But apparently, not to the New York Times.
— James Taranto (@jamestaranto) December 5, 2015
Mind you, they wrote “There will be post-mortems and an official search for a “motive” for this latest gun atrocity, as if something explicable had happened” back when they thought that the whole thing could be usefully blamed on the New York Times‘ domestic political opponents. …And, do you know something? When you put it that way, it doesn’t actually make the New York Times look any better.
PS: Erick Erickson took the NYT’s later, yet no less wiser, editorial, literally used it as target practice, and posted the picture.
This is what I think of the New York Times editorial today. The United States suffered its worst terrorist attacks since September 11 and the New York Times’ response is that all law-abiding citizens need their guns taken away. Screw them. The New York Times wants you to be sitting ducks for a bunch of arms jihadists who the New York Times thinks no doubt got that way because of the United States. It should be striking to every American citizen that the New York Times believes the nation should have unfettered abortion rights, a right not made explicit in the Constitution, but can have the Second Amendment right curtailed at will though it is explicitly in the Constitution. Again, we have suffered the worst terrorist attack in more than a decade and the New York Times believes now we must have our rights taken away as a response to terrorism. I hope everyone will join me in posting pictures of bulletholes in the New York Times editorial. Send them your response. Use the hashtag for my radio show and I may give you a shoutout. #EERS #glock #pewpew #2A #guns @shotspotguns A photo posted by Erick Erickson (@ewerickson) on
I doubt anybody would ask me, but: I consider that response to be a personal taste matter. For myself, I would have invited the NYT to take their editorial, shove it up their own ass, and then light the editorial on fire. But then, Erick is a Southern gentleman and I’m a NY/NJ wiseass.