New York Times Not Happy

Perhaps it’s high time they realized that in the rest of the country outside the immediate area of New York City, people actually do believe the Second Amendment means what it says:

In all, 85 Democrats joined with a nearly unanimous block of Republican lawmakers to pass the dangerous measure 266 to 152, a reminder that catering to the gun lobby during election season is a bipartisan affliction. The bill was pushed by the National Rifle Association and opposed by the District Police Department.

At some point the New York Times, and a lot of other papers, need to face up to the fact that they lost.  Sorry, but you guys lost.  New York City’s gun laws will be next, once we skewer Mayor Daley’s Chicago on the foil of the Second Amendment.

6 thoughts on “New York Times Not Happy”

  1. I don’t use this strong language very often, but I really must say:

    Goddamn does that NYT Editorial piss me off!!!

    How dare they come out so boldly to say that a “democratic majority” has any “right” to deny individuals a fundamental individual right protected by our constitution’s bill of rights.

    How dense!!! Those rights were included for the very reason that they must always be protected from a democratic majority!

    The NYT has this issue absolutely ass-backwards. I will write a letter to the editor this time.

  2. “Perhaps it’s high time they realized that in the rest of the country outside the immediate area of New York City, people actually do believe the Second Amendment means what it says”

    I always thought New York and California should be separate countries.

  3. Long Island is not much better. Not for anything but maybe someone can push the issue on how the state discriminates against non-residents. I do believe there is a law somewhere that a state cannot discriminate against non-residents. That’s why driver’s licenses are valid in other states…. Just a thought. I had wanted to get a permit for NY so that I can go shooting up there but I am not qualified due to non-residency.

  4. New York State has a gun and weapon control law called called “The Sullivan Act”, which dates back to the early days of the 20th century, when extremely corrupt Democrats had the entire run of both New York City and New York State from their power base at Tammany Hall in Manhattan. This law originally required licenses for New Yorkers to possess firearms small enough to be concealed. Possession of such firearms without a license was a misdemeanor, carrying them was a felony. The possession or carrying of weapons such as brass knuckles, sandbags, blackjacks, bludgeons, or bombs was a felony, as was possessing or carrying a dagger, “dangerous knife” or razor “with intent to use the same unlawfully”.

    Someday, and hopefully too I might add, “The Sullivan Act” may be ruled unconstitutional – it seems to benefit only the rich and politically-connected as it often gets applied nowadays, because only people such as this ever get permits to carry firearms in New York City. (Some examples of such people are Chuck Schumer, Donald Trump, and Howard Stern.)

    I have a little story about my own experience with “The Sullivan Act”, so read on.

    “The Sullivan Act” was what an undercover cop on patrol in Queens cited as his authority to arrest me on a felony charge last Memorial Day. My crime? I was carrying a jackknife with a three-inch blade on my key chain while walking along a city street. This cop did not arrest me however, because what I believe he was actually trying to achieve was to make a friend of mine who was with me at the time stop being so belligerent towards him and his partner. (We were were stopped by him and his partner on the street. They said we were close to a description of two suspects they were seeking for an investigation, but my friend soon started screaming at them about filing a civil rights complaint and/or lawsuit.) My guess is that this cop only made his threat to arrest me so as to apply leverage against my friend. After I finally convinced my friend to quiet down, he advised me to keep my jackknife inside my cargo shorts pocket for the rest of the time that I would be out on the street that day, to which I readily complied. Then both he and and his partner got back into their unmarked vehicle and sped away.

    Looking back on this experience, I would guess that even this New York City cop did not feel all that much in favor of “The Sullivan Act” when it comes to small jackknives. It also makes me wonder if New York City has ever issued a permit for carrying a small jackknife to some rich and politically-connected person.

  5. Catering to protection of a Constitutionally protected right is an “affliction?”


    Has the Noo Yawk Tymes been sleeping with the ACLU as of late?

  6. “In response to the court, the district has lifted its ban on semiautomatic guns. The House bill goes a reckless step further to allow large-capacity ammunition clips that give those weapons extraordinary firepower. It also would end the district’s gun registration system, which aids the police in tracking down violent criminals. Other provisions would remove age restrictions on possessing rifles and shotguns and carve an exception to federal anti-trafficking laws by allowing district residents to cross state lines to purchase handguns in neighboring Maryland and Virginia.”

    Well, you missed a fine opportunity to fisk this gem of a passage, but I understand that time is not always available for such things. Just let me add that we are talking here about laws, for those who are going to obey such laws. The criminals already carry semi automatic firearms with large capacity magazines, crossing state lines to obtain their guns, and all the rest. So how can the get so worked up about the ordinary guy having a fighting chance too? After all, it’s not like they plan to put the criminals in jail or anything.



Comments are closed.