“Confession time. I actually tried to kill someone with an assault weapon once. It wasn’t my fault really as the other guy tried to kill me and a few of my friends first with his own assault weapon. But since it occurred when I was a Marine in Iraq, it all seemed like fair game. Then, my friends and I all tried to kill this guy together because that’s what friends do I guess.” Jeff Edwards
Yesterday the Editorial Board of the New York Times published an 0p-ed call to action entitled, End the Gun Epidemic in America. The tag line? “It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.” In it they discuss those “weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.”
Yeah. Insurrection. Moral outrage. Lack of a sense of decency.
So, we were going to write a response to this peurile, disingenuous article, but our head hurt so bad after reading it we just couldn’t do it. You ever see or hear something so stupid it gives you Forest Whitaker eye? Hits your skull with so much fatuous, contrived fuckery that you’re afraid it’s gonna do a Darryl Revok number on you? Yeah, that was us.
Grunts: peurile.
Luckily for us, Jeff Edwards of Unprecedented Mediocrity did so first, and he was far more eloquent (and polite) about it than we woulda been. Which is a Good Thing.
An Open Letter to the New York Times Editorial Board on Guns
by Jeff Edwards
I am actually not ashamed of America. You indicate that it is a “moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.” And while I will address the “speed and efficiency” point soon, let me first address the outrage part. Slavery was a moral outrage and a national disgrace. The ensuing lack of civil rights for African-Americans was a moral outrage and a national disgrace. And when America woke up to realize that, they changed the constitution to reflect it. For that reason, I am not ashamed of America.
We will always self-correct as time goes on and sooner or later, America gets what America wants. However, the founders set an intentionally high bar on altering the rights they fought to secure. A simple majority won’t get it done, but a morally outraged nation can make it happen quite quickly. Yes, the founders perhaps didn’t foresee the advancement of modern weapons of war, but they didn’t foresee women getting the right to vote either. It was a moral outrage and national disgrace that women couldn’t vote at one point in our nation’s history, but when America woke up to realize that, they changed the constitution to reflect it. For that reason, I am not 
ashamed of America.
However, I would be ashamed of an America that allowed women to vote, but said they had to complete 20 pull-ups to do so. I would be ashamed of an America that prohibited a poll tax, but charged $500 for parking outside a polling station. I would be ashamed of an America who says we have the right to free speech, but makes words that could be offensive or hurt someone’s feelings criminal as apparently 40% of millennials would preference. I would be ashamed of an America that said 18-year-olds had the right to vote, but they had to prove they weren’t an absolute idiot first. Now wait, that last one is actually not a bad idea. But the point is, if it was indeed a moral outrage as you called it, then America would respond as we always have in kind. It is called the 2nd Amendment because it is literally the 2nd one on the list, not an afterthought. To alter it with anything less than the Constitution itself would in fact be, a moral outrage and national disgrace.
Want to read more? You know you do. Check out the rest of what he has to say right here.
Mad Duo, Breach-Bang& CLEAR!
Comms Plan
Primary: Subscribe to our newsletter here, get the RSS feed and support us on Patreon right here.
Alternate: Join us on Facebook here or check us out on Instagram here.
Contingency: Exercise your inner perv with us on Tumblr here, follow us on Twitter here or connect on Google + here.
Emergency: Activate firefly, deploy green (or brown) star cluster, get your wank sock out of your ruck and stand by ’til we come get you.
Gang, let me lay a chunk-O nyt on you that perchance missed in the past. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html?_r=3
Finding juicy little nuggets like this is why leftards are so desperate to control people’s access to the intrawebsthingy Algore;The Goreacle invented. 😉
Sirs
You are playing into the left’s disingenuous way with words. You, as professionals must know that ‘assault weapons’ were prohibited in the 1980’s. The long guns sold today are NOT assault weapons. They are semi-automatic sporting rifles. Please note that assault weapons have specific methods of firing, whereas commercial long guns sold today can only be semi-automatic. Please refrain from falling into the left’s verbal traps, as they use these words to intimidate, bully and prevaricate.
J.Johnson is right. They just write what they want to sway all the “regular” folks into thinking falsely. They don’t write the truth and that is their downfall. I just read and re-read “Automatic” weapons and handguns. Over and over, and assault or the new one, “assault-style” rifles in the NY times articles and many online articles as well. Now NJ legislators are trying to tell us they are going to pass laws to keep terrorists from getting weapons! hahaha
If it wasn’t so crazy it would be funny.
Sooo, does the L1A1, used by the British Army for 30 years, AND is Semi-Automatic, qualify? How about I, as a member of the LEFT, use the term “Battle Rifle” then. Would that be less disingenuous for you? I can also do a mag dump from an AR almost as fast, and far more accurately, as an M4 on 3 round or FA.
“…elected leaders whose job it is to keep us safe…” is the great tag line from that article.
Well said Jeff.
Semper Fidelis!