Ammo For Sale

« « Never let a crisis go to waste | Home | The market responds » »

Surprising no one: NYT wants to ban guns

With a big, front page idiotorial:

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.

No, you can’t define them in clear ways since your paper goes out of the way to lie about current guns. And it’s not going to happen. Full stop. Even the president can’t define what you’re trying to ban.

At least the masks are off now. How about no.

One Response to “Surprising no one: NYT wants to ban guns”

  1. Rivrdog Says:

    Since the 2A is basically the policing language of the rest of the BOR, why don’t we just counter with: alrighty then, if such constitutional mods are okay, let’s just ban further discussion of changing ANYTHING in the BOR. Not okay with THAT, NYT? Then STFU about changing/banning the 2A. End of discussion. Period. Full stop.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges