NY Times Blog Offers Further Take on Gun Ruling

Further proof that The New York Times is biased and just plain hates guns; the paper offered a round-table of experts to weigh in on the issue of gun control following the SCOTUS ruling. The problem is that most of the opinions are totally anti-gun, while often suggesting that it will benefit criminals – as opposed to law-abiding citizens. What exactly is the NY Times thinking (or smoking)?

The paper calls in numerous experts and instead of offering a fair look at the issue, it takes a one-sided approach: “how might states and local governments fashion strong policies aimed at stopping gun violence?”

Most of the opinions were of the liberal ilk, but one in particular stood out:

John Feinblatt, chief policy adviser to Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York and lead architect of the Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition: “we respect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns for protection, collection and sport.”

As a gun collector who lived in New York City for 18 years I can maintain that this is just untrue. It was necessary for most of my collection to be housed outside of New York. I’m not a collector of modern firearms either. Most of the guns in my collection are World War II bolt-action rifles and semiautomatics.

For example, an M1 Garand isn’t legal because it has a bayonet mount. Even a Lee Enfield bolt-action rifle is illegal because it holds too many rounds. Clearly Mr. Feinblatt doesn’t care about, or respect the rights of law-abiding citizens.