For some reason, this non-story is getting widespread coverage on the Internet. 

A right-wing blogger/podcaster named Erick Erickson boasted that he shot holes in Saturday's New York Times front-page editorial, which called for strict measures against gun violence.  

"This is what I think of the New York Times editorial today," he posted on Instagram. Granted, he hit his target, entry into the News cycle. Bravo for an arresting image.

The editorial in question was the Times' first front-page editorial in 70 years.


And it pulled no punches:

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection. 

Erickson fits perfectly into the Times' description of callous politicians who "distract us with the word terrorism."

These acts are all ... acts of terrorism.

So, what's the Times-shooter's response to the national disgrace, to the legions of bodies piled up in sacrifice to the Second Amendment? 9/11.

The United States suffered its worst terrorist attacks since September 11 and the New York Times’ response is that all law-abiding citizens need their guns taken away. Screw them. The New York Times wants you to be sitting ducks for a bunch of arms jihadists who the New York Times thinks no doubt got that way because of the United States. - Erick Erickson

The disconnect is profound. Erickson wants "law abiding citizens" to keep their guns, all guns, no matter how lethal. And while he might translate law-abiding as white and would be happy to apply different rules to Muslim-Americans, the probable racism is not the point.


The point is that having a country well-armed enough to take out a shooter is a far, far, far worse solution than making it much harder for those with ill will (ISIS-encouraged or not, anti-Obama or not, right-wing crazy or Islamist crazy) to get such lethal guns in the first place.

And what the Times is asking for is not even that radical, not radical enough:

Certain kinds of weapons, like the slightly modified combat rifles used in California, 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 for the good of their fellow citizens.

But giving up weapons? That's akin to giving up Christmas.

It's nonsense.

The right to bear arms is a figment of Justice Scalia's imagination, and the idea that it's an unrestricted right is nothing less than crazy talk.