No, New York Times: Pointing out Hillary’s gun hypocrisy isn’t a violent threat

Capital Research Center Once again the paid professional liars at the New York Times have proven they can’t be trusted to report anything accurately. In this case the liars of record are Nick Corasaniti, Nicholas Confessore, and Michael Barbaro. These guys tried to make it look like GOP candidate Donald Trump was threatening or encouraging violence against his Democrat counterpart Hillary Clinton. Of course, Trump did nothing of the sort.

Their wildly dishonest article from Sept. 16 begins:

Donald J. Trump once again raised the specter of violence against Hillary Clinton, suggesting Friday that the Secret Service agents who guard her voluntarily disarm to “see what happens to her” without their protection. “I think that her bodyguards should drop all weapons,” Mr. Trump said at a rally in Miami, to loud applause. “I think they should disarm. Immediately.” He went on: “Let’s see what happens to her. Take their guns away, O.K. It’ll be very dangerous.”

This statement barely qualifies as news.

---

Trump is merely making the point that denying people guns is dangerous and unfair. He is appealing to Americans’ sense of fair play. Elites don’t deserve special rights. It is a standard rhetorical tack Republicans have been using for as long as I can remember and it is a perfectly reasonable argument. Pointing out that a candidate or government official who favors gun control is a hypocrite because he or she has armed bodyguards is as routine and unoriginal as pledging to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in government. Then Corasaniti, Confessore, and Barbaro weigh in inappropriately on a related matter, as if they were PolitiFact or something.

In justifying his remarks, Mr. Trump falsely claimed that Mrs. Clinton wants to “destroy your Second Amendment,” apparently a reference to her gun control policies.

These three scribes are not entitled to pass judgment on this kind of statement. It’s not something that lends itself to proof in a journalistic context.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

As far as I know it is true that Clinton hasn’t exactly said she would “destroy” the Second Amendment but plenty of well-informed conservatives and tens of millions of gun owners would say she plans to do precisely that. Clinton has not allayed their fears by promising to appoint judges and Supreme Court justices hostile to the Second Amendment. Trump is allowed to characterize Clinton’s proposals as destructive of gun rights. It’s like when left-wingers produce TV commercials about Republicans, claiming they want to reduce government benefits for seniors. They show Republicans pushing poor old wheelchair-bound granny off a cliff. Of course Republicans don’t literally want to kill your grandma but the other side is entitled to characterize policy proposals that way even if Republicans hate it. It’s part of the democratic process. That said, Corasaniti, Confessore, and Barbaro aren’t legitimate journalists. They are advocates for one side over the other.