Actually, The New York Times is correct when they said on their front page editorial against gun ownership—“no right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.” That is why I propose in the wake of the gross mismanagement of the events that led up to the San Bernardino shootings that we possibly reword the American Constitution to clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment for all. The New York Times showed why they are losing readership and nearing bankruptcy, because they don’t understand the world outside of their little building in New York City. They certainly don’t understand the necessity of guns in American culture. Read part of their much talked about and misguided editorial for further gun control below. My terminology for the rewording would be to clarify that guns are needed in American culture because government often does fail, and that gun owners must possess at least equal armaments for their own protection in the event of such administrative failures as those on full display in the terrorist acts leading up to the San Bernardino massacre—which was clearly the fault of the Obama administration and the Homeland Security under his management from the executive office. Americans can’t be limited by clip counts and weapons types by legislation that puts more powerful weapons in the hands of government than what the citizen employers of those organizations possess themselves. What the New York Times proposes below is just stupid. They have the situation backwards. We need more guns with fewer restrictions, not fewer guns with more restrictions. Here is what they said:
It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. America’s elected leaders offer prayers for gun victims and then, callously and without fear of consequence, reject the most basic restrictions on weapons of mass killing, as they did on Thursday. They distract us with arguments about the word terrorism. Let’s be clear: These spree killings are all, in their own ways, acts of terrorism.
It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.
Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, and certain kinds of ammunition, must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
Let me clarify a “moral outrage” for The New York Times—a president who failed to acknowledge that ISIS (Not ISIL) is a major threat in spreading a global caliphate, which he had a hand in creating through his actions—then not communicating that failure properly to the American people. What is outrageous is the decision to allow the media to completely contaminate the crime scene of the San Bernardino terrorists just two days after they were shot and killed. Astonishingly the media was allowed to enter the apartment the two lived in and put their fingerprints all over the possessions contained therein. The apartment had not even been dusted for prints so this was an obvious move by the FBI and the Obama administration in coordination with local law enforcement to allow for the destruction of evidence so that connections to other terrorist suspects could be eliminated. The White House needed to maintain the story that the two acted alone, instead of being part of a more extensive group. This was highly corrupt, and if the highest law enforcement in America is prone to making these kinds of terrible judgment calls, they are not capable to make decisions on civilian’s behalf in regards to armament. Forget restrictions of full automatic weapons or ammunition types, like the .223. Those restrictions need to be removed because you never know when some government employee, like one of the terrorists in this California case was—might lose their mind, destroy evidence, abuse their authority, or allow themselves to be pawns from a corrupt executive branch in the future—and assault the innocent with the most aggressive weapons invented. American civilians need to be able to protect themselves from anything, enemies foreign and domestic.
But let me declare to The New York Times the greatest outrage—the cover-up—or the attempted cover-up of the nature of the terrorist couple themselves, the family lawyer who immediately tried to pacify the situation and media outlets like The New York Times from jumping all over guns instead of the actions of one of their own. In his online dating “Arab Lounge” profile where he met Tashfeen Malik, Syed Farook described himself as a devoted Muslim who was “very liberal,” politically. Farook was a creation of government. It took two full days before a picture of Tashfeen was produced essentially because she was always seen in a hijab marking her clearly as a Muslim and the government didn’t want the American people to start blaming all Muslims for being potential terrorists. When the FBI and White House realized they couldn’t contain the story they did the opposite, they allowed the media to contaminate the crime scene. They took away all references that they could find to other terrorist groups within the United States then let the media destroy all the rest of the evidence with over saturation of exposure instead of trying to limit access.
These are the types of people who want to demand that Americans give up their guns and trust government exclusively. Every level of this San Bernardino terrorist act was provoked by a government employee—from the shooter himself down to the investigators on the ground. The New York Times has the same radicalized liberal beliefs as Syed Farook and they are seeking to deflect the argument of potential terrorism away from liberal issues onto guns at the expense of freedom. There is nothing reasonable about gun control proposals when all the guilty in this case were the type of government employees we all need to protect ourselves from. The situation is just appalling. Our government cannot be trusted, and America needs guns to protect themselves from their employees as well as common thugs and miscreants in general. What would be best is just to lift all restrictions on ammo and explosive devices and let the free market take care of this encroaching problem. Liberals built this mess—these terrorist networks and the people who make them up. They don’t get to disarm us from the ramifications of their failure as well. That’s not how it works. The New York Times even for a very liberal publication should at least have known that much. They certainly shouldn’t have put that editorial on their front page because gun ownership was not the cause of the problem. It was the lack of a defense from the victims and the nurturing of domestic terrorism that all liberals helped create through their actions that is most to blame—and the clear attempt to cover up the evidence from the highest office of the White House to the cops on the scene. They knew the names, they saw their appearance once the terrorist couple had been gunned down in the street—appropriately—but they attempted to contain the story from the outset and when they realized how deep it went, they looked to isolate them from the connections to others which undoubtedly extended to more terrorist cells around the United States. And these same idiots think it appropriate to lecture America about gun rights? It is because of these types of people that we have a Second Amendment to begin with. So perhaps its time to take any vagueness out of the Constitution to clarify the real intention of civilian gun ownership—it is for protection from the employees of those civilians in attempting an insurrection—as they have been caught red-handed in hiding terrorism in America and their part in fostering it. The New York Times is as guilty as anybody on the liberal side of the political spectrum, and its time they apologize for their part in creating terrorism in America instead of camouflaging their error behind calls for more gun control.
Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman