As expected, the New York Times editorial board has come out strongly against the supreme court’s decision to confirm that the 2nd amendment is a fundamental individual right. The liberal Times attempts to justify their argument on the fact that “ten thousand Americans died by handgun violence.” :
"About 10,000 Americans died by handgun violence, according to federal statistics, in the four months that the Supreme Court debated which clause of the Constitution it would use to subvert Chicago’s entirely sensible ban on handgun ownership. The arguments that led to Monday’s decision undermining Chicago’s law were infuriatingly abstract, but the results will be all too real and bloody."It would be startling if the Times showed a similar level of compassion since Roe v. Wade was passed where millions of unborn have been subjected to the “real and bloody” reality of extinction. But, for the sake of saving this argument for a later date, let’s agree in principle that abortions are also an individual right under current law.
Just as the fringe end of social conservatives would prefer that all abortions be outlawed, our far left liberal society would advocate striking the 2nd amendment from the Bill of Rights.
What I find intriguing is how both sides of the political spectrum so passionately defend the 1st amendment to the constitution, (in which our Founding Fathers found it critical to allow a redress of grievances to our government without prohibitions), and yet, (to further protect American citizens from an over-zealous government), when the fathers inserted and insisted that all citizens had the right to bear arms---under the same intentions to protect individual rights---the liberal mindset of this society has for far too long advocated restricting or abolishing the 2nd amendment, which has finally been recognized as an individual right.
While I do agree with the Time’s contention, (and the Supreme Court's), that there should be limited restrictions placed by the states and municipalities to keep arms out of the hands of felons or the mentally ill, the blanket bans of both Washington D.C. and now Chicago have been overturned. Yet the Times chooses to ignore this landmark civil right and instead continues to look at the 2nd amendment as a threat to society as they “suggest” further government restrictions:
“Mayors and state lawmakers will have to use all of that room and keep adopting the most restrictive possible gun laws — to protect the lives of Americans and aid the work of law enforcement officials. They should continue to impose background checks, limit bulk gun purchases, regulate dealers, close gun-show loopholes.Of course, the Times completely ignores the fact that in every case where guns have been banned outright from law abiding citizens, (see footnotes below), the murder and crime rates have risen dramatically. Short of disarming every American and eliminating all weapons from society, (which would suit the liberal elites and the Times), restricting law abiding citizens from possessing guns will do nothing to prevent criminals from breaking these laws. The Times again fails to demonstrate how keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens would make society appreciably safer or change the number of crimes committed by criminals illegally possessing guns. As long as and free society is allowed to be armed, criminals will think twice about brazenly breaking into homes or businesses. Thankfully, the Supreme Court agreed.
They should not be intimidated by the theoretical debate that has now concluded at the court or the relentless stream of lawsuits sure to follow from the gun lobby that will undoubtedly keep pressing to overturn any and all restrictions. Officials will have to press back even harder. Too many lives are at stake. “
Footnotes:
Guns Vs. Crime (by Jeremy D. Blanks) (no puns please)
Gun Control: The Brady Campaign, White Lies, And Damn Lies (by Howard Nemerov)
More Guns, Less Crime (by John Lott)
