It amuses and gratifies a supporter of the Second Amendment to see the New York Times, the so-called "paper of record," so constantly reduced to sputtering fools over their constant loss in the battle for draconian gun control measures, and the July 17th editorial from the Times is yet another example of how they just don't understand why the average American would pressure their Congressional representatives to support the U.S. Constitution and its 2nd Amendment.
The Times is famous for claiming to be the intelligent side of the debate on any particular issue. They claim to represent the sane or "real" American argument on the issues of the day and it is generally assumed by their supporters that they only use the highest professional standards in language and the tools of persuasion. They call themselves the "paper of record" and congratulate themselves on their status as the grown-ups of political discourse. But, they come apart at the seams whenever the 2nd Amendment is brought up, that supposed high level of discourse lowered to the sputtering, gibberish of any common extremist, the logic drained out of their efforts.
It is even more amusing that they are so shocked that their beloved 2006 Democratic Congress is thus far no better at eliminating an important part of the law of the land than any past Congress has been.
Leadership of Congress has shifted to the Democrats, but the National Rifle Association’s power to block sensible steps to curb gun violence endures. Last week, a bipartisan majority of the House Appropriations Committee bowed to the N.R.A.’s warped agenda and rebuffed two attempts to repeal a four-year-old measure that denies police and local governments broad access to federal data needed to effectively combat illegal gun trafficking.
We all know of the Times's hate for the NRA, so to see them called "warped" in a Times editorial is no shock... until one juxtaposes the Times’ claims of employing a higher standard of political discourse with the intemperate language they constantly use against those whom they hate, that is.
Be that as it may, this particular editorial shows the NYT for the unhinged extremists that they are for the logic of the thing doesn't even stand up to sensible scrutiny.
The "grown-ups" continue:
Notwithstanding this disappointing denouement, progress on another significant gun issue is tantalizingly close. Just a few weeks ago, senior Congressional Democrats reached agreement with the N.R.A. on a measure that would improve screening of prospective gun buyers for disqualifying mental health problems.
Wait a minute, NYT. If the N.R.A. is so "warped" how can they be sensible enough to compromise and settle on a "significant gun issue," one you agree with? Being able to compromise would indicate more that they are thoughtful opponents as opposed to extremists who can never compromise, wouldn't it?
So, on one hand they call the N.R.A. "warped" then agree that they are able to compromise.
Sorry, "grown-ups", but you can't have it both ways. In fact, the name calling on your part makes it seem more like YOU are the extremists, not them.
But, is anyone really surprised at the Times's intemperate language?