NYT thinks airport travelers shouldn’t be able to defend themselves against Islamic terrorists

Thursday, January 19, 2017 by

Aside from the First Amendment, the editors and reporters at The New York Times have little use for most other provisions of the Constitution, and that is particularly true about the Second Amendment.

While lawmakers elected by the people in state after state around the country have passed legislation recognizing law abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms no matter where they go, the Times and other Left-wing, discredited purveyors of fake news continue to push the narrative that Americans should be unarmed and helpless in the face of danger.

In a Jan. 12 editorial—about one week after an ISIS-inspired suspect gunned down innocent, defenseless travelers at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport in Florida—the Times argued against allowing law-abiding citizens to actually utilize their constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense in unsecured areas of airports, calling such an idea “delusional.”

So in other words, noted Brietbart in a rebuttal, “the contention that concealed carry permit holders would shoot back and stop the attack rather than collapse in fear and cry like children is crazy.” And it’s ‘wacko’ for citizens to want to protect themselves in this age of terrorism.

The Times, in its editorial, quoted Florida state Rep. Jake Raburn, R-57, as saying, “There could have been the potential for people to protect themselves in that situation.” As such, he subsequently introduced legislation that would allow citizens with concealed carry permits to carry a firearm in unsecured parts of Florida airports (which means people would still have to get ‘permission’ from the state government to exercise their constitutional right). This law would actually put Florida in line with 44 other states that allow concealed carry permit holders in unsecured parts of airports. [RELATED: Stay current with the latest firearms data at Guns.news]

But no, the Times editorial board proclaims; that’s “delusional,” adding “the grim truth is that concealed-carry permit holders are rarely involved in stopping crime.” The editorial continues by claiming that there is a chance that concealed carry permit holders would actually carry out mass shootings, then attempted to back up that ridiculous claim with ‘evidence’ from a Violence Policy Center study, a group that hates the Second Amendment.

Breitbart reports that the editorial doesn’t note that the center used quotes from debunked Harvar researcher David Hemenway, nor does it address the unrefuted work of Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, whose work, for more than two decades, has shown that about 760,000 defensive gun uses take place every year in the U.S., and that is likely a minimum number.

All of that is well and good—truthful data from legitimate, replicable, peer-reviewed scientific studies are always helpful when advocating for any public policy—but something more is needed at this point in time when it comes to the “gun control” debate, and frankly, it is a major dose of reality.

The usual Left-wing suspects in the discredited establishment media, academia and the Democratic Party are always going to take the side of the armed criminal who doesn’t abide by state or federal gun laws when using a firearm to kill, by advocating for the denial of our Second Amendment rights. Further, they’re always going to lie about the statistics regarding legitimate gun use, all while attempting to use irrational, illogical fear to press for more gun control statutes.

However, in example after example of mass shootings, we have seen several constants that the Left wants us to ignore like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz:

1) Mass shootings are rare in the first place, but they generally occur in so-called ‘gun-free’ zones where it is illegal to carry a firearm for self-defense;

2) Most shootings are being carried out by drug-crazed individuals or actual terrorists, not ordinary citizens.

With these two realizations in mind, most states have since adopted real ‘common-sense’ gun laws—statutes that recognize a citizen’s inalienable right to self-defense with a firearm, rather than laws that further constrain our Second Amendment rights and make us far more vulnerable to the unthinkable. [RELATED: Read how our rights under constant assault at Liberty.news]

Lovers of freedom don’t have to be armed if they choose not to be. The Second Amendment does not create a mandate that all citizens have to be armed (unlike Obamacare, which mandates that all citizens have to be insured). But it does recognize a universal right to do so if the individual sees fit, and that is the argument gun rights groups should concentrate on the most.

Pro-gun lawmakers who want to expand, rather than restrict, gun rights aren’t “delusional.” In fact, they’re the ones who are engaging in clear thinking. It’s people like the members of the Times editorial board who need to get their heads screwed on correctly so they can see how they’ve been aiding and abetting mass murder.

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.






comments powered by Disqus

Please like our Facebook Page
Show us your support by liking our page!
Close This Box