That was an unusually unbiased piece from the Times.Perhaps the Times are beginning to realize that if the Second Amendment is restricted and infringed,it will only be a matter of time before the First Amendment-the auspices under which they currently operate-will also come under similar infringements and restrictions due to the usual suspects of complacency and attitude.One must either be for ALL rights,or one is for no rights-there is no picking and choosing some over others.

Blessings

Lewellyn

They see the writing on the wall.

Just like with their recent article that said the surge may actually be working.

They may be treasonous, but they don't want to appear totally stupid.

Perhaps the turnaround is motovated by the price of their stock? Nah...

The Times has wanted to be on the winning side for some time now, before they wanted to be right (yes it was a long time ago)

I think they do see the writing on the wall and so are trying to look reasonable so they can then push for "reasonable" limitations.

Has the New York Times ever referred to John Edwards as a "rich lawyer?"

rich posted at December 4, 2007 07:52 AM:

I think they do see the writing on the wall and so are trying to look reasonable so they can then push for "reasonable" limitations.

I tend to agree, Rich.

I'll go further than that.

The shot-callers at NY Times are slime.