The NY Times — Right on Target

On the front page of today’s New York Times is an editorial I could easily have written. If I could write that well.  If I worked for the NYTimes.  If I had millions of readers who’d nod and say “Right On!”

Silence on Guns - Eiko Ojala NYT

Image credit:  Eiko Ojala – for the New York Times, 12/4/15

Actually I’m mixing this image from an editorial published yesterday in the NY Times.  Because like me, the NY Times believes that we need sensible gun laws.  And so they, like me, keep beating that dead horse.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Here’s today’s front page editorial reproduced in full:

End the Gun Epidemic in America

Half staff - Doug Mills - The NYTimes

Doug Mills for the New York Times

39 Comments

Filed under 'Merica, 2016, All The News You Need, All We Are Saying Is Give Peace A Chance, Beating that Dead Horse, Campaigning, Crazy Folks Running, Criminal Activity, Disgustology, Elections, Elections Matter, Gun control, Health, Health and Medicine, Huh?, Humor, Hypocrisy, Just Do It and I'll Shut Up!, Peace, Shit, Stupidity, Vote, Voting, Wild Beasts, WTF?

39 responses to “The NY Times — Right on Target

  1. Yes good caring and compassionate people will vote for those who support tighter and stricker gun control. But the greedy NRA will buy the election any way they can. It’s money vs lives. Money will win because lives are expendable. I have hope but my rational side believes it’s a useless cause.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Holly

    I think I am just going to bookmark this for the next time. Because while I hope there won’t be, I can’t be that optimistic or foolish.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Fuck the NRA and all their minions. I am tired of this discussion. I am tired of all the dead bodies. I am tired of the victims, the walking wounded. I am tired of the ‘prayers’ without action. God does not live here and God doesn’t care.

    It is that simple.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I agree with Zorbear. Follow the money trail and you’ll find where the politician has sold his or her soul. Make the money go away and we’ll have a change in our laws about guns. I hate to be cynical, but money makes our world go round–especially via our lobbyists. But we must keep on speaking up and slamming our hammers against that brick wall, and one day it will come down like the one in Berlin. Great post.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. And it is absolutely vital that right thinking people continue to beat that poor dead horse. This is a topic that needs to be addressed until it is made right. I’m with you on this, Elyse, 100%! Thank you for posting this!

    Liked by 2 people

    • It is a great editorial, and as Mark commented below it’s the first front page editorial since 1920. But I would love to stop beating this dead horse, Moms. The answer just seems so obvious. So damn obvious.

      It makes me crazy. I know you and I will be sitting together in the loony bin, though. And that gives me a lot of comfort!

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Fun fact about that editorial. It’s the first time an editorial appeared on the front page of the Times since 1920. They felt it was that important.

    You are singing to the choir, sister. I wish someone would get up in this comment section and debate you in a rational, calm manner. It ain’t going to be me because I’m in your camp.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. I don’t really see the difference between AR-15 and a semi-automatic handgun (which is pretty much what every modern handgun is). Sure, an assault rifle looks scarier, but it shoots the same bullets, at the same speed, as quickly as a handgun, because it all depends on how quickly you can pull the trigger. The only difference is that rifles are more accurate at longer distances, and can incorporate larger magazines. So I think banning high-capacity magazines should be a start. Luckily, the Constitution says nothing about magazines. Unfortunately, the NRA still does.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I almost don’t care where we start, as long as we start somewhere. People are dying for stupid reasons — or for no reason. For an ideology they have nothing to do with (Christian or Muslim). Because folks can get guns and bullets galore.

      How do we get away from this culture.

      Somehow, I want to make it as unacceptable to be an ammosexual as it is to be a smoker. Or a litterbug. Those were both rampant once, and we cut them way, way down. Obviously, it’s not the same. With rare exceptions litterbugs and smokers don’t shoot the folks telling them to stop … and there is nothing in the Constitution that can be interpreted as allowing folks to throw their garbage out the windows ….

      Fuck the NRA. Do you know they are listed as a “charitable organization”? We always make a donation in my boss’s name to a local charity. I looked up the names of them just the other day. I can make a tax deductible donation in my boss’s name to the NRA. I’m sure that’s exactly where a doctor would want to send her money. Positive.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. I strongly disagree with you — just not about guns. Politicians don’t fear voters (most polls show that 70% — or better — of the population agree that gun controls are needed), they fear the loss of the funds that NRA makes available to them for re-election (and that would be used against them if they voted for reasonable gun laws).

    Money plays the tune to which politicians dance, not voters.
    However, other than that, you’re right on!!!
    😛

    Liked by 1 person

    • That is the point — we (and by “we” I mean other folks because I actively work against these assholes) keep voting for people that don’t serve our interests. That don’t truly represent us. We’re electing and re-electing folks who cow tow to the NRA and its money. When we stop voting for those people they will lose their power to say “NO” to sensible gun control. That really is the only way we will get rid of them.

      Liked by 3 people

  9. I agree with you and the Gray Lady. Ban all semi-automatic guns. Won’t stop all senseless killings, but it will greatly reduce them. And hunters, stop your crying. It will make your hunt a more challenging sport when you can’t spray Bambi with a dozen bullets. And maybe your sport will gain a little more respect.

    Like

  10. Great article! Now the challenge is identifying those politicians that will push anti-gun legislation and drive enforcement. Those running know we’re hurting right now. Can we believe what they’re saying in response? Will they follow through?

    Liked by 2 people

    • As the elections get closer, I will do my best to identify these folks. The trickier part is the states, so I will have to find some websites that do it for me!

      I read somewhere that Marco Rubio said we should be worried about “bomb control.” What an idiot. Bombs ARE illegal and the use of them is rare … Duh. They are f’ing hard to acquire! Do these guys even listen to themselves??????

      Like

  11. I was glad to see this highlighted statement in the editorial:

    It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

    I don’t think many people understand this, or at least they don’t think about it. The Second Amendment didn’t come down from Mount Sinai, it is a rule mandated by exigencies of times past when wars were fought differently (no professional military) and with vastly less-efficient weapons.

    Even the staunchest conservatives would, I submit, balk at my keeping a howitzer with live ammunition in my yard, so it’s a matter of where to draw the line. To allow the citizenry to freely buy and use military-style semiautomatic assault rifles that spray high-velocity bullets like water is just nuts, especially since half of all people are of below average intelligence and many of them are mentally-disturbed. Same goes for being able to buy guns at trade shows or privately without background checks.

    Islands of reasonable gun control, e.g., Chicago, will remain ineffective until a comprehensive federal law is achieved. Elyse and the NYT are correct. Elect Democrats.

    Liked by 3 people

    • That was my highlighting (I should have said so). And I highlighted it for exactly the reasons you said. The First Amendment allows freedom of speech, but there are limits to that right (yeah — fire/movie theatre). Regulation of guns is not unconstitutional — it says “a well regulated militia” right there in that damn amendment for cryin’ out loud!

      I’ve often wondered if the language of the second amendment didn’t stem in some measure from the fact that for centuries the English prohibited the Scots (and likely the Irish, but I’m not sure of that) from keeping weapons.

      I agree with your second point, too. There absolutely must be limits. The Aurora shooter had >3,000 rounds of ammunition, as did our most recent shooters. Whoever sells that should be liable. PERIOD. The likelihood of such firepower being put to benevolent use (just how many bullets do you need to blow away Bambi, Bubba?). So the legal channels should be closed as well.

      I once had neighbors who thought that they should be entitled to whatever weapons (including nucs) that the government have. We moved.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. I wish you could stop writing these posts… because people stopped shooting each other. I am so sick of the political platitudes. “My thoughts and prayers go out…” So much bullshit.

    Liked by 2 people

    • How I would love to get off this damn soapbox! And yes, the “thoughts and prayers” bullshit is nauseating. Just who do they think they’re fooling?

      Like

  13. The Second Amendment is just that. An amendment, which (according to Merriam-Webster) is “: a change in the words or meaning of a law or document (such as a constitution)”.

    The Second Amendment got there by changing the Constitution. It can leave the same way.

    Do I think it’s easy? Of course not. Nor should it be. (Don’t even ask me about the Equal Rights Amendment…)

    The real question is will changing it save lives? The answer is the same as the answer to people who object to speed limits. Yes, it will save some lives. Sure, we could lower the speed limit to zero and stop all traffic accidents, saving even more lives. People will still die in accidents.

    We could confiscate every civilian weapon in this country, and people will still find ways to kill. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do our best to cut down on an obvious threat. Gun control hasn’t done that job. Maybe it is time to talk about gun elimination.

    At least then we wouldn’t have to post after the next disaster, “Well, all you dead people and your families are in my thoughts and prayers even though I personally didn’t do a damn thing about preventing this from happening and I know full well it’s going to happen again. And again. But yeah… big hugs, y’all.”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Absolutely right. (Oh, and Phyllis Schlafly that dried up old bitch, is always adding her two cents to this debate, too. May she rot…. Oops sorry. Hot button for me too.)

      Nothing is easy. But I don’t think that the constitution even has to be amended (that will never happen, in my opinion). But the right can be regulated — and limited. Nobody needs thousands of bullets unless they are a gun range with the sole purpose of target shooting.

      Yes, it’s going to happen again. And again. And again. Until we throw the folks who keep allowing it to happen out of elected office.

      Like

  14. According to some politicians (and I use this term loosely) this could have been averted if those holiday lunch goers had guns on their hips. Can’t remember when I accessorized with a gun. Am I missing something here?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yup. The “good guy with a gun” argument is such baloney. The good guy isn’t a good guy if he just starts shooting because he will not know what is happening and is more likely to add to the carnage than prevent more. There are two perfect examples of that — one in Oregon when a man was nearby but didn’t know exactly what was happening and figured he’d just get in the way of police; and one at Gabby Giffords’ shooting, when a guy with a gun came out of the CVS next door, pulled his gun, and decided not to fire which was good because he was pointing at the good guy with no gun who had apprehended the original bad guy with a gun.

      In these situations, the only people who know what is happening is the guy who started it.

      Liked by 2 people

  15. The oft repeated excuse that even with tighter gun control shootings will still happen drives me crazy. Yes, they’ll still happen, just like car crash fatalities still happen despite seatbelts. But the incidents will be REDUCED. Just because we can’t make something zero doesn’t mean we don’t enact measures to decrease it. Great article. Thanks for posting it.

    Liked by 1 person

Play nice, please.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s