Previous Post
Next Post

Arkansas school (courtesy

The New York Times’ editorial board must be bored with their own anti-gun rights polemics. The Gray Lady’s most recent addition to their civilian disarmament canon – bemoaning a forthcoming Ohio law restoring residents’ right to keep and bear arms in day care centers (amongst other places) – lacks the Times‘ usual sense of moral outrage. “Is this really necessary?” they whine . . .

The bill’s sponsor claimed the legislation would end ‘undue hardships’ for license holders under current law that requires them to leave guns in the car while dropping off children. Under the proposed law, citizens would be able to tote their weapons into what gun lobby propaganda describes as ‘victim zones’ — places presumably in need of vigilantism.

See what they did there? If not, try this on for size . . .

The measure was denounced as a dangerous effort to promote gun sales by the Ohio chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. It feeds the fantasies of people who think they have the power to stop criminals — even though, in practice, concealed-carry weapons inflict more harm on gun owners and other innocent victims than on actual criminals.

It seems the NYT’s editorial board was so indolent they forgot to Google “defensive gun uses,” which number in the tens of thousands per year (at the least). The Times only “real” argument: most of the states which have “weakened laws limiting the range of concealed carry” don’t allow firearms into their state houses. A valid point, but not up to their usual standard of vituperative vilification.

By the way, gun control-heavy Rhode Island doesn’t interfere with concealed carry permit holders’ right to keep and bear arms in public schools – despite legislative efforts to ban same (including a cop carve-out, of course). Blood in the hallways? Nope. Who’d a thunk it?

Previous Post
Next Post


        • Correct, that was fixed as part of a big package of firearms regulations signed into law earlier this year, which also included shortening the required class for CCW permits from 12 to 8 hours, and removing the requirement to re-take the class every five years when the license expired.

      • Nope. They fixed that. They also fixed the definition of “loaded gun” to no longer include loaded magazines that weren’t in the gun.

    • The same law made it so that Ohio now honors ALL concealed carry permits, regardless of whether they have a reciprocal agreement with the state issuing them or not.

  1. Obviously, these parents want to bring their guns into the school in order to shoot their own babies… which they cannot do at home, of course.

  2. Self defense isn’t vigilantism. Just stringing words together also doesn’t mean you have a news article or that you are a journalist.

    • Bingo.
      One would think that a newspaper would have at least one dictionary on premises, but in this case, one would be wrong.

  3. I love how they talk about “people who think they have the power to stop criminals” as if it’s completely impossible for any ordinary being to confront one of these superhuman monsters.

    Well, as it turns out, I’ve successfully defended myself against more than one person who would have committed the crimes of assault and battery against me (followed by who knows what else) if I hadn’t stopped them.

    As it happens, none of my personal defenses involved firearms; my assailants weren’t armed, and I was able to bring plenty of physical force to bear (I’m 6’2″/270, so I have a fair bit of it at my disposal). But sometimes criminals are armed. Being larger than most people I meet won’t help me then.

    And what about the many people who aren’t physically capable? Without some tool that can equalize the disparity of force (hint: guns are great tools), they might as well be facing a superhuman monster. But apparently the New York Times thinks that’s okay.

    • I’m just wondering if that “no cell phone” sign carries the force of law. Silent-or-vibrate means Silent-or-vibrate. ?

  4. Rhode Island doesn’t interfere with concealed carry permit holders’ right to keep and bear arms in public schools

    Of course it does — by not issuing permits. As of Feb, 2014, there were all of 3,280 permit holders in the entire state with a population of a million. Hoplophobic MA, with a pop of about 7 million, has 250,000 permit holders. Do the math.

    Without a permit, Rhode Islanders are subject to the Federal GFSZA, which as bad or worse than any state law.

    • There is some room for interpretation in the RI statement Ralph. You obviously thought of it in a ‘law’ context. I had read it in an ‘enforcement’ context. If the cops don’t enforce the law, the law is moot. So maybe someone living there can clarify? Would that be you?

  5. If MDA mommy’s want to be victims that is their business. But they have no right to try and make others victims as well.

  6. “ Citizens would be able to tote their weapons into what gun lobby propaganda describes as ‘victim zones’ — places presumably in need of vigilantism.”

    In addition to the snide use of the term “tote”, and the implicit denial that “gun free zones” are, in fact – not merely in “gun lobby propaganda, defenseless victim zones — the NYT spouts the tired old conflation of self-defense with “vigilantism”.
    In accordance with with the non-violent tenets of much of the NYT readership, the editors would advise relying on the “No Guns Allowed” signs, and not offering any effective, armed resistance to a killer exercising his legal guarantee of non-interference in that defenseless victim zone.
    The editors are concerned that permitting such violence in response to violence will only make matters worse. If that “No Guns” sign is not obeyed, it is a matter for the police to handle. We are urged to be patient, and await the arrival of the “professionals”. Certainly, it is not the place of those designated victims to “take the law into their hands” and stop the killing.

  7. Do people think that concealed carriers are like hunters in open season for people?

    “Oh great, I can carry my gun into this place and shoot everyone!” seems to be the rationale behind the outrage over being able to carry your own property that you are licensed to own.

    How in the hell does that mindset make any sort of sense? The point of legally carrying a concealed weapon is to protect yourself from a threat and not be conspicuous about it, hence “concealed carry.”

    It makes zero sense for someone to go through the hoops and hurdles to carry a weapon to barge through the first establishment that allows carry, and start blasting everyone away. If you wanted to just start blasting away then you wouldn’t get a damn license, am I right?

  8. Am I a bad person for wanting people who intends to harm children to be met by deadly force if necessary?

    Given the choice I would gladly sacrifice Bank security for the sake of our children. Come to think of it, why is the preident better protected than our kids?

  9. Excluding unlicensed carry, aka open carry, is dangerous to the individual right to keep and bear arms. The right is being supplanted by a privilege. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Special carve-outs are the bricks in such a road.

  10. There is something worse than guns there. Runny nosed, crying,likely spoiled children. On a more serious note, Having actually read the article, my question is SO WHAT? As to this Ohio branch of Moms Demand Action, possibly the “action” they “demand” might be found in their bedrooms. As to the output of the N.Y. Times, have they yet discovered which is the handle end as opposed to which is the dangerous end of a firearm?

  11. Excellent. Too bad the victims in today’s terror attack were in a gun free zone. A day care worker is better prepared.

  12. A point of clarification: [Please read the entire post and find out exactly what Jesus thought about concealed carry and defense of others.

    Probably the most misinterpreted passage of the Bible when it comes to persons defending themselves (or countries waging war or capital punishment) is the commandment:

    “Thou shalt not kill.” — Exodus 20:13 KJV

    Unfortunately, what many so-called religious authorities fail to tell when arguing against self-defense by quoting this bit of scripture is that there are several words in the Hebrew language which express the verb “kill.”

    The Hebrew word used in this commandment ALWAYS means “murder” and ONLY in what would now be called a “pre-meditated” murder at that.

    Unfortunately, the word “kill” has changed since the time of King James when the first major translation of the Bible into English was carried out. The “kill” would more properly be translated as “murder” as far as modern English usage is concerned and, in fact, many modern translations of the Bible generally use “murder” in this passage. Check it out in a modern language translation of the Bible or–better yet–with someone who knows Hebrew.

    This Bible passage deals with murder, not self-defense and it is a grave mistake to interpret is as prohibiting self-defense. Thus the commandment is simply “Thou shalt not MURDER.”

    Then he said unto them,
    “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.”
    —Luke 22:36, KJV

    And they said, Lord, Behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them,

    “It is enough.”
    —Luke 22:38, KJV

    NOTE: During this time that part of the world was under Roman Law. It was ILLEGAL for anyone not a Roman Citizen to be armed – WITH ANY TYPE WEAPON. The Disciples were not Roman Citizens. It is obvious that Jesus approved being armed for self defense – and having the weapon concealed.

    In fact, the Bible makes the assumption that men and women will defend themselves against someone intent on harming them. (It’s interesting that only in our “enlightened” times do intellectuals start questioning the idea that people have a perfect and natural right to defend themselves.)


Comments are closed.