NY Times knows history as good as knows guns.

He was unwittingly walking onto a legal landscape reshaped by laws that have given homeowners new leeway to use force inside their own homes.

via ‘Castle’ Law at Issue After Fatal Montana Shooting – NYTimes.com.

The concept of Castle Doctrine first appears in England in 17th Century, so we are talking some three hundred plus years of existence already. Now this being the New York Times, a newspaper that commands certain power to do research by a simple phone call, has what i suspect a decent-sized legal department (with the amount of BS they print, trying to stay within the “Absence of Malice” guidelines must be a 24 hour job) and worst-case scenario, I imagine they have internet access and even Wikipedia bookmarked between Walking Nude MILFs and Wild Wet Wenches. So how come Jack Healy chose to insinuate Castle Doctrine is something new?  Must be that Artistic License I hear so much about applied directly to politics. And it is not something new, we saw that already with Stand Your Ground Laws being referenced as something the NRA created in 2005 while in fact SYG has been recognized by the Supreme Court since 1895.

So we either have laziness, idiocy or purposefulness in writing something that is not true and they are paying with diminished readership, having to fire personnel and needing to be bailed out by Carlos Slim, the man that brought you the Obamaphones.

One nice little package if you ask me.

3 Replies to “NY Times knows history as good as knows guns.”

  1. Because, to the NYT, guns are bad, mmmkay? And, if you let some flyover hillbilly think they can use a gun to defend themselves, they’re going to start shooting everyone suspicious in sight. Blood in the streets, amiright? Thus, only cops (and they’re not too sure about that) and the mega rich should be allowed guns… well, maybe you can have a single shot hunting gun. Just one. Until we ban hunting for the sake of the environment. [/nyt]




    0



    0
  2. I love how towards the end of the article the author mentions that the perp was a wife beater, yet doesn’t connect that with any of the story. The guy who pulled the trigger probably knew that, which would add to his defense. But no, the perp was a nice guy and a joker…




    0



    0
  3. I read as many of the comments as I could stand. What a bunch of sheep. I guess if their home is invaded they will hold the miscreants hand and sing kubaya until the police show up.




    0



    0

Comments are closed.