In its first front-page editorial since the end of the First World War, The New York Times editorial board advocated outright gun confiscation as the solution to end violence.

Friday’s above-the-fold piece headlined “The Gun Epidemic” called civilian gun ownership “a moral outrage and a national disgrace.”

The @nytimes runs its first front page editorial since 1920. On gun violence. https://t.co/LIEgbFD5dt pic.twitter.com/iXkzaHqW9w

— carolynryan (@carolynryan) December 5, 2015

After 95 years of front-page silence, the Grey Lady’s editors chose this particular recurrent theme touted so often in President Obama’s rhetoric: A strange coincidence.

So, does this mean that no issue has mattered more to NYT editors since 1920? If so: FASCINATING. https://t.co/vetG4OP8yL

— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) December 5, 2015

https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/672987184778072065

There is so much wrong with this strident, fear-mongering approach that conservative author Jonah Goldberg had no problem destroying it, despite being exhausted from travel and a few stiff drinks.

I'm exhausted. I've been traveling. I've been drinking. And I'm pissed. My quick response to the NYT editorial. https://t.co/A4pS3mVzYO

— Jonah Goldberg (@JonahDispatch) December 5, 2015

If you're going to put an editorial on Page One, shouldn't it be persuasive?

— Jack Shafer (@jackshafer) December 5, 2015

Apparently, the kind of ban the Times editors called for is already law in California.  That didn’t stop the terrorists.  But they want to go further than a simple ban.

Assault weapons have been banned in Ca. – where these guns were legally purchased – since 1989. https://t.co/vBboaa6FCs

— stuart stevens (@stuartpstevens) December 5, 2015

The editorial flatly states, “Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership.”

That means confiscation.

https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/672992909193576448

Apart from tossing the Second Amendment into the trash, the editors at the Times didn’t seem to think through the implications of their position.

https://twitter.com/charlescwcooke/status/672956208953839616

I, and likely millions of people like me, would not do this voluntarily & would resist efforts to do so by force.

— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 5, 2015

"and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens."

— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 5, 2015

There's a bit in the NYT editorial which would almost certainly lead to civil war in the US but it's treated as a throwaway line

— Stephen Gutowski (@StephenGutowski) December 5, 2015

• Author
• Recent Posts

Steve Berman

Steve is a serial entrepreneur who has been starting and running businesses for 25 years. Writing about conservative causes is his passion.

Latest posts by Steve Berman (see all)

• Hillary ordered one of her minions to break the law, WH won’t comment - January 9, 2016
• Obama’s ‘fully vetted’ refugees? Terror suspect’s wife says he’s innocent, ‘he loves America’ - January 9, 2016
• Liberal blogger becomes unhinged during Don Lemon gun control debate - January 6, 2016

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.