New York Times supports citizens having "assault weapons"

Never thought we would see the day.

The New York Times published a piece that wrote approvingly of average Ukrainian citizens taking up arms to defend themselves, their families, and their country. They're being given thousands of what the Times had in previous articles referred to as "assault rifles", for which most of them will have had little to no training at all.

Armed with assault rifles, civilian volunteers prepare to defend Kyiv. Megan Specia. February 25, 2022
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/0...es-civilian-volunteers-prepare-to-defend-kyiv

Why the about turn of face here? Did the New York Times make a blunder, or let an article inadvertently slip by them? No, rather progressives are just very much against Putin's government, and Ukraine happens to be a little bastion of relative progressivism in the region of Eastern Europe.

Tons of double standards and hypocrisy from these people.

Remember also, Hillary (as Secretary of State under President Obama) had big pallets shipped overseas to flood Libya and Syria with guns, in hopes of trying to help topple the governments there.

It seems Progressives are perfectly fine with giving guns to civilians in other parts of the world, but just don't want the people in their own countries to have them.

 

Look at why they are sending them.

 

Those Ukrainian civilians with assault rifles are much more pro Second Amendment than the typical American gun owner (even though they don't realize it). I'm sure they realize the value of collective action in an organized military force. The US gun lobby, in contrast, has spent decades trying to nullify the militia clause of the Second Amendment. But the Second Amendment should be interpreted holistically. There is no conflict between the first and second clauses. The Founding Fathers wanted citizens to bear arms in a well-regulated militia.

 

False. There is no connection between the present participle and the absolute clause. The subject of the second amendment is People and the verb is shall.

In any case getting back to the point, I dont ever want to hear a leftist says the following again:
"What are you going to do with you ar-15 vs an actual army?"

 

They also recognized an individual right to bear arms for self defense not linked to militia membership.

 

Sure sounds like they are reporting what is happening in Ukraine rather than supporting the idea that Americans should carry assault weapons.

Ukrainians are armed with military weapons because......they are fighting a war against a foreign invader.

 

I guess the NYT can see the difference between the citizens of Ukraine at present and the citizens of the US at present. Can you?

 

If a tyrannical government ever tried to impose its will on the US, what party would be in power when that happened?

 

That's bullshit, of course, however I still have some good news for you! The US actually has a "reguated militia", and the law defines that as every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 49, and at least half of us are or were members whether or not we even knew it. I'm also sure, if pushed, things like equal protection would essentially lift both the gender and upper age requirements, meaning if militia membership is required to own "arms" (and it's not) we're still covered!

Isn't that wonderful??

 

Luckily by law there is no requirement for militia service connected to the second amendment. Nor has their ever been.

 

Not sure what that has to do with my comment or the OP, but sure, I'll play along.

I think it would be the weakest party. I think it would be the party that had no policies. The party that played politics at every turn. The party that couldn't seem to come together, censuring those who dared to think differently. The party that spent their money bailing out a previous president. The party that preferred to live with and promote a big lie. A party that refused to consider the will of 'the people'. The party that worked diligently to ensure limited voting by those they were afraid would not vote for them. A party that limited the rights of women. A party that refused to live in the year 2022. A party that didn't do anything to appeal to the future voters in the country. In general, a floundering party.

 

Run by the individual states, not the federal government.

You totally misunderstand the meaning of the text in this part of the Constitution. The US gun lobby has never been against the militia part of the Second Amendment. It's just they reject the interpretation of people like you on the extent to which that relates to the rights of individual persons.

This is a separate topic, of course, so we can discuss it somewhere else.

 

I see, so the Progressive Left approves of guns in the hands of civilians if it is in order to fight a government. (Russia, in this case)

Very interesting...

 

I’ve seen some anti gun people on this forum respond to public owning firearms arguments as of recent with quotes like “we’ll see how it works for Ukraine”, being smug as if they thought it wouldn’t help. But they’re putting up a good fight in my opinion.

our founders have quotes how an armed populace is better than any standing army.

 

Probably most of the anti gun people right now believe Ukraine will win the conflict with Russia. (Mainly because that's what they hope will happen, and based on the naively unrealistically positive Left-leaning news media coverage)

 

That’s not the impression I’ve been getting. But I do think they’re doing much better than anticipated by most including myself.

If Afghanistan can beat a super power why can’t Ukraine I suppose.

 

I think that it's very unlikely that the Ukrainians can keep Putin from seizing as much of Ukraine as he wants but the real challenge for Putin will be to hold what he occupies against what is certain to be stiff Ukrainian resistance.

By the way, a significant difference between Afghanistan and Ukraine is the terrain which was a significant factor in favor of the Afghans.

 

Ukraine is bad ass.

 

The NYT isn't expressing an opinion either way - it's a news report, not an editorial.

 

44 million Ukrainians.
Arm half of them with gasoline bombs and throw them at the closest Soviet soldier or vehicle.

 

It doesn't look like they need gasoline bombs however I've seen news film footage of people making them.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian arsenals are already passing out small arms and grenades to anyone who wants one.
At the same time foreign countries are either giving or selling Stinger missiles and anti-tank ordinance to Ukraine(1).

Their problem is that they don't control the skies and are still vastly outgunned and outnumbered. They are, however, well equipped to make a foreign occupier very uncomfortable.

Mr. Putin may very well have just bought himself a very costly headache for years to come.



(1) "Germany to Arm Ukraine in Major Policy Reversal"
"Berlin will send anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles to help Kyiv fight off Russia."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/02/26/germany-weapons-ukraine-russia-war-anti-tank-stinger/

EXCERPT "Scholz’s decision to supply 1,000 anti-tank weapons and 500 Stinger missiles to the Ukrainian military, which is facing three lines of Russian assault, comes as other NATO allies are also sending more military aid to Ukraine." CONTUED

 

I still don't think that we'll ever see the day when the NY Times ever supports the right of the American citizen to own an "assault weapon" and especially a select fire pistol, carbine or rifle like the ones the Ukrainian government is handing out.

 

~ I was hoping this headline was referring to Chicago ...

 

You have it backwards. The people must be weakened first. We all know which party is most responsible for weakening individual citizens by imposing gun laws. They defend the rights of women as long as she doesn't want a gun, or refuse to consume a pharma product. Both parties suck, but one is in the lead when it comes to big government/small citizen.

 

Here's an old infamous quote from comedian-commentator Ann Coulter about the New York Times:
"The New York Times editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only three answers, no matter what the question. The answers are: higher taxes, more restrictions on political speech and stricter gun control."