The New York Times Calls For National Gun Confiscation

The New York Times’ Call For National Gun Confiscation Is Legally Insupportable And Morally Insufferable. The New York Times Resurrect’s Feinstein’s Monster.

The New York Times Calls For National Gun Confiscation
The New York Times Calls For National Gun Confiscation
Arbalest Quarrel
Arbalest Quarrel

New York, NY  -( The anti-gun groups have now made clear beyond any doubt their singular goal: remove firearms from the hands of Americans, nationally.

In a rare editorial, appearing on the front page of the Saturday, December 5, 2015 edition of The New York Times, titled, “The Gun Epidemic,” the Times editorial staff presents its arguments for massive gun confiscation, at the national level. The New York Times – a vehicle of international socialist and globalist interests – is intent on divesting Americans of their sacred right to keep and bear arms. Simultaneously, the Times is clearly and unconscionably setting the stage for a Clinton Presidency in 2016.

The San Bernardino shooting incident, carried out by Islamic extremists – foreign invaders, whose allegiance, as the Times reports, are to the Islamic State – should be a clarion call to arms to all Americans. Instead, the Times uses this despicable attack by the Islamic State on innocent American citizens as a pretext for disarming all Americans. Treating this invasion on our shores as simply one more mass shooting, without regard to the motivation behind it, the Times calls for a massive, gun confiscation program at the national level. The rationale given for this unprecedented call for gun confiscation is reduction of gun violence – the same platitude voiced over and over by those individuals and groups intent on divesting Americans of their natural birthright and denying to Americans the right of self-defense, notwithstanding that the Federal Government either cannot adequately protect Americans from mass shootings, whether these attacks are random or carefully planned and organized, or the Government simply will not do so, despite constant assertions to the contrary. And, what of the Second Amendment?

The NY Times says the language of the Second Amendment is “peculiar.” Yet, the Times’ use of the word, ‘peculiar,’ to describe the language of the Second Amendment, is itself peculiar. The meaning of the independent clause in the Second Amendment – “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” – is straightforward, cogent, clear, and certainly not “peculiar” to the American people. Indeed, that The New York Times would use the word, ‘peculiar,’ to describe the Second Amendment at all, suggests that the newspaper does not reflect America’s interests but, rather, the interests of the international socialists and globalists, intent on dismantling the Second Amendment in particular and dismantling the nine other Amendments which depend on the Second Amendment, ultimately, for their preservation. For, only to foreign governments whose history is unlike ours and whose constitutions are devoid of any mention of an inalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms would America’s Second Amendment possibly look “peculiar.” But for an American newspaper to use that adjective to describe the Second Amendment, that should give the public pause.

Take a look at the constitution of any other Western nation. Even if a constitution talks about firearms in the hands of the citizenry at all — and very few constitutions do — no constitution but that of the United States places that right squarely in the hands of the citizenry itself. In no other nation on this Earth does the right to keep and bear arms reside in the People. Rather, that right resides exclusively in the State. In those Western Countries that the New York Times clearly emulates, namely, France, England, and Norway, which it mentions in its editorial, the constitutions of those Countries do not respect the inalienable right of their citizens to keep and bear weapons in their own defense and as a means to secure their rights and liberties. Therefore, Countries such as France, England, and Norway, unlike the United States, do not recognize that the citizens, themselves, are the ultimate guardians of their own rights and liberties, and so their citizens do not have the inalienable right to defend themselves with the most effective means available for doing so – that provided by a firearm; nor do those Countries recognize, in their people, the right of their people to secure their own rights and liberties through firearms, if the need should ever arise.

Curiously, the Times admits, “that determined killers obtained weapons illegally in places like France, England, and Norway that have strict gun laws. Yes they did.” But, in that very admission, the Times follows up with the singularly bizarre assertion, “But at least those Countries are trying.” Really, “trying?” What are those Countries trying to do through strict gun laws? The Times’ assertion is incoherent. If those Countries are trying to provide safe havens for Islamic foreign invaders, and convert their citizenry into a flock of defenseless sheep, then those Countries are certainly succeeding! Must the U.S. follow the lead of those Countries? The New York Times says, unequivocally, “yes.” The language of our Second Amendment, however, manifestly counters the Times’ assertion with an emphatic, “no!”

Dianne Feinstein
Gun Banning Democrat Dianne Feinstein

Consider, as you may recall, Democrats attempted, essentially, to expand the NY Safe Act nationally in 2013. The “illustrious,” Dianne Feinstein, Democratic Party Senator from California, introduced a bill, in 2013, in the Senate, to ban so-called “assault weapons” and so-called “high capacity ammunition magazines.” Her bill, “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” included 157 kinds of firearms that the American public would no longer be able to lawfully own and possess. And Americans could no longer own and possess ammunition magazines that held more than 10 cartridges, if that bill became law. Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013″ was meant to resurrect the earlier “Assault Weapons Ban of 1994,” and, in fact, to expand upon “The Assault Weapons 1994,” which expired in accordance with its sunset provision. Fortunately, attempts by antigun Senators to renew the law, failed. And Feinstein’s new 2013 bill could never gain traction. It failed by a vote of the Senate, 40 to 60, in April of 2013. Now, through despicable hubris and subterfuge on the part of a newspaper, The New York Times, that newspaper is attempting to resurrect Feinstein’s own dead antigun bill, using “fear,” together with sleight-of-hand, to encourage the American public to take action against its own best self-interest – in effect calling upon the public to contact Congress to bring Feinstein’s Monster, “The Assault Weapons Ban of 2013,” back to life in the form of an “Assault Weapons Ban of 2016.”

If there is any doubt about the New York Times’ deplorable intentions, the Times makes the point that: “certain kinds of weapons . . . and certain kinds of ammunition must be outlawed for civilian ownership. It is possible to define those guns in a clear and effective way and, yes, it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up. . . .” This is essentially Feinstein’s: “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.”

The Times adds, piously, that Americans must give up their weapons “for the good of their fellow citizens.” In other words, the Times is saying that, for the “good” of the Collective, as defined by the puppet masters of government, the sanctity and autonomy of each individual American must be forfeited. Of course, this will not make Americans safer. In fact it will make Americans substantially less safe as American citizens will be more prone to gun violence by sociopathic Islamic jihadists, psychopathic criminals and criminal gangs, and assorted lunatics. No doubt, the Times had substantial assistance from a phalanx of antigun lawyers to assist it when drafting its front page editorial.

So it is that the real threat to America is becoming increasingly plain to most Americans. That threat is posed by powerful, ruthless individuals and groups – the international globalists and socialists – both inside this Country and abroad, who seek to take control of the federal government from the American People, to pave the way for an International Socialist State, and they are using through the New York Times newspaper, the bugaboo of Islamic jihadists to frighten the American public into forsaking its sacred rights and liberties. The New York Times is obviously the sounding board that gives voice to the propaganda such powerful, ruthless individuals and groups seek to use against the American People – that the People will give up their rights and liberties, unknowingly, through subterfuge, possibly, and, if that fails, then through coercion.

As these un-American interests so dare to bring America to its knees, there will be a day of reckoning. And that day of reckoning is fast approaching.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit:

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Your analysis is fairly good. Your argument pretty sound.
However, you tarnish and degrade your message with vitriol that is unnecessary:
“…international socialists and globalists…”
No need to denigrate. Just make evidence-based arguments and stand by those. Resist the urge to intellectually masturbate by infusing value judgement or by being snide. It doesn’t become you, and is counter-productive.

Overall good work!


Everyone is pretty sure that this can never happen here? Look up what happened. Check out what happened in High River Canada. Mounties went into homes and took their firearms. They have over two thousand cases owners claims from taken firearms collections to structural damage from the forced entries. They have a large contingent of progun citizens but the sheeple aren’t rising up. So don’t expect them to rise up for the 2016 elections either unless we all pull together and do something about it. We as a community are fractionalized (NRA, SAF, GOA, MOUSE, etc.) in similar form… Read more »


Why settle for Hillary when you can have a real socialist Bernie Sanders .


The idea makes me laugh.


All the newspapers that have gone out of business and the New York Times is still printing Liberal drivel. Are they government subsidized?


Jason even if what you say is true, the government is the biggest corporation by far, thus we, who runs the government runs us. And that is exactly what you and your ilk want, for the government to control our lives. Provide our jobs, our education, our health, tells what we can and can’t do to keep us safe from ourselves. You don’t want the freedom that so many have given their lives for us to have. Why don’t you move Sweden?

John Isbell

If this government can take away one of our rights for something someone else has done, then none of rights will be safe. This is not just about guns. Its about.our rights as proclaimed by the constitution. Will you bow before your knew masters? Will you lick the boot that oppresses you? Show these leftest loonies what real Americans are about, and keep showing them. As Charlton Heston would say: From my Cold Dead Fingers.


I don’t know about all that, that clark and lowell are saying, but they will have to pry my gun from cold dead hand if they want it.


“That threat is posed by powerful, ruthless individuals and groups – the international globalists and socialists – both inside this Country and abroad, who seek to take control of the federal government from the American People, to pave the way for an International Socialist State”

I’ve got news for the author, big business now owns the US government, what they want they get. Have your guns, but corporations own you now. Maybe you don’t see it, but you will.

Clark Kent

It is going to get much, much worse when Hillary is elected POTUS (and she will). I sincerely fear civil war is on the horizon. Now is the time to prepare for the coming storm. If one Constitutional right is lost, the rest will follow; it is only a matter of time.


Can we just please let them have their gun confiscation so that we can have an excuse to shoot them and get this over with?