One can only stand in awe

The New York Times has topped every previous effort in arrogance, condescension and outright lying in an editorial today entitled "A Day Without Guns"*. Let's have a look at it:

Twenty years ago, the Florida Legislature cravenly decided to allow “law abiding” citizens to carry concealed weapons merely by declaring their preference for self-defense. Then last July, at the prodding of the gun lobby, the current crop of state lawmakers proved they could be even more corrupt and cowardly than their predecessors by deciding to make the list of gun-toting Floridians a secret.

In the military they would call this a "target rich environment". First of all notice the scare quotes around the phrase law abiding before the word citizens. To the left-liberals who write for The New York Times there is absolutely no premium attached to being one who obeys the law. If fact if you look at who they reserve the most sympathy for, who they advocate for and whose behavior they consistently seek to excuse the Times obviously has a preference for law breakers. And given their position on amnesty for illegal aliens (otherwise known as alien criminals) they have no particular love of citizens either.

Then we see that the Times describes the Florida legislature as "craven" for allowing those "law abiding" citizens to carry concealed "merely by declaring their preference for self-defense". Now this is so poorly written that it is difficult to discern its meaning, however what they are getting at is that the Florida legislature bowed to the will of the majority in passing a "shall issue" concealed carry law (meaning that law enforcement must issue a carry permit to anyone who meets the state imposed standards). The editors at the Times obviously prefer a totalitarian form of government which takes little or no notice of the will of its subjects. I'm sure that Brezhnev thought that Jimmy Carter was craven for stepping down just because he lost an election too.

Next the legislature is called "corrupt and cowardly" for listening to the "gun lobby" (notice the scare quotes again), in other words the hated will of the hated people, again and voting not to make public the names of carry permit holders. In other words they decided to not tell criminals which houses to break into in order to steal firearms, specifically easily concealed firearms.

Now sane people are probably wondering why the Times has a problem with a measure which will make it harder for criminals to obtain firearms. Well one must remember that the Times editors are left-liberals so whatever else they are they are NOT sane. To them the harassment and endangering of lawful gun owners, especially gun owners who have signaled their intention to take responsibility for their own lives and safety, is infinitely more important than merely keeping violent criminals away from guns and protecting innocent people's lives. After all to a New York Times editor there are no innocent people there are only "innocent" people.

Enough with the first paragraph let's see if there are any other examples of bias raised to the level of the grotesque and/or factual inaccuracies:

When the law was first enacted, there were fewer than 25,000 licensed gun holders. Since then, the state roll has boomed to 410,000 and counting. As the veil descends on this dangerously macho part of the public record, enterprising articles in The Florida Sun-Sentinel are laying bare the fact that more than 1,400 people easily got gun licenses despite pleading guilty or no contest to felonies that included manslaughter, burglary and child molestation. In Broward County alone, gun licenses grew in 20 years to more than 35,000 from 25.

Sampling records just before the law took effect, the newspaper uncovered hundreds of tales of mayhem, official indifference and glaring loopholes in criminal justice protection. One man got a license after pleading no contest to manslaughter in fatally shooting his girlfriend in the head while she cooked him breakfast. Another applicant was licensed despite guilty pleas to grand theft and assault charges for holding a handgun against his roommate’s head in an argument.

Those permitted to pack concealed weapons include 216 people with outstanding criminal warrants, 128 under domestic violence injunctions and 6 registered sex offenders.

Anybody surprised that there were? Come on show of hands, anybody. . .

What is wrong with the above is that it uses the stage magician's trick of misdirection. If you read the shrill dishonest article in the Orlando Sentinel that the Times shrill dishonest editorial is based on you discover that no convicted felons have been granted licenses to carry concealed in Florida. There are people who have been accused of felonies, and charged with felonies and even pleaded guilty to felonies, but no one who has been convicted of a felony.

The "loophole" that the Times and the Sentinel are so upset over is the constitutionally mandated presumption of innocence. Which, I guess, brings us back to the Times love of totalitarian government. I suppose that in their minds the ideal Attorney General in the Hillary Clinton administration would be Mike Nifong.

Even after all this we see that the Times isn't through with their insane raving:

As in some of those states, Florida’s legislators take the position that it’s no fun to have a gun if you can’t use it. So they loosened the laws on self-defense to allow a civilian to stand and use deadly force “if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary.” If lawmakers had any sense of shame, they would undo these lethal threats to their constituents.

What does the law define as a reasonable justification for the use of deadly force? If you answered "a reasonable threat of death or grave bodily injury" you would be correct. So what the Times objects to is the fact that in Florida a person who has never been convicted of a felony, and is therefore not legally a felon, can obtain permission from the state to carry a concealed handgun and use it to defend him/herself from being murdered, maimed or raped.

The editors at the Times are also displeased that a stalker will henceforth be unable to consult the list of persons with concealed weapons permits in order to determine if the woman whose home he wishes to invade, whose body he wishes to violate, whose life he wishes to extinguish, is not legally enabled to carry a gun.

Perhaps there will be a Democrat politician in Florida who will be crazy and/or evil enough to introduce a bill in the state legislature to repeal the states concealed carry law. In honor of the esteemed editors it could be called "The New York Times' Rapist and Murderers Protection Act of 2007".

* OK, this doesn't do more than match their outright denial of the terror famine in Ukraine which was deliberately caused by Stalin, but this wins the prize for this generation.