You may have heard that 47 Senators have asked the Department of Interior to lift its ban on “ready to use” guns in National Parks. This is a good thing, but the New York Times heard about it too and went off in high dudgeon.
Of course, they oppose the idea and state, “As so often happens when guns are in question, the senators have forgotten to insist upon the rights of the vast majority of citizens, who choose not to carry guns.” They don’t bother to explain why the rights of that so-called “vast majority” are affected. If those folks don’t want to carry a firearm then don’t carry one. It’s that simple.
The New York Times published this editorial at a time when a female hiker is missing and presumed dead. While the woman disappeared from the Chattahoochee National Forest which is under the purview of the Department of Agriculture, the lesson is the same. A woman who has a blue belt in martial arts cannot defend herself against a man who may have been armed with only a police-style baton.
The point the New York Times editoral board doesn’t get is that self-defense is not negotiable. Guns are the best tools for self-defense, and the best equalizer between a citizen and two or four legged predators.
The New York Times describes National Parks as places set aside for “peaceful preserves” in which guns have no place. Too bad we don’t all live in a world with unicorns and fluffy bunnies prancing around in predator-free preserves. No, we live in a real world.
No comments:
Post a Comment