New York Times anti-gun agenda not limited to editorial page

Posted: February 13, 2015 by gamegetterII in anti-gun asshattery
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Via David Codrea..

The Wednesday ruling that the federal ban on interstate handgun transfers is unconstitutional, and that Attorney General Eric Holder and ATF Director B. Todd Jones have been enjoined from enforcing that provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968, is unquestionably huge news. While no one knows at this point what an appeal will result in, the “strict scrutiny” standard employed by U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor and his definitive opinion that the ban “is unconstitutional on its face” is sending shock waves through the citizen disarmament community, trying its best to downplay the significance of this setback to their goals.

Case in point: Here’s the Everytown Twitter feed. Do you see any mention of the Feb. 11 ruling? Ditto, not a word on their Facebook page. And here’s Everytown’s “In the News” web page. How about there?

It’s almost like they don’t want people to know something in order to protect an agenda.

Guess which “Gray Lady” that reminds me of?

In fairness, the online edition of The New York Times did post a Reuters filing on Feb. 11, but nothing from The Times’ staff. Funny thing though. I just got back from my hometown library, where they have a subscription to the national edition of The Times, and I couldn’t find the story in their print edition. I looked through copies from Wednesday, Thursday and today.

I found their editorial where they were Mugwort VPC-Steaming each other over the chances of being murdered by a “concealed carry killer” notching up a thousandth of a percentage point over lightning strikes. I even found something about such a lightning strike, that North Carolina nutjob all the “progressives” are glossing over an SPLC connection on (so no mention of that, of course). There was a feature on the “American Sniper” trial, and another on an “Only One” from Colorado who shot a skateboarder in the back, and even a front page feature today memorializing a dead, drug-abusing Times employee swearing he’d done a lot of bad things in his day, but carrying a [GASP!] gun isn’t one of them (until he was contradicted by witnesses who remembered it).

But a landmark decision that could nullify a major piece of “gun control” the antis have been counting on infringing with for almost half a century? If it’s in there, it managed to elude my old eyes. Of course, it could be a new feature, a “find the article” game for those no good at snobbishly obscure crossword puzzles, and in fairness, I didn’t look in the “Food” section.

What did I say a couple paragraphs back?

It’s almost like they don’t want people to know something in order to protect an agenda.

Then again, maybe I’m not being fair. Maybe, just like when Fast and Furious could have brought down an administration had the “legitimate news media” been doing its job instead of running interference for criminal government activity, this just isn’t their scoop.

Yeah, because after all, they’re “the newspaper of record.” That must be it.

  1. kamas716 says:

    Reblogged this on westfargomusings and commented:
    A judge makes a good, and very important, ruling and most of the media skip it? Color me shocked!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s