Hello Kitty says the New York Times editors and their prettied-up gun confiscation agenda can kiss her soft, cute kitty ass. Two times. Real hard.

Mass shootings are awful. Politicized mass shootings are worse. The New York Times editorializing on politicized mass shootings is worst of all.

‘Puter awakened this morning, dreading opening the New York Times, knowing full well the hallucinogen induced alternate reality he’d find there. Yet, like The Czar to an open bar, ‘Puter was irresistibly drawn in.

Unsurprisingly, the New York Times editors blamed the San Bernardino shooting on the lack of gun control. Even less surprisingly, the New York Times editorial was rank with misinformation, falsehoods, and outright lies.

‘Puter would like to take a few moments to apolitically (maybe, if ‘Puter’s meds hold up) point out a few of the errors, falsehoods, and assumptions the editors make. Let’s begin, shall we?

NYT: “America’s gun violence shifted Wednesday to San Bernardino, Calif., where at least 14 people were killed and at least 17 wounded.”

‘Puter: This is true, ‘Puter guesses, as far as it goes. But the editorial only goes as far as it needs to because going further would result in an uncomfortable truth for liberals. Yesterday’s attack doesn’t appear to be random “gun violence.” The more facts that come to light, the more the attack seems to be Islamist terrorism.

The perpetrators were two Muslims, man and wife, who just returned from the birthplace of Wahhabism, Saudi Arabia. The attack was well planned. The perpetrators took time to purchase combat style clothing, make pipe bombs, acquire firearms and ammunition, and purchase GoPro cameras to film their carnage. These are not the acts of thuggish criminals. They are the well-planned acts of terrorists.

For a leading national newspaper to call likely Islamist terrorism “gun violence” is misleading and it is cowardly.

NYT: “The ultimate question grows with each new scene of carnage: Are these atrocities truly beyond the power of government and its politicians to stop?”

‘Puter: Yes. Yes, New York Times editors, these atrocities are beyond the power of government and its politicians to stop.

The concept that government can’t stop evil people bent on doing evil isn’t particularly controversial except, that is, among those who worship at the altar of Big Government. Murder’s been illegal for as long as governments have existed, yet we still have murderers. Similarly, theft, rape, and kidnapping have been illegal for centuries, yet we still have thieves, rapists, and kidnappers. Government laws banning activities stop nothing, they merely penalize the banned acts. Evil people are still going to do evil. It’s that simple.

And as for politicians stopping atrocities, ‘Puter would point the editors to the acts and failures to act of one President Obama in Syria. President Obama didn’t stop the ongoing Syrian atrocities, he arguably caused the ongoing Syrian atrocities through his unique brand of ineffective leadership coupled with post-modernist, post-colonialist, America-hating beliefs.

‘Puter would also like to mention, since the editors seem to have forgotten, former New York State Assembly Leader Sheldon Silver was just convicted in federal court of seven counts ranging from honest services fraud, extortion, and money laundering. You’d think the editors would recall Mr. Silver’s issues since the newspaper published an extensive article on it three days ago.

‘Puter pities the New York Times editors. It must be shattering to see your false god of Big Government and its high priest politicians laid low by world events. Think about it from the editors’ perspectives. The New York Times worked overtime dragging President Obama to election in 2008 and reelection in 2012 by ignoring flaws that would’ve doomed any Republican candidate. And what did they get in return? Not much. A failed attempt at nationalizing health care, a failing attempt at a half-assedly nationalizing health care, no new gun laws, a wounded middle class, a rickety economy, and awful cities. But hey, gay marriage, amirite?

Liberals, including those residing in the Punch Sulzberger Memorial Editorial Suite and Abortion Clinic high above Manhattan, have seen their faith shattered over the last eight years. They elected the most liberal president and Congress in modern memory, and things have only gotten worse than they were under the antichrist George W. Bush.

‘Puter figures liberals are in one of the five stages of grief, probably somewhere amidst denial, anger, bargaining, and depression. ‘Puter doesn’t expect they’ll ever make it to acceptance that their Utopian pipe dreams of perfecting man through fascistic government practices is dead.

NYT: “Those who reject sensible gun controls will say anything to avoid implicating the growth in the civilian arsenal.”

‘Puter: What specific “sensible gun controls” have been rejected? Name them, please.

We have mandatory background checks for firearm purchases. We have laws governing legal concealed carry of firearms. We have laws preventing felons and the mentally ill from purchasing or possessing firearms. We have laws imposing greater punishment for gun related crimes. We have laws amounting to a de facto ban on ownership of automatic weapons. Some states (like ‘Puter’s) even have laws banning certain firearms based on irrelevant characteristics. What more would the editors have us do?

‘Puter, like his readers, knows exactly what the editors would have us do. The New York Times has been a full-throated advocate for repeal of the Second Amendment for years. See, Americans can’t be trusted with firearms, unless of course they’re the sort of Americans the liberal elites think should have firearms.  Here’s a few helpful rules of thumb for you.

If you’re a cop, you should totally have all kinds of guns, because cops protect white liberal elites. Too bad about all those poor brown people, you should’ve been born white. Stupid proles.

If you’re one of our bodyguards or the nice fellows who stand in our lobby to keep the little people away from us, you get to have guns. It’s important that we Intellectual Superiors™ avoid contact with you Deltas. Your stupidity might rub off on us, and you all wear khaki. Oh no, we don’t want to play with Deltas.

If you live in a red state, or Big Government forbid, Texas (*involuntary shudder*), no way you should have any guns. Your Jesus-y sky god probably commands you to slaughter innocents and drink their blood, at least that’s our understanding of Catholicism after talking to noted expert on all things Catholic Maureen Dowd.

‘Puter hopes these pointers help you see the error of your ways and the obvious superiority of the New York Times’ plan to eliminate private ownership of guns (except for them).

NYT: “[Improve mental health access and care] is the familiar line trotted out by Republican politicians after every massacre, as if unfettered access to high-powered weaponry — which they and the gun lobby have made possible — is not a factor in this national catastrophe.”

‘Puter: Actually, it was the Founders and the United States Constitution that cemented the human right to own firearms for self-defense in our nation. It wasn’t Republicans and the “gun lobby”* who wrote the Second Amendment.

At least, ‘Puter assumes the editors are writing about the Second Amendment, though it’s difficult to tell. ‘Puter thinks “unfettered access to high-powered weaponry” is Liberal-speak for “the right to keep and bear arms.” It’s tough to keep the lingo straight these days, what with “white privilege,” “microagressions,” “cisnormative,” and other made up words the Left insists have meaning.

‘Puter would also like to note that Americans do not currently have “unfettered” access to “high-powered weaponry.” As noted above, there are all kinds of laws at the federal, state, and local levels restricting ownership of and rights pertaining to firearms.

Also, ‘Puter humbly requests his betters at the New York Times define for him exactly what they mean by “high-powered weaponry.” ‘Puter’s simple mind cannot comprehend this meaningless and undefined term. Do the editors mean a Barrett .50 BMG? Do they mean ‘Puter’s .50 black powder rifle? Perhaps a .22 caliber revolver? A single shot, break action 20 gauge? An M1911? ‘Puter can’t narrow down the possibilities without some assistance from the assembled geniuses in their echo chamber high above Manhattan’s madding holiday crowds.

Maybe ‘Puter missed the “unfettered” legalization of “high-powered weaponry,” as a result of which the editors are bitterly disappointed in America. If ‘Puter had only known “high-powered weaponry” was freely available throughout this great nation, he totally would’ve hit the Black Friday Amazon sales on reclaimed 16 inch gun turrets from an Iowa class battleship.** Who doesn’t want a firearm that hurls a projectile the weight of a Volkswagen bug (2,700 pounds) 10 miles or more to hit and obliterate a target?

Or maybe – just maybe – the New York Times editors are full of crap. That’s more likely, isn’t it, than believing the self-proclaimed smartest people in the room are unaware of basic Constitutional jurisprudence and firearms laws?

NYT: “Congress’s Republican leaders are betting they can brazenly go through another election cycle without enacting gun safety laws.”

‘Puter: ‘Puter would like to note for the record the following.

Democrats controlled the House and Senate from January 2009 through January 2011. These also happened to coincide with President Obama’s (D-Chicagoland Thugocracy) first two years in office.

ThinkProgress, a reliably conservative website, notes the following mass shootings occurred between January 2009 and January 2011:

• January 8, 2011. Former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) was shot in the head when 22-year-old Jared Loughner opened fire on an event she was holding at a Safeway market in Tucson, AZ. Six people died, including Arizona District Court Chief Judge John Roll, one of Giffords’ staffers, and a 9-year-old girl. 19 total were shot. Loughner has been sentenced to seven life terms plus 140 years, without parole.
• August 3, 2010. Omar S. Thornton, 34, gunned down Hartford Beer Distributor in Manchester, CT after getting caught stealing beer. Nine were killed, including Thornton, and two were injured.
• November 5, 2009. Forty-three people were shot by Army psychiatrist Nidal Malik Hasan at the Fort Hood army base in Texas. Hasan reportedly yelled “Allahu Akbar!” before opening fire, killing 13 and wounding 29 others.
• April 3, 2009. Jiverly Wong, 41, opened fire at an immigration center in Binghamton, New York before committing suicide. He killed 13 people and wounded 4.
• March 29, 2009. Eight people died in a shooting at the Pinelake Health and Rehab nursing home in Carthage, NC. The gunman, 45-year-old Robert Stewart, was targeting his estranged wife who worked at the home and survived. Stewart was sentenced to life in prison.

So, President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi could have at any time during this two year Pax Democratica introduced and passed legislation restricting firearms. They did not.***

And why didn’t Democrats introduce and pass even more restrictive gun control legislation nationally? In part, it’s because Americans hate overly restrictive gun control laws. Take a gander at these Gallup polls, current and historic. While Americans support reasonable gun control, the reasonable gun control Americans support looks nothing like what the New York Times and its liberal acolytes proselytize for.

An even more likely reason for liberal Democrats failing to pass gun control when they had the chance is because gun control arguably lost Al Gore the 2000 presidential election. Gun control is toxic in certain states Democrats must carry to win national elections, and it’s just getting more toxic as Americans realize government not only can’t protect them, government may actively and maliciously harm them.

Were the New York Times editors being honest, the sentence at the top of this section would’ve read: “Congress’s Republican leaders are rationally betting they can go through another election cycle without enacting the additional confiscatory and unnecessary gun safety laws we liberals prefer, because stupid Americans don’t agree with us and will punish Democrats at the ballot box.”

NYT: “Congress has allowed the domestic gun industry to use assorted loopholes to sell arsenals that are used against innocent Americans who cannot hide.”

‘Puter: Please permit ‘Puter to once again from the New York Times’ Liberal-speak to English:  “Americans can legally purchase firearms. We don’t like the firearms Americans can purchase. Plus, we’ve effectively disarmed law abiding citizens in most blue states and nearly all major American cities making them sitting ducks for evildoers. Therefore, it’s all the Republicans’ fault!”

‘Puter would also note the editors once again refuse to define their terms, specifically “loopholes” and “arsenals.” ‘Puter assumes the editors would claim lack of space. ‘Puter finds it more likely that if the editors defined terms, Americans would laugh in their faces.

NYT: “Without firm action, violent criminals will keep terrorizing communities and the nation, inflicting mass death and damage across the land.”

‘Puter: Let’s assume for the sake of argument that without (yet again undefined) “firm action,” mass shootings that would make the Marine Corps’ assault of Tarawa look like a Sunday stroll in the park would increase in a geometric fashion.

What specific remedies do the editors recommend?

A ban on firearm ownership except for law enforcement? Chicago and DC had such laws for years. As a former resident of the greater DC Metropolitan area during Mayor for Life Marion Barry’s halcyon crack smoking days, let ‘Puter tell you disarming the law abiding didn’t work. DC was a hellhole during the early and mid-1980s. And ‘Puter’s pretty darned certain you could go around Chicago and ask its residents about the awesome, totally safe climate Chicago’s de facto gun ban created. Gun bans don’t work.

New York State, under the expert leadership of Governor Andrew Cuomo, passed the misnamed SAFE Act immediately after the Sandy Hook massacre. The SAFE Act was ill-conceived at the time it was ramrodded through the legislature and signed into law. It banned cops from carrying firearms that were capable of accepting more than seven cartridges in a detachable magazine. It requires registration of all “assault weapons.” And what has New York gotten for its trouble? A public that has roundly ignored the law. Practically no one has registered their “assault weapons,” justly fearing New York will next confiscate such weapons. No need to help the state screw you over.

So, outright bans don’t work and overly restrictive laws are ignored. What’s the answer? We don’t know because the New York Times’ legal eagles refuse to tell us. ‘Puter finds “trust us, we know what we’re doing” to be an unconvincing argument, especially when made by the folks who think President Obama’s lawless tenure has been the bee’s knees.

So what’s our takeaway from ‘Puter’s little screed? Just this.

Liberals want to take away your right to keep and bear arms even if it means repealing or ignoring the Second Amendment, but they’re afraid to say so because they know it’s electoral death.

And it speaks to the New York Times editors’ cowardice that they won’t make their real argument in print, preferring instead to cover it in undefined terms, moral indignation, and liberal pieties.

* ‘Puter assumes the editors mean the NRA, the “he who must not be named” of the Left. Did you know if you say “NRA” three times in front of your mirror on Halloween zombie Charlton Heston shows up, kills you, and puts a gun in your cold, dead hands? At least that’s what the editors told me.

** Note the blast waves from the USS New Jersey’s (BB-62) guns deforming the ocean hundreds of feet off her starboard. Dang, the United States knew how to build weapons of war back then. Hats off to the men and women who designed and built these monsters back during World War II. And even more hats off to the men who crewed these mighty ships.

*** Instead, America got the abortion that is ObamaCare, currently failing and dragging the entire health care industry down with it. Well done, Democrats. Well done, indeed.

'Puter

Always right, unless he isn’t, the infallible Ghettoputer F. X. Gormogons claims to be an in-law of the Volgi, although no one really believes this.

’Puter carefully follows economic and financial trends, legal affairs, and serves as the Gormogons’ financial and legal advisor. He successfully defended us against a lawsuit from a liquor distributor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid deliveries of bootleg shandies.

The Geep has an IQ so high it is untestable and attempts to measure it have resulted in dangerously unstable results as well as injuries to researchers. Coincidentally, he publishes intelligence tests as a side gig.

His sarcasm is so highly developed it borders on the psychic, and he is often able to insult a person even before meeting them. ’Puter enjoys hunting small game with 000 slugs and punt guns, correcting homilies in real time at Mass, and undermining unions. ’Puter likes to wear a hockey mask and carry an axe into public campgrounds, where he bursts into people’s tents and screams. As you might expect, he has been shot several times but remains completely undeterred.

He assures us that his obsessive fawning over news stories involving women teachers sleeping with young students is not Freudian in any way, although he admits something similar once happened to him. Uniquely, ’Puter is unable to speak, read, or write Russian, but he is able to sing it fluently.

Geep joined the order in the mid-1980s. He arrived at the Castle door with dozens of steamer trunks and an inarticulate hissing creature of astonishingly low intelligence he calls “Sleestak.” Ghettoputer appears to make his wishes known to Sleestak, although no one is sure whether this is the result of complex sign language, expert body posture reading, or simply beating Sleestak with a rubber mallet.

‘Puter suggests the Czar suck it.