Tags Posts tagged with "New york Times"

New york Times

by -
13 1012

If you publicly express the idea that you have a right to own a gun or think people should have to show I.D. before they vote, you might deserve the violence progressive activists seek to inflict upon you. It’s hard too see a recent op-ed published by the N.Y. Times as anything other than glaring support of violent anti-free speech “protests” that have been silencing skeptics of the progressive faith. While it’s not exactly shocking that the Times would publish such an article, it does reflect how rapidly the left is moving towards acceptance of violent authoritarianism.

In an article entitled “What Snowflakes Get Right About Free Speech” an essentially fascist professor, Ulrich Baer, of New York University argues that students are right to shut down speech.

Free-speech protections — not only but especially in universities, which aim to educate students in how to belong to various communities — should not mean that someone’s humanity, or their right to participate in political speech as political agents, can be freely attacked, demeaned or questioned.

Ulrich then claims that Ben Carson saying that that transgender people are men and women in disguise, invalidates their humanity. It gets even crazier, he then claims that Trump calling the media “enemies of the American people” delegitimizes whole groups of people thus constituting hate speech. Literally, the next paragraph, Ulrich hypocritically infers that the historical model of free speech that most Americans support is a “clear and present danger to our democracy.” It’s OK for Ulrich to call you a threat to the republic, but don’t you dare do the same to him!

Ulrich isn’t so much a hypocrite as he is an authoritarian, he simply thinks that might makes right. His tribe is superior to yours and will silence speech that threatens their quest for power and domination over you. True progressivism is simply about power.


by -
28 1401

This fall we could be witnessing another major Supreme Court decision on guns. At issue is concealed carry in San Diego, where it is basically impossible for an average citizen to obtain a permit to carry a gun outside the home.

From the gun hating New York Times:

The plaintiffs argue that given the ban on open carry — which is being challenged in a separate lawsuit filed last August in Federal District Court in Los Angeles — the San Diego sheriff’s restrictive policy on concealed carry means that as a practical matter, “the typical law-abiding resident cannot bear a handgun for self-defense outside the home at all.” The question is whether there is any such right.

Significantly, in ruling against the plaintiffs last June by a vote of 7 to 4, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit didn’t actually answer that question. That fact may deter the Supreme Court from hearing the appeal — or, depending on the justices’ appetite for a major gun case, it may prove irrelevant. The justices have the power to frame just about any question they want to answer. If they want to decide the core question of whether the Second Amendment gives the right to carry a gun, in some manner, any manner, outside the home — which is to say, if four justices think they can count on an eventual fifth vote for that proposition, then this will be the case to grant.

It would be an activist grant, but that’s nothing new; remember last winter when the court agreed to hear a challenge to President Obama’s deportation-deferral program and added the politically charged question, not addressed by the lower court, of whether the president had violated his constitutional duty to “take care” to enforce the law. (That case ended in a 4-4 tie, with the question — almost surely framed by Justice Scalia — left unanswered.)

In his majority opinion for the Ninth Circuit last June, Judge William A. Fletcher explained why the court wasn’t answering the broad question. Because the plaintiffs were complaining only about the San Diego sheriff’s approach to concealed carry and had not directly challenged the state’s open-carry ban, Judge Fletcher wrote, “we do not reach the question whether the Second Amendment protects some ability to carry firearms in public, such as open carry.” Rather, he said, “we reach only the question whether the Second Amendment protects, in any degree, the ability to carry concealed firearms in public.”

And he answered the question this way: “Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources, we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment — whatever the scope of that protection may be — simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public.”

The New York Times recognizes that the matter before the courts can be framed as whether or not there is any protection whatsoever for citizens who wish to carry guns outside of their homes. Progressives are not happy with the way this issue can be framed, since the plaintiff is not asserting a specific right to open carry or concealed carry. The plaintiff is simply saying that some form of carry must be permitted.

That smart line of argument increases the odds of another victory for gun owners. Of course, the Supreme Court has to decide to hear the case, but if they do; gun owners in ultra-restrictive blue states could be given some form of relief. Fresh off several major victories in replacing “may issue” permit laws with “shall issue” ones, the NRA and California Pistol and Rifle Association could score a big victory here.


0 38
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a controversial organization. People generally either love them or they hate them, and, certainly, many politically conservative...