Op-Ed Piece: Why No-Buy List Laws Deprive Everyone of Their Liberties

Not open for further replies.


May 31, 2008
Nicely thought out Op-Ed article against No-Buy laws in, yes, the NY Times. The author talks about the minute percentage of people on the proposed list eligible to legally buy guns, most are non-residents or foreign nationals. Also goes into the unconstitutional basis of appearing on a no-fly list. which is the core of the no-buy law.

Here's the piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/01/o...-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
I picture in my mind a cartoon of the devil seated at a table with this article lying in front of him. There are icicles hanging from his horns and snow drifted up all around him and he's shivering. He is talking on the telephone saying, "Yeah, the last time this happened was in '69 when the Mets won the pennant!"
Makes me wonder what is happening at the New York Times. I won’t go so far as to say they have had a few pro-gun editorials recently, but they have had some that were not anti-gun.
No, this is in the Gray Lady's wheelhouse--the No Fly List is clearly discriminatory to wimmins an' minorities.

Gun owners just happen to be an unfortunate part of that 'scrimination (we all know they belong on the ash heap of Hystory).

A four-leaf clover amid the thousands of cow patties the NYT churns out daily, sad to say.
The American Civil Liberties Union has come out against adding the no-fly list to the NICS "prohibited person" list so the NYT publishing a guest editorial against the idea is not a surprise.

NYT Editorial Board, "The N.R.A.'s Complicity in Terrorism", New York Times, 16 Jun 2016.
"The horrific massacre in Orlando last weekend is only the latest example. And all this is made vastly easier by a gun lobby that has blocked sensible safety measures at every turn, and by members of Congress who seem to pledge greater allegiance to the firearms industry than to their own constituencies. There is a word for their role in this form of terrorism: complicity."
This included the NRA's opposition to adding people on the no-fly and terror watchlist to the NICS "prohibited person" list.

Which editorial represents the NYT's actual position?
The latter anti-gun stance is the actual mood of the paper, but they do allow opposing guest op-ed pieces, which is what i posted.

Although I read it every day and enjoy their worldwide news coverage, I'm finding it disturbing that more and more they're allowing their political stance to enter into actual news reporting, which should, theoretically, be neutral.
Yes, it is admirable that NYT will publish an op-ed contrary to their editorial stance in the op-ed or editorial page.

However, it has been my observation that their news section on gun issues has always been slanted toward support for the 1911 N.Y. Sullivan Act as unquestionably the model for the nation and has demonized any opposing view. That comes from my spending time in the 1960s in the local public library reasearching everything I could find in the Readers Guide to Periodical Literature under the heading Firearms Legislation.

Currently NYT has had Section A Page 1 front page op-eds supporting gun control. Unlike the 1960s, they have allowed more opposing views on the op-ed sections.
Which editorial represents the NYT's actual position?

They are editorials. They are not offered to stand for a new sources "actual position." They are simply food for thought.

This one happens to be a filet mignon, while most of the food they offer is McDonalds.
Not open for further replies.