Andrew Rosenthal, Managing Editor, New York TImes (courtesy dailymotion.com)

In The Gun Epidemic: The Making of a Page 1 Editorial, New York Times editor Andrew Rosenthal [above] has written a self-congratulatory post explaining the paper’s decision to publish an anti-gun rights editorial on their front page. It offers insight on the decision-making process that makes the Times the leading light of civilian disarmament. Before I expose the “thinking” that led to the The Gray Lady’s editorial End the Gun Epidemic in America, I want you to know one thing: the paper’s publisher has a New York City concealed carry permit – a “privilege” only bestowed on the Big Apple’s richest and most powerful residents. What else needs saying? This, apparently . . .

The day after the school massacre in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, [publisher] Arthur [Sulzberger] was in my office. Would it be possible, he asked, for us to go bananas on guns for a while? (He actually used an earthier expression than bananas.) I said yes, and mobilized our editorial writers. In the next month, we published about 15 editorials on the subject of guns, gun violence and gun regulation.

I’m thinking the term “Punch” used was “ape shit.” More to the point, Rosenthal doesn’t see the need to mention the fact that all of these editorials called for more gun control. While I don’t begrudge a newspaper its right to bias its editorials in whatever direction it sees fit, the Times touts itself as an objective voice. The fact that its publisher launched an anti-gun rights jihad – also reflected in its “news” coverage of the Sandy Hook and subsequent spree killings – puts paid to that myth. We can see this anti-gun rights tunnel vision in this passage, as well . . .

We talked about the idea in some detail last Thursday. On the con side, there was the argument about separation of news and opinion. We also talked about the possibility, which later came to pass, that the killers in San Bernardino could be Muslims with some kind of tie to international terrorist groups, like the Islamic State, or at least sympathetic to those groups and their sadistic agenda. Would a gun control editorial seem appropriate?

So the the paper’s non-existent separation of news and opinion gave the Times pause for thought? Rosenthal’s claim that the paper’s editors only knew of the San Bernardino shooters’ ties to Islamic fundamentalism after they published the gun grabbing editorial is an outright lie. The connection was suspected (if not factually established) within hours of the shooting.

The real con side of the “debate” over the original editorial should have been “are we right to call for gun control leading to firearms confiscation?” (A proposal this follow-up editorial fails to mention.) Rosenthal writes that the Times set aside any and all qualms about tying their agenda to an irrelevant mass shooting with a simple qualification: “Making it work regardless of who the killers turned out to be was an issue of writing and editing.” Spin baby spin! How did that work out for ya?

We felt it had to focus on the specific issue of spree killings like the one in California, and earlier in Colorado Springs and so many other places, and on two ideas that related to it.

The first was that it is not tolerable to have an open, legal market on which would-be terrorists can easily amass an arsenal of weapons that are so perfectly suited to their task. That might not have prevented the San Bernardino shooting (a common argument which we’ve heard a lot in recent days), but at least we as a society would not have aided and abetted it.

According to Rosenthal, we, as a society, aided and abetted the San Bernardino terrorists. “We” meaning gun owners and those who defend our natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms – including (but not limited to) AR-15’s. In other words, the Times depends on the idea of collective guilt to promote its civilian disarmament agenda. An idea which doesn’t apply to the paper’s publisher.

The second was that — as much as we support other gun control measures and have written about them hundreds of times — it was time to say that there are too many firearms out there.

Background checks, bans relating to the no-fly list, mental health screening, limits on magazine capacities, trigger locks and many other good ideas that have been flatly rejected by the Republicans in Congress would not reduce the number of firearms in circulation. There are more guns than people in our country. We wanted to focus on this and to issue a loud call to action. There was simply no room on the front page on Saturday to list every good gun control idea.

I’m glad that Rosenthal admits that the Times wants the government to adopt and enforce any and all gun control proposals. And remove (a.k.a., confiscate) Americans’ firearms. Considering the original editorial and this follow-up, of this there can be no doubt.

The response was overwhelming. The readership of the editorial was enormous, and so was the volume of comments from our readers. There were plenty of people who disagreed with us on principle and in particulars, and did so forcefully. And there were, predictably, some who just spewed hatred and hostility.

It’s interesting in a very sad way that people who oppose gun control measures often resort to violent imagery to make the point that they can be trusted to do the right thing with their firearms. “Let me buy any gun I want to defend myself, or I’ll shoot you” is not a rational argument.

As Nick pointed out, the Times failed to publish any Letters to the Editor criticizing the paper’s stance. An omission that makes it seems as if pro-gun rights readers are incapable of a reasoned, rational response to the Times‘ clarion call to terminate Americans’ Second Amendment protections. And allows Rosenthal to characterize all opposition as hate-filled vitriol. Which it isn’t.

Rosenthal fails to understand that HIS position is “surrender your guns or we’ll shoot you.” How can guns be removed from Americans without the use of deadly force? By the same token, Rosenthal only needs look here – or contact the NRA – to see that the vast majority of gun owning Americans are peaceful patriots. Well they are unless and until the government enacts the Times’ anti-gun rights agenda. At that point, the Times and its ilk will reap what they sow.

[NOTE: TTAG does not allow ad hominem attacks on people named in its articles.]

Recommended For You

70 Responses to New York Times Justifies Its War on Guns

  1. The New York Times is an echo chamber, and that will become more and more the case. As their position on issues such as this becomes more and more extreme to the left, more and more moderate and constitutional minded people will simply quit reading. Unfortunately, the corollary to this is that the readership will become more and more extreme to the left, and more self congratulatory when extreme positions such as gun confiscation are published.

  2. In other words:
    “We don’t like guns, unless they’re ours. Logic and facts are against us. It’s getting increasingly harder to press our viewpoint, and as a result we’re resorting to more and more convoluted ways to rationalize what we say. We’re proud of that, and are confident all right-thinking folks will appreciate our efforts.”

    • Its wasn’t IOWs, those were the words.
      “time to say that there are too many firearms out there.”
      AND:
      “the paper’s publisher has a New York City concealed carry permit ”
      What more does a non sheep, who still possesses the power of thinking,
      need to hear? OBVIOUSLY the “too many” line refers to everybody else.
      He can have all he wants. It has nothing to do with safety or any
      other ideas that they feed to the sheep, but his ‘us richy’s against
      those other trash’ attitude. Not that he actually meant to say THAT,
      OFC! It was a Freudian slip. When he meant to lie, but the truth
      slipped out accidentally…

  3. In a previous topic about the NYT and its war on gun ownership, a poster suggested buying shares of the NYT and showing up at the annual meeting. I would take that one further and suggest the POTG go to war with the NYT. First I’d suggest a boycott of their advertisers. But really, the most effective way, I think is if NRA, NSSA or SAF or some coalition of gun owners buys a controlling share of the NYT and changes the tune of the NYT…just think of all the costs saved dumping the editorial board, Krugman and Collins alone…just a thought.

    • This won’t work. Yes, you can buy shares of the NYT. But they aren’t the type of shares that allow any control. They have a special class of shares that control the management of the company, and those are all owned by the Sulzbergers.

      • That makes sense. I suspect their major advertisers are local to NYC so that might not have much effect. I don’t read the Times anymore, except an occasional article online. Though I also suppose that if fewer of us read their stuff online it would help lower their site visits.

        • +1

          I won’t buy their paper and I won’t even deign to give them page hits. I only know they penned this anti-gun editorial because I came across it on pro-2A websites. For all intents and purposes, the New York Times doesn’t even exist to me. None of their advertisers will make any money from me.

      • While you/we/someone cannot buy out the NYT, would it be possible to buy a competing paper and fund it sufficiently to counter the NYT in it’s own market? Yes, they have a long history and a loyal (if diminishing) readership, but competition is the American way and properly marketed and managed a dead tree competitor could take significant market share. Lord knows New York (and elsewhere) could use a really unbiased source to report real news.

    • Not realistic, the NYT, like all other mainstream media, is owned by 1 of 6 mega corporations that controls all mainstream media. Profit is not needed nor is it the motive of mainstream media these days, the mainstream media is the mouthpiece of the powers that be.

  4. Sure he’s got a permit…maybe he’s related to a certain Feinstein gal. Mere plebian mortals don’t deserve protection…

    • Addendum to the above list of good gun control ideas:

      – A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

  5. I don’t think it is wise to underestimate them or this effort. I posit that it needs to be taken seriously.

  6. There was simply no room on the front page on Saturday to list every good gun control idea.

    Sure there was. I can list them right here:

    <crickets>

    • There was plenty of room, if for no other reason that “good gun control” is a conflict of terms – unless it means keeping the muzzle pointed downrange.

  7. Is the latest narrative of “at least these countries are trying, we should too” supposed to be inspirational to the gun control troops?

  8. Sometimes the rational thought processing center in my brain short-circuits when I read stuff like this and the emotional side takes over. To call those involved in the making of this editorial hypocrites is stating the obvious. But the fact that one of the editors of that rag gets to carry a gun for his own precious protection-using the 1st amendment to attack the 2nd-while attempting to deny me the same, just makes me crazy with rage. I swear to god one day when the next revolution starts, you guys can go after the scumbag politicians. I’m going after these media twats.

  9. Gun confiscation has officially become a sacrosanct tenet of liberalism/progressivism right behind abortion and climate change. We are now in combat with religious fanatics that will only accept what they believe or feel.

    And I thought the Islamists were bad, at least they’re ballsy enough to say upfront they want to kill me and have the courage to try to do it themselves. The progressives won’t openly admit it while trying to incite mob violence or government sponsored oppression. How sick is it they want others to do the dirty work they don’t want to do?

    • Truly is amazing how similar Progressives are to Islamic terrorists. Both are violent, hateful killers and oppressors yet see themselves as the righteous ones.

      • Muslims and Progressives come in two varieties: radical and moderate. The radicals want to kill you, the moderates want the radicals to kill you while they look the other way and sign the checks.

  10. “It’s interesting in a very sad way that people who oppose gun control measures often resort to violent imagery to make the point that they can be trusted to do the right thing with their firearms.”

    I call BS on this comment. Don’t you think that if the NYT had received some letters with “violent imagery” included that they would jump at the chance to demonstrate the insanity of the gun rights supporters?

    Come on NYT, why don’t you show us ALL of the letters you received? Too many with logical, rational arguments that utterly destroy your meme?

  11. If Arthur Sulzberger was not trying to strip Americans of their rights and nullify the Constitution, he would not need a concealed carry permit (unless, of course, he just wanted one as do many of us denied that privilege for general self defense). His paranoia speaks volumes about his hypocrisy.

  12. “Rosenthal singularly fails to understand that HIS position is ‘surrender your guns or we’ll shoot you.'”

    I don’t think so. He is probably smart enough to understand the logical endpoint of what he’s calling for. But since it will be agents of the state doing the shooting (he hopes), he’s fine with it. Liberal “intellectuals” might claim to want peace and love, but most are fine with the use of violence (meted out by others, hired by the almighty State, so they don’t personally have to get their hands dirty) in pushing their agenda.

    What he may fail to understand is that, once the real shooting starts, it won’t be very easy to stop, and there’s a good chance that his team will not be the victors.

    • One need look no further than the depictions of gun owners or the NRA in the media to clearly understand they’d be more than happy to kill or imprison us. Look no further than the editorial cartoons depicting gun owners that have a tone that would not have been out of place in Nazi propaganda depicting Jews. They really really hate our guts. Not just for our guns, but for our effrontery in opposing the will of our betters in the coastal cities. To them we are simply the hicks in fly-over country that must be brought to to heel. In my more bitter moments I think it may be time to cut loose those parts of the county that see individual liberty as speed bump in the road to a shining new future.

      • They do indeed hate us. The vindictive side of me enjoys life even more fully by worshipping God, having heterosexual sex with my wife, enjoying fine firearms, smoking cigars, and drinking smoky scotch.

        Just about everything I do is offensive to the liberal progressive, including

        -hard work
        -speaking English
        -owning firearms
        -carrying firearms
        -talking about how responsibly I carry firearms
        -actually using firearms for self defense
        -being an NRA member
        -hunting deer
        -respecting the Constitution, etc.

        Although liberal progressives hate me, I refuse to hate back. They’d love it to have their idiotic lifestyles and open support of government tyranny give me an ulcer. I won’t give them the pleasure.

        Meanwhile, I’ll pursue life, liberty and happiness as well as I can. And I’m definitely keeping my powder dry.

      • But this time we’re armed to the teeth. Methinks there will not only be a different result, it will resound through history for centuries to come.

        These people are such fools. They risk all for no conceivable gain whatsoever.

  13. Gun confiscation would lead to insurrection and the restoration of the Federal government under the original Constitution.

      • Yep. Once something like that starts we could wind up with a king and no constitution. There’s just no way to call it in advance.

        • Word. The American Revolution was unique in that it expanded and perpetuated freedom. Most revolutions just install a different dictator or King. Although there isn’t much difference between the two.

      • Agreed. The last revolution happened in the presence and wide acceptance of Enlightenment Principles. The same would not be the case today.

  14. We all must be sheep…bass bas
    the wolves laugh and sharpen claws
    sheep dogs are neutered.

    No wonder the NRA doesn’t give an inch.

  15. I think the largest fail in the gun grabbers’ thought process is the idea that just because something was declared illegal ex post facto, that the average American will comply.

    Seems to me that throughout American history, as far back as the Whiskey Rebellion, irrespective of right wing or left wing or the issue, if the government told people to “do something”, the response has always been “screw you”, “no”, “I will find a way around it”, and in many situations, “I will fight you.”

    The ONLY exception is when the people actually believe in the cause, usually because it involves a real, clearly understood enemy. Sure, the government won in the Whiskey Rebellion and the Draft Riots during the Civil War/War Between the States/War of Northern Aggression; but it sure lost big on Prohibition and continues to lose big on the War on Drugs.

    I submit that its largest recent fail in this regard was the 55 mph speed limit during the Nixon regime, which created the CB and radar detector industries, made flouting stupid laws a big legal business, and has contributed mightily to the (justified) resentment of the police by the general public.

    And of course there is the IRS and the entire legal and accounting industry. And yet the NYT and its ilk still firmly believe that this is Australia and people will just hand over their guns because .gov told them to.

    Prohibition and the War on Drugs should teach us that a confiscation law will result in large scale refusal, especially when it comes to AK’s and AR’s, because I just about guarantee that most of them are owned by people in non-registration states, or like happened in NY itself, local sheriffs (and likely governors in other states as well) will simply refuse to enforce the laws, and there is no way to even find the guns short of house to house searches. Bans on green tips, hollow points, and the like will simply assure that MS-13 and the Russian Mob will become as well liked and patronized by the Average Citizen as was the Italian Mob during Prohibition.

    I shouldn’t be amazed, because these are true believers no different intellectually from ISIS killers, but I still am amazed.

    • “I submit that its largest recent fail in this regard was the 55 mph speed limit during the Nixon regime, which created the CB and radar detector industries,…”

      The CB radio industry has existed since the 1950’s. The technical advance of the phase-locked loop frequency synthesizer meant you no longer had to have a pile of expensive quartz crystals to keep your radio on the correct frequency. (And for some reason, the Government was kinda anal about requiring radio transmissions being on the intended frequency). As a result, the price of a radio went from several hundred dollars each to about half that (and eventually even lower). The hit movie ‘Smokey and the Bandit’ movie was also a factor.

  16. Is it living in NYC that makes this sanctimonious fool so smug and self-satisfied?

    I can’t remember the last time I read anything quite as self-congratulatory. This man has an ego almost as large as Obama’s, with roughly the same lack of awareness.

    • Well, the smug attitude doesn’t come from his looks… His mommy probably told him he was a special little snowflake.

  17. It’s a full-on assault on freedom, people, and will just get worse the closer we get to the election. Let’s get it on!

  18. The Gray Lady has fallen, and she can’t get up.

    Side note: I love how TTAG always finds photos that make these collective progressives look so ridiculously smug and oily. (Or maybe it’s just that they are smug and oily. Hmmm…the chicken or the egg?)

  19. I don’t take kindly to a paper saying “give us your guns or we’ll send our g men friends to kill you then take them” to be a very persuasive argument, personally. At least not in the manner they intended.

  20. The hilarious thing about the NYT/LA Times op-eds calling for gun confiscation is this:

    Just as the journo-listers were getting their agenda co-ordinated and lined out, along comes Trump and he just obliterates the news cycle that was going to be filled with this gun control agenda. Obliterates it. As of the end of today, it’s all the media is discussing – Trump’s immigration moratorium on Muslims.

    And as of the end of today, Obama is having to respond to Trump, even insulting his hair. Very presidential, that.

    Whether you support Trump or not, we RKBA types owe him a debt here, because Trump usurped their news cycle, and now their editorial will largely sink into a memory hole.

  21. If New York City had no food for three days, or had no power for a week, or lost its’ clean water supply for a few days, they would be singing an entirely different tune. They probably wouldn’t be singing at all, actually. They’d probably be cowering in fear somewhere.

    It is said that “good fences make good neighbors” and “locks exist to keep honest people honest.” Guns are like that too, a deterrent to wrongful behavior which hopefully will not ever be tested. But if a test is forced upon people, New York will fail.

  22. I don’t know how many people need to be killed by terrorists before the New York Times editorial board would blame the actual terrorists instead of whatever weapons they happen to use,

    I do know that anyone who pays money to actually read the rag is dumber than a box of hair.

  23. There’s no “war” on an inanimate object. There’s only war on people, as only a real human person can be a party to war (even if you are warring upon, or answering the war of a nation).

    Therefore the WAR ON GUNS is a WAR ON GUN OWNERS. Once they get your guns, they will finish you off.

    Respond appropriately.

  24. Even when they say “too many firearms out there”, they’re still shading their meaning. It’s not so much the quantity of guns out there, but rather whose hands hold those guns.

    They don’t care about gangsters having them. None of their so-called solutions even attempt to address that problem. They don’t care about terrorists having them, either. They’re adamant only about granting legal entry and generous welfare to every unverifiable rabble that stumbles into the country from the wartorn Middle East.

    All they care about is confiscating guns from law abiding, peaceful living, Americans.

  25. So, I actually have a question on this; Does Hillary have ties with the NYT? The reason I’m asking is she held elected office in NY and a huge cornerstone of her campaign is gun control and “taking on the evil NRA.” If they were trying to give back door support to her, putting out a bunch of propaganda would be a great way to do it.

  26. ” …the paper’s publisher has a New York City concealed carry permit.”

    Well, you know, there’s “us” and “them” and the issue isn’t “us” having guns and guards, it’s “them” who can’t be trusted.

    What’s that? You’re gonna take my gun, too? But, but, but, Pinch, dude, bubby, I’m one of *you.*

  27. Wow, who’da thought? Threatening to eliminate people’s natural rights by deadly force evokes people’s hate and vitriol. Does this fascist clown actually think he’s on the right side? He and his fascist ilk are the violent aggressors and they don’t even see it.

    Funny. “Try to take away my guns or I’ll shoot you” was exactly what led to the Revolutionary War and the creation of the free nation that the NYT is trying to destroy.

  28. I’d love to see both Mr. Rosenthal and Hillary Clinton asked:

    1) How many American gun owners are you willing to kill in hope of cutting violent crime?

    2) How many government LEOs are you willing to see killed in enforcing your law?

    3) Why are you willing to start a civil war in order to cut violence?

    • OUTSTANDING. These are the kinds of questions that the Internet will force on these kinds of candidates. And their lack of reply will be just as resounding as a Reichstag speech, c. 1939.

  29. “Rosenthal fails to understand that HIS position is ‘surrender your guns or we’ll shoot you.’”

    oh nonsense. he understands perfectly.

    really, this is not so difficult. they don’t want to ban guns. they want to ban YOUR guns, and keep THEIRS. see, was that so hard?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *