NYT: Gun Owners Can Breath Again

[Gman106]

Oddly for the NYT, I did not see any overt bias in this story...

HOUSTON — Before the election, gun rights activists were so worried Hillary Clinton would win the presidency that some of them bought extra ammunition and guns, fearing a crackdown on certain weapons, bullets and magazines.

They’re not worried now. Instead, since the election of Donald J. Trump, gun advocates have been rejoicing, crowing about their political clout and plotting ways to eliminate many remaining curbs on gun ownership and use as they await one of the most vocal pro-gun presidential candidates ever to enter the White House.

“We’ve been threatened. We’ve been bullied. We’ve been ridiculed for eight years,” said Alice Tripp, legislative director of the Texas State Rifle Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association. “I expect the tone to change. If tone sets policy, then we’ve got it made.”

It was more than just the outcome of the presidential race. Gun advocates played a role in flipping the State Senate in Iowa from blue to red and helped defeat a ballot initiative in Maine that would have required universal background checks for gun sales.

The National Rifle Association spent $50.2 million in seven races this year by supporting Mr. Trump and six Republican Senate candidates, and it lost only one race in Nevada, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics and The Trace, a nonprofit news outlet that covers gun violence. Full here...

[Berks_Iraq_Vet]

Never trust Alt-News sources like the NYT. They are the enemy. Period.

[eyecanshoot]

For years they have been lying to us about how the majority of Americans supported stricter gun laws. This elections seems to have proven otherwise.

[Pilot321]

They just want us to let our guard down. Creeps.

[Cookster]

Let's see what the GDC's at the NYT's will have to say when Trump puts forward National Reciprocity.

My guess is that there will be a great outcry and gnashing of teeth, apocalyptic visions of 'blood running in the streets' and shrill cries for more 'gun safety', for the children of course!

Fuck them and that turgid POS fish-wrap garbage they pass off as 'news' to their adoring and mindless sheeple!

I wonder if they are still running their daily and ghoulish 'gun crime / gun homicide' log, as if the inanimate object itself is somehow responsible for the inner-city gang related death and violence?!

[scruff]

States can do as much damage to our rights as the federal government. Gabby Giffords, Shannon Watts and Michael Bloomberg will be working just as hard to screw us as before, they'll just be focusing on the states.

[God's Country]

Sorry, but I do not yet trust Trump one bit. He will have to earn it.

[Wilderness 1864]

Oddly for the NYT, I did not see any overt bias in this story...

I see what you mean in some respects. But I believe they are making a false play at demonstrating a bare minimum of balance. They have to do something to dress up and pretend because their credibility has been hammered in this most recent election cycle. Not that this article was exactly balanced, it just wasn't the usual over the top negative spin and lies. They will run 20 more stories that are full of negative spin, false arguments, unchallenged assumptions, information withheld and factual errors to compensate. Then, when challenged on their obvious bias, they will say "not true -- look at this one article we wrote".

Bias I spot: . . ."They’re not worried now. Instead, since the election of Donald J. Trump, gun advocates have been rejoicing, crowing about their political clout and plotting ways to eliminate many remaining curbs on gun ownership and use ..." Gun owners crowing and plotting. No such adjectives are used to describe gun control advocates.

The article is quick to point out the NRA money spent, (yes, the NRA boogeyman) but does not mention how much Bloomberg spent on supporting gun control measures, as if Everytown For Gun Safety is a grassroots organization being run out of some Mom's home office. The article favorably quotes one politician who opines that "homicides and unchecked internet sales" were a concern of voters. No attempt to qualify or even discuss what is meant by "unchecked internet sales", another anti gun canard that the NYT accepts at face value.

The NYT is a master, maybe the best, at propagandizing by what they know but will not tell their readers.

I spotted clear left wing bias in that paper back in 1970 when there was more competition in the mainstream media and you could cross check and see what was been reported and not reported. It has only become worse since then. There is not a column inch in that paper that does not drip with leftist, pro DNC bias. It even contaminates their sports reporting, as limited and unhelpful as it is.