On December 4 The New York Times ran a front page editorial saying regardless of the motives behind the San Bernardino attack, the time has come to ban and confiscate “weapons of war”–i.e., “assault weapons.”
NYT began the editorial by acknowledging that “Law enforcement and intelligence agencies [were] searching for motivations, including the vital question of the how the murders might have been tied to international terrorism.” Fox News reports the FBI has since confirmed the investigation into the San Bernardino attack was “is now a federal terrorism investigation.”
But this does not change NYT‘s position. After all, their editorial clearly stated, “Motives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut, and far too many other places.” Instead, what matters to the NYT is somehow convincing “elected leaders” not only to ban “assault weapons,” but also to confiscate them.
NYT attempts to assuage the consternation and trepidation of Americans who currently own such weapons. NYT says owners need to understand that outlawing and confiscating such weapons from law-abiding citizens is part of pursuing “the good” of everyone.
NYT put it thus:
Certain types of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in [the San Bernardino attack], 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 these kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.
NYT did not venture a guess on whether Islamists will quit carrying out San Bernardino-style attacks once they know we are unarmed.
Follow AWR Hawkins on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at email@example.com.