Connect with us

Gun Rights

NYT: All the Cool Kids Surrendered Liberty, You Should Too!

Published

on

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”  — Ben Franklin

Is the New York Times‘ opinion section finally conceding the fact that the Bill of Rights specifically forbids the government from banning and confiscating firearms? It must be, because the tone has changed of late. These days, the NYT’s columnists have been reduced to the same argument that fictional drug pushers use: “The cool kids are doing it.” (Note we said “fictional,” because actual drug dealers don’t have to persuade anyone to take drugs.) As for what individual citizens are supposed to do to defend themselves in this European-style gun-free paradise, the NYT assures us that giving up our guns will automatically result in a society in which we “care more intimately about each other.”

As for this columnist, I would like to welcome the New York Times‘ David Brooks to use his lips to care intimately for the spot where my insides become my outsides. The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Larry Keane is a bit more polite, so we’re going to turn it over to him. Take it away, Larry!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

DECEMBER 1, 2022

DON’T BELIEVE GIVING UP RIGHTS PROVIDES SECURITY


By Larry Keane

New York Times columnist David Brooks is reminding America why they shouldn’t put faith in opinion writers pontificating from their metropolitan ivory towers.

Brooks recently said America would be a much safer country if Americans would simply give up their freedoms and become more like Europe. If America wouldn’t hold onto the individual right to keep and bear arms spelled out in the Second Amendment, and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, he argues it would be a much safer place.

In his estimation, giving up the ability for self-defense and defense of loved ones would make crime just go away.

“That would take a gigantic culture shift in this country. A revamping of the way we think about privacy, a revamping of the way we think about the role government plays in protecting the common good,” Brooks said during a segment on PBS’ “Newshour.” “I think it would be something. I think it would be good not only to head off shootings, but good to live in a society where we cared more intimately about each other. And I would be willing to give up certain privacies for that to happen.”

That’s certainly out of the mainstream of how the rest of America views lawful firearm ownership. There were over 21 million background checks for the sale of a firearm in 2020, the most ever in a single year. Last year, Americans submitted to 18.5 million background checks. In 2022, background check figures are headed for the third strongest year on record. During the week up to and including Black Friday, the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) tallied over 711,000 background checks, with over 192,000 on Black Friday alone. That was the third busiest day for FBI’s NICS ever.

The Plan: Give Up

Just how would America achieve this utopia that Brooks imagines? Just give up, he said. Give up your rights. Give up your freedoms. Submit to an Orwellian state that provides you with all your needs. He admits this wouldn’t be easy.

“But for many Americans that would just be a massive cultural shift to regard our community and regard our common good in more frankly a European style,” Brooks explained.  “I think it would benefit our society in a whole range of areas, but it’s hard to see that kind of culture change to a society that’s been pretty individualistic for a long, long time.”

America broke away from European-style rule for a reason. The Founding Fathers rejected the British crown’s demands to give up guns then. Based on background checks for gun sales, America continues to reject calls for strict gun control. A recent Gallup poll found that support for more gun control dropped nine points from 66 percent to 57 percent in an October survey.

Failed Disarmament

The argument that individuals should surrender their gun rights has been tried elsewhere with predictable results. Gun owners that complied with gun seizures find themselves unable to protect themselves while criminals that ignore the law are empowered. A recent report from ABC News in Australia showed that criminals find it easier now to obtain illicit firearms than before the multiple amnesty periods when government officials collected firearms from Australians. New Zealand instituted their own gun confiscation program and crime spiked. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern ushered in Draconian gun control, including confiscation, and the country and crime hit new peaks.

The only ones left with guns were the criminals. That’s a lesson that Canada’s grappling with now as Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is eyeing his own gun confiscation scheme and banning the transfer of any handguns. Some Canadian provinces are rejecting the heavy-handed measures. Sadly, history is replete with examples of regimes that took away its citizens firearms only to become tyrannical and turn their citizens into defenseless subjects. Those that fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. Our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence expressed their fear of a tyrannical government and enshrined our right to keep and bear arms for self defense in the Bill of Rights for a reason.

Brooks is wrong to think that ridding ourselves of rights and lawful gun ownership would reduce crime. The answer to rampant crime is more law enforcement. The changes needed to safeguard America’s communities don’t begin with turning our backs on freedoms. It starts with holding elected officials in The White House, Congress, state capitols and district attorneys responsible for not enforcing the law and failing to hold criminals accountable.

Brooks’ notion is a devil’s bargain. Americans know it. Surrendering freedom has never resulted in anything less than creating a society of victims.

15 Comments

15 Comments

  1. GomeznSA

    December 5, 2022 at 8:54 pm

    Well since courts up to the highest level have ruled many times that the ‘state’ has no duty to protect individuals but society in general, the only reasonable conclusion is that it is up to the individual to provide for his/her own security. If the folks at the slimes like the European model so much, as others have noted, they need to move there and put their fate in the hands of the big gubmint there.

  2. Had Enough

    December 5, 2022 at 5:58 pm

    With our government having been overthrown and traitors running our country; having experienced two fraudulent elections with the fraud blatant, obvious, and out in the open; having a genocidal government that creates and forces a deadly bio-weapon on its citizens; it seems increasingly more likely that Americans are going to need their weapons if they expect to get their country back and avoid being enslaved.

  3. Gero

    December 5, 2022 at 4:10 pm

    Brooks is the NY Times’ token “conservative.” As you can see, he keeps his job by not really being all that conservative in addition to the typical elitism of the chattering class. They aren’t interested in the Normal People’s rights or freedom; most don’t think we should have either (and think that they would be up there on the American version of the “Kremlin Balcony” with the Supreme Leader.) Truth is, the Brooks, Kristols and Williamsons out there in Elitist-Land are well past their sell-by date and no longer have the influence among Republicans that they had in years past (before they started advocating for Hillary because they didn’t pick Trump to be our nominee.) I say, good riddance to has-beens like David Brooks!

  4. Jons_On

    December 5, 2022 at 3:48 pm

    Screw that! May the 2nd amendment prevail over all government tyrants who are such pussies that they can’t handle their citizens owning guns! There are so many un-Constitutional laws now we don’t need more. The 2nd amendment is all about a militia. That means we the people should be allowed to own military weapons without obstacles such as tax stamps. I do think that anyone who thinks getting rid of the 2nd amend is a good idea does not deserve safety nor liberty.

  5. Jstrm

    December 5, 2022 at 3:15 pm

    I only disagree with the comment that 2A was for personal protection. Read the Declaration of Independence and you see that 2A is for the people to protect themselves from oppressive and tyrannical governments. Back then the use of firearms for hunting and self protection was a given. An every day activity. No one probably thought they needed to put it in writing. But protection from oppressive government was unique and needed to be memorialized as 2A. At the start of the Revolutionary War the British marched to Lexington and Consord MA to seize the guns and powder stored there by the colonial militia. The local colonists gathered with their personal muskets and powder to defeat the British assault. If the colonists didn’t have their personal firearms, we would still be singing hail to the king, King Charles at this point. Then again the U S would probably have gone clown in defeat by the Axis powers, Germany and Japan during WW 2.

  6. Henry

    December 5, 2022 at 12:49 pm

    Once the Military & police are taken out, the country is yours. Look at Europe during the last two World Wars! Europe (and now Canada) are slow learners!! If you have to fight every household and lose most of your Military in the first 1/4 of the fight, then it becomes a useless war due to the high attrition rate. The U.S. was not attacked with any number of troops during either World War because most households were armed for putting food on the table. Today we are armed to the hilt (well, most of us are)! In a conflict, we’ll lose the West Coast states and the Northern East Coast states because of their 2A conflicting laws. The rest of us should be able to resist a major intrusion, at least for a short time.

    • JRM

      December 5, 2022 at 7:11 pm

      Oregon will not be so easily defeated, the vast majority of the state of Oregon is RED, its the NW part of Oregon that is blue!!

      Seal the roads and the blue starve!!!!

  7. bob onit

    December 5, 2022 at 12:09 pm

    nyt was pro nazi in WWII too

  8. Paul

    December 5, 2022 at 11:24 am

    Proof that you can hire idiots that are communist. If he likes the European way of life, he can move there. Just make sure he leaves his rights behind and is stripped of his citizenship and is never allowed to return.

  9. Vincent

    December 5, 2022 at 11:18 am

    Ukraine gave up it’s nuclear weapons. That was a very bad move. Russia would not have invaded. The united nations is useless: they did nothing when Russia invaded Crimea, and they are doing nothing now.

  10. Rick O'Shay

    December 5, 2022 at 10:59 am

    Brooks is yet another useless idiot utopian dreamer. Yeah it’s all unicorns and rainbows in his world and he probably lives in an upscale NY suburb devoid of crime but those that live near or in the city suffer a different reality. The problem with this country is progressive liberal policies on crime, its not near severe enough. We need to come down very harshly on criminals, no more wrist slapping.

  11. Jose Imenez

    December 5, 2022 at 10:28 am

    Very well written article and spot on. Let’s get this right. They could care less about safety and saving lives. It is all a ruse. If they did, they would not be trying to force deadly shots on people. Yes, the safe and effective covid vax. AND, they would not have allowed nuremburg style research on bioweapons and farmed it out to china and Ukraine. Now, the real reason is for control and the easier institution of tyranny. Period….. Then if they can just steal elections, they can achieve their fascist/tyrannical goals. Tell me why a private cake-baker is sued out of existence, but private big tech giants can dec ide to censor conservative speech. Lock and load as it will get hairier.

    • dustydog

      December 5, 2022 at 2:22 pm

      I had to respond to a commenter today who implied that allowing bakers to refuse to bake a cake amounts to “a breakdown of the separation of church and state”. WELL, only if the STATE is refusing to BAKE THE CAKE! Idiots!

    • Douglas Smoke

      December 5, 2022 at 2:44 pm

      “They COULDN’T care less about safety and saving lives.” Truth be told is that the ivory tower dwellers pay for security that most of us can not afford

  12. Big Al 45

    December 5, 2022 at 9:48 am

    The key is deterrence by punishment, and we Americans simply don’t have the intestinal fortitude for it.
    As for Euro style ways, does that include some Euro prisons and their manner of incarceration?
    Because some are NOT pretty, compared to America, some can be outright barbaric.
    The man doesn’t know what he’ talking about, he’s just talking out his nether regions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Trending

Copyright © 2021 Brand Avalanche Media, LLC. Guns & Gadgets Daily is a wholly owned subsidiary of Brand Avalanche Media, LLC. This copyrighted material may not be republished without express permission. The information presented here is for general educational purposes only. MATERIAL CONNECTION DISCLOSURE: You should assume that this website has an affiliate relationship and/or another material connection to the persons or businesses mentioned in or linked to from this page and may receive commissions from purchases you make on subsequent web sites. You should not rely solely on information contained in this email to evaluate the product or service being endorsed. Always exercise due diligence before purchasing any product or service. This website contains advertisements.