<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Times Puts &#8216;Guns &amp; Ammo&#8217; Magazine in Crosshairs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 01:18:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Drakken</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5348887</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Drakken]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 01:42:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5348887</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Give the left an inch, they will take your arm, no more giving in, not now and certainly not anytime soon, period!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Give the left an inch, they will take your arm, no more giving in, not now and certainly not anytime soon, period!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Shugart</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5348273</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chris Shugart]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Jan 2014 03:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5348273</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Professional jealousy perhaps? According to an AdWeek article published in August of this year the circulation of G &amp; A, as well as a couple of other gun magazines has risen sharply. I wonder if the NYT can make a similar claim.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Professional jealousy perhaps? According to an AdWeek article published in August of this year the circulation of G &amp; A, as well as a couple of other gun magazines has risen sharply. I wonder if the NYT can make a similar claim.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HettyT</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5348126</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[HettyT]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5348126</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As you point out, if we didn&#039;t have the 2nd, we wouldn&#039;t have the 1st.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As you point out, if we didn&#8217;t have the 2nd, we wouldn&#8217;t have the 1st.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: HettyT</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5348125</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[HettyT]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5348125</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gun safety classes?  I thought the BATF did that.  &#039;8-)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gun safety classes?  I thought the BATF did that.  &#8217;8-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SCREW SOCIALISM</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5347941</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SCREW SOCIALISM]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5347941</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Obama administration blamed the dumb &quot;mohammed&quot; video for the Benghazi attack, 



and if they could would ban the Free Speech video too.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Obama administration blamed the dumb &#8220;mohammed&#8221; video for the Benghazi attack, </p>
<p>and if they could would ban the Free Speech video too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SCREW SOCIALISM</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5347937</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SCREW SOCIALISM]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 18:12:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5347937</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If the neo-commies got their way to ban guns, free speech would be next.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If the neo-commies got their way to ban guns, free speech would be next.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert_Morrow</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5347543</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert_Morrow]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 04:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5347543</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Right - how many times has NYT let Larry Pratt write a 1,000 word Op-Ed? Ever? How about Alex Jones? Or me?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Right &#8211; how many times has NYT let Larry Pratt write a 1,000 word Op-Ed? Ever? How about Alex Jones? Or me?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert_Morrow</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5347542</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert_Morrow]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 04:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5347542</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Those guys can go work as columnists for the gun grabbers at the New York Times. Or blog on the internet like me.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those guys can go work as columnists for the gun grabbers at the New York Times. Or blog on the internet like me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Z</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5347476</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A Z]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 01:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5347476</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What sort of Turing test should have you take?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What sort of Turing test should have you take?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Drakken</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5347346</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Drakken]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:13:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5347346</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You have the 1st Amendment because of the 2nd Amendment, always keep that in mind, for an armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject, I am a free man.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You have the 1st Amendment because of the 2nd Amendment, always keep that in mind, for an armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject, I am a free man.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: BlackDog</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5347271</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[BlackDog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5347271</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t read the NYT.  Who are they again?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t read the NYT.  Who are they again?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Docent</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5347262</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Docent]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 21:24:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5347262</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I read Metcalf&#039;s article, and I read his faux apology. Whether deliberately or out of deep ignorance, he misrepresented the meaning of the phrase &quot;well regulated&quot; in the Second Amendment, and misapplied it the general possession of firearms. Moreover, he took the position of further capitulation on gun rights. Not a negotiation or compromise where both sides give up something, but a one-sided relinquishing of rights. So of course he angered a lot of Guns &amp; Ammo readers, and customers of its advertisers. Metcalf is entitled to his opinion, of course, but he is not entitled to have people pay him for it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I read Metcalf&#8217;s article, and I read his faux apology. Whether deliberately or out of deep ignorance, he misrepresented the meaning of the phrase &#8220;well regulated&#8221; in the Second Amendment, and misapplied it the general possession of firearms. Moreover, he took the position of further capitulation on gun rights. Not a negotiation or compromise where both sides give up something, but a one-sided relinquishing of rights. So of course he angered a lot of Guns &amp; Ammo readers, and customers of its advertisers. Metcalf is entitled to his opinion, of course, but he is not entitled to have people pay him for it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Z</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5347196</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[A Z]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:16:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5347196</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The NYT is going to join Newsweek on the ash heap of history.  Back in 2009 Newsweek had a cover of &quot;We are all Socialists Now&quot;.  They went out of business.

The NYT is already in a death spiral.  It had to sell The Boston Globe at over a 90% loss.  They need the money to shore up their fiscal position.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The NYT is going to join Newsweek on the ash heap of history.  Back in 2009 Newsweek had a cover of &#8220;We are all Socialists Now&#8221;.  They went out of business.</p>
<p>The NYT is already in a death spiral.  It had to sell The Boston Globe at over a 90% loss.  They need the money to shore up their fiscal position.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: WhiteHunter</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5347159</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WhiteHunter]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5347159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As usual, the Left demands that we grant &quot;equal time&quot; on OUR podium, and equal space in OUR pages, to mendacious opponents and malevolent critics, in the name of &quot;fairness&quot; and &quot;diversity of viewpoints.&quot; Why is it that they never take a dose of their own medicine?


There&#039;s no further need to continue &quot;debating&quot; the Second Amendment&#039;s completely unambiguous meaning by disputing the Left&#039;s absurd and dishonest insistence that &quot;the people&quot; actually means &quot;the National Guard&quot; or &quot;the police&quot; in the Second when it means no such thing anywhere else in the Bill of Rights; or pointing out the absurdity of their idiotic, sarcastic &quot;question&quot;  whether the NRA wants people--and certifiably insane ones at that--to be allowed to own heavy machine guns, Abrams tanks, or nuclear ICBMs in their garages; or their ludicrous claim that G&amp;A has violated Metcalf&#039;s &quot;First Amendment rights&quot; by firing him. 



These are all intentional red herrings, nothing more; and the Left&#039;s real agenda--carried out one click of the ratchet at a time--has been known for a long time.


If Metcalf had written an article evaluating, say, the respective accuracy of the .308 Win. round and the .30-&#039;06, and then picking a favorite, he would certainly have touched off a lively debate, since each caliber has its loyal defenders. That&#039;s the sort of controversy that G&amp;A and its readers enjoy and look forward to.


But that&#039;s not what he did. Instead, he slyly joined the antis to challenge--however &quot;reasonably&quot;--the right of honest, peaceable, law-abiding citizens to continue to own firearms in compliance with existing laws, and suggested that our side might need to make some further &quot;reasonable&quot; &quot;concessions&quot; to those who, in the end, undeniably seek to outlaw ownership altogether. 



Problem is, the concessions are ALWAYS demanded from OUR side, and we get nothing of enforceable value in exchange. And then--surprise!--they&#039;re always back again, the next year, demanding MORE &quot;reasonable concessions.&quot;


Fool me once...fool me twice.... We&#039;ve learned the lesson, and our answer is, as it must be, a flat NO!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As usual, the Left demands that we grant &#8220;equal time&#8221; on OUR podium, and equal space in OUR pages, to mendacious opponents and malevolent critics, in the name of &#8220;fairness&#8221; and &#8220;diversity of viewpoints.&#8221; Why is it that they never take a dose of their own medicine?</p>
<p>There&#8217;s no further need to continue &#8220;debating&#8221; the Second Amendment&#8217;s completely unambiguous meaning by disputing the Left&#8217;s absurd and dishonest insistence that &#8220;the people&#8221; actually means &#8220;the National Guard&#8221; or &#8220;the police&#8221; in the Second when it means no such thing anywhere else in the Bill of Rights; or pointing out the absurdity of their idiotic, sarcastic &#8220;question&#8221;  whether the NRA wants people&#8211;and certifiably insane ones at that&#8211;to be allowed to own heavy machine guns, Abrams tanks, or nuclear ICBMs in their garages; or their ludicrous claim that G&amp;A has violated Metcalf&#8217;s &#8220;First Amendment rights&#8221; by firing him. </p>
<p>These are all intentional red herrings, nothing more; and the Left&#8217;s real agenda&#8211;carried out one click of the ratchet at a time&#8211;has been known for a long time.</p>
<p>If Metcalf had written an article evaluating, say, the respective accuracy of the .308 Win. round and the .30-&#8217;06, and then picking a favorite, he would certainly have touched off a lively debate, since each caliber has its loyal defenders. That&#8217;s the sort of controversy that G&amp;A and its readers enjoy and look forward to.</p>
<p>But that&#8217;s not what he did. Instead, he slyly joined the antis to challenge&#8211;however &#8220;reasonably&#8221;&#8211;the right of honest, peaceable, law-abiding citizens to continue to own firearms in compliance with existing laws, and suggested that our side might need to make some further &#8220;reasonable&#8221; &#8220;concessions&#8221; to those who, in the end, undeniably seek to outlaw ownership altogether. </p>
<p>Problem is, the concessions are ALWAYS demanded from OUR side, and we get nothing of enforceable value in exchange. And then&#8211;surprise!&#8211;they&#8217;re always back again, the next year, demanding MORE &#8220;reasonable concessions.&#8221;</p>
<p>Fool me once&#8230;fool me twice&#8230;. We&#8217;ve learned the lesson, and our answer is, as it must be, a flat NO!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Gutmeiler</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5347136</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bill Gutmeiler]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5347136</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Metcalf was fired because the magazine listened to a few crazed nutcases who sent letters condemning Metcalf&#039;s article. He&#039;s better off working with people who support the 2nd but do not foam at the mouth like LaPierre and Cox.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Metcalf was fired because the magazine listened to a few crazed nutcases who sent letters condemning Metcalf&#8217;s article. He&#8217;s better off working with people who support the 2nd but do not foam at the mouth like LaPierre and Cox.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rob Hobart</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5347081</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rob Hobart]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 18:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5347081</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The First Amendment says &quot;Congress shall make no law.&quot;  Where, exactly, was a Congressional law involved in Metcalf&#039;s firing? 

Nowhere, of course.  You&#039;re throwing out a tiresome false argument.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The First Amendment says &#8220;Congress shall make no law.&#8221;  Where, exactly, was a Congressional law involved in Metcalf&#8217;s firing? </p>
<p>Nowhere, of course.  You&#8217;re throwing out a tiresome false argument.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: NAHALKIDES</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5346996</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[NAHALKIDES]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5346996</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One expects no better from the &lt;i&gt;Times&lt;/i&gt;, but there&#039;s a pernicious idea out there that Conservatives are somehow close-minded because we don&#039;t want to continually debate the merits of political ideas which have long been settled, such as freedom vs. socialism or whether gun control is a good idea.  Even Charles Cooke at &lt;i&gt;National Review&lt;/i&gt; came to Metcalf&#039;s defense, although he had to admit Metcalf was wrong in most of his major suppositions.  Considering how besieged gun owners are in many places (indeed, in any place where Democrats rule unchallenged), I find it understandable that &lt;i&gt;Guns &amp; Ammo&lt;/i&gt; readers were angered when a magazine that should be defending gun rights unreservedly published Metcalf&#039;s editorial, which sounded a note of capitulation to the gun-grabbers.  Here is part of my response to Cooke:

&quot;Was it so outrageous that Guns &amp; Ammo readers might expect better than that from a veteran columnist, or that the magazine should offer a full-throated defense of the right to bear arms? You criticize the readers for not wanting to be challenged; it might be more fair to say they did not expect to be challenged by those who purport to be on their side. Anytime they (or we) want to hear the arguments in favor of gun control, it&#039;s not like we&#039;ve got far to go (hello NYT, CNN, MSNBC etc.) - indeed, it&#039;s hard to avoid the sanctimony and fatuity of the gun grabbers among us...

So maybe Guns &amp; Ammo readers, tired of mealy-mouthed politicians calling for &#039;sensible regulation&#039; while secretly intending future confiscation, aren&#039;t interested in hearing the &#039;merits&#039; of how taking guns away from good people will reduce crime, and have little patience with states like Illinois erecting every possible roadblock to gun ownership and defensive usage they can (you neglected to mention that the only reason Illinois now has a concealed-carry law is because a judge ordered the State to adopt one, and Governor Quinn, who cannot be trusted, is opposed to concealed-carry). Maybe they know that licensing schemes will have the effect of preventing some people from being able to defend themselves in the future because they don&#039;t have the time or the money to take such a course today, or maybe they don&#039;t trust state officials (all Democrats) to avoid rigging the requirements when they know those same state officials would confiscate every gun in the State if they could get away with it.

Maybe they had good reason to be angry at Metcalf and &lt;i&gt;Guns &amp; Ammo&lt;/i&gt;- and maybe you should think about that, before you start going all squishy yourself.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One expects no better from the <i>Times</i>, but there&#8217;s a pernicious idea out there that Conservatives are somehow close-minded because we don&#8217;t want to continually debate the merits of political ideas which have long been settled, such as freedom vs. socialism or whether gun control is a good idea.  Even Charles Cooke at <i>National Review</i> came to Metcalf&#8217;s defense, although he had to admit Metcalf was wrong in most of his major suppositions.  Considering how besieged gun owners are in many places (indeed, in any place where Democrats rule unchallenged), I find it understandable that <i>Guns &amp; Ammo</i> readers were angered when a magazine that should be defending gun rights unreservedly published Metcalf&#8217;s editorial, which sounded a note of capitulation to the gun-grabbers.  Here is part of my response to Cooke:</p>
<p>&#8220;Was it so outrageous that Guns &amp; Ammo readers might expect better than that from a veteran columnist, or that the magazine should offer a full-throated defense of the right to bear arms? You criticize the readers for not wanting to be challenged; it might be more fair to say they did not expect to be challenged by those who purport to be on their side. Anytime they (or we) want to hear the arguments in favor of gun control, it&#8217;s not like we&#8217;ve got far to go (hello NYT, CNN, MSNBC etc.) &#8211; indeed, it&#8217;s hard to avoid the sanctimony and fatuity of the gun grabbers among us&#8230;</p>
<p>So maybe Guns &amp; Ammo readers, tired of mealy-mouthed politicians calling for &#8216;sensible regulation&#8217; while secretly intending future confiscation, aren&#8217;t interested in hearing the &#8216;merits&#8217; of how taking guns away from good people will reduce crime, and have little patience with states like Illinois erecting every possible roadblock to gun ownership and defensive usage they can (you neglected to mention that the only reason Illinois now has a concealed-carry law is because a judge ordered the State to adopt one, and Governor Quinn, who cannot be trusted, is opposed to concealed-carry). Maybe they know that licensing schemes will have the effect of preventing some people from being able to defend themselves in the future because they don&#8217;t have the time or the money to take such a course today, or maybe they don&#8217;t trust state officials (all Democrats) to avoid rigging the requirements when they know those same state officials would confiscate every gun in the State if they could get away with it.</p>
<p>Maybe they had good reason to be angry at Metcalf and <i>Guns &amp; Ammo</i>- and maybe you should think about that, before you start going all squishy yourself.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark McDonald</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5346991</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark McDonald]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:36:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5346991</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[maybe they sound be suggesting gun safety classes for all purchases. just look at history, anything that the government takes control of ends up on the black market and the wrong people profit]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>maybe they sound be suggesting gun safety classes for all purchases. just look at history, anything that the government takes control of ends up on the black market and the wrong people profit</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edward Witherspoon</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5346986</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Edward Witherspoon]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5346986</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Our Founding fathers stressed that a mind that openly read the truth as truth and opinions as thoughts and that together would lead this country to greatness. They also warned that hatred, bitterness and deception(which is untruth) would destroy this great nation. Deception greed and hate will only lead to degradation. WHERE ARE WE GOING?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Our Founding fathers stressed that a mind that openly read the truth as truth and opinions as thoughts and that together would lead this country to greatness. They also warned that hatred, bitterness and deception(which is untruth) would destroy this great nation. Deception greed and hate will only lead to degradation. WHERE ARE WE GOING?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sheik Yerbouti</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/david-paulin/ny-timess-war-on-guns-ammo-magazine/comment-page-1/#comment-5346975</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheik Yerbouti]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 15:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=214913#comment-5346975</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yea, but was it a &quot;silly mistake&quot; or is something else going on?  The readers asserted themselves because the character of the magazine looked like it was changing.  Within a few years they&#039;d be covering needlepoint.  Or so it must have seemed.  The editorial was foolish.  Will I discuss cooking a pot roast in a vegan magazine?  Not if I want readers and advertisers.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yea, but was it a &#8220;silly mistake&#8221; or is something else going on?  The readers asserted themselves because the character of the magazine looked like it was changing.  Within a few years they&#8217;d be covering needlepoint.  Or so it must have seemed.  The editorial was foolish.  Will I discuss cooking a pot roast in a vegan magazine?  Not if I want readers and advertisers.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 691/709 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-29 20:49:41 by W3 Total Cache -->