That's the ignorant part. The lying part? Again the usual:
Three out of five of those guns were battlefield weapons that were outlawed here until the assault weapons ban was allowed to lapse in 2004.They were neither 'battlefield weapons' nor were they 'outlawed'. And the Times (should) know this. If they don't, they shouldn't be writing about it. If they do, they're lying.
2 comments:
Ooo, the slimes at the ny slimes are caught lying(as usual) again. The problem there comes from the paper hiring scribblers whose only qualification is their certainty that liberalism/progessivism/ socialism/communism is the answer to whatever the question was.
I know that people at the NYT would prefer to be known as "liberals", but why are people who think like hard-line Stalinists called "liberal"? What's "liberal" about relentlessly demanding the oppression of a constitutional right? "Intolerant haters" would be a more accurate name for them.
Fortunately, thanks to the Internet, the "liberal" media no longer has a monopoly on ideas. The NYT no longer has the clout that it once did, and that's a very good thing.
Post a Comment