display of naked partisanship by the elite media is unlike anything seen in modern America. The largest broadcast networks — CBS, NBC and ABC — and major newspapers like the New York Times and Washington Post have jettisoned all pretense of fair play. Their fierce determination to keep Trump out of the Oval Office has no precedent. Indeed, no foreign enemy, no terror group, no native criminal gang suffers the daily beating that Trump does. The mad mullahs of Iran, who call America the Great Satan and vow to wipe Israel off the map, are treated gently by comparison. By torching its remaining credibility in service of Clinton, the mainstream media’s reputations will likely never recover, nor will the standards. No future producer, editor, reporter or anchor can be expected to meet a test of fairness when that standard has been trashed in such willful and blatant fashion. Liberal bias in journalism is often baked into the cake. The traditional ethos of comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable leads to demands that government solve every problem. Favoring big government, then, becomes routine among most journalists, especially young ones. I know because I was one of them. I started at the Times while the Vietnam War and civil rights movement raged, and was full of certainty about right and wrong. My editors were, too, though in a different way. Our boss of bosses, the legendary Abe Rosenthal, knew his reporters leaned left, so he leaned right to “keep the paper straight.” That meant the Times, except for the opinion pages, was scrubbed free of reporters’ political views, an edict that was enforced by giving the opinion and news operations separate editors. The church-and-state structure was one reason the Times was considered the flagship of journalism. Those days are gone. The Times now is so out of the closet as a Clinton shill that it is giving itself permission to violate any semblance of evenhandedness in its news pages as well as its opinion pages. A recent article by its media reporter, Jim Rutenberg, whom I know and like, began this way: “If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?” Whoa, Nellie. The clear assumption is that many reporters see Trump that way, and it is note­worthy that no similar question is raised about Clinton, whose scandals are deserving only of “scrutiny.” Rutenberg approvingly cites a leftist journalist who calls one candidate “normal” and the other ­“abnormal.” Clinton is hardly “normal” to the 68 percent of Americans who find her dishonest and untrustworthy, though apparently not a single one of those people writes for the Times. Statistically, that makes the Times “abnormal.” Also, you don’t need to be a ­detective to hear echoes in that first paragraph of Clinton speeches and ads, including those featured prominently on the Times’ website. In effect, the paper has seamlessly ­adopted Clinton’s view as its own, then tries to justify its coverage. It’s an impossible task, and Rutenberg fails because he must. Any reporter who agrees with Clinton about Trump has no business covering either candidate. It’s pure bias, which the Times fancies itself an expert in detecting in others, but is blissfully tolerant of in itself. And with the top political editor quoted in the story as ­approving the one-sided coverage as necessary and deserving, the prejudice is now official policy. It’s a historic mistake and a complete break with the paper’s own traditions. Instead of dropping its standards, the Times should bend over backwards to enforce them, even while acknowledging that Trump is a rare breed. That’s the whole point of standards — they are designed to guide decisions not just in easy cases, but in all cases, to preserve trust. The Times, of course, is not alone in becoming unhinged over Trump, but that’s also the point. It used to be unique because of its adherence to fairness. Now its only standard is a double standard, one that it proudly ­confesses. Shame would be more appropriate. You can't subsidize freedom A Cato Institute study finds that New York is the least free of the 50 states because of its high tax burden, huge debt and regulatory stranglehold. Another factor is business subsidies, which are almost four times the national average. At first blush, that one might sound like a good thing. Don’t we want businesses to create jobs, and shouldn’t the state help by subsidizing employers? Yes, and no. A current housing example proves the point. A program called 421-a provided a property tax break to developers in exchange for lower rents on some apartments. It lapsed last January, and a bid to revive it has the state adding another layer of incentives. The measure reportedly proposes that laborers get at least $50 an hour in wages and benefits, with the state paying 30 percent of it in less ritzy parts of the city. Here’s the catch: Where does the state subsidy money come from? Other taxpayers — that’s where. With the state already projecting a budget deficit, other tax hikes might follow, which would make living here even less affordable. In essence, then, the state and city already have such high taxes that, to get affordable housing, they must take money from other people to subsidize both developers and workers. What does any of this have to do with free markets and capitalism? Nothing. Which is why Cato is exactly right that New York has a freedom deficit. Clinton and Bratton's political play Police Commissioner Bill Bratton<a href=""> emerged from a meeting with Hillary Clinton gushing about her “ideas” and “experience,”</a> as dutifully noted by numerous news organizations. But most failed to note that Bratton is leaving the NYPD for a job with Teneo, a corporate cousin of Clinton Inc. It’s probably also just a coincidence that Bratton is cozy with the candidate whom his current boss, the mayor, has endorsed. Imagine the howling if a police com­missioner showered praise on someone the mayor opposed. Good reasons why active law enforcement should butt out of politics. Tokin’ gesture Headline: “Obama rips daughter Malia for smoking pot” So <a href="">even the president is subject to the parent trap:</a> Do as I say, not as I did.
          NRA Benefactor Life
          NRA Instructor & RSO
          NYSRPA, SAF, GOA


            That's a whole lotta letters and words, let me run it through my spell/fact/truth checker program to simplify things..

            Says it ain't even Bullshit, it's HorseShit! 💩
            Hunter, NRA Life Member, NYS Deplorable


            Pro Political Term Limits
            Anti High Capacity Mag Limits
            Fuck Andrew Cuomo's Suck my Ass Act


              FUNYT commie rag