On Saturday, the New York Times did something it hasn't done in almost 100 years: It ran an editorial on the newspaper's front cover.
First New York Times front-page editorial in 96 years: Bang
Following the massacre in San Bernardino, the editorial, entitled “The Gun Epidemic,” was the first to run on the newspaper's front page since 1920.
End the gun epidemic in America https://t.co/zIp5eCDI4j via @NYTopinion
"It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency," the editorial board wrote. "These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection."
In a statement, newspaper publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. explained he wanted “to deliver a strong and visible statement of frustration and anguish about our country’s inability to come to terms with the scourge of guns.”
"Even in this digital age, the front page remains an incredibly strong and powerful way to surface issues that demand attention," Sulzberger said. "And, what issue is more important than our nation's failure to protect its citizens?"
Erick Erickson, a conservative blogger and radio host, was not a fan.
In posts on social media, Erickson outlined his views on the editorial by sharing a photo of a copy of the newspaper that he had shot at least seven bullets into.
Erickson's full post read:
This is what I think of the New York Times editorial today. The United States suffered its worst terrorist attacks since September 11 and the New York Times' response is that all law-abiding citizens need their guns taken away. Screw them. The New York Times wants you to be sitting ducks for a bunch of arms jihadists who the New York Times thinks no doubt got that way because of the United States.
It should be striking to every American citizen that the New York Times believes the nation should have unfettered abortion rights, a right not made explicit in the Constitution, but can have the Second Amendment right curtailed at will though it is explicitly in the Constitution.
Again, we have suffered the worst terrorist attack in more than a decade and the New York Times believes now we must have our rights taken away as a response to terrorism.
I hope everyone will join me in posting pictures of bulletholes in the New York Times editorial. Send them your response. Use the hashtag for my radio show and I may give you a shoutout.
On Twitter, Erickson found some supporters:
@EWErickson can't get to range today, but I'll pick up a copy to clean my guns on. #dropcloth
@EWErickson I need a copy of the NYC. I could do this right. Well done.
Other people thought it was, well, perhaps a tad extreme.
This...is how you react to opinions you disagree with? @EWErickson
@EWErickson Yes, brag about shooting something you don't agree with. How Christian of you. #nocheekturningwithyou
@EWErickson @ErezSemaria so hateful...what happened to civility, respect for different opinions, debate...what's happening to the country?
@agentbizzle @OhNoSheTwitnt I hope his neighbors heard 7 gunshots and were like "oh, Erick's reading the news"
One dude also had a bit of fun with Erickson's logic:
In solidarity with @EWErickson, I also shot the New York Times editorial. But I only have an online subscription.
When a supporter questioned his aim, Erickson said he wanted the bullets "spread all over" the newspaper.
@danrandolph10 I wanted it spread all over.
UPDATE
This post has been updated to show the dude who posted the photo of the shot-up laptop is not actually an Erickson supporter.