Last week, the New York Times called for gun confiscation in an editorial that was posted for the first time in nearly one hundred years on its front page, but the majority of its readers and the current trend in gun buying, gun training and gun ownership are completely against them.

In End the Gun Epidemic in America, the Times said, "It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. . . . It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition. . . . 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."

Later, the paper admitted that confiscation of millions of semi-automatics rifles and shotguns "might not have prevented the San Bernardino shooting." However, they just "wanted to shout our frustration and anger from our rooftop."

Well, no one cares about anyone's frustration. If they did, the New York Times would be calling for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama, wouldn't they?

Rival paper, The Washington Post, blasted NYT by writing, "Swing voters in Middle America aren't its subscribers, and the swing voters in Congress don't have to appeal to voters who care much about what the New York Times thinks." In other words, no one cares what the New York Times thinks!

"In fact, you could make a pretty convincing case that this would have the opposite of the intended effect by overreaching on something most Americans simply don't think will do much to prevent mass shootings," The Post added.

That's exactly right. Most thinking, sane people understand that you cannot stop someone from attempting to commit a crime. It's just the way things are. However, you can do something to hedge your bet that you won't be the victim of such a crime or even stop a crime in progress by being armed and trained with a gun. In fact, I'll go further. While the Second Amendment was written to protect God-given rights to both keep and bear arms, we have a duty before God and one another to arm ourselves defensively.

What's even more delicious in the NYT story is that the paper periodically surveys their readers on a variety of topics. For the past 20 years, they've been surveying readers on their support of an "assault weapons ban." This year came some very shocking results. What have been the results?

  • 1995 - 67% support, 27% opposed
  • 2011 - 63% support, 34% opposed
  • 2015 - 44% support, 50% opposed

Isn't that telling? It seems the more the engineered mass shootings take place, the more the public realizes just how important it is to be armed. The more the idiotic and lying gun grabbers talk, the more ridiculous they appear. There may be many sheeple out there for sure, but with the rise in gun sales, especially under Barack Hussein Obama, I'd say there are plenty of Americans who can clearly see the need to exercise the very rights that this administration and this paper would love to strip from them.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.