New York Times More Radical On Guns than Bradys

The New York Times is editorializing against the amendment to the Amtrak bill to allow transportation of unloaded firearms in checked baggage:

Proponents said the change was needed to put Amtrak back to its pre-9/11 gun policy and equate it with airline security measures that allow unloaded, locked handguns in checked baggage. This is lunatic reasoning for a nation supposedly sensitized by the 9/11 attacks. Why should gun owners be treated as privileged travelers?

Privileged travelers? What? Right now if someone wants to go on a hunting trip, or travel to a competition, Amtrak is simply not an option. Why do we suddenly need airport level security just because we’re going to allow checked guns in the luggage compartments? The New York Times is hysterical. In addition to that, they have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to this issue, and pretty clearly don’t understand how guns are legally transported on aircraft.

5 thoughts on “New York Times More Radical On Guns than Bradys”

  1. I found this editorial to be unreasonable and biased … more so than other NYT articles I have read in quite some time.

    It is as if they are just ramping and ramping the rhetoric to the extreme. They do so at the risk of their own credibility.

  2. after 9-11 weren’t you still allowed to declare firearms in the luggage?

  3. AntiCitizenOne,

    If you are referring to airline travel, then yes. I do it all the time. I understand that there are a few airlines that don’t permit this, but I don’t bother with them, and don’t have a list.. (sorry)


  4. After reading this piece, my question is this: Why should anybody even bother reading the New York Times any longer?

Comments are closed.