HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Gun Debate Yields Page 1 ...

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:36 PM

Gun Debate Yields Page 1 Editorial (in The New York Times)

Source: New York Times

The New York Times is running an editorial on its front page on Saturday, the first time the paper has done so since 1920, calling for greater regulation on guns in the aftermath of a spate of mass shootings.

The editorial, headlined “The Gun Epidemic,” describes it as “a moral outrage and a national disgrace that people can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.” It suggests drastically reducing the number of firearms, and “eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition.”

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

In a statement, the publisher of The Times, Arthur Sulzberger Jr., said the paper was placing an editorial on Page 1 for the first time in many decades “to deliver a strong and visible statement of frustration and anguish about our country’s inability to come to terms with the scourge of guns.”

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/us/gun-debate-yields-page-1-editorial.html



24 replies, 5189 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply Gun Debate Yields Page 1 Editorial (in The New York Times) (Original post)
Newsjock Dec 2015 OP
LonePirate Dec 2015 #1
elleng Dec 2015 #2
cui bono Dec 2015 #3
gristy Dec 2015 #4
houston16revival Dec 2015 #5
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2015 #6
jeff47 Dec 2015 #8
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2015 #9
Go Vols Dec 2015 #13
Spitfire of ATJ Dec 2015 #14
Warren Stupidity Dec 2015 #7
Politicub Dec 2015 #10
frazzled Dec 2015 #15
Name removed Dec 2015 #16
pipoman Dec 2015 #17
frazzled Dec 2015 #20
pipoman Dec 2015 #21
frazzled Dec 2015 #11
Aristus Dec 2015 #12
pipoman Dec 2015 #18
riversedge Dec 2015 #19
TBF Dec 2015 #22
houston16revival Dec 2015 #23
happyslug Dec 2015 #24

Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:38 PM

1. Good for the NYT. Every newspaper in America needs to follow suit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:49 PM

2. Thanks. Rachel just discussed this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 10:59 PM

3. Hopefully we finally reached our tipping point.

It's long overdue.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:30 PM

4. wow

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:49 PM

5. Gun Enthusiasts

have been increasingly vocal the last few months after each successive
rampage

Some equate liberalism with fascism and of course 'fear the government that
fears your guns'

So they are afraid of a backlash to reality from their gun sales

Australia fought guns and won, why can't we in the United States?

The 2nd amendment clearly was about raising a militia, minuteman style, from
citizens who owned muskets. The Framers undoubtedly knew of these problems,
and also knew, on the frontier and outside polite society, that force would hold
sway

They could never have envisioned modern firepower, or terrorism for that matter,
piracy was their milieu of lawlessness

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:23 AM

6. To listen to the ammosexuals a huge majority of the public supports them.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:22 AM

8. Depends entirely on the question.

If the question is "Close the gun show loophole", that gets something like 80% support.
If the question is "confiscate all guns", that doesn't get majority support.

Doesn't mean we should stop at the first one, nor does it mean we have to go all the way to the second one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #8)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:28 AM

9. I'm for taking them away from guys who get a woody talking about them....

 

Same goes for someone taking a copy of Guns and Ammo to the bathroom for 20 minutes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Spitfire of ATJ (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:04 AM

13. results

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
On Fri Dec 4, 2015, 11:55 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

To listen to the ammosexuals a huge majority of the public supports them.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1280474

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Ammosexual, really... this is the kind of insult that does not belong in a discussion forum

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:01 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Oh get over it.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Finally,this sex and guns shit is quite bizarre.What part of the gun am I to hump, as it wont fit in the barrel.

Grease up the stock?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Go Vols (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:08 AM

14. LOL!!!

 

Compare that to this exchange at FOX Nation:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:36 AM

7. Time for Democratic Underground to get off

 

the fence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:36 AM

10. A masterpiece of persuasive writing

In just a few words, the editorial states the moral case for gun control, knocks down every counter argument, and infuses a sense of urgency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicub (Reply #10)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:09 AM

15. I would have gone further than they did

with the counterarguments. Specifically, in response to "Opponents of gun control are saying, as they do after every killing, that no law can unfailingly forestall a specific criminal. ... They point out that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes, they did. But at least those countries are trying."

It's more than just not trying hard enough. Criminals break laws by definition. That is what being a criminal means. It doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws. There will always be people who run a red light, but we would never say we shouldn't have traffic laws and regulations because they will never unfailingly stop people from driving dangerously.

The argument that stricter gun laws won't stop criminals is entirely specious (and tautological). It's stupid. We need laws and regulations, and we need them to be Federal, not just state laws. (I live in a state that is a hop, skip, and jump from three contiguous states.)

Let us start by passing a federal law to ban the manufacture and sale of so-called assault weapons. And a serious buy-back program for existing weapons. It's a start. We can indeed, as the editorial states, at least try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #15)


Response to frazzled (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:28 AM

17. Virtually every thing you mentioned is asked and answered SCOTUS case law

 

That cannot happen federally ever in your lifetime without a constitutional amendment. Or. You can work at the state level.

"Assault weapon" has never been defined. There were congressional hearings trying to find a definition. There were leaders in the law enforcement community from the directors of the fbi and batfe, the armorer of the Las Angeles police department and none could find a definition which would be unambiguous enough to enforce.....this is why the first federal assault weapons ban is no longer in effect, because it can't be defined was going to be overturned by SCOTUS if renewed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pipoman (Reply #17)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 11:47 AM

20. You're dead wrong

Every challenge was put down by the Court:

A February 2013 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report to Congress said that the "Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was unsuccessfully challenged as violating several constitutional provisions." The report said that challenges to three constitutional provisions were easily dismissed. The ban did not make up an impermissible Bill of Attainder.[19]:31 It was not unconstitutionally vague.[20] And it was not incompatible with the Ninth Amendment.

Challenges to two other provisions took more time to decide.

In evaluating challenges to the ban under the Commerce Clause, the court first evaluated Congress' authority to regulate under the clause, and second analyzed the ban's prohibitions on manufacture, transfer, and possession. The court held that "it is not even arguable that the manufacture and transfer of 'semiautomatic assault weapons' for a national market cannot be regulated as activity substantially affecting interstate commerce." It also held that the "purpose of the ban on possession has an 'evident commercial nexus.'"

The law was also challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. It was argued that it banned some semi-automatic weapons that were functional equivalents of exempted semi-automatic weapons and that to do so based upon a mix of other characteristics served no legitimate governmental interest. The reviewing court held that it was "entirely rational for Congress ... to choose to ban those weapons commonly used for criminal purposes and to exempt those weapons commonly used for recreational purposes." It also found that each characteristic served to make the weapon "potentially more dangerous," and were not "commonly used on weapons designed solely for hunting."

The federal assault weapons ban was never directly challenged under the Second Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban


And no definition is necessary. More than 600 individual models and various features were included in the law. And it was found to be legal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frazzled (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 12:35 PM

21. No, the ban was making it's way to SCOTUS

 

this pre-dated Heller and McDonald so lower courts were ruling blind and politically and probably ruled to push cases to SCOTUS for precedent. The SCOTUS standard is very simple. If a weapon is "in common use for lawful purposes" it cannot be singled out and restricted...around 100 million in private hands with competitive shooting competitions every weekend from coast to coast satisfies that requirement.

Why do you suppose a Democratic Senate and Congress failed to renew the ban?

No, every term without exception in every law is unambiguously defined for the purposes of the law....there are few "common definitions" in law when it comes to terms as opposed to single words. There is no definition of "assault weapon" that isn't inclusive of common 1950's hunting rifles even if modern rifles were not already so prolific in society.

In 2004 there were cases getting close to SCOTUS which were going to set irreversible precedent. Those who supported the AWB did not renew the ban because of the almost certain loss. Which is also why GWShrub happily repeated that he would sign an assault weapons ban renewal and nary Washington repug objected to the newly elected president bush agreeing to sign the extension.

The reason Dems and gun control decided not to renew was to make another run at an AWB at a later date...maybe now...without prohibitive precedent could find a solution or at leaat another sunset law..

The issue remains exactly what we saw in CA just now. CA has the strongest assault weapons law in the US, yet the guns used in SB were CA legal. They are legal because a law which would make them illegal would also make illegal grandpa's 1940's hunting rifle...hundred millions....

"In common use for lawful purposes" is the standard set by SCOTUS as the line between guns which can be heavily restricted and those which are constitutionally protected.."sawn off shotgun" vs. Standard barrel shotgun USA v. Miller 1934 (iirc).

There was also the issue of restriction on enumerated civil rights must show demonstrable benefit to society and there were no supporting statistics for the 10 year ban indicating any impact on society good or bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:53 AM

11. Thank you, NYT

The fact that this hasn't been done for 95 years only heightens its impact. Are you listening Congress? Are you listening Supreme Court justices? We need FEDERAL laws, and we need them now.

As for me, when my Times arrives tomorrow morning, I will cut out the editorial with my trusty scissors and save it. I hope I don't have to show it to my grandchildren to tell them how we tried back in 2015, but nothing was done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:01 AM

12. Waste of column inches.

Nothing is going to be done. Nothing. Just like the last time. And the time before that. And the time before that. And the time before that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 02:40 AM

18. Why an editorial? Why not a fact based article?

 

Why would anyone give a single shit what some 1%er sold out newspaper man thinks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 05:28 AM

19. Good for the nytimes. Past time!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:14 PM

22. Big K&R - it is time for civilized folks

to speak up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Newsjock (Original post)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 01:14 PM

23. What was the 1920 Editorial about?

Once in 95 years is a high hurdle!

1920 --- the Red Scare?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to houston16revival (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 5, 2015, 03:16 PM

24. According to the article the nomination of Harding to be President

 

It appears the NeaYork Times had supported a New York politician candidate for the GOP nomination and thus was disappointed with Harding winning the GOP nominationin 1920.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread