We already know the NY Times has an agenda, and it’s not a pro-gun agenda. But when a major news outlet does something so obviously hypocritical it deserves to be called out.
In the recent Washington D.C. debacle in which a woman was shot to death after ramming her car into barriers outside the White House and Capital building, the D.C. police could be seen with rifles and handguns.
The NY Times referred to these weapons as “semiautomatic rifles” which is actually the correct name for them. But when calling on gun owners to give up their 2nd amendment rights and saying that AR-15 style weapons are not necessary these guns are referred to as “assault rifles”. These are the same guns, mind you.
Here is a snippet of what the NY Times said in referencing the guns of the D.C. police.
But when falsely reporting on the D.C. Navy Yard shooter and saying he had an AR-15 on him (which we all found out was total fiction) the NY times called that SAME weapon an assault rifle:
In fact, over and over again the newspaper company calls these guns assault rifles whenever gun owners are involved. Almost every time the NY Times talks about the AR-15 they call it an assault rifle. One could assume this is because they do not understand that AR stands for “armalite” and NOT “assault rifle” but a company with this many resources knows better.
So why did the Times call rifles “semi-automatic rifles” when the police had them? Well apparently even though these guns are not “necessary” in their minds for us to have they are perfectly fine for the government to have. If you extend this logic to its full conclusion you have a world that looks a lot like a “police state” and a lot less like the free world our founding fathers fought for.
By the way, some anti-gunners are actually using the incident in D.C. to push for more gun control even though the woman did not have a gun. See video of yesterday’s ordeal in D.C. here:
Any comments? Feel free to let us know in the comments section below.