In its editorial explaining its editorial calling for gun confiscation, New York Times editor Andrew Rosenthal revealed that his pistol-packing boss had declared a jihad on American gun rights. “Go ape shit on guns” being the operative instruction. Since coming out of the confiscation closet, the Times has continued its full-on war on Americans’ 2A rights. Just like The Daily Show, the Old Grey Lady sent a newbie to get his handgun license – to prove that the governments [of less enlightened states] are bestowing the “privilege” of carry on unworthy individuals. Guess what? He proved it! Or did he . . .
I’ve lived in Texas all my life, but I’d never touched a gun — they actually scare me. When I arrived at the gun shop to get my license, I didn’t know what to expect, except that there would be training and assessment. The course included no instruction about how to neutralize an active shooter, deal with moving targets, avoid innocent people or manage adrenaline and anxiety.
Some of the things that we did discuss in class left me exasperated.
Instructor: “You can only shoot in self-defense. This license is not for justice, but immediate self-preservation.”
“But what if a man who just attacked me or my wife is running away? I can shoot him, right?” a man asked.
“That would be murder.”
Glad we cleared that up.
And I’m glad Zachary Stone [above] cleared-up any misplaced belief that he approached his concealed carry course with an open mind. That snide, cynical aside typifies the entirety of his op ed piece I’m a Responsible Gun Owner? Seriously? As if the founder of UT Students Against Guns on Campus had any intention of being objective. As if the Times couldn’t find someone who could be. As if they’d even want to.
I wonder how many Times readers will rise to the bait of this anti-gun rights trolling? How many smug firearms-ignorant upper west side “intellectuals” read this sort of article and shake their head with self-righteous condescension, muttering something about armed barbarians at the gate. Are there really enough of them to keep The Times in business? Like many gun-owning millennials, TTAG reader theOriginalJO knows a hit piece when he reads one.
It says way more about the shortcomings of the author than the implied shortcomings of the Texas permitting system. The idiot shows up for his live-fire without ever having touched a gun and not having the least notion of its mechanical workings. By his own testimony the other participants there had no such problems.
The process he was in was for a concealed carry permit; it was not a remedial gun-handling course. The course is no doubt configured on the assumption that people seeking a CCP have at least some prior experience. What he needed was a week, or more likely a month, a firearms training before getting to this stage, to make up for the years of experience most people bring to the training.
He complains he wasn’t given advanced tactical training, again beyond the scope the process and a very long, expensive training regimen it would be. For that matter, how many LEOs actually get this kind of training before being unleashed on the public?
Aside from the obvious sandbagging, mandatory firearms training is a trojan horse. Pro-gun folks who accept the idea of mandatory training — See? we’re responsible gun owners! — give anti-gun rights statists (yes, a redundant term) exactly what they want: subservience to the state. Simply put, the state giveth, the state can and will taketh away. See how that works? It’s as clear as the Times‘ bias against liberty.